My view: 'Elitism' is not the worst trait a president could have

Brian O'Keefe |

5/4/2008 - 5/4/08

Sen. Barack Obama's recent comments regarding "bitter" voters and the ensuing Hillary Clinton attacks, soon parlayed by the media into "news," has got me thinking about a movie I recently watched, entitled Idiocracy.

The protagonist, Joe, a very average Army grunt with absolutely no ambition greater than reaching his Army pension while assuming as little responsibility as possible, is picked for a hibernation experiment in which he will be put into suspended animation for one year. Something goes awry and Joe wakes up 500 years later into a United States that has become incredibly dumb. While the intelligent people were considering the wisdom of having none, one or two children, the less-than-bright folk were breeding like rabbits, overwhelming the country.

The country is foreign, yet eerily familiar. Everyone wears sports gear and drinks "Brawndo" sports drinks found in the water coolers, fountains and everything but toilets. "Brawndo" Corp. is the largest employer in the country. The restaurant chain "Fudd-Ruckers" has devolved and is now known by a similar sounding yet unprintable name while Starbucks has become a charnel house. The law has been reduced to kangaroo courts with punishment meted out in monster-truck contests, yet the most difficult thing for Joe is the language, which is now spoken gutturally and rarely with multi-syllabic words, rife with insults and swearing based mostly on bathroom functions. Joe is ridiculed and threatened because his speech is seen as "faggy."

It was the "faggy" speech that caught my attention, and I thought how Obama's comments about the "bitter" voters dovetailed right in.

Clinton's quickness to show that she was not "elistist" ("faggy") by downing a shot and a beer and then recounting how she learned to shoot behind a barn in Scranton, was a flagrant attempt to pander. Were Obama's "bittergate" statements "faggy"? Was that the problem? Should he have scratched his butt when he spoke, to not appear "elitist"?

Obama's pastor has caught flak for his strong statements asserting we bring ruin down upon our heads by our past actions. Obama speaks of unemployed and disenfranchised citizens growing bitter over their seemingly ignored existence by the power elite and, I ask, what is wrong with discussing and analyzing those issues? In this country of supposedly God fearing people, is it wrong to take a survey of our personal and group histories and wonder if perhaps we have misstepped along the way?

We have been bamboozled these last seven years. Did we really want someone that we could have a beer with, or should we have held out for someone smart enough to know that being president requires a bit more than tipping back a few? Certainly after we found out after the first term one would think we'd have said, "Hey! I want someone at least as smart as my third-grade teacher to be my president," but no, we swallowed the bait again, hook, line and sinker.

Well, I want someone a lot smarter than me this time, and I'll tell you that it ain't someone who doesn't know the Shia from al-Qaida nor someone who thinks that they'll get my vote by slamming a few brewskis.

Nope, I want someone so smart that I can barely understand what they're saying without asking my wife to translate for me, because that way I know that they'll be able to talk to and hopefully work out problems with those other world leaders who do use big words and construct complex thoughts!

It is time we examined our lives, past and present, so that we can understand and grow into a country that supports all of its citizens and that exports hope, caring and compassion to the world. We have sorely missed those concepts while politicians have chased the Golden Fleece of the "values voter" in order to gain office. I say we go the high road for a change before we all start guzzling the "Brawndo."

Brian O'Keefe is a concerned citizen who lives in Santa Fe and fears he's becoming jaded about this election.