During class last week, the word "elite" was mentioned, and (if I recall correctly), Matt said he didn't quite like the word. It reminded me of this segment on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart about the candidates being "elitists":
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074
Just some disclaimers: if you haven't seen The Daily Show, I'll describe it a bit. It's a current events program on Comedy Central that could be classified as "infotainment". They're often quite harsh on the candidates and use colorful language, but this clip is as broadcast so anything that wouldn't have been allowed on cable (the "f word" and the like) has been bleeped out, but there are still some other words that some people might find offensive included.
The clip is about 9 minutes long, but the part I'm specifically commenting on starts at 7:07. Here's a summary of what Jon Stewart says (minus the saucy words) if you're hesitant to watch:
In April, Barack Obama went to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco and made the comment that, in some Midwestern towns, the residents had become bitter, and that "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." The news media talked about it at length (the clips of this are shown in a montage on The Daily Show in this segment) and call Obama an "elitist" for saying such a thing.
Jon Stewart then replies, "Doesn't 'elite' mean ”good?” Is that not something we're looking for in a President anymore? You know what candidates?... I know 'elite' is a bad word in politics, and you want to go bowling and throw back a few beers, but the job you're applying for? If you get it and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain! If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what [censored] are you doing?" He goes on to say that he wants someone "embarassingly superior" to him to become President, someone who "speaks 16 languages", for example.
I had to agree that it seems like we have a strange dichotomy in place- we seem to elect Presidents who we could hang out with; that feel approachable and nice, but we "hire" them to what could be one of the most important jobs in the world. Should we focus so much on a candidates likability, or should we only look at their resume when deciding? Would you be willing to vote for someone who is stodgy and dull but has extraordinary skills?
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074
Just some disclaimers: if you haven't seen The Daily Show, I'll describe it a bit. It's a current events program on Comedy Central that could be classified as "infotainment". They're often quite harsh on the candidates and use colorful language, but this clip is as broadcast so anything that wouldn't have been allowed on cable (the "f word" and the like) has been bleeped out, but there are still some other words that some people might find offensive included.
The clip is about 9 minutes long, but the part I'm specifically commenting on starts at 7:07. Here's a summary of what Jon Stewart says (minus the saucy words) if you're hesitant to watch:
In April, Barack Obama went to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco and made the comment that, in some Midwestern towns, the residents had become bitter, and that "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." The news media talked about it at length (the clips of this are shown in a montage on The Daily Show in this segment) and call Obama an "elitist" for saying such a thing.
Jon Stewart then replies, "Doesn't 'elite' mean ”good?” Is that not something we're looking for in a President anymore? You know what candidates?... I know 'elite' is a bad word in politics, and you want to go bowling and throw back a few beers, but the job you're applying for? If you get it and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain! If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what [censored] are you doing?" He goes on to say that he wants someone "embarassingly superior" to him to become President, someone who "speaks 16 languages", for example.
I had to agree that it seems like we have a strange dichotomy in place- we seem to elect Presidents who we could hang out with; that feel approachable and nice, but we "hire" them to what could be one of the most important jobs in the world. Should we focus so much on a candidates likability, or should we only look at their resume when deciding? Would you be willing to vote for someone who is stodgy and dull but has extraordinary skills?
2 comments:
Amanda,
You say we should examine resumes rather than hire someone based on like-ability. I completely agree. However, if you are suggesting Obama has a perfect resume to be president, what kinds of skills, experiences, etc. do you look for in a president?
Well, I'm guilty of buying into the "likeability quotient" a bit with Obama to be sure! I don't think he's perfect by any means, but I do think that his work with registering and empowering people to vote in Chicago was moving and his way of listening to people (even those he disagrees with) and then trying to work out a solution would be a welcome change in government.
I'm definitely not a starry-eyed "Obamite" (or whatever the word of the day is to describe the people who think he's a rock star)- I realize that he won't be able to deliver on all the things he promises. I do think, though, that his message that this is our government as well is a good one. He admits that for his presidency to work, we all need to get involved, and I like that. I also like seeing so many people energized to vote in this election, though that can't be credited only to Senator Obama- I think that has to do with the last 8 years and having some "out of the mold" candidates in the race.
Post a Comment