Roland Martin argues that today's elitist politicians cannot possibly represent the average American. I argue: do you have to be a common citizen to understand common ideology and desires?
Democracy does not imply that every man (or woman for that matter) is qualified to be a political representative. It does, however, imply that every man has the right to vote for the candidate that will best represent his interests. For Martin to place Katt Williams and Barack Obama on the same scale and question levels of competence is elementary. And while we are here, does Katt Williams really represent the average American any better than today's politicians? He is an elitist just like the rest of them. The difference: his tasteless moral standard.
The author repeatedly identifies politicians' Ivy League roots. Does this suggest one must have a prestigious educational background to run for office? No. This suggests that the democratic process has continually favored well-educated candidates over middle-class prospects. This makes sense though; I would much rather my political well-being be in the hands of a Harvard grad than some Midwest farmer with a second-class education.
A significant portion of Martin's commentary lists the alma maters of various Supreme Court justices, which include Yale and Standford just to name a few. Would you expect any less from the men and women who collectively make up up the brightest lawyers in the country?
It doesn't take a man who grew up in a struggling family to understand the importance of healthcare. In the same way, Texans do not require a president in cowboy boots. Ideally politicians will express their beliefs, and democratic voting will help determine which candidate is best fit to represent American interests. If they lie, they won't get re-elected. In the end I feel much more confident with an elitist running our government than an average Joe.
Read the full article here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment