So, Tucker, what's your brilliant plan for Pakistan? Impose a U.S.-backed military dictatorship in perpetuity? You think that will work? You think it will be stable, decrease corruption, lessen inequity, and improve education? Has it worked out that way in the past? And do you think it's persuasive to attack other viewpoints by asking lots of rhetorical questions, a la p. 3 of your post? Yes, "elites," i.e., experts, people trained to do a certain job, should have the top jobs in government--but if they're not answerable to the people and subject to the objective application of laws and standards, experience has shown that they will not behave well.

Maybe Tucker's argument would be more convincing if he actually knew what he was talking about. Slap on that bow tie Tucker and bore the audience into submission. Tucker's writing his almost as drone as his speech. A big zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The reason the Obama aide looked at you like you were crazy is because the question you asked invited political suicide. Were he to tell the truth, that some places in this world are better off being ruled by a dictator as long as he is "our" dictator, McCain would have IMMEDIATELY jumped all over Obama for not supporting democracy. Don't forget that when Sarah Palin was asked about democracy blowing up in our face when Hamas was given legitmacy by being elected into office in Palestine she looked patently ridiculous and in a word stupid in saying that we should protect "those who seek democracy". Of course the "in the tank for Obama" media never harped on her obvious incompetence on the subject but it just shows that no matter what in this political climate a candidate has to say things that fly in the face of reality in order to get elected. Sometimes by design and sometimes by sheer ignorance.

Touché, Tucker. Good piece.

Finally someone recognizes that 'elitist' isn't a bad word!!

May I be the first to say, "Hooray for elites!"

I think that Tucker is missing the core of the problem. Elitism is in my mind a character flaw and we would all be better off without people who think they are better because they run in the right social circles or have more money (usually through no effort of their own) than others. What we need in Washington are the best and the brightest. We should look for politician like NASA looked for astronauts in the 70's. Also, however, we need people who will have a work ethic when they get to Washington. A senator should never vote on a bill unless he or she has read and understands every component of the bill. If it means missing a Georgetown cocktail party for a study session, so be it.

This user is no longer registered.

Vertigo.

That's my experience right now. I am so naturally predisposed to disagree with Tucker Carlson, that (full disclosure here) I start reading more with an eye to how I will (usually in my own head, or at the breakfast table, opining to my wife and cat) cleverly refute the absurd, arch-conservative, heir-to-WFB, illogic, etc etc. You can fill in the blanks.

My vertigo comes from reading this blog twice. Carefully. And now I find myself largely in agreement. With Tucker Carlson. I won't bore this blog/comment community with a long explanation, or analysis (others will do that) but simply note the interesting experience of reading a little more carefully, with a little less bias on my part.

That's what's really germane to me about this commentary.

Everything -- and I mean everything in our world -- is pushed to the extreme right now. It's as if only absolutes are left. The notion that nuance, historical context, moral and ethical differences in different cultures, and a host of other non-absolute factors could influence thinking is nearly gone from our conversation. Right. Left. And Middle.

A wise business mentor of mine told me years ago that all the important work is done in the "gray world," not in the world of black and white. (Of course, not an original statement, but traceable back at least to Anaxagoras, and probably some Neanderthal contemplating the subtle differences in the temperature at which arrow tips could be hardened.) We give up the world of gray to live in the world of absolute right and wrong, and we thereby give up any and all ability to engage in meaningful, forward-looking conversation.

I may or may not have much occasion to agree with Tucker Carlson on basic principles, in the same way I rarely "agreed" with Buckley back in the good old days of Firing Line. The difference then, from now, is that I could listen to Buckley. Indeed I wanted to listen to William Buckley because I knew his challenge was to my thinking, not to my intrinsic worth. (Well, usually, anyway.)

I only make this comment to observe the interesting and in a nerdy kind of way exciting notion that there is at least the hint of actual engagement in this Tucker Carlson commentary.

Maybe that's a good thing.

Carlson's commentary is every reason why there's a problem with the word elite. Elite is a good word when it means wise. It's a bad word when it means wiser-than-you.

Carlson presumes to know best for a nation of 1.1 billion people. Why is that? Is it because he's so smart, or just because he has so much experience? Or is it maybe because of a lurking fear that his ideas aren't good enough to actually compete in the marketplace? Nah.

Democracy works because it's messy. And there's nothing that a guy in a bow tie hates more than a mess.

Why does this guy think he's relevant? What a gasbag!

Tina, you have to find more interesting people than this. And by more interesting, I don't mean people that you know that will piss people off like Bachmann and Button. YOU'RE BEING OBVIOUS AND WE'RE NOT DUMB!

mr carlson i think the problem is the stupidity of this planet...you have to admitt though we are not the smartest country in the world we are pretty well rounded...not like the middle east that is full of religion...they are ass backwards people who still wipe their asses with their hands...i am not talking down to them i know there are exceptions to almost every rule but the heart is for feeling the brain is for thinking and to many people on this planet think with their heart...i could be mistaken but i don't think so

http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-deserves-our-respect.htm l

I agree with Carlson on one point: yes, you do need expertise to run the government and we should stop pretending any Joe Schmoe can do it. When you go to the doctor, you want to see that diploma on the wall. But government also must be legitimate. People give over power to political officials to serve them when they go to the polls. Giving everyone a chance to vote is a way to grant legitimacy to the government. It is also a way to keep that government in check. When people, due to what might have been misguided reasons, vote for a George W. Bush, they get to rethink their decision four years later. And if their lives are worse off, they vote him out (though it still baffles me that they didn't). If Mr. Carlson wants to argue that there is another way to make government legitimate that doesn't involve giving people the freedom of choosing those that govern over them, then make a proposal. Paternalism is not obviously legitimate.

This is exactly why the Founding Fathers established the Senate as the "elite" house of the legislature. They knew that the vulgar herd cannot be trusted with their own governance. The will of the people can be swayed by religious fervor, empty nationalist rhetoric and appeals to fear or hate of one group or another. It was never their intention that the uneducated and culturally sheltered among us should ever be allowed complete control. The House is our Commons, and the Senate our House of Lords. It's no coincidence that the House deliberations so often devolve into shouting, crying and table-pounding. It's also no coincidence that all three of our Senator/candidates are elites trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of mediocrity in order to garner votes.

What may be harder to explain is how the hockey-mom from small-town Alaska ended up being having the lowest approval of the four candidates. I think Tucker is onto something. As a nation, we know better than to hand the reins of government to someone so unprepared to lead. Forget executive experience. Bush and Clinton had that. Give me intelligence, thoughtfulness, wisdom, reserve and gravitas; in a word - elites.

I voted for Bush in 2000 because he said that, though he wasn't the smartest guy on the ballot, he would gather around him a team of the best and the brightest; he lied. Even when he did chose talented, intelligent advisers, he ignored their advice and marginalized them. Forget his lies about WMD's and links between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. This one lie, that he would compensate for his own lack of knowledge, is the overriding error of the Bush administration. He failed the American people by failing to call on those elites to fill in his numerous blanks and complete the executive package.

Tucker,

Maybe we should stop pretending the Media is Fair in any respect. How much editing has been done by the Media for their "Presentation" of Sarah Palin. I mean, what got left on the editing floor...she is a dumb hick huh. I don't watch MSNBC, I don't play make believe, that they, and almost all the other Media is Biased, for An Uber Liberal Progressive Candidate. But lately "Wealth Distribution" the perception the Media was blocking for Obama, has cracked. When was the last time this Country elected a Liberal Candidate let alone an extreme Liberal Candidate? Will anyone in the Media start covering this election as Political and not Racial? How about the SEXIST treatment of Sarah Palin? Do the media folks think women voters in the hinter land are not paying attention?

http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-is-brainiac.htm l

Elitism is not intelligence. Elitism is not wisdom. Elitism is a problem and a good thing. A truly intelligent person makes everyone around them look intelligent as well. Elitism is just another work for smarta**. Wisdom is knowing how to influence others with your intelligence in a way that makes them feel good. Elitism is showing everyone around you that some how you are better than they are. In most cases is not even true. In Washington there are a lot of elite that are dumber than dirt. You should be defending intelligence in stead. And as for dictatorships some of us know that at times they are the right choice. The majority is not always right. That is also why America was set up as a republic and not a democracy. It was the elite that changed it.

Why not cut through it all and go right to the court system? Lords and Ladies the elites are of course smarter, quicker, better looking! How in the world did we make it this far. Abe Lincoln way to ugly to be an elite? I like the pragmatic approach but then again that was the system the republic was founded upon. Give me some hick from a state school with a brain over the elite any day.

Tucker,

Do the elites think, Women are not paying attention, to this or the Nasty T-Shirt that Obama would not DENOUNCE? How many women voters are there in America, how many have seen this below link on TV? I know I viewed this on Fox News. It is all over the Internet. Do women find this SEXIST? Do women notice all these Obama supporter's ugly behavior? Does a Bear Go in the Woods?

How come we don't hear or read anything about the historic nature of a First Women Vice President in the White House? There is a fatal attraction thing growing out in the Country, Women will not be ignored...Many are already Boycotting Oprah, over not letting Sarah Palin come on stumping for Obama...you know Obama is Oprah's candidate...Oprah likes her Beta Males go figure?

Seeing Tucker in print is fun. I am so glad to have someone else notice that we keep electing people to govern who hate government. Tucker is way too conservative for my beliefs, but he is rational. Why he is not more successful than Joe Scarborough is beyond me. Joe gives two hour monologues when his guests and partners are interesting. I would love to hear what they have to say.

I've been saying all along: I don't want someone "just like me" in the White House. I'm glad I'm not the only one that recognizes that there are people with specialized knowledge better suited to run the country.

That being said, I don't think the word 'elitist' is the appropriate descriptor. 'Elitist' can be interpreted so many ways, and while I agree that elitism isn't always a bad thing, it more describes an attitude (mostly negative) than intellectual excellence.

Definition of Elite: the group or part of a group selected or regarded as the finest, best, most distinguished, most powerful, etc.

Tucker has a good mind and always presents an argument, but like many other words "Elite", has been turned into a bad thing, instead of just a thing, that can be beneficial or detrimental.

America needs a leader who is elite in.
1. World politics
2. Race relations
3. Economic strategy
4. Capitalist regulation
5. Constitutional knowledge
6. Communication
7. Team building
8. Mediation
9. Security

What America doesn't need a leader who is elite in:
1. Plumbing
2. Drywall mudding
3. Truck Driving
4. House painting
5, Stock trading
6. Horseback riding
7. Hockey momming
8. Piloting
9. Social standing
10. Cronyism

All of these things are important and but don't lend themselves to the job of running our country.

And, because this is America, a plumber can become elite in the right things then become the leader of our country, but it takes time and conviction to do that, so don't look for Joe the plumber in the house anytime soon.

My favorite Tucker moment: when he revealed on TV (why?) the story of how he roughed-up a guy for looking at his pee-pee while standing at a urinal. Hint, Tucker: you wear a bow tie, some guy is going to cruise you in the men's room. It's a code, like tapping your foot a certain way. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Somewhere along the way, those who were prepared and trained for governance were viewed with suspicion. How can a public servant do a good job if they hold the institution for which they work with disdain? Where else in society is it ok to so hate your employer to the point that you undermine the very foundation of that institution? Across this country we are experiencing a crisis in leadership in our primary social institutions. Public servants are viewed with contempt and those same public servants loathe the very institutions charged with making our society work.
We have allowed this to go on for far too long and now are witness to it's logical conclusion: an administration that views the constitution with contempt- as a stricture to be twisted then discarded at every turn.
I for one, do not want a leader who is not prepared to lead- lead with passion and conviction. I want a leader who understands the foundation of our country, understands and will honor the very foundation of our social contract. I also want a leader who will unite us- give voice to our common aspirations and call forth the good in us. We have been witness to the opposite for a long time and now have a country described as being composed of 'true Americans' and- what- 'untrue Americans' by a stunningly uninformed candidate for the second highest office in the land.
We have let this happen to us and now must take back our souls. We must pick leaders who give voice to our highest aspirations for a life of honor and purpose. For too long our leaders have given voice to our fears and we are paying dearly for that indulgence.

Tucker Carlson writes about having competent leadership in the White House. Hilarious. Commentators, pundits, especially young ones who get on TV because they're a combination of telegenic and articulate, ought to be knowledgeable and thoughtful as well.

Tucker: if you had just once, just once succumbed to any urge to call Bush out during his first six years, before it became "popular" to criticize him, I'd give you the time of day. Now, you're just entertainment to me and others who look to such "pundits" to help make sense of our world. And frankly, you're not so entertaining any more.