Sep 08, 2008 09:50
Apparently a lot of people want somebody like them in the White House. We saw it with Bush and we're seeing it even more so with Palin. I'm not talking about questions of experience or judgment. If you really think Palin's qualified enough, fine; it's difficult to argue that she's less experienced than Obama. If you agree with her stances on the issues, and you've got no problem with book banning and cronyism and state secessionist movements, fine, vote for her ticket. But issues and experience and judgment seem essentially irrelevant to some voters. They just want somebody who's like them in some superficial way--someone who has a uterus, or who likes to hunt, or who has been known to wear shirts saying "I may be broke, but at least I'm not flat busted"--and that's basically the only criterion they're using to make their pick.
What if we had chosen Olympians this way? Instead of going with trials of skill, what if we'd just dispatched People Like Us as our representatives to Beijing? Instead of those saucy young things on the women's volleyball team--you know, those arrogant little twigs flaunting their elite bodies in bikinis and inviting Bush to smack their asses--what if we'd given a bunch of forty-something soccer moms a chance to show up in their sensible swimwear and represent real women? What if we'd said, "Well, Michael Phelps is an inhuman swimming machine who may turn out to be one of the best athletes in Olympics history, but it's going to his head a little bit. What about that nice Thompson kid down the block--you know, the skinny asthmatic who's prone to ear infections? He's got a lot of heart."
Obviously, no one would ever dream of letting anyone near the Olympics if they weren't the absolute best our country has to offer for that particular event. Yet the leadership of the free world is far, far, far more important than being an Olympian. So why do we take it less seriously?