Candidate educations

[FeatsofClay]

By now it is common knowledge that McCain graduated 894th of 899 students at the Naval Academy and had 100 or more demerits a year.

Now, it comes out Palin switched colleges 6 times and took 6 years to get a 4 year Journalism degree.

Obama started at Occidental College, transferred to Columbia and then, after graduating, went to Harvard Law, where he was chosen as Editor of te Harvard Law Review.

Biden graduated from Archmere Academy in Claymont, Delaware and, in
1965, from the University of Delaware in Newark where he
double-majored in history and political science. He went on to
receive his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968.

Since 1991, Biden has also served as an adjunct
professor at the Widener University School of Law. He teaches a seminar
on constitutional law.


Now, I have been through 3 colleges in adulthood myself and have no degree. So I am not one to point educational fingers BUT I am also not being considered for the most powerful position on earth.

Why is it we don't hear more about the two excelling geniuses vs the barely got by Republicans? Fear of elitism? I want an elite leader!

[Ink Bleeder]

Yeah, I don't know when getting Cs at Yale (like Bush) became something to be proud of.

Of course, I've been driving myself nuts lately trying to figure out where along the line the party of rich, white men convinced the public that they better represented the poor and minorities than the Democrats. When I was a kid, it was the other way around. Exactly when did the Democratic party become "Elite?"

[Trainz]

Why is it we don't hear more about the two excelling geniuses vs the barely got by Republicans? Fear of elitism? I want an elite leader!

As I stated before, your average person is STUPID, and could possibly be intimidated by someone with an edumacashiun. Maybe the dems realize this, and don't want to drive moronic (but necessary) voters away.

Frankly, who in their right mind would want to rule a country, when you have to deal with moronic constituents...

[Dr_Avalanche]

Isn't this being pushed by the republicans as a point *against* Obama and Biden? If there is one thing suspicious in the world of the republican party it's intelligence and education.

[AZRogue]

Why is it we don't hear more about the two excelling geniuses vs the barely got by Republicans? Fear of elitism? I want an elite leader!

We might still hear more about it, but I don't think it will be made into as big a point as you would hope, or as it could be. It's too likely that next time around the candidates, for whichever office, will be standing on opposite sides of that issue and the whole thing would be thrown back into their face. That, and probably some ridiculous fear that the average American won't appreciate someone with a higher education "talking down" to them. Misplaced fear, IMO, but politicians tend to follow polls more than common sense.

[Name Lips]

The voters on the right aren't against intelligence, they're against education. They see academia as an institution that blinds people to reality - the whole Ivory Tower thing. If you're an academic, you are by definition more theoretical than practical, and cannot possibly understand the trials and tribulations of "real, everyday people."

They don't trust academics. They're a different class - or caste - of people.

[FeatsofClay]

We might still hear more about it, but I don't think it will be made into as big a point as you would hope, or as it could be..

Please. don't think I have a 'hope' of anything. :)

Much in the spirit of your "Honesty" thread I am eriously wondering why this is not an issue or a liability. I have been auditting classes, full time enrolled or teaching college for over a quarter of my life now. I have met the academic dweebs who for the basis of the stereotype. But I have also met the other side. :)

And, honestly again, it seems a great question to suit McCain. I can see the late Tim Russert asking "You graduated 894th out of 899 (graphic comes on screen) at the Naval Academy. Tell me how a man can graduate that close to the bottom and still be a good candidate." I think McCain could hit it out of the park.

I have mentioned his class rnaking in 4 conversation/debates in the past week and been called a liar every time. When I returned with a website, printout and sound bites I was told that was media bias and nothing would be accepted except his actual transcripts as proof. :rolleyes:

I have become fascinated by the political process and do wish to understand it more. I also believe I can discuss it without rancor or malice. (I am not saying, in any way, anyone in this thread has shown any) I am gonna start going with [honest] in thread titles for things that aren't the Palin interview type thread. :)

[AZRogue]

I wouldn't worry about the posting, amigo. :) I don't think KT is too "hostile" to post at or I wouldn't visit it. Hell, I remember a lot worse going down (by several orders of magnitude) on some hella fun threads back on NKL. The honesty thread was more, I suppose, to voice my desire to avoid an initial dog pile if I started posting more serious political viewpoints that I might hold ... long enough to talk about them, I mean.

Back to the topic, though.

I think the education of the candidates should be brought up more. Personally, I think it's important, though I hold it up there alongside track record, ideals, integrity, and political viewpoints (will the candidate be fighting for the things I want him to fight for? CAN he fight for them? Will he screw me over more, or less, than his opponent?).

If it doesn't get talked about more maybe it is because it's a potentially touchy subject for so many different people. If you score points with the "college" crowd, do you lose them with the large group of Americans who didn't excel academically and think they're fine? Do you want to risk looking like a snob to some when you could, just as easily, leave your achievements available to be researched by those interested?

I don't know. Maybe it violates some political rulebook that they don't sell at Barnes & Noble for the rest of us to read.

[Name Lips]

People will relate how a candidate did in school relative to what they thought of similarly scoring people they actually knew. People like candidates who do similarly to themselves. People in the top 10 might look at people in the bottom 10 as lazy and worthless, while people in the bottom 10 might look at the top ten and see nerds and overacheivers with no life. They're probably both wrong. But what are they going to think when then see political candidates who are aligned with the achievement group they didn't like?

[AZRogue]

People will relate how a candidate did in school relative to what they thought of similarly scoring people they actually knew. People like candidates who do similarly to themselves. People in the top 10 might look at people in the bottom 10 as lazy and worthless, while people in the bottom 10 might look at the top ten and see nerds and overacheivers with no life. They're probably both wrong. But what are they going to think when then see political candidates who are aligned with the achievement group they didn't like?

You said that much better than I did. Thanks. :)

[FeatsofClay]

Without offense to NL, this guy says it even better-

Anti-Intellectualism Is Destroying America
Written by Jack Carlson on 25 August 2008 – 7:36 pm


From Alternet.org:

“It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.” Barack Obama finally said it.

Though a successful political and electoral strategy, the Right’s stand against intelligence has steered them far off course, leaving them — and us — unable to deal successfully with the complex and dynamic circumstances we face as a nation and a society.

American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy, and their parents are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution; roughly 30 to 40 percent believe in each. Their president believes “the jury is still out” on evolution.

Steve Colbert interviewed Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland on “The Colbert Report.” Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, when asked, couldn’t actually list the commandments.

This stuff would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

In the 2004 election, nearly 70 percent of Bush supporters believed the United States had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda; a third believed weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and more than a third that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion, according to the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The political right and allied culture warriors actively ignore evidence and encourage misinformation. To motivate their followers, they label intelligent and informed as “elite,” implying that ignorance is somehow both valuable and under attack.

and from Way of the Mind:

In my opinion, anti-intellectualism is one of the world’s most serious problems, these days.

What is it? It’s the belief that what is good are the “simple people”, the “common people”, who are supposedly more honest and “real” than so-called “ivory tower” intellectuals.

It’s also the belief that thinking and learning are trouble, that they lead people to unhappiness, sinfulness, asking too many questions, and such.

It’s geeks, or more intelligent students, being called “brainy” or “nerds” and harassed by classmates. It’s science being seen as a waste of time and money. It’s a political candidate winning an election because he successfully depicted his opponent as an “egghead”. Incidentally, it’s likely that one of the reasons America currently has one of its worst presidents ever is that, by being less educated and articulate than Gore or Kerry, he appeared “more in touch” with the common man (of course, one should then wonder if you really want the village idiot in charge of the most powerful nation in the world… but I digress.)

There are several sources of anti-intellectualism. Religion is an obvious one, of course, since being intelligent and learning makes one less likely to accept arguments from authority, and to question unproven assertions. An intelligent, learned man has no need for religion - therefore, we don’t want any intelligent, learned men (to paraphrase The Fountainhead’s Elllsworth Toohey).

Besides “normal” religion, there’s also the usual mystical, new age thinking, according to which the mind is “flawed” and imperfect, incapable of perceiving any real “revelations”, which you supposedly can only grasp with “your heart” or “your spirit”. The mind is human, and therefore imperfect, while the heart/spirit are filled with “the cosmos’s love” or any other generic, meaningless terms.

Another reason is populism, the belief that the honest, hard working “masses” are oppressed by the corrupt, privileged “elites”. While they certainly are, sometimes (in dictatorships, for instance), populism is wrong because of its belief of “the lower, the better”, and its worship of ordinariness. Populism, like most forms of collectivism, punishes people for ability and for success - therefore, it promotes mediocrity and sameness. And a populist certainly hates and feels threatened by anyone with more “brains” or education.

Dictatorships (communism, fascism, etc.) always strongly promote anti-intellectualism, for mostly the same reasons as religion does: an intelligent, educated person is much more likely to question, and to see “what’s rotten”. The “unwashed masses” are much easier to keep in line. Higher education is seen as “dangerous” and “subversive”.

An intellectual isn’t necessarily someone more intelligent or with more knowledge than the norm. It just means that the person highly values the mind, thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. And it’s frightening, to me, how few intellectuals (by that definition) I personally know. Anti-intellectuals (people who deride the mind, who pride themselves on not thinking, on not using their reason), on the other hand, are everywhere.

During this presidential campaign we’ve heard the terms “elite” and “elitist” used as pejorative terms. I agree with Bill Maher when he said,

Say it loud: I’m elite and proud! The right-wing crusade to demonize elites has paid off. Now the country’s run by incompetents who make mediocrity a job requirement and recruit from Pat Robertson’s law school. New rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word liberal, they also have to take back the word “elite.” By now you’ve heard the constant right-wing attacks on the “elite,” or as it’s otherwise known, “hating.” They’ve had it up to their red necks with the “elite media.” The “liberal elite.” Who may or may not be part of the “Washington elite.” A subset of the “East Coast elite.” Which is influenced by “the Hollywood elite.” So basically, unless you’re a shitkicker from Kansas, you’re with the terrorists.

I don’t get it: In other fields — outside of government — elite is a good thing, like an elite fighting force. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer. If I need brain surgery, I’d like an elite doctor. But in politics, elite is bad (Source)

It’s not just politics, though. As the influence of fundamental religion grows worldwide, it is becoming perceived as honorable, honest, down-to-Earth to be ignorant and bad-mouth intellectualism. A 16 year old kid makes the news dropping out of high school to play Guitar Hero. Education and the desire to know are no longer priorities.


http://frethink.com/?p=80

[Pigs in Space]

I think it's more interesting that you guys are surprised that republicans are stupid.