Super genius, arbiter of all matters cerebral, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, has pronounced that the world's favorite target for derision, Sarah Palin, lacks the intellectual curiosity to be president.
I am really tired of liberals implying they have a monopoly on intelligence. Their claimed compassion monopoly is tough enough to endure, but the intellectual thing is getting old too. If you're conservative, you're presumptively moronic. If you're a Christian conservative, you're stupid on stilts.
Liberal politicians always seem to have the "trappings" of intelligence, the IQ street cred, as it were. The intelligentsia depicted Brahmin John Kerry as Mensaesque. Jimmy Carter was reputed to be the smartest that guy ever to wear a pair of Buster Brown shoes.
But beyond the lib stereotypes, what about the premise underlying Murkowski's lament, i.e., that robust intellectual curiosity is an essential qualification for the job of the presidency? And, while we're at it, what is intellectual curiosity? I'm curious.
Murkowski apparently attempted to edify us on those questions. She said, "You know, she was my governor for two years, for just about two years there, and I don't think that she enjoyed governing. I don't think she liked to get down in the policy." Murkowski went on to explain that she would prefer a candidate who "goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning thinking about how we're going to deal with" important issues.
To quote the Church Lady, "Isn't that special?"
Sounds to me like she's describing a policy wonk, not someone who's intellectually curious. In fact, as I think about this isn't that what the lib elite really means when they talk about intellectual curiosity? Don't they mean people who recreationally ruminate about policy?
It seems to me that the libs' ideal president is an academician or someone who cogitates with the best of them. But are these types really best suited for the big issue decisiveness that great presidents have often displayed? Or are they better equipped for "nuance," minutia and intellectual handwringing?
We know that Jimmy Carter -- the smartest guy in every room ever constructed by carpenters inside and outside Habitat for Humanity -- was not an effective president. He was terrible -- not just because his policies were disastrous, but because he was woefully unsuited for the job.
I'm sure all libs would agree that Carter possessed an abundance of intellectual curiosity, so what does that say about the relationship of this attribute and effective executive governance?
Interestingly, though, these same lib snobs (and a few conservative snobs to boot) swore that Obama was the smartest messiah since Jimmy Carter. Though we haven't seen his transcripts, he certainly went to the right schools. So he is definitely intellectually curious right?
Well, let's see. If you use Murkowski's intelligence yardstick: dreaming about policy and enjoying governing, we know Obama doesn't quite fit the bill. We're told from a growing number of sources that Obama really doesn't like the details of governance; that he can't be bothered.
Well, you might say, "that may be true, but you can't deny he's a policy wonk. He has big ideas and he is pushing them passionately."
I'll concede he cares about policy to the extent that he wants to shove his grand vision down America's throat. But how can any reasonable person characterize Obama's approach to ideas as open or curious? He's the most dogmatic ideologue we've witnessed -- and that's saying something. There doesn't appear to be an ounce of intellectual curiosity in his bones. He isn't curious. He has known all the answers for a long time. Curiosity is an annoying distraction at best. Listening is foreign to his being.
But, truth be told, intellectual curiosity is euphemistic for "enlightened liberal," so Obama qualifies. So what Murkowski is really saying is that Palin would not make a good president because she doesn't subscribe to the liberal worldview.
And, according to the Murkowski perspective, Sarah Palin, no matter how smart she is, cannot possibly be intellectually curious. I know many conservatives are convinced Sarah Palin is intellectually challenged, but I'm not one of them. My appreciation of Palin grows in direct proportion to elitist criticism of her. Plus, I think she has refreshingly good instincts.
I'm sure Lisa Murkowski considers herself intellectually curious. Do you think she'd make a better president than Sarah other than in her own mind?