"We need a leader, not a reader" - Herman Cain defending his gaffe over his lack of knowledge on foreign affairs
What is it about the Republican presidential race that despises intellectualism? This is not to say that the electorate in the Republican primaries are less than intelligent, but rather, what is it that is so appealing to those voters about denouncing science, research, and thoughtful analysis?
This is not a biased claim I am attempting to espouse as fact; merely it is an observation based on recent events in the Republican debates.
When Governor Rick Perry sought to defend his stance on providing tuition subsidies to children of illegal immigrants, he was booed by a large crowd at a debate sponsored by Fox News, despite giving moral and legal reasoning for his actions. Yet when he threatens Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve with claims of Texans treating him 'pretty ugly' if he had ever dared entered the state, he was applauded.
What is so attractive about this rough and tough, baseless rhetoric that draws in so many in the Republican caucuses?
Congressman Ron Paul, who is one of the longest serving and most highly respected Republicans in Congress, is almost ignored entirely by the media. His career as a politician is almost spotless, remaining consistent on his smaller government, less foreign intervention, pro-business standpoint. He has backed up his position over the years with numerous studies and research which he has cited often and articulately. Even though he has the knowledge and capability of being a plausible candidate, he is still polling at extremely low numbers, trailing behind the pack with virtually no media coverage.
Meanwhile Herman Cain, former C.E.O. of Godfather's Pizza, is able to publicly advocate the building of an 'electrified fence' across the border of Mexico and ends up being received with open arms by many devoted Republican voters, despite the repercussions of creating a death fence across the Mexican border that could harm many innocent people and workers.
Herman Cain's release of his envisioned '9-9-9' plan, which would call for a flat tax rate of 9% across the board was widely acclaimed by many of his supporters. Yet when asked about how it would be implemented and what could possibly be the inadvertent causes of imposing a sales tax in addition to a new individual tax on people who are currently paying neither, he couldn't give a straight answer. Still, at the time, he was leading in the polls with wide margins.
Herman Cain's recent embarrassing gaffe on his lack of knowledge on the situation in Libya surely should have eliminated him as a credible candidate. Being Commander in Chief requires extensive knowledge on foreign affairs. As President and Commander of the Armed Forces, he has extensive power over foreign policy, and to have a president who is lacking such crucial knowledge would be counter productive to our stance in world affairs. It would be like putting a child behind the wheel of a car who doesn't even have a permit. And to add to that, the car is competing in the Indy 500.
After the gaffe went viral, his numbers did drop, but still he remains a legitimate candidate. He even came out and said "Who knows every detail of every country on the planet? Nobody!", trying to relate to his voters who have a disdain for the 'intellectual elitists' as they have been coined. To sum it up he said 'We need a leader, not a reader'.
What's the deal with anti-intellectualism? All this rhetoric against professors, the educated, the scientists and what they call the 'main-stream' media, what does that say about the public in this country? What does it say about people who are proud to be misinformed?
In a country where more people vote for American Idol than do in most elections it is easy to see the culture of this country. We as Americans defer our thinking power to those we trust to decide the laws and rules for us just so we don't have to do it ourselves. This is a reoccurring theme in American politics. It is one that has given rise to uninformed and radical candidates such as Michelle Bachmann, meanwhile suppressing possibly legitimate and well informed candidates like Ron Paul.
This is not to say that their opinions are wrong on the issues, but it is to say that this country doesn't really want the facts; it wants a catchy message. It wants something that gets stuck in their heads. The reduction in quality for the sake of quantity in our politics has truly weeded out some of the smartest and potentially successful candidates, and has replaced them with their cheap imitations in the form of pitchmen and jesters.
This is not meant to denounce the entirety of the Republican party, rather it is to give a word of advice. Instead of choosing the candidate that will appeal to the radical fringe of your party, choose the candidate that is appealing to the majority of Americans who are looking for a credible candidate. Someone who will strengthen our image abroad and present realistic policies to solve our economic problems. Until then, they will have to deal with President Obama, who I'm pretty sure nobody in the Republican party is going to vote for this coming election.
This is not a biased claim I am attempting to espouse as fact; merely it is an observation based on recent events in the Republican debates.
When Governor Rick Perry sought to defend his stance on providing tuition subsidies to children of illegal immigrants, he was booed by a large crowd at a debate sponsored by Fox News, despite giving moral and legal reasoning for his actions. Yet when he threatens Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve with claims of Texans treating him 'pretty ugly' if he had ever dared entered the state, he was applauded.
What is so attractive about this rough and tough, baseless rhetoric that draws in so many in the Republican caucuses?
Congressman Ron Paul, who is one of the longest serving and most highly respected Republicans in Congress, is almost ignored entirely by the media. His career as a politician is almost spotless, remaining consistent on his smaller government, less foreign intervention, pro-business standpoint. He has backed up his position over the years with numerous studies and research which he has cited often and articulately. Even though he has the knowledge and capability of being a plausible candidate, he is still polling at extremely low numbers, trailing behind the pack with virtually no media coverage.
Meanwhile Herman Cain, former C.E.O. of Godfather's Pizza, is able to publicly advocate the building of an 'electrified fence' across the border of Mexico and ends up being received with open arms by many devoted Republican voters, despite the repercussions of creating a death fence across the Mexican border that could harm many innocent people and workers.
Herman Cain's release of his envisioned '9-9-9' plan, which would call for a flat tax rate of 9% across the board was widely acclaimed by many of his supporters. Yet when asked about how it would be implemented and what could possibly be the inadvertent causes of imposing a sales tax in addition to a new individual tax on people who are currently paying neither, he couldn't give a straight answer. Still, at the time, he was leading in the polls with wide margins.
Herman Cain's recent embarrassing gaffe on his lack of knowledge on the situation in Libya surely should have eliminated him as a credible candidate. Being Commander in Chief requires extensive knowledge on foreign affairs. As President and Commander of the Armed Forces, he has extensive power over foreign policy, and to have a president who is lacking such crucial knowledge would be counter productive to our stance in world affairs. It would be like putting a child behind the wheel of a car who doesn't even have a permit. And to add to that, the car is competing in the Indy 500.
After the gaffe went viral, his numbers did drop, but still he remains a legitimate candidate. He even came out and said "Who knows every detail of every country on the planet? Nobody!", trying to relate to his voters who have a disdain for the 'intellectual elitists' as they have been coined. To sum it up he said 'We need a leader, not a reader'.
What's the deal with anti-intellectualism? All this rhetoric against professors, the educated, the scientists and what they call the 'main-stream' media, what does that say about the public in this country? What does it say about people who are proud to be misinformed?
In a country where more people vote for American Idol than do in most elections it is easy to see the culture of this country. We as Americans defer our thinking power to those we trust to decide the laws and rules for us just so we don't have to do it ourselves. This is a reoccurring theme in American politics. It is one that has given rise to uninformed and radical candidates such as Michelle Bachmann, meanwhile suppressing possibly legitimate and well informed candidates like Ron Paul.
This is not to say that their opinions are wrong on the issues, but it is to say that this country doesn't really want the facts; it wants a catchy message. It wants something that gets stuck in their heads. The reduction in quality for the sake of quantity in our politics has truly weeded out some of the smartest and potentially successful candidates, and has replaced them with their cheap imitations in the form of pitchmen and jesters.
This is not meant to denounce the entirety of the Republican party, rather it is to give a word of advice. Instead of choosing the candidate that will appeal to the radical fringe of your party, choose the candidate that is appealing to the majority of Americans who are looking for a credible candidate. Someone who will strengthen our image abroad and present realistic policies to solve our economic problems. Until then, they will have to deal with President Obama, who I'm pretty sure nobody in the Republican party is going to vote for this coming election.
No comments:
Post a Comment