Since when did being well-read and intellectually sophisticated become an anathema?

I watched the debate last night and was more or less pleased with all parties. Gwen was her usually sharp and focused self. Biden kept himself reigned in and exuded the deep knowledge and competence he is known for (and avoided any significant gaffes, that he is also known for). Palin spoke in more or less diagram-able sentences and certainly nailed her talking points, to her credit (and ignoring the much lower bar that was apparently set for her...). It was interesting and I do not feel like I *completely* wasted 2 hours of my life. That said, it further irritated an increasingly sensitive issue for me...

I am *really* tired of "faux-folksy" and the snide condescension being directed at the well-read and...you know..."smart folk". I know the practice(s) has waxed and waned for a long time, but in recent years, it has been rolled out as a major mantra for a small segment of society...to the profound detriment of the whole. The most recent wave was triggered by the "ya'll just don't understand" anti-intellectualism of our Yale College and Harvard Business School educated president. He has spoken with pride of his "C" average at Yale (a genuine feat, as mediocrity must be strived for at the Ivies), of his self-professed dis-inclination to read and has spoken, repeatedly, with contempt for those "ivory tower intellectuals" (cf. Yale, HBS above). He seems to take pleasure in his inability to pronounce certain words and/or speak in complete sentences.

Last night's debate demonstrated that the next generation of national figures are embracing this trend...at least those who don't bring much, you know, education, sophistication, depth and/or knowledge to the table. I really do not think it unreasonable to have national political figures speak in complete sentences and avoid bogus terms of art. I do not want a national figure saying "Doggone it," "You guys," and/or "Darn right". I do not want "you" to be "ya,"... dropping the "g" from any "...ing" word is just sloppy and is it REALLY too much to ask to expect such folk to be able to correctly pronounce "nuclear"? [N.B. I also have an issue with Eye-ran and Eye-raq...but this might be more that it *really* annoys me when my name is pronounced Eye-an. Iraq, Iran, Ian. It is really not that tricky).

If I hear one more person say, "I like her, she sounds just like the girls down at the lunch counter" [this and a close second version heard on various programs this morning], I'm going to start twitching uncontrollably. I also heard more than one iteration of "she's common folk". I do not want "common folk" as the VP (or, god forbid, President). I do not want someone who "talks like the girls at the lunch counter". These are NOT selling points. I find it profoundly disturbing that some people seem to think it is a good thing.

I *want* a Pres/VP to be *smarter* than I am. I want them to have a *more* sophisticated world view than I do. I want them to be able to control their tendencies toward snarky condescension, because they are "better" than that (and me ). I know they are human and I am comfortable with slips...to err is human and all. I am not expecting "perfect" humans, but I do not think it is unreasonable to expect articulate, intelligent and intellectually questing humans. I simply do not understand why people would want national leaders who are anything less.

Thomas Jefferson [and H.L. Mencken] is credited with saying “The government you elect is government you deserve.” It is seldom mentioned by all these "strict constructionist" that voting in this country was restricted (by the oft mentioned Founding Fathers) to young country's equivalent of landed gentry...only educated, land-owning men need apply (though exceptions were routinely made for land-owning widows...). It made a good deal of sense then...and perhaps now. The idea was to vest the vote in those who could make calculated, ration decisions and had a vested interest in "success". I am being facetious, of course...more or less.

And I will not even start on the issue/idea of a national figure who actively investigated removing books from a public library because s/he did not agree with their content. It does not matter as to the success or failure of such an effort...that anyone would consider such a thing should *preclude* office-holding (and library use) for life.

We are suffering, I think, from the "dilemma of the lowest-common-denominator". We seem to have moved away from national figures trying to educate "the masses", of trying to "raise up" their knowledge base. Rather, they "speak the language of the people"...and increasingly such speech is directed toward the *slowest* person in the proverbial room. I know I am an elitist. I know I think reading more, listening more, thinking more and striving to comprehend more is *better* than apathy, ignorance and/or the conscious embracing of mediocrity. It is undoubtedly a flaw. Again, I would just much prefer to have politicians *smarter* than I (and most others) am... [N.B. though, clearly, not smart enough to realize what a thankless, masochistic job national politics is...]. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, there are people from all sides pandering to the lowest-common-denominator...to their, and the country's, great diservice.

Then again, doggone it...ya know, I'm probably wrong. The world is changin' and I should just stop worryin' my pretty little head 'bout it. I think I'll just disconnect myself. [N.B. Slightly updated to clean up some ugly grammar/typo issues...I should probably proofread as I spew...]