The Atlantic - Latest Comments in In search of hierarchy

Re: In search of hierarchy

Cord — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:20:33 -0000

"expertise, intelligence, and considered opinion are overrated"

This is very true. People are okay with these factors as long as the candidate appears to be highly authentic and charismatic. Problem with Sarah Palin is that she doesn't have to waste time trying to be "of the people." She is the people. In any other election Sarah Palin and Barack Obama would probably not have made it so far but for some reason 2 year Governor & a mayor of a small town, and conversely a guy who spent 143 days as Senator and has campaigned for 50% time while being in office is more appealing than you know accomplished people who tried to make a mark in their respective office.

Bill Clinton was probably the only exception to the rule. He was intelligent but also a policy wonk and a "down to earth," kind of guy...I guess almost too "down to earth" when you look at his behavior.

It seems that in this election the people who were best on the issues on both sides were knocked out for character/appeal candidates and respective VPs didn't really help fix that.

Oh well...C'est La Vie with American Elections.

Re: In search of hierarchy

tt — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:53:18 -0000

I don't want to lean to hard on this point, mostly because it bears an eerie resemblance to the way blacks supported Obama against Clinton

Re: In search of hierarchy

Dave C. — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:50:25 -0000

I think you're making a mistake by trying to interpret "just like me" as an honest (but stupid) explanation.

I will never forget the interview I saw right after the OJ Simpson murder trial in which the jurors tried to explain what was wrong with the evidence.

That was code.

So is this.

Re: In search of hierarchy

isbellHFh — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:33:43 -0000

Monstertron made the point I was going to make:

If I'm right, then it may be the case that people want someone who has their values and judgment, but who is a lot better informed.

I actually do want someone who is like me: rational, reflective, aware that anything involving humans is political and several other things. I would like someone capable of connecting to my kind of experience. I don't want me in the job; however, I'd love someone like me but who chose to put as much energy going down that path as I chose going down my path.

In fact, I think that many of the supporters of Obama do see themselves in Obama and that's part of his appeal.

Re: In search of hierarchy

Hector — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:58:40 -0000

Patriot Games,

Actually, women are more likely than men to support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This is to be expected. After all, women tend, by their essential nature, to love children more than men, to value personal relationships more than abstract ideals, and to be more religious. It is to be expected that women will be less likely than men to support abortion, which constitutes a brutal violation of the natural mother-child bond, and a brutal assault on charity and human life, in the name of abstract ideal like "freedom of choice".

There are only two grups of people who have really benefited from abortion. Irresponsible men who like to use women for casual sex, and racist eugenicists who want to see fewer of the 'wrong' sort of people being born.

Re: In search of hierarchy

PatricktheRogue — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:47:37 -0000

I must wonder about this myself - how many of these people wake up in the morning and think, "hey, I could be the leader of the free world, that shit doesn't look that hard!?"

I know that when there is some monumental task in front of me, such as, say, the two times I went to war, I looked real hard at my leaders, and I thought, "these are some bad dudes - they're smart, relentless, mean when they have to be, and wily as hell - these are the guys I want to go to combat with." I didn't think I wanted some average joe that I might like to sit next to in a bar. And, in the end, I was damn lucky to have some of the best Marines that have ever been in charge of the show. That's also what I want in a president - not average, fuck that - I want a total badass that impresses on all fronts.

PTR

Re: In search of hierarchy

Joe Bourgeois — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:45:35 -0000

I wouldn't be too concerned about this WaPo piece if I was scared of a McCain Presidency (which I am).

They went to a Palin rally, and the people there support Palin. And they project upon her. Astounding.

Re: In search of hierarchy

Phil Deeze — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:02:34 -0000

Obama had better not allow Palin, who thumps the Bible at will, to get away with the moral majority crap.

Honestly, why would Obama wants the white feminist vote anyway? They are turncoats from giddy up.

If this how they choose to wield their voting power in what could be a very pivotal election for this country, then if things don't get any better for women (white women, hard-working white women,) then I don't want to hear shit from them again.

Re: In search of hierarchy

patriot games — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:47:50 -0000

The issue isn't even about identity versus expertise, it is about identity versus any discussion or consideration of what may actually be done that will help or hurt the group in question.

In addition to the foreign policy and fitness to be President issues, the debate to pick with Palin is about what she will do for women.

Will she make them pay for their own rape kits?

What is her record on domestic violence? (look up Alaskan women's groups: Palin fired the public safety commissioner who was actually doing something, and Alaska leads the nation in rape and domestic violence.)

Do women want Roe v Wade overturned? Abortion banned in cases of rape and incest?

What does Palin propose to do for families? Health insurance? Education?

How, exactly, will she help families with special needs children? Will she propose a govt program? Or just another thousand points of light?

Re: In search of hierarchy

howard — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:30:38 -0000

heavens, did i just see a palin supporter condescending to harvard graduates? here i thought condescenscion was supposed to be something that only harvard graduates possessed, and it was always aimed at working people.

i'm so confused....

Re: In search of hierarchy

wj — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:09:00 -0000

These women should read Leonard Pitts' column this week. And substitute gender for race.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/679582.html

Re: In search of hierarchy

Monstertron — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:44:13 -0000

It's just a mild curiousity of mine, but there's an obvious follow-up to the "just like me" reasoning that I've never seen asked. Are there any surveys out there where the surveyor asks the person expressing support of a candidate like him or her whether he or she believes he or she could run the country? I'd like to see the answers. I suspect the answer would generally be "no."

If I'm right, then it may be the case that people want someone who has their values and judgment, but who is a lot better informed. So, in response to Palin, there are two ways to go: One, make her out to be a lot less like the average run of folk. Republicans seem to have a lock on this strategy.

The other option is to hammer home the point of how much she is just like your Aunt Lilly or the person next door. So, point out, for example, that:

"She's just like your next-door neighbor. No, seriously, you don't understand. She's just like your next-door neighbor. You know. The one who doesn't take his trash cans out of the driveway, ever. The one who is always putting off doing yardwork until midnight. That neighbor. The one whose crazy family stands around in the front yard screaming at all hours. Yeah, that's her. That's Sarah Palin. She's just like your neighbor."

Re: In search of hierarchy

The Pop View — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:34:50 -0000

I was going to argue, but the CDC says:

...unmarried childbearing reached a new record high in 2006. The total number of births to unmarried mothers rose nearly 8 percent to 1,641,700 in 2006. This represents a 20 percent increase from 2002, when the recent upswing in non-marital births began. The biggest jump was among unmarried women aged 25-29, among whom there was a 10 percent increase between 2005 and 2006.

Maybe unwed pregnant daughter really is the new "one of us."

Re: In search of hierarchy

marcus — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:31:49 -0000

gross? you bet. this woman gets the keys to the nuclear football and can't even articulate the policy that is sending her precious Track to fight the A-rabs. I'll take gross over grossly negligent any day of the week.

Re: In search of hierarchy

TKOEd — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:20:48 -0000

i have never comprehended that "I'd like to have a beer with that person" mentality. The thing is people want their leaders to understand what they are going through but somehow this degraded into them wanting pols to be REALLY "like them" I want my president to be like me but to know way more than me.

Re: In search of hierarchy

AKBY — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:20:43 -0000

marcus. If you can't find a better way to express yourself, you should participate on a sleezy blog. Your comment was gross.

Re: In search of hierarchy

marcus — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:14:53 -0000

i'm sorry. you've got a retard baby and pregnant daughter betrothed to a high school dropout, a husband who rides snowmobiles competitively and a 72 yearold comes to you and says, "You wanna be Vice President?"

Who wouldn't say yes. What's the downside?

Re: In search of hierarchy

Rich — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:09:05 -0000

Reminds me of Sen. Hruska's defense of the Harold Carswell nomination to the Supreme Court many years ago:

"Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

Re: In search of hierarchy

Brad L — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:04:51 -0000

My mother and I had a conversation the other day about what would happen if Jefferson suddenly rose from the dead and was a candidate for President. After all, not only was he well educated and eloquent, he actually founded a University. Talk about eliteist.

Rising from the dead might garner him a certain number of votes, though. Lots of people were impressed the last time they thought it happened.

Re: In search of hierarchy

tinare — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:42:53 -0000

"Didn't the founding fathers lead a revolution so that we wouldn't be stuck with idiots running the country? I guess it never occurred to them* that the people actually would choose to be governed by idiots.

*exception for A. Hamilton and J. Adams"

Re: In search of hierarchy

RobFightmaster — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:25:18 -0000

One of the spiritually toxic hazards of being a political junkie is the hair-pulling frustration and anger generated by witnessing the regular victories of lies and corruption over truth and justice. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, does not seem to be enjoying life these days. In this context, it become easy to view to our less informed peers as 'useful idiots', complicit in the malice of our political opponents. This is a completely understandable reaction. Still, it's unhelpful.

On good days, after some coffee, I remind myself that this is how democracy works -- it's a feature, not a bug. I try to remember:

1. There are people who absolutely disagree with my views and priorities and they get to get to choose, too. Full stop.

2. The set of things I 'know' almost always turns out to be more fluid and error-filled than I care to admit.

3. Being well-versed in current affairs and national politics is a civic virtue, but it's not the only civic virtue or even the most important.

4. It is a civic duty (or, at the very least, a civic opportunity) for the over-informed to educate and advocate on behalf of what they have learned. Education (the conveyance of knowledge and wisdom) is not the same thing as denunciation of ignorance. Education takes time and patience.

5. In the end, reason will prevail and the truth will endure -- mostly.

None of that is to say that it's not possible, common even, to lose important, painful battles.

Anger and hate are toxic to the soul.

I keep telling myself that anyway.

Re: In search of hierarchy

tinisoli — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:14:12 -0000

Herein we see the narcissism and closed-mindedness of the holy rollers. Everyone must be just like them, otherwise they are suspicious homos who need to be killed.

Re: In search of hierarchy

KarenZ — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:11:52 -0000

Jimmy Carter wrote a book called "Why Not the Best?," which helped send him to the White House in 1976. His opponents ridiculed him as being nothing more a slow-talkin' peanut farmer. (Whatever you think of his administration, it is universally recognized that he is an exceptional human being.)

I do not understand why 30 years later some people want a president who is "just like us." And it's called "elitist" to want a president who's smarter than us. Have we learned nothing from the last eight disastrous years with the guy whom we elected because he'd be fun to have a beer with?

Didn't the founding fathers lead a revolution so that we wouldn't be stuck with idiots running the country? I guess it never occurred to them* that the people actually would choose to be governed by idiots.

*exception for A. Hamilton and J. Adams

Re: In search of hierarchy

Margarita — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:03:09 -0000

"She knows what we go through."

This is not stupid. It may even be accurate. It's only stupid if that's the end of the process, period, full-stop.

She knows what we go through, and therefore what?

Her line in the convention speech, for example, about how families with special-needs kids will have a friend in the White House does make sense and should get the attention of people who care about that. But she never said what she would actually do for special-needs families apart from befriending them, which I get the impression is probably not a blessed thing.

Re: In search of hierarchy

Michael — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:49:35 -0000

To me this leads to an obvious counter: "she may say she's just like you, but she's not." Then talk about her record. Obviously her background is very appealing, so hit her right there, at her strength.

It's too easy to say these voters are stupid. Even if you just mean they're stupid on this issue, the Republicans have been expert at lopping off "on this issue" and making people feel as though Democrats consider them stupid, period. It's not a place we can successfully go.

We've never had a working mom as veep or president, so for a lot of people, that represents change. The Democrats have to face that head-on, and keep pointing out that it doesn't mean a change in policy. And as Pesto says, show anger and passion about how destructive those policies have been.

Show specifically how McCain/Palin's policies are NOT good for working moms. Go straight at that demographic if that's their strength.

If it keeps being about Palin's experience or lack thereof, or her background, they keep the focus off of McCain and Obama. That can do nothing but hurt us. The Democrats, perhaps, should just start IGNORING Palin, since she's so exciting.