Log In | Register
I’ve been waiting for the call, but so far it hasn’t come, so I thought I might present some of my thoughts on why I believe the Republican Party, and in some cases specific candidates, might do well to consider some of my suggestions.
My first suggestion works in general for most of the candidates, but I thought it might work best for Newt Gingrich. It seems to be true that Newt Gingrich has some powerful negative numbers and thus I ask the reader to consider the following strategy on its own merits and in so doing concentrate on whether or not the strategy would resonate in the American electorate in a positive way, regardless of the baseline of support. The strategy is not meant to be anti-intellectual, but it does aim to break the virtual monopoly of power that the Ivy League schools, primarily Harvard and Yale presently enjoy.
Of all the Republican candidates, Mr. Gingrich might be best suited to put it into practice. I would suggest that, at least prior to my articulating it on a public forum, he could have presented it in such a way as to both burnish his reputation as a “statesman” while at the same time being the primary beneficiary. I had originally envisioned it as being somehow worked into the discussion during one of the Republican debates.
It really goes to the question of whether the rest of us deserve representation. The subjects of “pointy head” intellectuals and the “East Coast” elite have certainly come up in prior elections, but I think that Mr. Gingrich is well positioned to attack the stranglehold that Harvard/Yale, etc., presently have on the corridors of power while at that same time taking advantage of his own intellectual prowess and reputation to reject any claims that he is either anti-intellectual or that he is engaging in a “negative” campaign against intelligence to the detriment of the country. In bringing up the subject he could also include much of the Republican field in his remarks and thus be providing a “Republican” talking point should he fail in his quest for the nomination as the Republican Candidate for President, perhaps garnering some goodwill from other candidates in the process.
An added bonus to the strategy is in the opportunity it provides to suggest that the present President is not the “first Black President” and thus deserving of the virtual unanimous support of the African-America Community, but rather simply the last in a long line of Presidents in a particular category. So, what strategy is it that I have in mind? What facts might have the capacity to change the views of at least some Americans on who might best represent their interests as President of the United States?
I begin by asking the reader to consider which President was the last President who did not attend either Harvard or Yale. The answer to the question: Ronald Reagan. Yes, the last President who did not attend either Harvard or Yale was elected in 1980. One doesn’t have to be a conspiracy nut to wonder if it’s not time to bring in some truly fresh ideas. As of 2012 it will have been 32 years and one has to wonder if that isn’t long enough. As previously mentioned, I would also suggest that President Obama is really just more of the same, as one might also note based on his appointments and policies, regardless of skin color or other attributes.
It seems to me, without even considering the accomplishments of those who have held power for 32 years, that the electorate might wish to consider a change, assuming the existence of a candidate of equal or superior caliber. The interesting thing is how often it is suggested that those who have not attended those schools and who are not members of that “old boy’ network are somehow not quite “up to snuff”. Sometimes it is more of a whispering campaign; while other times it is much more overt and I would suggest the reader simply consider how much of this is due to the latent prejudice against those who didn’t attend the “right” schools. Is it true that only those who have attended Harvard or Yale are qualified to occupy the office of the President of the United States? As an aside, I might mention here that I would have a very difficult time, and for similar reasons, voting for a Clinton or a Bush. It seems to me that it goes against the American character to allow anyone to hold the ultimate reins of power for too long a time.
Perhaps there are still some of you who are unconvinced and might even suggest that I am penalizing qualified people simply because of the success of those who have come before them. I invite you to consider a few other facts which might be of interest. I began to wonder how many of the present Supreme Court Justices have connections to either Harvard or Yale and thus ended up on At this point it should not surprise you that eight of the nine just happen to be graduates from one of the two relevant institutions. (1) Again, I’m not suggesting these individuals are not qualified, I’m simply asking if the country is well served when both the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government is dominated by alumni of two particular schools, of whatever name.
The problem is that similar patterns begin to show up when one examines the membership of Congress, to a lesser extent the media, and certainly Wall Street. Certainly I understand that one would expect for the graduates of elite schools, or at least some of them, to obtain elite positions, and thus I can understand how some readers might suggest that my concerns are a bit over-blown, but do we really wish to support the continued domination of our government and economy by the graduates of essentially two schools geographically close to each other reflecting similar philosophies and dominated themselves by similar people? I leave you to consider your answer.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices_trained
