upworthy

politicians

A candidate running for office.

As the old song by The Who goes, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” It’s a sentiment many of us feel every time a new mayor, governor, or president takes office, and we can’t help but feel that we deserve someone better. In a country with so many brilliant scientists, business people, educators, and public policy experts, why do the least impressive of us seem to rise to power?

Philosophy expert Julian de Medeiros, a popular TikToker and Substack blogger, recently wrestled with this question, and it must have been on a lot of people’s minds because the video received over 4.2 million views. “Why does it seem like so many people in power are so dumb? It's like, why can't we get a better class of leaders?” he asked.

@julianphilosophy

Why do stupid people have so much power? #chomsky #philosophy #psychology #power

Why is it that dumb people are always in power?

Ultimately, de Medeiros believes that power and intellect are often at odds. “I've thought about it a bit more, and I think this is my thesis: that power is inherently anti-intellectual. Because what does intellect do? Intellect questions power. It speaks truth to power. It critiques power. And power doesn't like that,” he says. “And so power has to speak to the lowest common denominator. It dumbs everything down."

"It's an anti-intellectual force. And that's why it seems like those in power are also the dumbest,” he concludes his video. The commenters further expanded on de Medeiros' thesis. “Also, intellectual people question and analyse everything. A leader needs to be invested in their opinion and abide by it,” one wrote. “Because those in power or seek power cares about the power only, so they make the decisions that keep them in power no matter what is the output,” another offered.

politicians, idiots, dumb people, anti-intellectualism, candidate, A candidate who wants your vote.via Canva/Photos

What is anti-intellectualism?

Another reason people who are a few fries short of a Happy Meal are often voted into office is that there is a deep vein of voters who are skeptical of intellectuals. These people tend to be populists who value “common sense” over intellectualism and may see experts or highly educated people as dangerous and out of touch with the common man. So, candidates position themselves against the “intellectuals” by either being their proud, dumb selves or by taking their IQ down a few notches while in public.

Theologian and philosopher Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906—1945) believed that dumb people often ascend to power because evil people have difficulty getting elected. So, they champion someone who may be more charismatic or connected and ride their coattails into power.

Finally, much like de Medeiros, Bonhoeffer believes there is a big difference between intellectualism and power. Therefore, once one attains power they are highly lifely to look like a buffoon. It’s as if, “Slogans, catchwords and the like… have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being,” Bonhoeffer says.

It’s sad to realize that the very nature of power means that those who hold office, whether we voted for them or not, will probably disappoint us at some point. But the good news from this understanding is that we are freeing ourselves from the constant disappointment of having leaders appear rather dumb. Now, whenever we meet the new boss, we can assume he's just like the old boss and be positively delighted if they wind up slightly smarter.

Lori Stegmann is putting values over party — and people are taking notice.

Stegmann is a county commissioner in Oregon, a position that's normally pretty under the radar. But her story has been going viral and becoming a national one sinceshe announced that she is leaving the Republican Party and becoming a Democrat.

"There's too much at stake in our country right now and we have to speak out," she wrote on Facebook.


"As a woman, a business owner, a mother, an immigrant, and a minority," she continued, "I cannot condone the misogyny, the racism, and the unethical and immoral behavior of the current administration. I fear for the safety of our country, for human rights, for women's rights, the environment, and the uncertainty of our future."

Image via Lori Stegmann/Facebook.

Describing herself as a political moderate, Stegmann made it clear it wasn't about attacking Republicans or endorsing Democrats.

It was about finding a home for the values she refuses to give up.

"This decision is about who I am, what I believe in, and my core values," she wrote. "And if you don't stand for something, then you stand for nothing."

Stegmann expected major backlash. But so far, that hasn't happened.

She admitted she expected a lot of negative feedback from her constituents, especially over the fact that she became a Democrat instead of simply leaving the Republican Party.

"I didn't do this to attack, criticize, or belittle my Republican friends," she wrote. "I still consider them my friends and colleagues, and hope that they will do the same. But I know this will be hard for some to hear."

Instead, her Facebook post has received mostly supportive comments. Her story was picked up by major media outlets as yet another example of a career public servant finding themselves forced to choose between party and country.

Stegmann might be taking cues from a growing number of Republicans and conservatives who have recently publicly advocated support for Democrats.

And it's not just about Trump. Even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said voters should support the Democratic candidate over a self-identified Nazi Republican running for Congress.

Real political courage is about standing up for our values in the face of adversity.

America's politics are becoming increasingly tribal. Even good people sometimes find themselves torn between doing what's right and being loyal to their "team."

It doesn't have to be that way.

Stegmann's letter shows there is a way to protest while embracing what's best about us. And it might just be the best way to get our elected leaders to start taking notice.

Hey! Remember Sean Spicer? He just wrote a book.

Spicer was President Donald Trump's first press secretary before resigning just 182 days into the administration. He became a bit notorious for his poor word choices (he accidentally called concentration camps "Holocaust centers") and easily debunked lies (such as his claim that the crowd at Trump's inauguration was the "largest audience to witness an inauguration, period" or the time he defended Trump's voter fraud claims by citing a study's non-existent conclusion).

Since his time in the White House, news networks dashed Spicer's hopes of landing a high-paying contributor role, he completed a Harvard Fellowship that led one student to publicly call for the end of the program in its current form, he showed up at the Emmys for a tongue-in-cheek joke about his crowd size lie, and has started developing his own TV talk show to pitch to networks.


He's been a busy guy, which maybe explains why his book didn't quiteget the care it needed, based on some early reviews.

Sean Spicer posing with wax figures of Melania and Donald Trump, which is somehow not the weirdest thing he's done since resigning. Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Madame Tussauds.

Media figures could press Spicer on so much during his book tour. But for the most part, they haven't.

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly allowed Spicer to sidestep a tricky question about Paul Manafort, who ran the Trump campaign for three months during the summer of 2016 and is credited with selecting Mike Pence as Trump's running mate. When it started to become clear that Manafort — who was indicted on a number of charges — was about to find himself in some legal hot water, Spicer claimed that Manafort "played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time." Despite this being untrue, Kelly pivoted away from Manafort-related questions as Spicer stumbled.

Meanwhile, NBC's Megyn Kelly began her Spicer interview with a laugh at Melissa McCarthy's portrayal of him on SNL and later allowed him to wriggle his way out of questions on his crowd-size lie.

Fox Business host Lisa Kennedy Montgomery asked, "How important is the book to changing the perception and the legacy that you have right now?" This allowed Spicer the chance to play up its importance as a "behind-the-scenes" look at the Trump White House.

Of the three, Kelly's interview was probably the hardest-hitting, which is ... not great.

Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images.

American journalists could learn a lot from how BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis handled her interview with Spicer.

Spicer tried to brush off a question about his crowd-size claim. But unlike other interviewers, who let Spicer downplay its importance, Maitlis wasn't having it.

"It was the start of the most corrosive culture," Maitlis fired back. "You played with the truth. You led us down a dangerous path. You have corrupted discourse for the entire world by going along with these lies."

In continuing to press the issue, Maitlis was able to get a bit of actual news out of Spicer: He seemed to believe that because the campaign felt like it had been treated unfairly by the press, that telling a lie — though he refuses to admit it's a lie — was justified.

Spicer explained his reasoning:

"We had faced a press corps that was constantly undermining our ability in the campaign to run an effective ground game, an effective data operation. Everyone was saying 'Yours isn't good enough. Hillary Clinton's running a better operation, is a better candidate and campaign. There's no way that you can compete with her.' Time and time again, through the campaign, we heard that. Then we heard similar kind of things during the transition. ... And so, if you constantly feel under attack, then you feel at some point you need to respond and say 'Enough of this.' And when you hear the president and other supporters constantly see this narrative where we are being maligned and undermined and maligned in terms of the validity of our thing, it wears on you."

That's a pretty big admission! Deciding whether or not a government official should tell the truth shouldn't depend on whether or not they're happy with "the narrative" they see playing out in the media.

Maitlis is right — that is a dangerous path, and it's not something that should be rewarded with lucrative book deals and TV shows.

Spicer at a January 2017 press conference. Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

Public officials don't get to write and re-write their own history — or at least they shouldn't.

Whether it's Spicer doing chummy interviews to promote his book, Tom DeLay bouncing back from a money-laundering scandal to appear on "Dancing With the Stars," or any of the many other examples of times where the public is asked to more or less forget the lasting effects politicians have on our lives, this really isn't something we have to do as a culture.

There's no law that says that every former administration official is entitled to a nationally televised book tour nor that they're even entitled to a book or TV show at all.

Serving in government is just that: service. In Spicer's case, from that lie on his first day in the job and on, it was a disservice. If journalists must interview Spicer about his new book, they should look to Maitlis and the BBC for how to best serve their audiences.

Another poll shows a majority of people support abortion rights —including Republicans.

A poll released by NBC News on July 24 shows a resounding 71% of respondents saying abortion rights should be legally protected.

Those numbers are striking, but they are only the latest in a number of other polls showing a large majority of Americans agreeing that the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wadedecision should not be overturned.


Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

President Donald Trump and many other Republicans continue to frame abortion rights as a "50/50 issue" that evenly splits the country.

Even Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who has said she will not support a Supreme Court nominee who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade,has recently described the abortion debate as being "something like a 51-49" division.

It’s not.

There’s no shortage of issues that genuinely divide Americans right now. But abortion isn’t one of them.

Politicians have been able to get away with governing "in an age of minority rule," where a party that receives less votes controls the White House and both houses of Congress and has a majority edge in the Supreme Court.

There are enough doubts about the future stability of Roe v. Wade that Massachusetts repealed a 173-year-old, largely forgotten abortion restriction in case reproductive rights end up falling back into the hands of the states.

"I think people are beginning to realize these are strange times we live in," Massachusetts Senate President Harriett Chandler said.

With the law long since settled by the nation’s highest court and public opinion having swayed in support, political leaders should respect that choice and stop portraying it as a wedge issue to further divide people for short-term political gain.

Abortion will always be a complex issue. But Americans are increasingly supportive of reproductive rights. Politicians and lawmakers should respect that.

Of course, it will ultimately be up to voters to demand their elected representatives start framing the discussion in a way that reflects reality. Americans have largely embraced reproductive choice, even if they have mixed feelings about abortion itself.

Most Americans think abortion rights should be off the table, and it’s time the government started listening.