1hundredsixty8

I voted for Barack Obama in 2012, mainly because I felt the first black President had earned the right to have his historic achievement validated. That said, I thought- and still think- that Mitt Romney would have been an excellent President. He was bright and, not only did he have executive experience as Governor of Massachusetts, he had a proven record of working with the opposition. He signed his state’s health care bill, the precursor of the Affordable Care Act, into law. He was, above all, a pragmatist, adhering to Bismarck’s dictum that politics was “the art of the possible.”

What he lacked was charisma and that was apparent on the campaign trail. His public persona was stiff and he seemed unable to bridge the gap the separated him from the regular folks he needed to get himself elected. He struggled to communicate his considerable technical skills as simple ideas that voters could grasp. In these ways, Hillary Clinton is a credible analog to Mr. Romney 

Of course, Romney did not drag along the baggage that Mrs. Clinton did. The most scandalous imputation the Obama campaign could hang on him was his success as a private equity financier: He had purchased businesses and, in some instances, sold off assets and closed facilities, eliminating jobs.  Beyond his public record, his image was that of a loving family man and devout Mormon.

I reference Mitt in light of Mrs. Clinton loss to Donald Trump because they are both bright people with the requisite skills to handle the duties of the President. I will stipulate that Hillary’s public image was, for myriad reasons, problematic and contributed to her defeat. But I also see in both their failures the rejection of the intellectually capable. This is not to impugn Barack Obama, who also possesses a singular intellect, but the President’s soaring oratory style and observable sense of humor are compelling in a unique and visceral way.

What we are witnessing is the decline and, perhaps, the disappearance of the technocrat. Again, if we accept Barack Obama’s election as an anomalous event, we need to go back to Bill Clinton to see a technocratic Presidency. George W. Bush, master of the folksy malaprop, was never taken seriously as a policy wonk, no matter what is actual abilities may have been.

Those of you who have followed this blog over time know that my historical perspective is colored by the thesis Richard Hofstadter presented over fifty years ago in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Suspicion of educated elites has been with us since colonial times, despite evidence that, with some obvious exceptions, it is these very elites who have spearheaded the development of the world’s greatest democracy. “American exceptionalism” was built on a comprehensive foundation that combined intellectualism with practicality, science with industry- in short, brain with brawn.   

Circumstances often direct public attitude. Given the results of the election and a divided populace (Mrs. Clinton actually prevailed in the popular vote), we must acknowledge that the anxiety caused by economic uncertainty resulting from the 2008 crisis first morphed into fear and anger and finally settled into a widely-held resentment of elites- all elites. In such an environment, the rejection of those who put themselves forward to lead us should not be unexpected. Likewise, the cynical exploitation of these resentments by both those with public and private agendas should also come as no surprise.

But we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The complex problems of a mass society in these technological times require extraordinary skills. Accepting the ignorant in lieu of the knowledgeable is a reflection of the public mindset. There will be other times and settings to discuss the decades-long degradation of American public education, but we must acknowledge its impact on that mindset. Consider this:

An angry citizenry has directed its resentment at the political elite they rightfully feel abandoned them. In the name of change, they expressed themselves by electing a uniquely unqualified candidate as President. What they did not do, however, is vote for substantive change by rejecting the Senators and members of Congress: most incumbents were returned to office. Except perhaps in the tone of the political rhetoric, the system remains the same. Where will they direct their anger next? And where they turn for relief?

“I don’t believe there is any problem of American politics and American public life which is more significant today than the pervasive civic ignorance of the Constitution of the United States and of the structure of the government.”

-Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter

As Joseph de Maistre, the 19th Century philosopher succinctly stated, “Every nation gets the government it deserves.”

Mr. Trump’s election may well be the realization of a prophecy about the Presidency made by H.L. Mencken nearly a century ago:

“As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”