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.

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.