Dumb is the new smart in politics

This New Year's Eve I attended a small gathering at a longtime friend's home and got to hang out with some old friends and meet their new puppy. I look forward to this party every year not only because my longtime friend and his wife are gracious and wonderful hosts, but because the perennial guests include (Minnesota) State Senator Satveer Chaudhary and his vivacious and highly personable wife, Dee.

ABOVE: A sleepy Satveer and his charming and outgoing wife, Dee, in the wee, small hours of 2005.

Satveer is a Democrat, and in 2006 he waged a re-election campaign against a Republican candidate Rae Hart Anderson. Since I am an acquaintance of his, I followed the campaign and was exposed to Anderson's toxic rhetoric, of which her Christian Fundamentalist faith appears to be her main qualification for office. At debates, she would pace back and forth, gesticulating like a preacher and making sweeping assertions that require virtually no rational thought whatsoever, alternating between outraged snarls and beatific smiles. Satveer would remain calm and casual, mildly amused and confident. I had the chance during that election to talk to one of Mr. Chaudhary's constituents, a co-worker, about the race. Already dismissing Chaudhary as a "liberal", he predicted Chaudhary would "lose big". When I asked him why he made such a prediction, he rolled his eyes and said with a straight face, "He's smart, that's why", mouthing the word "smart" with a disdainful expression. What followed was an 'insightful discussion' into what makes an ideal Republican candidate, which I will paraphrase mercifully.

I had expected the usual complaints against Satveer, mainly that he was a Hindu and thus unqualified for public service in a "Christian nation". That was to be a factor, but not the deal-breaker. Rather, it was his intelligence and competence that marked him as an unfit candidate. "People want someone like them in office there", it was explained to me, as if I was a small child innocent in the ways of the world. Chaudhary was "smart" (insert scowl here), while Anderson had "common sense", which is a term Republicans use that roughly translates to 'dumb' in the rest of the world. True, Anderson was not big on facts and policy specifics; it was instead her outlook that she was selling. This would be nice if serving as a legislator was not the equivalent of a management position in the business world, where one is expected to make decisions affecting millions of people and multiple milllions of dollars on a regular basis. Like a management position, a legislator also has to deal with people who disagree with them while maintaining a professional demeanor. Thus, an arrogant attitude and firm grasp of Biblical scripture hardly seems to fit the bill. Surprisingly, when I asked my co-worker whether he felt he was qualified to be a state legislator, the response was heartily in the affirmative. His total lack of knowledge of Robert's Rules of Order (the language of the job), was easily dismissed. "That stuff is liberal bullshit designed to keep things from gettin' done", I was told. Likewise, the ability to read and comprehend reports, balance competing interests, and make decisions on subjects outside of your core competencies was also part of some liberal agenda that drove 'common sense' out of the public sector. "Put the money where it's supposed to go, and do the right thing", was this putative expert's summary of the job description.

I mention this at length precisely because it illustrates the Republican culture of anti-intellectualism and loyalty over competence that has produced the Bush Administration. Any idiot can govern or administer an Agency if they have 'common sense'. This anti-intellectual bent was one of Karl Rove's greatest (?) contributions to American campaign strategy. Ignorance thus becomes an asset, because it makes you similar to the people you represent. Arrogance is likewise the natural response to "smart" people with their fancy facts, analyses, insights, studies, and liberal penchant for treating complex matters as if they were complicated or something.

Arrogance was something Rae Hart Anderson (Chaudhary's opponent) had in spades. Rather than a concession call to Chaudhary as she "lost big", she instead sent an email advising Chaudhary to abandon his Hindu faith in favour of asking Jesus into his life. Yes, as if Chaudhary had never actually contemplated his beliefs or pondered over ethical or moral issues, Anderson stood ready to inform Satveer of an option he apparently was completely unaware of: Salvation through Jesus Christ. Obviously Satveer, with his public-school secondary education, his shallow Law School degree and successful completion of the Bar Exam, had simply never heard of the guy called Jesus and the awesome benefits of joining his Team into Eternity, Amen. Who could possibly criticise Anderson for sharing this vital information with a fellow human being? Common sense dictates that anyone who actually knew about Jesus' standing offer of salvation would jump at the chance, rather than be condemned to Hell.

Arrogance is also something that Chaudhary and his wife are devoid of, based on my experience. While being an order of magnitude more educated, wealthy, influential, and respected than myself, neither of them has ever treated me nor anyone in my presence as anything other than an equal. They have seen me drunk, endured my obnoxious behaviour, and experienced rants from my mouth that push the limits of coherent thought into bold new territory, which surely shows their capacity to deal with the average Republican. What impresses me more, however, is that neither of them is phony enough to tell me that my rants are insightful and valuable or that my behaviour is charming and apropos. It's as if we are all just people or something, and we can maintain our dignity without placing ourselves above others. To me, 'common sense' dictates not that someone has to be like me to represent me, but rather that they see that our interests coincide.
I don't want 'me' in government; I want someone smarter and more competent than me in government looking out for me.

Would you take your car to a mechanic who tells you, "I don't know a drive train from a freight train, but if the Lord Jesus wants your car to run, it will run, in His Glory". Would you go to a doctor who says, " I hear a lot of fancy talk about hemo-this and osteo-that, and all kinds of Latin flim-flammery from the so-called medical professionals, but nothing cures you better than a good dose of Scripture"? How would you feel about availing yourself of an attorney who says, "Well, I could make some motions and do some discovery and all kinds of legal mumbo-jumbo, but wouldn't you rather just put your case in the Lord's hands and let His Will be done"? Sure, none of these guys are smarter than you, and they might reflect your values, but can they do the job you are paying them for? Likewise, why would you elect a legislator that sees ignorance as a virtue and religious piety as a substitute for competence to manage the affairs of government?

I see this phenomenon with increasing frequency in Republican public discourse. Complex foreign policy matters are distilled into 'good guys vs. bad guys'. The role of the citizen is reduced to cheering for Our Team. Every problem has a simple answer, and it begins and ends with 'common sense'. Anyone that tells you things are more complicated than that is just trying to sell you "liberal hogwash", and talk radio even helpfully points out scapegoats for you so that you don't have to engage in rational thought. The right-wing blogs are rife with disdain for education, since it makes you unable to comprehend the glowing brilliance and wisdom of the ignorant.
In the end, ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, but it certainly is nothing to brag about, either.