If We Wanted a President that Couldn't Read, We Would Have Elected Palin. Nice Try, Herm

I mentioned in my previous post a new trend that is permeating the country and, more specifically, the Republican party. This trend is multi-dimensional, with one clear dimension being a deliberate shift away from intellectualism. While I'm sure this shift has been going on for years, I think the first time I really noticed it was during the 2004 Presidential race between Bush and Kerry. I'm sure that in every debate, Kerry felt like he was arguing with a seven year-old, whose responses were no more substantial than a snotty "nuh-uh" and a stuck-out tongue. Bush memorized his one-liner talking points, hunched over his podium, exaggerated his drawl and threw in a few "y'all's," while Kerry -- one of the smartest politicians out there (and rumored to be the next Secretary of State, FYI) -- had a comprehensive understanding of the issues. But, as we all know far too well, Bush and Kerry's stark difference in experience and intellect was not the deciding factor in the '04 election. Instead, it all boiled down to the "who would you rather have a beer with?" question. [I, and I'm sure most people reading this post would say Kerry, but we are not representative of the country.] Americans found Bush, the simple minded Texan who grew up on a ranch, more likable and easier to relate to than Kerry, the "boring" and stiff New Englander (who was actually qualified to be president).  


Next came the Sarah Palin phenomenon. In her infamous interview with Katie Couric, Palin failed to name a single newspaper or magazine that she reads to keep up with global affairs. When asked to name just one, Palin stumbled, uttering "all of 'em, any of 'em"... okay, aka none of them. While this clip got plenty of attention in the media and on SNL, just a few years later Palin was seriously being considered as a (somewhat) viable GOP candidate -- without even entering the race. How soon America forgets...


And that brings us to Cain, the Hermanator. Cain has made so many major gaffes in recent weeks that I was shocked when yet another surfaced this morning. (Seriously, what does his staff do with their time?) In a speech in New Hampshire yesterday, Cain riled the crowd in defending his blatant lack of knowledge on foreign affairs. Cain, per usual, blamed the media for blowing his mistakes out of proportion; referencing his disturbing and deplorable interview regarding Libya, Cain said that the media measures his every pause, when all he's trying to do is take a moment to think!! (Yeah right). Cain then asked the crowd, "who knows every detail about every country or every situation on the planet?" (Well, no one. But anyone -- especially someone running for the highest office in the country, perhaps world, should know a little bit about China and Libya). 


But the Cain Train didn't stop there. His next memorable quote went something like this: "We've got plenty of experts! We need a leader, not a reader!"


...Seriously? 


I'm sure we can all agree that reading should be a prerequisite for any president, so I won't elaborate too much on this point. What I really want to go back to is this shift away from intellectualism, and what it implies about the American people. Why is it acceptable that politicians like Bush, Palin, and Cain can get away with -- and even be proud of -- their lack of knowledge? Why do our most intelligent politicians like Kerry and Obama have to hide their intellect and "dumb down" all of their speeches? I consider myself to be largely aware of what's going on in the world, but I would pray to God that my president knows more about it than I do! Why don't other Americans feel the same? 


And, of course, all presidents have a Cabinet and are surrounded by experts. But if they don't have a solid grasp of the issues, themselves, they are just puppets doing whatever their group of advisers tells them to do. And if they aren't smart enough to pick up a newspaper once and a while, what makes us think that they will choose advisers who are well-intentioned and just? Socrates said something along the lines of "one will do what is right or best just as soon as one truly understands what is right or best." Bush declared war in Iraq not because he thought it was right or best; he didn't think about it much at all. Bush probably had little to no understanding of Middle Eastern history or politics, so simply did what Cheney told him to do -- and we should expect nothing more from Herman Cain. 

Concerned and Confused

As this is my first entry in my new blog, I'll give a brief explanation of what compelled me to revisit Blogspot after nearly two years, what I'll be writing about, and why you should (or maybe should not...) bother to read it. 

I have always been interested in (and usually passionate about) politics. If you have ever joined a family dinner at my house, you know that this really wasn't much of a choice. Liberalism is as synonymous with Henderson as butter is with Paula Dean. Given my political upbringing, I'm sure you can imagine how ecstatic I was to finally reach voting age -- and cast my first ballot for one of the most exciting and rhetorically-gifted politicians in modern history: Mr. Barack Obama. Not only is Obama a fellow Illinoisan who gave me an autograph and handshake back in the day, he replaced a puppet president with a corrupt administration and made history as America's first African American president. 

Despite my initial enthusiasm for this seemingly perfect politician, my "hope" for "change" was soon brought to a halt when Obama failed to take advantage of his Democratically-controlled Congress, making little progress on social and (particularly) economic issues early on. And once the Republicans took control of the House, the likelihood of the Obama administration making true changes plummeted. The Republican party made it clear that they will do anything they can to make Obama look like a failure; we all know John Boehner uttered these words practically verbatim. For that, I can't blame Obama too much. But I can blame him for wasting those precious many months of a Democratically-controlled Congress. For wasting this opportunity, I began to sort of resent the man I once idolized. 

But just when I was about to give up hope on my President, my party, and our political system, in general... Enter the GOP primary candidates. 

After just a few short weeks of seeing these clowns (starting with Palin and Trump, moving to Perry and Bachmann, and now Cain, Gingrich, and --gasp, Iowa!!-- Ron Paul??) dominate the news coverage, my political fervor was back! For those of you who I most frequently pester via phone and/or email with my political ranks (Pa, I'm pretty much talkin' about you), you know that my interest in the Republican primary race has gone from casually paying attention to being more-or-less obsessed. Now, don't get me wrong: I am not obsessed with the candidates, themselves, but more-so the bizarre trend that is sweeping through the Republican base -- and, perhaps, through the entire country. 

The historical definitions of Democrats and Republicans are no longer useful. With the significant economic and military stress our entire nation is under, more radical factions of both political parties have emerged. And despite how insane and unreasonable I think the Tea Party is (and, to be fair, how insane and unreasonable others think the Occupiers are), these two movements really say a lot about the current political and social landscape of our country. Discontent in America may not lead to an historic political uprising as it did in Egypt, but it will undoubtedly have a major impact on the 2012 election. While part of me is purely fascinated in this new and largely undefined trend, part of me is absolutely terrified that it will somehow result in an overly radical or grossly incompetent new president. The mere thought of a Herman Cain or Ron Paul as leader of the free world is practically too much to digest -- so maybe blogging about it will help assuage my fears!! Or increase your's?