Herman Cain's recent inability to demonstrate a command of even the most basic facts and debates around recent events in Libya made Rick Perry's failure to recall which three federal agencies he wanted to abolish during a recent debate seem positively statesmanlike by comparison. Cain, however, is not the first presidential candidate, or occupant of one of the country's highest offices to make the kind of mistake that would embarrass an above average high school student. Vice President Dan Quayle famously advised a young schoolboy to add the letter "e" to the end of the word "potato" during a spelling exercise. Similarly, poor command of the facts and garbled pronunciation were almost a defining characteristic of George W. Bush during his campaign for the presidency.
Cain's demonstrated lack of familiarity with this major foreign policy issue, however, is different from previous cases. Quayle seemed, at least somewhat, embarrassed by his spelling mistake never talking about it much after it happened. In general, Quayle was not pleased with his reputation for being less than brilliant, often acting defensive and upset when it was raised. Bush, for his part, sought to improve his knowledge of foreign policy during his campaign by working closely with foreign policy experts. The extent to which Bush succeeded in this endeavor are not clear, but some effort was made by the then Texas governor.
Bush and Quayle were somewhat aware that being perceived as not very smart would damage their political standing. Today being seen as not very bright is an advantage for many Republican candidates. Herman Cain's bumbling answer on Libya is just the most egregious example, but the Republican candidates for president have all displayed an appallingly poor level of knowledge of major issues. There is almost no substantive discussion of issues, foreign policy discussions have been reduced to various politicians claiming that America should be the most powerful country in the world, America should stop giving out so much foreign assistance, or both.
In the last two decades, inability to discuss issues in any depth has shifted from being a liability to a point of pride among Republican candidates. Cain's discussion of Libya was, on some level, another blow to a sinking campaign, but it also demonstrates that candidates can get relatively far down the political path to the presidency despite knowing little more than a few ideologically driven platitudes about the major issues. It is almost as if the Republican Party has spent so much time attacking every Democrat with a good education as an elitist, that they are now suspect of any sign of intellectual sophistication from their own candidates.
In fairness to the Republican Party, Herman Cain is, like Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and most of the other candidates, not running for the presidency in the sense of having any chance of actually becoming president. Instead, most of these candidates seem to be running to get a show on Fox News, otherwise solidify their role in the media or simply to anger as many on the left as possible. Nonetheless, it is troubling that being smart and having a good understanding of the issues is no longer considered necessary for running even that kind of a campaign.
In the likely case that Romney wins the nomination, the campaign will be between two candidates who can at least speak clearly and have a decent understanding of most issues. Both candidates, particularly Romney, will seek to downplay their formal education, over-simplify the issues and accuse the other of being an elitist, but this will be deliberate for political purposes. However, if Romney slips and does not win the nomination, or if he loses in 2012 and the Republican Party continues to move in this direction, it is easily conceivable that we will have a Republican nominee who embraces this notion of ignorance as a virtue.
The political value of this ignorance on the far right is apparent, but it also is true that having a president who genuinely understands so little about the world, politics, economics or history, cannot be good for America. While brash displays of ignorance may win votes in Republican primaries, it is never helpful for the president of the U.S., in an increasingly global and multi-polar world, to cavalierly mispronounce foreign words, to remain deliberately ignorant of foreign cultures, to fail to see any shades of gray in any policy discussions or to have any ability to propose complex solutions to complex problems.
Those on the far right who fail to recognize this, or who simply deny the extent to which ignorance has permeated the Republican Party at the highest level, are putting some obscure political point about imagined elitism above what is good for the country. The failure of conservative leadership to recognize this and speak out against the triumph of ignorance in the Republican Party and the far right, is further evidence of the extent to which the Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Fernando Espuelas: Newt Gingrich Will Be the GOP Nominee in 2012 - Bet on It
"Crossing The Rubicon" - Michael Ruppert
Republicans are criticized for being elitists if they sound intelligent.
you'll never get raptured during the apokolypse with that kind of talk.....
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Both parties thrive on the ignorance of Americans to fuel an "us versus them" campaign in which nearly all politicians are bought by corporate interest. If you really believe corporatism is contained only within the Republican party you've been purchased by the Democratic Party rhetoric and are merely a tool in the American plutocracy.
dems are different than the GOP... in that we know there is only a 10% difference
between the two and that corporate corruption rules both...
but that 10% difference is very very important.....
There's a HUGE difference! The Democrats at least feign apology and try to give you a pat on the back when they screw you!
But Mitchell doesn't make the case that Republicans are ignorant on the issues. In fact, I'd have to say Democrats show more ignorance of the facts than Republicans. Two cases in point:
Democrats complain about the super committee "cuts" when even if they come up with them, government spending will continue to rise. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/supercommittee-tax-fight-is-about-increasing-spending-not-reducing-deficits/
Secondly, Democrats ignore the facts that often lowering tax rates results in increased tax revenues, and vice versa (raising tax rates often results in lower tax revenues).
Regressives are always bringing up the time, more than 3 years ago, Obama said he'd visitied all 57 states.
Meanwhile, examples of republicans saying and doing stupid isht occure several times a day.
One day, Obama will misspeak again, untill then, there's always 57 states.
For all those born early enough to have regularly watched the like of Mr. Cronkite- none of the current field's campaigns would have gotten past just one of their silly remarks.
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321908409&sr=1-3
Herman Cain keeps saying he’ll surround himself with “smart” people. Who is he pointing out? The Koch brothers to “guide” his policies?
Look it up
"Education of Reagan the GE years"