The triumph of mediocrity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not a stunt at all. Let's be honest, here. Saying you're afraid people won't agree with you b/c people outside the beltway are different in terms of their education and travel, when the clear implication is that they are LESS educated and are LESS well traveled, is condescending in the extreme. It also misses/ignores other possible explanations, e.g., your view point is not prevailing because it is not persuasive, compelling, correct. I think when people on either side assume that people disagree with them because they're too basic to understand things the way they do, they prove themselves unwilling to seriously consider alternative views or challenge their own, which is rarely a positive thing in democratic society.

I apologize for the "stunt" accusation, and if it's not too snarky to say so, for the insult of comparing you to Steve Schimidt. Nevertheless, I think I can say for myself that I don't think that I am automatically smarter at politics than someone with less education. While I was not the poster who made the original comment, I thought it fairly likely she might think similarly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's what I'm afraid of. Unfortunately, the demographics of DC & its near suburbs are not representative of the rest of the country in terms of education, travel, and other life experiences.

This comment defines "elitism"

The irony of Republicans calling Democrats "elitists" is astounding. The Republicans are the ones representing the elite & moneyed interests. I also realize now that you are building & growing your base by keeping them ignorant and undereducated. You can control an ignorant population much more easily than an educated group. Your Republican party continously cuts the budget for education to deprive your ignorant base of basic education found even in the poorest of countries.

[Anonymous]

I understand why a lot of people relate to Sarah Palin. I do too. I don't think she is mediocre at all. I'm not saying I would necessarily vote for her (McCain, that is), but I have a hard time listening to people say how scary it is that people are cheering for her. No, she didn't go to Harvard. And no, she may not have the experience yet to be a VP (but the lack of experience is also what makes me nervous about Obama). And you may completely disagree with some of her views (pro-life to an extreme, creationism, etc.).

BUT, she has worked her way up at an amazing pace. First city counsel, then unseating a multi-term mayor, then unseating an incumbant governor. Not every Joe Schmoe out there can do that. And now she has the highest approval rating of any governor in the country. YES, I understand Alaska has a small population--but we are talking about percentages here, and like it or not, it's not easy to get that kind of approval rating. She is a good speaker, and she just seems likable as a person. Does that qualify her to be VP? Not necessarily, no. But with a few more years experience, and even just after the "education" she'll get along the campaign trail, I don't doubt she will be a force to be reckoned with.

She may not be ready for VP, but I do think her rise over the past decade well exceeds mediocre.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Just for the record, I was not referring to Palin herself in the title of this thread but of the general attitudes portrayed by the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's what I'm afraid of. Unfortunately, the demographics of DC & its near suburbs are not representative of the rest of the country in terms of education, travel, and other life experiences.

This comment defines "elitism"

The irony of Republicans calling Democrats "elitists" is astounding. The Republicans are the ones representing the elite & moneyed interests. I also realize now that you are building & growing your base by keeping them ignorant and undereducated. You can control an ignorant population much more easily than an educated group. Your Republican party continously cuts the budget for education to deprive your ignorant base of basic education found even in the poorest of countries.

Yet it is the poor downtrodden Democrats who are the best educated, better traveled, with all the life experiences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a stunt at all. Let's be honest, here. Saying you're afraid people won't agree with you b/c people outside the beltway are different in terms of their education and travel, when the clear implication is that they are LESS educated and are LESS well traveled, is condescending in the extreme. It also misses/ignores other possible explanations, e.g., your view point is not prevailing because it is not persuasive, compelling, correct. I think when people on either side assume that people disagree with them because they're too basic to understand things the way they do, they prove themselves unwilling to seriously consider alternative views or challenge their own, which is rarely a positive thing in democratic society.

I apologize for the "stunt" accusation, and if it's not too snarky to say so, for the insult of comparing you to Steve Schimidt. Nevertheless, I think I can say for myself that I don't think that I am automatically smarter at politics than someone with less education. While I was not the poster who made the original comment, I thought it fairly likely she might think similarly.

Thanks - I believe that you aren't elitist based on your comment, but I still cannot see how the comment we discussed can be interpreted any other way.

In response to another PP, there is nothing astounding in Reps or anyone for that matter calling Dems elitist when Dems say they fear the views of the poor uneducated and untraveled may not mirror their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's what I'm afraid of. Unfortunately, the demographics of DC & its near suburbs are not representative of the rest of the country in terms of education, travel, and other life experiences.

This comment defines "elitism"

The irony of Republicans calling Democrats "elitists" is astounding. The Republicans are the ones representing the elite & moneyed interests. I also realize now that you are building & growing your base by keeping them ignorant and undereducated. You can control an ignorant population much more easily than an educated group. Your Republican party continously cuts the budget for education to deprive your ignorant base of basic education found even in the poorest of countries.

There's no irony -- there's considerable arrogance and elitism right here in your own words, not to mention a really rock solid analysis of education policy. Dems have plenty of moneyed elite in their base, and many of them have wisely rejected the public schools as options for their own kids, and yet are unwilling to consider providing vouchers to poorer children so that they might enjoy the same superior education offered by private schools. Plans to pour good money after bad into a failing model without significant reform and the added pressure to perform from outside competition is not making our schools better. Republicans who oppose increased funding of the same old system do so on the grounds that it is broken and not fulfilling its promise of not just a free, but a quality education. Most also support giving poorer children vouchers so that they too might reject failing public schools in favor of better options and a better future. I think we all agree that we want to provide all of our children with a quality education, but seriously disagree about whether the status quo is the best wat to ensure that. You can take issus with the specifics of vouchers, with the need for funding for a specific program, with the merits of each side -- but don't pretend calling one side callous is a good substitute for real analysis and debate.

It's easy to say Republicans do not care about public education, just like Republicans say Democrats do not care about national security, but both are absurd and woefully simple ways to sum up competing approaches to our common problems, and thereby avoid serious discussion of the best solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's easy to say Republicans do not care about public education, just like Republicans say Democrats do not care about national security, but both are absurd and woefully simple ways to sum up competing approaches to our common problems, and thereby avoid serious discussion of the best solution.

I agree wholeheartedly. A Rep & a Dem move we talk seriously about the candidates and their policies and quit attacking and demonizing each other.

[Anonymous]

I too found the women interviewed in that article mind-boggling. The fact that people are holding up her lack of a great educational background as a GOOD thing (as opposed to something that's OK and overcome because of something else) and her "normalcy" as some sort of job qualification for leading this country astounds me. It may make her a great leader of a small, folksy state and a nice person to have next door - it certainly doesn't add to her qualifications for potentially being in charge of the world's largest economy and democracy.