That’s why I want a president who is not only smarter, but wiser and better informed than I am. Not a garbage-brain like me, who knows a teensy bit about a lot of things, probably most of them wrong, and has little wisdom and even less self-control.
But that’s why labels of ‘elitism’ are so damaging. No one questions Obama’s intelligence, the Republican goal then is to paint him as having different priorities then Joe Schmoe. Just because a world renowned architect builds your house doesn’t mean it will have your basketball court.
Sorry, I’m not following. I mean, I understand the analogy. And I understand that the Pubs want to paint Obama as an elitist. I just don’t understand why what I want leads directly to Obama’s being vulnerable to this charge.
But then, it all comes back to how the Republicans have managed to lock on to this deep suspicion a lot of Americans seem to have toward educated, intelligent people. Which I don’t understand.
I think most people believe in their own judgment, judgment is based on principles, voters are prone to select candidates that make them believe they share the same principles.
In their minds it’s, “I don’t care what degree anyone has, they don’t know what I want like I do or in the very least someone very much like me.”
Alas, educated intelligent people are not in the majority.
And we’re just that stupid that we prefer someone like us to someone better than us running things.
We deserve the government we get. We deserve the government we get. We deserve the government we get. Except that I don’t deserve the government we get, dammit!
Again with this, look, where is it written that smarter people run more benevolent governments? When did ‘a more successful person makes the world a better place’ become a tautology?
Smarter people are more likely to achieve what they set out to do. If their goal is a benevolent one, they’re more likely to make decisions that lead to actual benefits.
I think the saying is “the fastest horse doesn’t always win the race, but that’s the way to bet.”
“Successful” and smart are not the same thing. You could say Will Smith is successful, but that doesn’t mean he’s smart. *(He may be very intelligent, I don’t know, it was just an example). *
It might not be written in stone somewhere but I’d rather have a smart person in government than an average to stupid one. It would only help if we had smart voters, though.
A candidate does better (an in my opinion should do better) if they connect with voters on a personal level instead of just stating their qualifications and standing back for the awe to set in. Before Andy Jackson, Presidential candidates didn’t even bother to hustle for votes. Right now wouldn’t you elect a man born in a log cabin who said to a delegation of bankers “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out.”
I’m noticing an increasing level of smugness on this board in general. The train of logic goes:
-Obama is smarter than McCain.
-smarter people will have better priorities
-anyone who votes for a less intelligent candidate is dumb
-conservatives are dumb
Olympic gymnasts are incredibly gifted, with athleticism unmatched, yet I wouldn’t consider Mary Lou Retton a balanced individual with priorities matching my own.
in the interests of full disclosure I voted for Obama in the primary and will vote for him in the General. This is just one voter that is getting tired of the self righteousness on all sides
I don’t see anyone saying smarter people have “better priorities”. Making better decisions is not the same thing.
Consider a game of poker. You only ever have three options: call, raise, or fold. Everyone has the same priorities: you want to win as many chips as possible, and lose as few as possible. But it takes a smart player to know whether calling, raising, or folding in any given situation is likely to leave you with the most chips, because there are a lot of factors to consider.
Well, this is a message board that values intelligence and facts. That’s our culture. You can probably find other message boards where that’s not so much the case, but here it’s pretty much going to be a given.
But it’s not just that Obama is smarter. It’s that his style of decision making is superior. McCain is a person very much like me, in that he makes his decisions quickly, from the gut, based on quick assessments. They’re often good ones, but when he doesn’t know much about a topic and he’s feeling pressured, he’s going to start flailing as he has done this past week, holding about twenty different positions in the past eight days or so.
Obama is very controlled, cerebral, serene, unflappable. He’s also very broadly informed. He doesn’t appear to ever shoot from the hip. You can’t seem to ever catch him with his pants down, because he makes damned sure he knows a fair amount about just about everything, and he’s smart enough to do it. He refuses to be rushed. He doesn’t lose his temper. I don’t know how he does all this, but apparently he manages. He’s one scary guy; I’m glad he appears to be on our side.
If that seems smug, then so be it. But I think to take the first rather than the second, just to make sure you pay a few less bucks in taxes is dumb.
Perhaps you did not get a chance to read your OP.
Re-read it…you might notice that you feel you’ve chanced upon the reason Mrs. Palin is so popular, completely ignoring that the same argument (and its implicit reduction of the individual) applies to Mr. Obama.
Here’s a guy who gets raised by a white mom, with white extended family, gets into nice schools with race-based affirmative action help, makes something of himself in the political world and ends up running for President on a campaign which likes to imply the American Dream is broken and doesn’t mind collecting the black vote along the way despite having nothing in common with the tribulations of the average black in the US.
He is the American Dream, and his ascendancy to the national stage is not based on his superior experience and qualifications but his embodiment of the American Dream.
He’s the lead candidate on his ticket and he typifies your point much better than Mrs. Palin. Your focus on Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin betrays your bias, and the implied inadequacy of Mrs. Palin because she embodies the American Dream ideal applies in spades to Mr. Obama.
By ‘smart player’, you mean a good player. Knowing the odds your hand will win is useful, but there is no correlation between high intelligence and skilled play. My cousin jimmy would pummel Marilyn vos Savant.
That’s the point. I wonder if this Boards flawless logic would arrive at the same conclusion if McCain was cerebral, and Obama shot from the hip. I seriously doubt it.
I disagree: it takes intelligence to be a good player. It’s not the only factor, but it’s an important one. If Marilyn played even half as much as your cousin, she’d mop the floor with him. The top players are clever folks, not a bunch of bumbling oafs who’ve just played a lot of hands.
In politics, you have more than just three options; you have complex proposals with far-reaching consequences. It takes intelligence to make a good decision. If you don’t have the intellectual capacity or willingness to consider the effects your actions will have, you’ll end up making a decision based on your gut or simplistic bumper-sticker principles, and it’s more likely to backfire.
If McCain were cerebral, he’d probably be Obama. Or at least, a Democrat. 