Smart President doesn’t necessarily = Smart Party Leadership

This week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi carefully weighed in on the town hall meetings happening all over the country by comparing the town hall meeting participants to Nazi’s. She also penned a piece in USA Today with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, in which she deems town hall participants “un-American.” Suddenly, in Pelosi’s America, expressing one’s constitutional right to speech is tantamount to hating the president because he’s black and hating the U.S. altogether. This is particularly ironic since only a few years ago, Speaker Pelosi regarded people speaking out against Bush and his policies as "patriots". Apparently, the line between "patriot" and "betray-us" is razor thin. These are just the latest in a whole series of arrogant verbal missteps that the president might say should have been “calibrated differently”. If there were still any doubts that Pelosi is the epitomy of everything moderate Americans dislike and fear about far-left liberals, this latest doozy is sure to leave no doubt. She is to the Democrats, what George Bush was to the Republicans-a visual and visceral reminder of everything Americans dislike about politicians. Her "steller" performance as speaker has even earned her the dubious honor of obtaining a lower approval rating than the unpopular former president. That's quite an accomplishment indeed!
Getting rid of Pelosi would be a step in the right direction for Democrats, but her actions stem from a larger psychological problem within the leadership. Something always seems to happen to the Democratic leadership when they become the majority. It's almost as if they collectively develop a severe case of “Not-it-all-ism”, which coincides with a skyward curvature of their noses. It seems that once they have the power, a sense of self-righteous elitism come over them. They start to believe that they know better than anyone else what’s best for this country. Government, run by them, seems to be their solution to every problem in existence and anyone who disagrees with them are backwards hicks. Now some are backwards hicks, but the vast majority is independents who put the Democrats back in power only to now have them govern with contempt towards the values and beliefs of said independents. Even beyond the halls of congress, liberal talking heads are on T.V. claiming that these people are dumb, racist, right-wing hate-mongers who are doing the bidding of the Republican Party. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter, and Fox News contributor Bob Beckel claimed this week that these town hall meetings are being “organized” by the Republican Party, and big health care. Bill Maher claims in piece titled “Smart President Doesn’t Equal Smart Country” that the recent debates at town hall meetings proves his assertion that this is fundamentally a “stupid country” and that congress members listening to their constituents is an “urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything.” Jeez, Bill. Where’s the love?
Democratically controlled congresses have reeked of elitism in the past, but would often benefit from having a president from the South, whether it was a Democrat or a Republican. Democratic congressional elitism was somewhat neutralized, at least on the surface when they had a Democratic President from the South, such as LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. It was hard to claim the Democratic Party was a bunch of elitists when their chief spokesperson is a peanut farmer from Georgia, or former governor of a state like Arkansas. I’m guessing the “ah, shucks” and “I reckons” probably helped create a "common-man" touch as well. The intermingling of the two provided a good balance for the Democrat’s image; they can be your drinking buddy, but also do you taxes as well. Ironically, having a Republican President from the South, like George W. Bush, likely helped elitism look like a good alternative to a guy you want to have a beer with, but would never trust with your lawnmower, much less the entire country.
But not since Kennedy, has there been a non-Southern accented Democrat in the White House, at the same time as a Democratic majority in the congress. Without a balance this could spell trouble for Obama and his agenda. Trusting congress to write to write a health care reform proposal that would be viewed favorably by the American people was Obama’s first mistake in this process. Allowing Pelosi and others to characterize dissent as phony, racist, and un-American, will likely spell the end of health care reform, and possibly doom any major subsequent policy initiatives by this president. Obama, or any politician for that matter simply doesn't have the political capital to compensate for an unpopular, unproductive, and out-of-touch congress. It's almost as if congress is trying to take him down with them, and so far, Obama has appeared more than willing to be a passenger on that ride.
So the moral of the story is, and with all due respect to Maher, just because your party has a smart president, doesn’t mean your party is necessarily smart. Heck, just because you’re a smart president, doesn't always mean your policies are always smart either. I reckon Obama might wanna get comfortable with saying "Ah, shucks."