George Ayoub: Asking a lot not too much to ask

Nebraskans will remember a few years ago when a state senator made the case on the floor of the Legislature during a debate about school behavior that students were calling themselves “furries,” dressing the part and requesting litter boxes in public school bathrooms. This, the story went, was the result of some fiendish phenomenon in which our children fancied themselves felines and Fidos. 

He later apologized after realizing that the preposterous claim was … well … preposterous, proving yet again that confusing an assertion on Facebook or some other similarly situated social media with actual research rarely goes unpunished. 

I was reminded of Nebraska’s Furry Follies after the recent epic faceplant of U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.). Schmitt’s clanger was the result of concocting a conclusion for which he had the wrong premise. In the end, he clearly had no premise at all. 

At the risk of piling on, these are the details: During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, while trying to catch former Special Prosecutor Jack Smith in a lie, he mixed up the Atlanta Hawks men’s professional basketball team with the University of Iowa Hawkeye women’s basketball team, rendering his “Gotcha!” moment toothless and embarrassing. 

You might give a little slack to someone fooled on social media. It happens to all of us in the deep-fake, AI world in which we find ourselves. But a U.S. senator with a staff and researchers? Not so much, especially when his goal was not information but rather to attack the witness. 

Which, even despite his monumental airball, he did anyway, calling Smith a “total dirtbag,” giving the hearing the patina of an episode of “The Wire.” Not to be outdone, his fellow committee member, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) — the recent guest of honor at Nebraska Sen. Pete Ricketts’ annual barbecue — went even further, forgoing actual questions surrounding Smith’s work as special prosecutor before closing with the wholly ignominious “You make me want to throw up in my mouth.” Other GOP senators joined the fray, too, attacking Smith as a liar, “villain” and serial abuser of power.

Perhaps these are serious people. After all, they are members of “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” the U.S. Senate. But you wouldn’t know it by some of the behavior in this hearing, because these were unserious responses to a serious matter, the investigation into the attempted undoing of an American election. 

Nor was the acrimony and ultimately empty show an isolated incident or, for that matter, new. Somewhere during the last couple of decades we have recalibrated our taste in political leaders, steering away from statesmanship, class and decorum and toward what gets clicks, raises money or, as we like to say, fires up the base. Yes, we’ve had exceptions, but we seem to have quit wringing our hands about the coarsening of American politics and culture. That’s because it’s already here.

With it comes a new construct for political leadership. At some point we decided one new litmus test for presidents, governors and other American leaders was someone you could have a beer or a cup of coffee with. Someone who could relate to us. 

Nothing wrong with that. 

About the same time we decided that “elite” was a bad word, and groups such as “East Coast elites” or “political elites” were bad people, representative of those whose power and position kept them out of touch with reality and who could care less about all of us “regular” Americans.

I would argue, however, that in our rush to “normalize” political officeholders and reduce the sway of the privileged, we discounted a few things too important to concede. Otherwise, anyone nursing a cold one at the corner tavern or a hot latte at your local Starbucks would be a good candidate for office. I say that not as an elite, but as someone who has apparently old-fashioned expectations of those who write laws and craft policies that affect my life.

Why not elect someone with elite intellect? Someone who is an elite problem solver? Someone who respects our Constitution and public institutions, the historical backbone of the nation? While we’re at it, how about giving a shot to someone whose compassion, empathy, open-mindedness, ability to handle criticism we would consider elite? Someone  with elite mental toughness, who also champions the power of diversity in people, ideas and thought. Finally, I’m a fan of all those “elites” out there who embrace science, make decisions with empirical data and can articulate their vision of how to employ all of the above in making our lives better.

You’re right. That’s a lot to ask. But we’re worth it.