I've been reading with interest the back and forth about Tea Party movements and unqualified people running for office and all that blather ...
When did it become OK for under qualified people to think they can do anything - and what's worse, for other people to think that's alright?
You can't do anything - you can do what you're good at and you should stick to that.
The point of elected officials is that you sort of pick one who you know is smart, who is aligned with you in most ways, and who you think/hope will make the right decision because in most cases, you don't know what the hell is really going on yourself.
This whole 24-hr. news cycle/citizen journalist movement has made "experts" out of everyone, so everyone thinks they can be an elected official, or they know someone who can be, or FoxNews told them this person can be ... whatever.
Get over it.
There are people out there who are smarter than you are. Picking one to vote for who is of average intelligence just because you are is stupid.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
that has to be one of the more ignorant posts you've ever written gillian. i'm shocked you feel that way, i always assumed you were more democratic than that...
Why, Gillian...upon reading your piece...If I didn't know better...I would think that the left wing was ....
Dare I say it....
Elitist!
Somehow your point falls short of being open minded and egalitarian...
I guess that whole "Celebrate Diversity" meme comes with tons of caveats that those on the right might have difficulty discerning without a scorecard...---anon
"America is in deep trouble. Some claim if people would just turn out to vote in large numbers, this trend could be reversed. This is not true. A corrupt judicial system and dumbed down elected officials with no desire to honor their constitutional oath of office are the problem." - GOP activist Betty Freauf
Besides, I wanted to give anon another opportunity to call me ignorant!
I didn't call you ignorant, at all...
I think I suggested that your point was elitist....
And I stand by that assessment. ----anon
And....I will add, that my "celebrate diversity" reference was a completely gratuitous swipe.....
But, I saw much of what was in your post as a kind of hanging curve ball....and I couldn't resist taking a swing at it.
It was meant in good humor. ---anon
Not you, anonymous, the other one ... so not wanting dunderheads who haven't a clue form government policy is wrong, in your view, I take it? OK. I admit it's elitist, but I don't think "elitist" is a dirty word (Although it does sound like one, doesn't it?).
No harm, no foul.
By the way, both of you anonymous people ... I bet you'd be the first to scream bloody murder if a Boston sports team drafted or signed someone who was only "average" (and that's average in a select group of above average people, generally speaking). But you will accept average in the people running the government?
I could write up a list, as could you, of currently serving legislators, at the state and national level, who are really kind of an embarrassment.
There is no intelligence test required for people to run for or be elected to office....
And it shows.
And, as for your central point...I think William Buckley said it best when he observed that he would rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.----anon
Well, the Boston phone book ... that's kind of an elite set, right off the bat, isn't it?
As to your more recent point....
In my opinion, there area statistical and objective methods by which a professional athlete can be measured.
Just what is the typical congresscritter's batting average, on base percentage or fielding percentage?
And, so long as you want to keep beating this drum.... is it possible to be stupider than Congressman Hank Johnson?
Heck, his whole thing about Guam capsizing is in the same league as Miss Teen South Carolina...---anon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
"Well, the Boston phone book ... that's kind of an elite set, right off the bat, isn't it?"
It is comments just like that that paint you as just another rube from flyover country ;^)
That's just what they WANT you to believe....
Just like they WANT you to believe that the governing class is somehow better suited to ruling you....
They just don't want you to notice that the governing class:
A. Is really no smarter than the rest of us.
B. Their greatest skill sets are in the fields of graft and corruption.
C. Their other great skill set is in lying. ----anon
Mr. Buckley did have a somewhat different view from Sir Winston's equally famous “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
Gill, don't worry (about the meanies). Those of average or sub-par intelligence are (obviously) no less inclined toward corruption and graft than the smartest are. Apples and oranges. The real difference is exactly what you said it is: We want to be led by those with the qualifications (read: smarts) to lead us. And "elitism" has little to do with intelligence.
Just throwing this out there....
Barbara Boxer is being challenged by a Democrat, a contributor to Slate, by the name of Mickey Kaus....
Now, just for a sort of benchmark....do the majority of those on the left believe that Boxer is inherently a better candidate....because she is the professional/incumbent and therefore Kaus is a bad/worse/stupid/under-qualified candidate?-----anon
Hmmmmm, let's see, anon ... Kaus is a big-league journalist/pundit and attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School. I'd say he's at least above average in the intelligence dept., so NO. I'd have to go with the one whose policies were most closely aligned with mine.
Experience does not = better.
Pick another scenario.
what have these "smart" politicians in this country ever solved?
OK...New scenario...Barney Frank still cannot understand how his policies were significantly contributory toward the housing bubble and the resulting economic collapse....
Now...I know that he is a Liberal (capital "L" and all) and he is held in very high esteem ...especially by other big "L" Liberals....
But do you consider him smarter than the average policeman?
Should anyone vote for someone so willfully blind about the mechanics of banking and investments? Especially when he serves as the chair of that committee? Regardless of whatever other pockets of intelligence might be salted away in lightly utilized corners of his brain box?
I would take a chance voting for someone who owned a card shop over an demonstrated dimwit, like Frank...
Or is he not a dimwit, and simply an ideologue who cannot be brought to tell the truth of what he knows?
---anon
The problem w/your arguments, anon, is that you keep giving examples that include black and/or gay people. You got something that does not give credence to the racist/homophobic angle on the Tea Party?
You, young lady, are the one with the problem with gays and blacks, not me...
I am more than a little disappointed to find that that the liberal mind possesses nothing but childish taunts masquerading as ideas...
So sad
But this is your sandbox...
Punching out----anon
Are you blind?
Gillian, why is it that people who like to stir the pot never want us to know who they are?
Gillian, you're trying to argue from logic while the anons are basing their arguments on dogma.
Given that, you will never make any headway. They'll simply wear you down until you give up at which point they'll smugly declare that they've 'won'.
The cries of 'elitism' are sheer BS. The candidates that the Tea Party maniacs are backing have the same level of education and experience as the 'elitists' they decry; they only have a different political point of view (and one that needs to be investigated. This is NOT a grass roots organization, and if one follows the money...).
You are right in pointing out the subtle use of racism and homophobia. It's a pretty clever technique in that they *hint* at things without coming out and saying them, at which point people like yourself or Mike Cook are proclaimed to be liars or slanderers...all while the Tea Party base winks.
- The Carrot
carrot and gillian seemed to be the only ones who cared about the peoples skin color or sexual preference, no one else. just because they may belong to a different group of people is no reason to exclude them from criticism.
Oh anonymous, anonymous, anonymous ... *sigh*
Wow, Gillian, you really opened up a Pandora's Box with this post of yours.
Let me say, I admire and respect intelligence and integrity, whether it comes from a conservative or a liberal.
After reading Barry Goldwater's biography, for example, I came to be great admirer of the man I, as a liberal, had been raised to reject out of hand.
In his later years he showed his TRUE conservative credentials by challenging the increased influence of Christian extremists in the GOP and the opulence and garish displays of great wealth the Reagan years epitomized.
Likewise, I, overall, find a liberal like Jesse jackson to be a bit of a buffoon who, through the years, I've lost a great deal of respect for.
The basic point of your original post, however, was right on the money.
I want all our elected officials, be they liberal or conservative, to be intelligent, with a genuine commitment to PUBLIC service, not just biding their time until they ultimately get defeated and reinvent themselves as greedy lobbyists.
Post a Comment