Since When is Intelligence a Bad Thing?

There was a great deal of talk in the recent VP debate about ‘main street’ and ‘outsiders’ coming to Washington, and the argument that this would a good thing as compared to the so called ‘elites’ who are currently ruining our nation from DC. The argument is a hypocritical and faulty at best. Those who run ‘Washington’ (the term has simply become shorthand for the federal government and all its branches and agencies) are both east coast elites with ivy league educations and representatives from every walk of life from every corner of this great nation.  Anne Applebaum argued yesterday that contrary to the political rhetoric of the day, Washington ‘outsiders’ are just as susceptible, if not more, to corruption and mismanagement of their posts. 

The District is not Manhattan. In Washington, the significance of this “elite” pales in comparison with that of the “hockey moms,” “Joe Six-Pack” and “Main Streeters” who have dominated the political conversation in the nation’s capital for as long as I can remember… I am thinking here of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska (a resident of Girdwood), now on trial on charges of corruption, and Texas Rep. Tom DeLay(born in Laredo), who resigned in disgrace. For the sake of bipartisanship, I’ll mention Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson (originally of Lake Providence), recently indicted on charges of corruption. But if more small-town Republican names come to mind, that’s because small-town Republicans have figured among the most powerful and most prominent Washington politicians for much of the past decade. 

The bottom line is that the ‘elites’ of DC have, in recent history, been less corrupt in the back rooms of Washington, but they are by no means immune to the temptation.  But where then, have they gotten such a bad reputation? When did this become the standard by which our leaders should be judged? Individuals with ivy league educations have turned out to be some of our best and some of our worst presidents. 

The qualities on which we should be casting votes should be proposed policies, leadership traits, decision making skills- not where the candidates come from or what type of education they may have. Military experience and time at Harvard are both incredibly valuable experiences for anyone, and can impact how one would define themselves as a president. 

The debates were telling in that they were an avenue through which the candidates could articulate their policies, demonstrate how their experiences have uniquely shaped them, and help voters understand the philosophies guiding their thinking and policy making. 

Gov. Palin failed largely on this in last weeks VP debate. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic. Whether you’re from small town Alaska or an ivy league professor, that argument isn’t logical and leads to cherry-picking priorities based on politics not sound philosophy. 

By contrast, in last night’s debate Sen. Obama demonstrated a coherent philosophy on the role of government (health care as a right, not a responsibility) and was able to articulate his priorities should he be elected (While Sen. McCain implied it was un-American to set priorities because we should be doing everything… talk about out of touch). People sometimes criticize Obama for being professorial. But tonight, I thought his calm, coherent explanations of policy were a distinct advantage. There’s nothing wrong with a man who speaks in full sentences. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed: “If you can’t say it, you can’t whistle it, either.” David Ignatius

The VP Debate: What We Already Knew

Last night’s VP debate demonstrated what many of us already know: Senator Biden is incredibly knowledgeable and articulate, while Governor Palin appeals to some “soccer-moms” but is unfamiliar with both the domestic and foreign policies (other than energy issues I suppose, which she returned to when asked about various other topics) which she and Senator McCain stand for. Neither made any huge gaffe’s, though both had some minor mistakes that are typical in political debates of this nature. 

Did Gov. Palin win, as some commentators like Pat Buchanan have claimed? No. It is abominable that the expectations for a vice presidential candidate in a debate were simply to show up and say a few quasi-logical things. To say Gov. Palin won, because she met those “expectations” is absurd. They was hardly anything to the expectations to begin with. 

The biggest challenge for the VP nominees going forward in the next four weeks will be convincing Americans that they are qualified for the job. According to the 10/1/08 Pew Research Center polls, Biden is ahead on this.  The public is increasingly worried about Palin’s qualifications and is also gaining confidence in Obama’s ability to lead. This is, in large part, because of his performance (and McCain’s flop of a performance) in dealing with the bailout legislation. 

Sen. Biden is one of the most knowledgeable senators serving in the US Congress and that came through in last night’s debate. His 90 second responses demonstrated both the big picture, philosophical understandings of problems and policies, as well as the minutia involved with his policy proposals. Simultaneously he appealed to average Americans as a father who struggled to care for his two sons after the death of his wife and daughter, who understands the “kitchen table discussions” that worry so many voters. 

In contrast, Palin failed to convince viewers that her policy positions are sound and the she will be able to execute them appropriately should she and McCain be elected. Had she been able to do that, a claim to victory would have been valid. For one, Palin botched the strategy and the name of the US commander in Afghanistan. “Now, in most cases, this type of oversight on the part of a politician could be dismissed–maybe even attributed to nerves. But when Afghanistan is exploding and on the verge of failure, details matter. Facts matter. Being familiar with the situation matters–a lot. The troops depend on it.” 

That Palin could not articulate her guiding philosophy behind the position of the vice presidency is terrifying to Americans who have seen the Constitution and our civil rights eroded under current VP Cheney. That Biden understood the constitutional issues at risk, and clearly defined how he would operate within them, provided  confidence and comfort to voters that Palin was unable to give.  “She went into this debate with most Americans believing she is unqualified for the office. She did nothing to dispel the doubts voiced about her– even by Republicans–and frankly reinforced those doubts mightily.” 

Nor could she come up with an answer to the achilles heal question, or the question about campaign promises that won’t be met. That one is unable to admit to the realities of one’s own and one’s party weaknesses demonstrated a world view in line with that of the Bush Administration, a disheartening fact for a population that is fed up with the guiding philosophies and policies that have emerged in the last 8 years. 

Questions for the VPs

Similar to the questions posted for the Presidential debate last week, today’s New York Times poses a number of questions, from various policy makers and analysts, to the VP candidates for their debate tonight.

Senator Biden, do you believe that continued withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will lead to a newly ignited civil war?

Governor Palin, since you were selected as a vice presidential candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given more press conferences to American reporters than you have. Why do you have less confidence in the American press and people than the president of Iran does? And when will you dare to face the press for real?

— ANDREW SULLIVAN, a blogger for The Atlantic and the author of “The Conservative Soul”

Can the vice president shift between branches at his convenience? If not, what, in your view, is the constitutional status of the vice presidency?

— GENE HEALY, the author of “The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power”

Governor Palin, I love my frontier state, but the first thing I learned when I moved to the Lower 48 was how unlike the rest of the country Alaska is. How would you govern America when as mayor and governor, you hardly had to provide basic public services? In Wasilla, less than a tenth of the town is connected to the sewer system.

Alaska’s economy runs on oil proceeds — we don’t even pay income tax. And despite our disdain for Washington, we are given hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government each year. How would you handle our financial crisis when you’ve never had to balance a budget while tax revenue fell?

— RACHEL KLEINFELD, the executive director of the Truman National Security Project.