Elite? Moi?

It seems that I've been blissfully unaware that I am a fan of "elites".

Apparently, anyone who has a lot of native intelligence, an education from a good school, a developed worldview, and an accomplished record of achievement is an "elite" in pundit-speak.

It also seems that being an "elite" and having any "common sense" are mutually exclusive in the pundit world. Only the "common man" can have any "common sense". Harry Truman is the patron saint of pundits who believe that "common men" make the best presidents.

Truman may have enjoyed popularity, and I have to say his foreign policy is still held up as an example today. But Harry Truman also did a lot of lesser-known things that weren't particularly wise. Or even constitutional, for that matter. I reckon that being a "common man" is certainly no guarantee of being an exceptional president.

I also reckon that while being an "elite" may put the Presidency closer to your grasp, it is certainly no guarantee of being an exceptional president. I could point to Dubya and rest my case, but I do not see Dubya as an "elite" under the definition stated above. His stunted worldview brought us the Iraq War. His record of "achievement" is not fueled by his native intelligence; it has been lubricated by his family's money and fame and has only shown Dubya for what he really is: a privileged pretender who surrounded himself with the wrong people (with the exception of Colin Powell) and produced one disaster after another. It seems that every time I see him at a microphone, the occasion is a disaster of some kind. I'm not sure what category the pundits have for such a man; he is no "elite" in my book, but he doesn't appear to be carry a hefty amount of common sense either.

I feel the same way about John McCain, as far as he's gone. The parallels are striking. A prominent family who greased the career skids, money never a problem, and now his team has led him into trouble on the campaign trail. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate, and the way his campaign has treated her, speaks volumes about his character and judgment.

The only significant difference between Bush and McCain is that John McCain is a military hero, and I mean the real deal.

I will plead guilty to craving an "elite" in the White House. I mean no disrespect to "common sense". But I do agree with George Burns, who once said, "It's too bad all the people who really know how to run the country are driving cabs and cutting hair."

I am beyond weary of watching our president appear so uncomfortable when speaking, and hearing him sputter nonsensical pablum when he does address the nation. I am beyond weary of his incompetent prosecution of a war that, according to George Will, "may go down as the worst foreign policy debacle in our history."

I want a statesman (or statesperson, if you prefer).

Three things differentiate a statesman from a politician. The first is a coherent, realistic vision of a desirable future for the nation. The second is the ability to communicate that vision effectively. The third is to persuade the bulk of the nation to follow him toward that vision. Fail at these, and your job approval rating hovers below 30 percent forever.

John McCain is no statesman. Barack Obama has a shot at becoming one because he is more intelligent, has a far more mature worldview, and is a far better communicator than John McCain. Obama does not yet qualify as an "elite": he does have the education, and the native intelligence, and a worldview that is far more mature and practical than either McCain or Bush. He's still too young to have a compelling track record of accomplishment in government, but my money is on him to become a statesman of some stature in the next 20 years.