... I would say that the Bush choices represent a policy commodity generated in a (shocked) post 9/11 world. You must ask yourself this: who produced Bush (where did he come from)? If he were not around, who would have been produced by these (winning) forces? Would the policy product have been any different if the forces that won the democratic ritual in 2000 had a different glam spokesperson? Perhaps, but one wonders whether the difference would be significant. The simple fact is that the elites in the conservative network (and in bureaucracy) had a set of policy options that bubbled up in the "think tank" in response to a crises.
I haven't looked at the polls on the war lately. But I think they are around 50/50, aren't they? (I mean, in terms of pulling out). Isn't the election right now tied (or competitive)? I wonder to what extent liberals simply complain because they can't get what they want. In other words, the qualification thing is an ideology. "We lose, so we want a new system." Palin would be no different as a leader in the American drama than would the actor (Reagan), the peanut farmer (Carter), the buffoon (Quayle), the boy from a place called Hope and so forth.
The ritual in Rome is open. There are two policy products manufactured by inside elites (alpha and beta). Every four years, the horse that gives Rome its best drama wins the chance to select among alpa or beta. The problem here is that people think far too much of democratic theory. They seem to give some epistemological significance to it (that a headcount of the people of Rome actually produces wisdom). This is a drama and it is a political ritual. It's an important ritual, of course, because it is the best (safest) way we have to structure hegemony. You might as well just watch it on tv like you do the football games.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Wright State University
New Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
----- Original Message ----
To: Sean Wilson
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:29:13 AM
Subject: Re: When is a Presidential Candidate Unqualified?
Hasn't George Bush disproved the glam defense? The experts and brilliant individuals in the society cannot save the president from bad judgment in choosing who will be his experts. If the glam politician does not have enough judgment, intelligence, or education to make the calls, he or she doesn't have it to choose who should.
In fact, I think this sort of reasoning re the fact of the multitude of issues and the number of players behind the scenes makes the case for leaders w intelligence, education, and experience even more compelling.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry