The old cicada (mouse man) made a guest appearance. When American and Republican presidential candidate John McCain announced that his vice presidential partner was a young female governor of Alaska, many people were dumbfounded for a long time. "Does she have enough experience?" Many political commentators in the media are incredibly asking each other. She has been governor of Alaska for less than two years. Before that, she was the mayor of a small town with a population of less than 8000. The only task of the vice president is to stand up and take over when the president says "no" Mccain is old, and if there is something wrong, it is no joke. Palin was certainly not chosen as a running mate because of her "rich experience". What McCain is interested in is her ability to attract white women's votes and her political charm to boost the morale of voters in the party. Sure enough, she didn't disappoint McCain. She became an instant hit at the * * * and the party's national congress, which aroused quite a "Palin whirlwind". In just a day or two, Palin's charm, Palin's "cuteness", Palin's sense of identity, and even her hair-style glasses are all the objects of heated public discussion. Palin doll was released, and Palin's glasses were quickly robbed. It is no exaggeration to say that she has reached the status of a famous singer. "Palin doll" Palin's glasses but * * * and the party's campaign team also know that her experience is really not enough. If she is questioned by the media, no one will immediately escort her, so on the one hand, she will not let the media approach her alone, on the other hand, she will secretly coach her political knowledge. Of course it's not the raptors crossing the river. Palin could not have been elected governor of Alaska without two brushes. She is not only a strong woman, but also the mother of five children, including an unmarried pregnant daughter aged 17. In these respects, she is easily recognized by professional mothers who take care of their families and careers. The ugly daughter-in-law is finally going to meet her in-laws. After two weeks of cramming, Palin finally agreed to an exclusive interview with Charlie Gibson, a senior anchor of ABC. When the news came out, it attracted a lot of people's attention, and everyone couldn't wait to see if Palin had any real skills. "Do you agree with Bushism?" After all, ginger is always spicy, and Charlie Gibson asked several times before getting to the point. "Charlie, which part do you mean?" Strangely, this principle is either agreed or opposed by one person. How to divide it? Why does Palin have a gherardini rhetorical question? "I just want to know what you think of Bush's principles!" Charlie is getting a little impatient. He repeated his question with a straight face, just like an old professor facing a lazy student. "Are you asking about Bush's worldview?" Oh, my God, actually, this bush is at 9. After 1 1, the "Bush Principle" was very simple, that is, he believed that "the United States has the right to unilaterally pre-empt any country that may pose a threat to it." What does it have to do with Bush's worldview? Palin's shallow knowledge of world politics was suddenly exposed. After the interview was exposed, many Democrats gloated over Palin's ignorance as a joke. Everyone wants to know who will vote for such an inexperienced candidate. The story was even made into a humorous short play about saturday night live. One paragraph says that because she lives in Alaska, she can see Russia from her window, which shows that she has diplomatic experience. Yesterday, a group of political commentators in the media joked about it again. Suddenly, one of them said earnestly, "Although this is ridiculous, we Americans have the ability to elect stupid people as presidents forever!"! We not only elected Bush as president, but also elected him twice in a row. There was Reagan before. At that time, many people said that he didn't know much, and he also became two presidents. There was before him. . . "Just then, the results of a public opinion survey were announced. One of the questions is "Which candidate is the most similar to you?" Guess who scored the highest? Palin, of course, George H.W. Bush was elected president because he didn't look smart. He thought he was more like an ordinary person, so he could have a beer or something. It doesn't matter if you barely pass the college exam. It doesn't matter if you start a company and go bankrupt when you are young. If you don't understand the affairs of state, nothing will happen with the help of an old minister of Bush. As a result,140,000 troops were stuck in the mire of Iraq for five years, but they still couldn't get out. More than 4,000 soldiers who died in the battlefield threw a lot of dollars into the water without even making a sound, letting the world see the true face of the American paper tiger. I think Americans can learn from this painful experience, blood out. Never make the same mistake again. Choose an extremely clever president next time. Who knows that when Palin came, she was fascinated by her "political charm" and "cuteness" and then forgot all about it. The world situation is changing rapidly: the rise of Asia, the revival of the European Union and Russia, and terrorism in the Middle East. Faced with so many challenges, even a brilliant president may not be able to maintain the competitiveness of the United States. If the president only has the same skills as "ordinary people", this country will be finished. Why is it so important for Americans to choose someone similar to themselves and make themselves like being president? I have always been puzzled about this matter, and I have only thought of the following two possibilities for a long time. One possibility is that stupid people choose stupid presidents. "Never underestimate the stupidity of Americans." It's a sentence that an American friend often likes to say. The implication is that it is natural for a stupid person to vote for a stupid president. It is certainly a bit harsh to say that Americans are stupid. But ordinary people's eyes are short-sighted after all. Most people, including me, are worried about the small things in front of them: whether they have insurance when they are sick, whether they have money to send their children to a good university, and whether the pension they have saved is enough for their old age. If a candidate doesn't care about these little things I'm worried about when he expresses his political views, but talks about the country's century-old plan every day, can I vote for him? If I ask the little princess if she wants to eat sugar or not, of course she chooses sugar. Ask her if she wants to do her homework or watch TV. Of course, she voted for watching TV. If a president asks people if they want to cut taxes, they will of course say yes. But if the president asks the people if they want to increase social welfare, everyone will of course say yes. As for the lack of money, borrowing government bonds from China is really nobody's business. In this case, can we blame politicians for their lack of foresight, and their eyes are only on the next election? Even David Blockx, a veteran commentator in The New York Times who has always been biased towards * * * and the Party, could not help but write in an editorial on September 15: "Democracy is not that ordinary people choose ordinary leaders, but that ordinary people use their wisdom to choose the most qualified leaders." Sentence. But political wisdom is not innate and needs to be cultivated from an early age. If even Americans, as big democratic countries, don't have enough democratic level to choose far-sighted leaders, how can other small emerging democracies in the world still have hope? This is a basic problem that needs careful consideration in a democratic system. The next time the United States wants to export planes and artillery to "export democracy", it should be clear before it does it. Possibility 2: Americans are not stupid, but they really hate smart leaders. Some people say that the population of the United States has increased in recent years. Advocates of populism despise elites, believing that elites are arrogant and think they are superior everywhere. They don't believe in books, but only know practical knowledge. They don't like to think deeply, but prefer to act on instinct. They don't think that the tempering of political circles will make a person mature and sophisticated. On the contrary, they think that the longer they stay, the more corrupt they will become. Only by staying out of the circle can they remain pure and straightforward. Some people even think that only those who are farther away from the political "dye vat" and closer to the grassroots are qualified to be leaders of the United States. This can be said to be an "anti-elite movement". Palin's admirers are the best representatives of these people. It's not hard to see why these people hate Democratic candidate Obama. Take Palin's supporter Betty as an example. She wears slacks and a green thorn on her wrist. At the age of 39, she has never voted in her life. Like Palin's daughter, she was a teenage mother. In an interview at Walmart, Palin's hometown, she said that she likes Palin because of her simple local flavor. She thinks Obama is arrogant, and the sight of him makes her scalp tingle. "Like a weasel. . . "I really don't know what the American leaders did wrong in the past, which made the people spit on political insiders so much. But how can "outsiders" have enough experience to govern a complex country? If you don't want an elite, forget it. Don't even want your own future? In fact, this "anti-elite movement" is not unique to the United States. Lenin once thought that the management of socialist countries would become very simple, saying that "any cook should be able to govern the country". There is no Chinese translation, which can be roughly translated as "governing the country is so simple that even any cook can do it" But he finally admitted that state management is a very complicated matter after all, so "any worker who does rough work, any cook, can't participate in state management now." Feelings. In recent decades, China has gone through a similar tortuous road. From the more books Chairman Mao said, the more you read, the more stupid you become. Intellectuals want workers and peasants to "re-educate" and now run the country scientifically. Should the United States take the old road that both China and the Soviet Union have gone through and found it impossible to take? David Blockx wrote in his title "Why does experience matter? The editorial wrote: "Managing the country is not an easy task." Making and implementing policies requires not only skill, but also caution. . . Caution comes from experience. "I think it is ironic that he took great pains to explain these concepts that should be obvious. I can almost hear David's sigh behind his heavy tone. Is this country really beginning to decline? After all, I don't know why Americans like to choose inexperienced "fools" as presidents. But I know that the person who is finally elected is not necessarily stupid. Only the successful candidate can see through the voters' psychology best. American democracy has unconsciously entered a turning point. In this increasingly complex world, when we are bombarded with information from TV, radio, internet and mobile phones 24 hours a day, we have less and less time and have no patience to listen carefully to candidates to express their political views. You have ten seconds. I'm sorry if you can't express your opinion in the simplest terms. I want to change the channel. In this case, "manipulating public opinion" rather than "winning public opinion" has become the most effective campaign means. Which political party has the most money and knows how to manipulate voters' psychology through the media will be in power. Is this the so-called democracy in the minds of the founding fathers of the United States? Candidates are willing to use this situation to hijack democracy, the media are willing to be used for ratings, and voters are so numb that they ignore the status quo. If the fisherman goes, the tiger shooter is far away, and the dog killer is not there. Hey! If this continues, the prospect of democracy is really not optimistic. Obama said that "a pig with lipstick is still a pig" and was slandered as a pig, causing quite a storm. Related article: Who wants to drink beer with the President of the United States? How much does it cost to run for president of the United States? It's all about Super Tuesday.