The Republicans' Bizarre Attacks on Elites

Give me informed elites—Marco Rubio even!—over the smug know-nothingism of Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell

October 6, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (11)

There is an old, possibly apocryphal, campaign story involving Adlai Stevenson. During one of his presidential bids in the 1950s, a female supporter gushed that he had the support of "every thinking American." Stevenson's deadpan reply: "Thank you, ma'am, but I need a majority."

Stevenson, a professorial Illinois liberal who too often seemed detached from the hurly-burly of politics, knew a bit about Americans and their views on thinking. He was damned on the right as an "egghead," too smart for his own political good. (He was also a friend of my father, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who worked for him.)

Fast forward half a century. Another professorial Illinois liberal occupies the White House who is often criticized for seeming too cool in the heat of the political moment. But the egghead's ascendancy hasn't quieted the far right's anti-intellectual strain. If anything, it's thriving, recast as festering anger with and a distrust of "elites."

You could see it two weeks ago when House Republicans unveiled their campaign platform, which thundered against "an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites." So as to drive the point home, the assembled officeholders adopted the forced faux-populism of crisply starched dress shirts with collars open—jackets and ties apparently being signs of arrogant elitism. Sure, politicians frequently make campaign appearances in shirt sleeves, hoping the contrived casual look gives them the common touch. But this was the GOP's formal assertion of a readiness to lead. Contrast that scene with the 1994 unveiling of the "Contract With America," when its supporters assembled on the Capitol steps in coats and ties.

And note the phrase "self-appointed elites," as if the Democrats had seized power in some sort of midnight coup. In fact they were hired by the voters to do the job of governing the country. We appointed them, and we may well fire them in a month. The Republicans are now applying for that job, but in their big presentation they dressed casually. A critical part of their pitch is that they're not especially qualified. For what is more elitist than to claim that you more than your peers are qualified to govern?

Some cannot even be bothered to claim that. Take Kelly Ayotte, the GOP's New Hampshire Senate nominee and a former Granite State attorney general. "I do not know better than you," she told a debate audience last month, a line she has used before. "I want the privilege to represent you."

I do not know better than you? Then why are you running for office? That's a reason not to vote for a candidate in and of itself. My congressional representatives had better know better than I do. That's their job—they pay attention to the day-by-day multitudinous matters of state so we don't have to, and that requires expertise and intelligence. Being a legislator requires an ability to carefully consider weighty issues like the New START treaty as well as more esoteric ones like the migrant farmworker policy. That was the lesson of Stephen Colbert's in-character testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee. It was just one aspect of the Congressional workload that most people have little interest of and a sub-Colbert level of knowledge in. And that's to say nothing of the intricacies of the tax code, environmental policies, or foreign affairs. "I've never been abroad, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night" is an amusing ad campaign, but it's not an adequate answer on nuclear arms policy.

So is a Ph.D. in foreign relations a prerequisite to elective office? No. But smarts and an inquisitive intellect should be—not the self-satisfied, know-nothingness exemplified by Sarah Palin and her Delaware mini-me, Christine O'Donnell.

[See a slide show of 10 reasons Palin would make a bad president.]

Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio, a Tea Party favorite seemingly since before the movement had a name, last month defended O'Donnell's fitness for office by arguing that "the original design of our republic was for everyday people to serve in government for a period of time … It's not designed to elect a bunch of experts," he said. "To be an expert in the republic is to be someone that knows what life is like in the real world."

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Stephen Colbert,
2010 Congressional elections,
Arthur Schlesinger Jr.,
Tea Party,
Kelly Ayotte,
Congress,
Sarah Palin,
Christine O'Donnell,
Marco Rubio,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"Our political eggheads are su(r)prisingly short on common sense despite their book learning, IQ, and polished doctorates."

In a recent comment, the "commenter" discussed Woodrow Wilson's generally poor performance as a President of the U.S. The commenter also referred to Wilson's amazing educational career, but a disappointing example of a successful President. According to the commenter, it is proof that political eggheads are short on common sense?

This is, indeed, an opinion, and opinions are certainly welcomed here, but there is no logic in discussing the education and intelligence of 44 American Presidents and citing just a few Presidents to make a solid case for defining proof that intelligence and common sense don't go together.

Of the 44 Presidents, how many are (were) college educated? How many are (were) not college educated? What was the performance of each President? What criteria did you use to evaluate the performance? Were there extenuating circumstances and/or pressures that affected the President's performance (like a stroke, for instance)?

You may end up to be entirely correct about Woodrow Wilson, sir, but it would be really great if you offered an evaluation between and among the performances of ALL the presidents, and your argument about presidential intelligence and common sense would then be a most logical conclusion. As it stands, now, you are merely offering an unsupported opinion and propagandizing (see "Propaganda" explanation below). It is far more effective for all of us IF "all of us" based our opinions on primary and documented evidence.

Propaganda using Generalizations:

"Generalization creates a fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, generalization from the particular, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample..."

-Michael C. Labossiere's Fallacy Tutorial Pro

Anna Banana of MI 11:35PM December 20, 2010

It has, to me, been frightening to hear the GOP criticize the "Intelligentsia." The World, throughout history, had dictators whose first move was to get rid of the "smart ones--the intrinsically-motivated educated, scientific, deep-thinking and writing citizens." These are the ones who perpetually seek the truth, seek logic, demand primary documentation and peer-reviewed studies.

This, from the dictator's point of view, was a key strategy in indoctrinating the ignorant. It is, in fact, the most vital strategy in taking away the rights of the people. If the intelligentsia is exterminated or "re-educated," it is far simpler to control the masses with the use of propaganda on what the dictator calls "the masses." I see more and more of this actually happening in the U.S.A.! FOX and Friends, for instance, has managed to become a "dead-ringer" for Josef Goebbel's and Adolf Hitler's advisories on conducting effective propaganda.

Those of you who study history can certainly agree that the Fox "pundits" are nearly "textbook perfect" in applying propaganda techniques. Yet, the millions that believe this propaganda astounds me! I KNOW that students in high school and college are educated in recognizing propaganda techniques, but why isn't it working!?

Ann Keenan of MI 5:36PM December 19, 2010

Do you notice people hanging on your every word at parties ?

I didn't think so…

Bill Hedges of MO 8:54PM October 18, 2010

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Republicans Can't Forget the Economy During Obama Scandals

Scandals provide good fodder for the GOP, but it can't forget about fixing unemployment.

Amidst Obama Scandals, Republicans Prepare a New Debt Ceiling Hostage

Republicans are preparing to take the debt ceiling hostage…again.

Benghazi, IRS and AP Scandals Reveal a Clueless President

The recent slew of scandals reveals an administration either incompetent or malicious.

The IRS Scandal Is About Budget Cuts, Not the Tea Party

Cutting the tax collection budget hurts everyone in the long-run.

Obama 'Going Bulworth' Wouldn't Give Him Power Over Republicans

Both Congress and presidents overestimate the power of the Oval Office.

Bureaucracy Keeps Adopted Children Stuck in International Limbo

The U.S. needs to do more to ease the international adoption process.

The Real Scandal Behind the Benghazi Emails and Attacks

The GOP focuses on talking points while ignoring dangerous security budget cuts.

House Republicans Waste Time With Obamacare Repeal Vote

Why is the House bothering to repeal Obamacare yet again?

advertisement