what I wanted, and for which I'm grateful with this election, was the return of real intelligence to the White House.
Now, let me be clear, because I don't intend to bias this entry. Barack is likely to be one of our smartest presidents, following in the footsteps of an FDR, a Clinton, even a Nixon (he was dirty, but he was smart, too.) At a minimum, look at his educational background: he took a B.A. from Columbia University in political science with a specialization in international relations. He has a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he also served as president of the Harvard Law Review. He later worked as a lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, which he continued till 2004. During this period he also wrote his first book. In brief, Barack is one hard-working, smart, well-read cookie.
On the other hand, and about this I will not lie, the vice president-elect's educational background leaves much to be desired. Biden was a relatively poor student, albeit a natural leader and serious athlete. Much of Joe's smarts was gotten after a lot of years on the job--which explains why, in the end, I'm glad Obama's my president and not Biden (much as I like him).
McCain, interestingly, did lousy in school, too, known for being a hellraiser, although when he liked a subject, he was a quick study and did well at it. In the end, much as we may not like to admit it, he and Joe Biden are a lot alike.
Sarah Palin moved through a number of schools, never particularly excelling as far as I can tell, ending with a degree in communications. Her goal initially had been television reporting. And, as for the depth of her intelligence, well, go ask Katie Couric (and if Couric doesn't think much of it, then you know Palin got some serious problems).
So what am I trying to get at here? A few things. People who like politics are by nature ultra-competitive and I wouldn't be surprised if a predictor of their success isn't better measured by how they perform on the ball field or (in Palin's case) at the beauty pageant than in the classroom. After all, campaigning is also a physically grueling challenge and not for the faint of body. All four of these folks are competitors in the strongest sense of the term. But only one of them competed hard in the classroom and on the field--and that's Obama. For that, I am grateful.
So on to the meme! The traditional take during the 2004 election was "Who would you rather have a beer with, Bush or Kerry?" The answer to that seemed obvious, much as we may despise the current president.
The problem is, and I hope this election has put the matter to rest for a while: I don't want to pick my presidents based on who I want to have a fuckin' beer with! Just like, in the end, I don't want the most outstanding quality of my boss or local police officer or firefighter or mayor or accountant to be whether I can have a goddamned beer with him or not. Sure, it's a nice add-on, but in the end, I'm not looking to elect someone like myself or with my habits to be the president. I'm looking to elect someone who will be good at the job for which, in the end, I select him. I'm no more interested in drinking a beer with my president than I am in drinking with the local constabulary or my mayor.
What bothers me to no end is how solipsistic the U.S. electorate has become (encouraged by traditional media) to think that the only way to elect its president is to pick someone who is just like ourselves outside of our professional life. I can't run the country, as much as I (and everyone else in the U.S. on tax day) may wish I did, because I don't know how. I don't have the mental equipment, the experience, or the background. I know that, and when we recognize realities of this sort, we call that thinking rationally.
The defeat of McCain and especially Palin and the election of Obama and Biden is an opportunity to destroy a meme that we have been living with too long: we want presidents who are "just like us" in some sense. I don't. I want a president who looks like she knows what she's doing and if that means this individual should be far more accomplished than I am--not merely in past offices held but in the depth of his knowledge, in the quality of her education, in the breadth of his or her nonpolitical experience--then let me have the wisdom to recognize how much better for me and my country that is.
The meme, as it emerged this year, was "Joe" and "Jane Six-Pack." This was Palin's pitch. But I don't want any Mr. or Ms. Six-Pack running the country. I mean, are you kidding me? Do people really believe in this meme? Frankly, it's one we have to put a stake through forever.
Now we can argue about whether a lack of experience with a wide array of folk--middle class, working class, and poor; black, white, Asian, Latino, biracial; disabled and elderly, etc.--should have a bearing on who we elect. For there is a lot to be said about how wise it it to pick someone who really never lived alongside or dealt with this wide array (as in the case of, well, John McCain). But even having that experience is not the same as equating the president with being my buddy. At the same time, being really smart--something I do welcome to the presidency once again--is in itself not a sole qualification. An all prep-school, straight-A upbringing, is to me still a deficiency--not in character, but in experience! And again it still has nothing to do with whether we would have been best buddies.
No, I don't want to have a beer with my president. I want my president to be smart and accomplished, to know how many of us live, and to get to work and demonstrate to me how good he is at his job. When he's done serving, then we can have that beer.