A mad love of mediocrity
Sam Harris is not entirely impressed by Sarah Palin, or by the fact of her candidacy.
However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride…and, above all, upon the “liberal elites” with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.
This is what always infuriates me. Whence comes this conviction that ignorance is a terrific quality for a president to have? Nobody wants a plumber who can’t find the sink, or a pilot who never learned to fly, or a doctor with a fake diploma, or an amateur engineer. Why is the presidency considered a job for ignorant and dim-witted people? I get that ‘likability’ is a huge factor, but I don’t get why people don’t insist that it at least be paired with above-average brains and education.
The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington…The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation…The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin’s lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. “They think they’re better than you!” is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. “Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!” Yes, all too ordinary. We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter’s microphone, saying things like, “I’m voting for Sarah because she’s a mom. She knows what it’s like to be a mom.”
Several women in the US know what it’s like to be a ‘mom’; that by itself is not a reason to elect any one of them to the presidency. Yet apparently people think it is. Is it too late to return to aristocratic government?
In Spanish “ordinario” is an insult, and to say that someone is a “persona ordinaria” means approximately that he or she is vulgar, without class (in all the senses of the word). There was an excellent movie directed by Robert Redford about 25 years ago, Ordinary People, which they had to translate into Spanish as “Gente Como Uno”, that is, “People like one of us”. Sarah Palin is ordinary and ordinaria, in the Spanish sense.
There was an interesting discussion of the word (I think the word was ‘ordinary’) on ‘The West Wing’ once, quite early in its run. Josh (I think) said surely it was condescending to refer to people as ordinary and CJ said that surveys have found that people like being referred to as ordinary: ‘they find it comforting.’
I’ve always found that slightly depressing. Why not aspire?
Well – that sums up why I like Obama and loathe both Bush and Palin.
Average people don’t like being contradicted by people that are smarter than them. They’d rather force them to shut up by whatever means necessary. It takes an above-average intelligence to recognise and appreciate intelligence greater than ones own.
Note that the title of the article is “When Atheists Attack,” as if the author’s atheism had anything to do with the content of the article. Plenty of nonfundy Christians I know agree with his arguments here: they are just as concerned about her nonsensical apocalyptic fundamentalist beliefs and her lack of intellectual curiosity. Would that the “elite liberal media” brought up these points themselves rather than rely on an atheist they must label as such. But then, in Sarah Palin we see the intellectual abilities of someone with a journalism degree. Oh, but now I’m being an elitist, aren’t I?
All good points, but perhaps if someone has made Governor of a State, they are not quite as ‘ordinary’ as they are being presented.
The beauty of it is in the semiotics: The ‘audacity of hope’ that a person of a demographic group which has suffered discrimination, with charisma and minimum qualifications but little experience, could make it to the highest office. The symbolism reaches out and says “You don’t HAVE to vote for Obama just to stop racism.” Even if Palin is way underqualified, that message has hit to the heart of many.
And the rhetorical call for aristocratic government… does it seem that this is how the ‘cosmopolitans’ see themselves anyway, by comparison to trailer trash flyover people bitterly clinging to guns and religion, those ‘parochials’, ‘bedrock-Americans’, or ‘the working class’?
ChrisPer: Palin is intellectually ordinary. She obviously has extraordinary charisma and force of personality, but so did Hitler.
I don’t think you’ll find many, if any, genuine intellectuals who share her opinions on creationism, climate change, gay people, abortion and attitude toward foreign policy. The article makes the point that the public accepts expertise in every field except for thinking. Palin and her supporters exemplify this worrying social trend.
And I think OB was probably being tongue in cheek about aristocratic government. Although, I am starting to wonder myself if democracy is about to lead us into the next dark ages or maybe even all-out nuclear war . . . maybe I’m being melodramatic but if there ever was a candidate for the Antichrist then Palin is it.
I don’t get you, Rose. Are you seriously suggesting that Democracy will be the driving force that leads to the next Dark Ages? Really?
Anti-christ? NO SUCH THING!
If democracy leads to giving power to elected officials who believe in repealing the Enlightenment, as Palin and her ilk appear to, why would it not lead to a new Dark Ages? Just because you vote for someone, doesn’t stop them being an obscurantist.
Rose:”She obviously has extraordinary charisma and force of personality, but so did Hitler.” “maybe I’m being melodramatic but if there ever was a candidate for the Antichrist then Palin is it.”
Well, those are reasonable – for describing such an ‘ordinary’ person. You must be very capable, to believe both of those ideas at once.
On the other hand, the idea of having the single most left-voting Senator, lefter than any recent Democrat, as President, already with a huge America-wide and even world-wide personality cult doesn’t lead you to draw comparisons with Beria and Pol Pot? And note that you describe his opponent as the anti-christ, which makes him… what?
This Palin hysteria is so overwrought.
Palin = Antichrist comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. Of course there is no such thing as the antichrist. I was referencing the Sam Harris article that this post is about. Sorry, I thought it was obvious, particularly seeing as I had just suggested that OB was being tongue in cheek about a “return to aristocratic government.”
DFG, no I’m not seriously suggesting democracy is single-handedly leading us into the next dark ages. That would be rather stupid. But when you have some of the socio-political and cultural forces at play that we currently do, combined with a sort-of democracy, it seems conceivable we could find ourselves in a dystopian society not unlike the one in Margaret Atwood’s “A Handmaid’s Tale”.
There’s no guarantee things will get better instead of worse over time. We shouldn’t become complacent and take our hard-won rights and opportunities for granted. I don’t think it’s hysteria to be worried about Palin. I think it’s sensible.
ChrisPer: You missed my first point entirely. Palin is ordinary in terms of her intellectual capacity. She rejoices in her intellectual ordinariness and people love her for it because it makes them feel validated instead of challenged. I think that was the point of Sam Harris’ article (if you haven’t read it, do).
She is, however, extraordinarily charismatic. Charisma is not intellect. I suppose it might be a sort of emotional intelligence, but that is different to what is usually meant by the term intellect.
Why are you finding it so hard to conceive of a person being ordinary in some areas and extraordinary in others? Surely you could think of lots of examples of people who are ordinary in some capacities but extraordinary in others?
“perhaps if someone has made Governor of a State, they are not quite as ‘ordinary’ as they are being presented.”
One, it’s the campaign and the fans who cheer her ‘ordinariness.’ Two, that of course does not follow. If it is ‘ordinariness’ that gets people elected, then being elected governor of a state (capital letters not necessary) doesn’t equate to being remarkable.
“The ‘audacity of hope’ that a person of a demographic group which has suffered discrimination, with charisma and minimum qualifications but little experience, could make it to the highest office.”
What is that bullshit? Are we supposed to think that applies to both Obama and Palin? What demographic group does Palin belong to that has ‘suffered discrimination’? White Christians? Give me a break. And what do you mean minimum qualifications? Do you seriously consider Obama’s qualifications minimal? And comparable to Palin’s?
Why do you think the reaction to Palin is ‘overwrought hysteria’? She could very easily become president, despite her total lack of qualification for the job and her dangerous religious beliefs. Why should we be expected to smile contentedly at such a prospect?
Yeah, I didn’t even bother with that part. ChrisPer at his worst. Obama is really quite conservative. His gesture at health care ‘reform’ is wretchedly conservative, and there’s nothing noticeably ‘left’ about his fiscal policies, much less about his advisors.
[W]hen you have some of the socio-political and cultural forces at play that we currently do, combined with a sort-of democracy, it seems conceivable we could find ourselves in a dystopian society not unlike the one in Margaret Atwood’s “A Handmaid’s Tale.”
You’re right to be concerned, for reasons well beyond recent American politics, culture, or Obama vs. Palin in particular. From The Fourth R: Or Why Johnny Can’t Reason:
Those are the same people, generally speaking, who think that their lucky numbers are “due” to come up in the lottery, for example, and who will never understand even the basics of evolution. (There, the “genetic lottery” is based on permutations and combinations of chromosomes/genes; and species = classes.) They can, however, understand creationism, i.e., a concrete (if invisible) Big-Person God who creates concrete objects (e.g., Adam out of clay). So, they vote for what they can understand, giving us school boards and elected politicians who favor teaching creationism in the classroom.
That lack of understanding again comes not from a simple lack of information on which to make informed decisions, but rather from their low (i.e., concrete-thought, or even just sensorimotor) stages of cognitive development: They literally can’t understand anything higher. Yet even in Western democracies, and even while the most advanced children begin to understand the same ideas at age ten, such uncomprehending populi form a two-thirds majority.
Incidentally, a lessening of prejudice has been linked to the same higher cognitive development; see Higher Education and Reducing Prejudice: Research on Cognitive Capabilities Underlying Tolerance.
It’s probably too late to incorporate those relatively recent insights into government and voting here on Earth. Maybe when we colonize the moon…. Either way, when two-thirds of the voters inherently can’t even understand the issues they’re voting on, a high-IQ oligarchy starts to look quite sensible by comparison.
“Of course, ze vimmin vould have to be chosen for zer … breeding potential, ja?” ;)
interview with Bernie Sanders on Obama’s liberalism.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/356425
Sanders supports Obama, but does not consider him to be especially liberal.
Well, I am certainly relying on RWDB blog gossip when I call Obama the most lefty senator. I think they make a critical point when they say his RECORD is far to the left of his campaign policies.
I found their information on his voting fairly pertinent, especially the odd habit of voting ‘present’. The divisive grievance rhetoric from his church, the unrepentant terrorist connection Ayers, his rather excessive personality cult, all bother me. I have been in the blowup of a personality-led group and IMHO its always worth stepping back from a new demagogue.
In contrast, many Repugs were unmotivated to support McCain until the nomination of Palin, as the RW rhetoric on him is that he is basically a Democrat anyway. (RINO is the jargon I believe).
And yes thanks Rose I understood you were being tongue in cheek with the antichrist comment. Only nutbags can talk like that seriously, and I assume better of you!
Clem: Thanks, very insightful. You’ve made some things very clear. I’m constantly staggered by lack of reasoning ability of people I meet. Why isn’t reasoning explicitly taught in schools? It bloody well should be, as a matter of urgency!
Richard, it wasn’t a direct comparison to Hitler. Pay attention. I was merely stating that Hitler was extraordinarily charismatic and had a forceful personality in order to insinuate that these qualities do not necessarily indicate whether someone should lead a country. Obviously these qualities help increase the popularity of those who possess them though.
Rose:”Average people don’t like being contradicted by people that are smarter than them. They’d rather force them to shut up by whatever means necessary. It takes an above-average intelligence to recognise and appreciate intelligence greater than ones own.”
Such condescending ideas. I remember similar speculation against Salieri re whether he was doing secret evil against Mozart out of envy. As I understand it though, he probably was both admiring and envious, and supportive. In fact most ‘ordinary’ people are happy to give place to the subject experts, unless said experts visibly pursue an agenda against said ordinary people. One such agenda is the contemptuous putdown – it leaves them bitter, clinging to what they DO know and not on board with the exalted one’s program.
Condescending ideas is it – and yet here you are, in Australia, correcting me on US politics. G has pointed this little foible of yours out before, more than once I think, and yet you keep at it. I call that pretty condescending.
Your smug generalization about what most ordinary people are happy to do doesn’t happen to apply to the US. You’re just wrong, but you don’t hesitate to set the rest of us straight, even though we live here and you don’t. Exalted one yourself.
Oh, my. Piqued, repiqued and capotted.
So by Rose’s assertion, the ‘ordinary people’ of the United States were shouting SHUT UP, SHUT UP at Obama (clearly he is brighter than most) before Palin was announced? Seems to me (from over here behind the cowshed) that the opposite is true. They either let him speak, or celebrated his achievements mightily.
The shrieking, wild accusations and demands to shut up are audible worldwide, I assure you. The fact that lots now come from the Republican camp, appears to be because the fever swamp Obama supporters have given an astonishing array of ammunition to the McCain supporters.
And ‘Comment here’ is an invitation to join your conversation, which I accept, and accept correction in the course of it too.
Sure, it is an invitation, and I’m glad you accept; you just lean a little heavily on the scorn pedal sometimes. Of course, so do I, but, you know, they’re my tin soldiers kind of thing.
There was a lot of bullshit about how ‘elitist’ Obama was supposed to be long before Palin tumbled out of the surprise package. Some of it came from Hillary Clinton, disgustingly enough. As Aaron Sorkin has Jed Bartlet put it to Obama, ‘You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist?’ Or a woman raised by prosperous middle class Republicans and legacied into the Senate and then a presidential campaign, either.
Apologies for the heaviness. I get slapped for it, very properly, at home too.
I think the problem (which goes wider than the US) is a rabidly anti-intellectual popular culture.
I recall noticing, in one of those books on how to write popular fiction, advice that main characters should be “smart” (in the US sense of clever), but not intellectual, because mass-market readers don’t like to feel inferior. Yet they don’t feel this way about reading about characters better-looking/richer, & c?
Anti-intellectualism is an under-appreciated problem. It starts in the home, and can lead to bullying and a peer-group climate that nurtures under-achievement in schools. And on a political level, it is deeply destructive.