Rick Martinez’s column in the News and Observer concerning elites and government sums up nicely my ideas about politician’s. Politicians tend to come from a long line of public servants and are trained to be public servants, whether in the military, government, or charities. Politicians have had the time and money to spend on learning how to deal with the delicate details of government. The illusion of anyone of the candidates as being “one of us” is wrong. The candidates are elites but that is what makes them able to serve effectively. I don’t believe it is wrong to be an elite. I believe we should judge these elites by how they plan to govern the non-elites they are elected to serve. That is why I vote the way I do. It is not because the person is most like me, it is because the candidate best represents what I want from the government. If Barack Obama better reflected what I think this country needs, I would vote for him. However, I don’t believe his plans would best suit this country. Honestly, I don’t think McCain represents the best of what i desire for the country, but he is closer to my ideal than any.
Vote Nader! He killed the Corvair. Plus, our financial sector is “unsafe at any speed.”
Seriously I don’t know that “elites” is the best word to describe what professional politicians are. For better or for worse, government is an industry right now, and most government positions beyond the very basic local stuff require a lot of time, and with that sort of attention comes specialization. So, I’d chose “specialists” to describe them rather than “elites.”
Now, whether it’s good or bad to have government “specialists” is another matter entirely.
In any case, we need to judge the candidates by their decision-making ability within the scope of the office that they are running for.
Besides, you should vote for Obama. I’m getting the feeling that things might be lining up for him to become the FDR of our generation. I’m hoping not, since I’m not sure the United States as we know it can survive another FDR, but …
I can see what you are saying. Martinez I think means specialists but uses the words the media has given to describe leaders. I’m not sure either of the candidates truly fit what I desire. I may vote libertarian anyway.
If Obama is going to be FDR, I don’t think he has the oratorical abilities FDR had. He is a good speaker but I can’t see an “All we have to fear…” speech coming from him. Right now the candidate that can give that kind of speech will be the one that will be elected. That is what will galvanize voters.
I’m second-guessing my Obama-as-FDR prediction now post-debate. Of course, as somebody I was talking to pointed out, Obama’s skill is delivering prepared speeches, not in a give-and-take exchange, where he’s more likely to trip up. Still, I think he’s got the ability to give a “All we have to fear …” type speech.
Whether he’s an FDR-quality orator or not, he would certainly be the most charismatic president we’ve had in some time.
I’m going to have to find some Reagan speeches and see how he stacks up; I don’t remember enough of Reagan to make a good judgement right now.
But … if he can pull off a FDR-esque speech, he might have the opportunity to demonstrate that he can do so before too long. It all depends on whether the economy does a slow, controlled descent back to sea level or not, I suppose.