I hope you are correct, Ron.

There's no doubt that people don't like intellectuals who talk down to them. The impression I get, though, is that anyone who is capable OF talking like an intellectual at all and who does so quickly gets accused of talking down to ordinary Americans whether or not he is in fact doing so. He may not be talking down to them at all, but he gets accused of it. And people believe the accusation. He becomes "an elitist" simply for stating a complex truth clearly.

Therein lies the problem.

Yes, Bill Clinton is known to be a very intelligent man, but he came across to the public in a very folksy kind of way. He didn't act like an intellectual. He was a master at conveying a folksy kind of familiarity and a comfortable impression to the masses, and that's what it takes to get elected in the USA. You've got to emulate the kind of wise but simple and straight-talkin' down home frontier "Pa and Ma" stereotypes that have been perpetuated on American TV dramas ever since the 1950s.

It's pure posturing. Bill Clinton was very good at it. Reagan was very good at it. Jimmy Carter was quite good at it in his first presidential election campaign, but Reagan was even better at it in 1980 and the Iran crisis killed Carter's chances anyway. The issue isn't whether you're really smart or not, the issue is whether you can act to fit the warm and fuzzy American stereotype of the stern but kindly Father figure (or much less frequently, the feisty and courageous but virtuous Mother figure).

Now anyone who is really smart, with a really good command of the issues, but who is not so good at fitting into that folksy stereotypical outer image of the Frontier Father (or Mother)...well, that person will be accused of being an elitist, an ivory chair intellectual, a person out of touch with the aspirations of ordinary Americans.

And he very probably won't get elected.

What does it take to fit into the stereotypical image that Americans trust for the highest office? What does it take to be "Abe Lincoln", "Pa Cartwright", "John Wayne", etc...

1. you have to look the part
2. you have to sound the part (plain talk, homespun expressions, lots of patriotic bla-bla)
3. you have to keep things really simple (and repeat them often)
4. you have to appear really "tough" and ready to take on all foreign enemies at the drop of a hat
5. you have to for God's sake NOT be seen as a wimp! (remember G.H.W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Carter, and other such unfortunates who were tagged as "wimps"?)
6. you have to be officially Christian and officially a believer in God
7. you have to be officially heterosexual
8. you pretty much have to be a family man (I think there was one president way back when in the 1800s who wasn't married)
9. you have to be a white man.

That's what it's always been in the past. That's a very tough trend to buck. I find that worrisome, to say the least.

Adlai Stevenson is a fine example of a very intelligent politician who lost out badly to the phenomenon I'm describing. His presentation was far too intellectual for the taste of the American public, but I certainly don't think he was talking down to anyone.

Dennis Kucinich is a fine example of a very intelligent politician who took on the real ISSUES in a far more clear and honest manner than any of the other presidential candidates in the two major parties, and how did the public and the media react to him? They mostly just ignored him. He wasn't even allowed to participate in two crucial primary debates. He was shut out of them on ridiculous technicalities. Why? Because he was telling uncomfortable truths.

He did not fit the list above, nor did he act the required phony part that all American politicians must act in order to win significant media and public acceptance.