I once had the chance to meet a fellow named Paul Rahe, who is a college professor and author. He's a smart guy who blogs on a site called Ricochet. I highly recommend you check it out.
Rahe is very conservative, and quite unrealistic about what any politician can accomplish in our evenly divided country. He's recently written a piece about the candidacy of Rick Perry:
"On the other hand, Perry was folksy throughout – and that worries me a bit. The tone of the speech and the manner of delivery were pitch-perfect for Texas. I am not, however, certain that this will play for a national audience. I do not mean to suggest that Perry should never be folksy. He comes from Paint Creek, and this comes naturally to him. Moreover, he needs at the outset to gather to him those who belong to his natural constituency – which is made up of white people who live in the countryside and in small towns. But to persuade a wider audience, Perry will have to pitch his argument to an audience that thinks itself more sophisticated. I am not arguing that the city slickers really are more sophisticated; I am arguing that they are in the grips of a powerful prejudice against people from places like Paint Creek."
My first reaction to this was anger. Is a rural background and a regional accent a real detriment in a Presidential race? It is possible to grow up on a farm or ranch and be a smart person. And besides that, no one has run for President with more impeccable intellectual credentials than the present occupant of that office, and that hasn't really worked out all that well.
Yes, I realize that Perry will be identified with George Bush, and even though the Bush and Perry camps are sworn enemies, that will be Perry's biggest hurdle to overcome as he reaches for the brass ring. But surely, just because he hails from a place called Paint Creek, that won't disqualify him in any voter's mind?
But on reflection, I've decided that Rahe is exactly right. Rahe goes on to contrast Perry with Bill Clinton, who was also raised in a small southern town. As Rahe points out, Clinton was inoculated by his matriculation at Yale and his politics. Neither vaccine is available to Perry, who is of the wrong party to satisfy the intellectual elite, and whose degree comes from Texas A &M, an institution not known for it expertise in deconstructing literature or its Women's Studies program. Although I have no doubt that Perry studied the fairer sex while he was earning those C's and D's that have made such a big splash in the press.
My interest here is not Rick Perry's chances for president. I haven't decided who I'll vote for, and Perry can fight his own battles. My concern is with what Rahe calls the "powerful prejudice" against people from small places. It exists, and it's perhaps the only allowable prejudice in our politically correct age.
We'll be treated to an onslaught of stories about Perry's intellectual shortcomings, and quotes from plenty of unnamed sources to the effect that the Texan isn't quite up to the task. He'll be contrasted to the sophistication of our European allies, and found wanting. Every slip on the campaign trail will be credited to the lack of education that bedevils people from flyover country.
Whether Perry is successful or not, I hope he'll lay questions about his smarts to rest with a combination of knowledge on the issues, and self-deprecating humor about his background. He'll have to do both to succeed.
As a larger matter, this prejudice against people who don't live on the coasts has many costs for our country. When we talk about farming, or try to defend our practices, we aren't listened to, because nobody thinks we understand the science or the economics of the issues that concern us. When we practice our religion, we're seen as superstitious rather than faithful. When we mind our knitting, and concentrate on local matters, we leave a vacuum that is filled by people with degrees from Yale. That is not a good thing.
As William F. Buckley once famously said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I'd rather be governed by the first two hundred people in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard." Buckley was right, and I won't lose a bit of sleep if, in the future, we're governed by people from places like Paint Creek Texas.