I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
One of my daily political blog reads is Ace of Spades. I find myself agreeing with Ace much of the time. However, a couple of days ago, I ran across a post that Ace did about Sarah Palin and her supposed lack of ‘gravitas’ on things more intellectual.
This passage in particular bothered me:
A lot of Palin’s supporters blow this off and essentially offer an anti-intellect defense: Well that stuff doesn’t matter anyway.
Well, for some of us it does. And if Palin could put these questions to rest, but doesn’t, she’s alienating a lot of potential supporters. Some of us can’t just tell ourselves, “I don’t care about what’s in her head, I care about what’s in her heart” or some pablum like that.
So you tell me if it matters. I think it does. 90% of the Palin critics, skeptics, and now outright opponents find little fault with her policy portfolio, or her bio, or her cultural background, or her charisma. (Obviously on the latter.)
For 90% of us it’s this one thing.
So you tell me it doesn’t matter.
I don’t have to tell you it doesn’t matter, history will tell you that what matters. Looking at history, what matters most is core beliefs, principles and adherence to the ideals of limited government.
Take a look at Woodrow Wilson. In the late 1800′s they didn’t grant Ph.D’s like they do today. So, the fact that Woodrow Wilson earned a Ph.D. in history and political science in 1886, is quite an academic accomplishment. No one would doubt his intellect.
What did Wilson accomplish with his superior intellect during time in office? He created the League of Nations (the forerunner to the UN), the Federal Reserve and got us involved in WWI. He also backed a slew of legislation that put new controls on big business and supported unions. The repercussions of Woodrow Wilson’s superior intellect are still being felt today (and not in a good way).
Would any conservative vote for Woodrow Wilson today? He certainly had a lot going on in his head.
Looking at the other side of the coin, would conservatives support someone like Calvin Coolidge who had a solid conservative ideology:
Coolidge’s nickname was “Silent Cal.” He was known for his silence. He believed that the government should have as small a role as possible in the country. He believed that the country’s well-being was best preserved by allowing business to create wealth. His most famous remark was in a speech that he made in 1925 in which he stated: “The business of America is business.”
Wilson had Ph.D. from Princeton University and Coolidge graduated from Amherst College. I think its safe to say, Wilson was ‘smarter’ (in a strictly academic sense) than Calvin Coolidge. However, like most conservatives I would vote for Coolidge every time.
Looking at recent history, Ronald Reagan, who graduated from Eureka College, endured continuous mocking as not being too bright. However, he possessed a strong , conservative world view and ended up a fantastic President.
History demonstrates that it is more important that a President have a conservative world view rather than being perceived as an intellectual (i.e the what is in their heart pabulum Ace spoke of).
Since Reagan left office, we have been subjected to an unbroken string of Ivy League elites setting the tone for our nation. Look at this list: George H.W. Bush (Yale), the skirt chasing Bill Clinton (Georgetown, Oxford – Rhodes Scholar and Yale), George W. Bush (Yale and Harvard Business – MBA) and Obama (Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard Law School), all Ivy League intellects. With all this supposed intelligence and education at the top, is our nation better off? Do we have less government encroaching in our daily lives and work? Is our economy stronger?
The skirt chasing Rhodes Scholar gave us the housing bubble that helped crash our economy.
George Washington had a surveyor’s certificate from William & Mary College.*
*I know this is not the perfect example, since we know from Washington’s writings he was very intelligent. However, he is remembered and revered because of what was in his heart.
Pompous elites! If you don’t have the proper academic pedigree you’re somehow less of a person. That means 90 percent of us in America are academically challenged and can’t think for ourselves. This is why they feel like we need to be guided and taken care of because we’re just to dumb to take care of ourselves. I have had enough of these people and their institutions.
It really bothers me that some conservatives are getting sucked into the idea that the most important thing for politicians is being ‘intellectually superior.’ They are acting as if we are hiring a heart surgeon rather than electing someone who represents us and our values in Washington or our state capitol.
There’s a proverb “He’s so smart, he’s stupid”. I think we’re seeing a lot of that in D.C. these days.
Agreed. All these supposed ‘best and brightest’ are sending our country down the drain. Rather than best and brightest, we need people with core (conservative) principles.
Credentialism, whereas people believe credentials are valuable in and of themselves. As you’ve noted, however, Woodrow Wilson provides a perfect example tat credentials and intellect are not only meaningless, but can be dangerously evil if not grounded in proper moral and philosophical belief systems.
These ideas, of course, came to the conservative movement when the neocons started infusing their ideology into the movement. Much like the progressives, neoconservative ideology also believes in rule by the “elites.” This is how the right started demanding “leaders” with “executive experience.”
Because these are the common refrains across the media and out of politicians mouths, nobody stops to think about what they’re saying. Next thing you know, they’re advocating what they hated just 10 years ago (in the name of pragmatism or something).
But think about it … collectives have “leaders,” not freemen. Furthermore, a candidate with “executive experience” is someone who’s good at doing all the things we don’t want the government to do. The things we’re “supposed” to look for in a candidate, are the very things that bring about the type of government we fear.
‘Nuff said.