Smart-Stupid Ben Carson

Presidential candidate Ben Carson epitomizes the "smart-stupid" person, a term I first heard used by Bill Maher to describe people who are extremely knowledgeable about something or very skilled at a specific task, but who are otherwise morons. And no one should be surprised that brilliant neurosurgeon Ben Carson is ignorant about public policy and is ill-equipped to speak on most political topics. In an extensive interview given in 2010, Ben Carson said that he was "always interested in medicine" and it was the "only thing" that interested him in his youth. He became the youngest ever chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins at 33. At one point, Ben Carson was performing over 500 surgeries a year. This was, according to him, "too much" and he had no time for "outside activities." At the time of the interview in 2010, he had slowed down to a mere "300 to 315" a year. He just officially retired in 2013, exactly 36 years after he began at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Carson's career alone explains his ignorance about all things he would be expected to know as President. He had no time by his own admission to do anything other than operate on brains.

The belief among Carson supporters must be that, being a super smart brain surgeon, he will just study hard and quickly catch up. But the evidence indicates otherwise. He's sounding as uncertain and uninformed now as he was in 2010. Maybe Ben Carson's brain is only programmed for being a brain surgeon. Maybe his brain is just not wired to be an expressive politician or a policy wonk. Maybe we should ask Ben... Oh that's right, he's a surgeon and this question belongs to an entirely different subfield of neuroscience. It would be malpractice for him to answer questions on topics outside his field of expertise.... 

Just as it would be malpractice on behalf of the American voter to support such a glaringly unqualified candidate for such an awesome job as the U.S. Presidency. The American President must be well-versed in military, diplomatic, economic and legal affairs, at a minimum. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states...

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States,...

Yes, he has help from the Senate, presumably. But otherwise the U.S. Presidency is a pretty awesome job. The U.S. President must command the military and oversee state militias, make treaties and appoint ambassadors AND judges. 

A U.S. President decides with whom we fight and with whom we make peace.  A Presidential candidate's resume is not burnished by successful separation of conjoined twins. The Presidential job descriptions specifically calls for someone Ben Carson is not. Ben Carson barely understands rudimentary conservative philosophy. We should expect more from a candidate for President, regardless of party affiliation. 

How We View Sandra Bland's Arrest is How We View the World

The video of the arrest of Sandra Bland makes Liberals scream police brutality.   Conservatives see a woman who got what she deserved.  Conservatives and Liberals view the arrest so differently because they view the world so differently.   These contrasting views pose a serious problem for our society because they spring from deeply held beliefs about how the world works.

Conservatives view the world from a hierarchical perspective: societal order can only be maintained by respecting the established traditional hierarchies.  The Police sit above most regular Citizens in this hierarchy, and especially above women of color in Texas.  From the Conservative perspective, Sandra Bland should have been deferential to the police officer: "Yes, Sir, how can I help you Sir?...."  Ms. Bland clearly did not display the "proper" amount of respect that an "Officer of the Peace" deserves.  In the eyes of the Conservative, the moment she stopped showing respect for her "superior," she lost all credibility.  At that point, nothing else mattered.  Her violation of the law was minor, but her refusal to recognize and respect the hierarchy was unacceptable.  Hierarchy provides order.  Without order, chaos ensues and society collapses.  So when you hear Conservatives say, "had she just been more polite...," they are saying her crime was not respecting the proper social order.  Even when Conservatives concede that the officer could have easily handled the situation entirely differently and avoided any problems--even when they concede he violated Police protocol and probably the law--they still side with the officer: "What would happen if no one respected authority?"  Society would descend into anarchy.  Order keeps us all safe and is the essential foundation for prosperity.  From the Conservative perspective, Sandra Bland was unquestionably wrong.

By contrast, Liberals generally believe in an egalitarian worldview, or at least one in which all citizens, police included, are seen as equal before the law, especially in the United States with our long tradition of anti-authoritarianism.  Liberals believe that police officers are public servants who serve with our permission, for our benefit: "to serve & protect."  The police officer should have approached Sandra Bland with deference and an appreciation of his role as a public servant.  As soon the officer was within hearing range of Ms. Bland, he should have uttered something to the effect: "So sorry Ma'am to have pulled you over. I'll be quick. I noticed that you didn't signal a while back. I know it's not a major infraction so I just wanted to give you a warning. [slides warning notice through window] Have a great day!"...  Police should always approach all citizens with respect, a presumption of innocence and they should take the least intrusive route to serving and protecting us.  From the Liberal perspective, the police officer was unquestionably wrong.

This great divide between how Conservatives and Liberals view the role of government is at the heart of the American story.  Thomas Jefferson wrote in the "Declaration of Independence:"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Liberals see the line, "Governments... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," as the fundamental message.  And "Men" (conceding that it wasn't believed to be so at the time by the author) refers to all of us: black, white; male, female; property owner or renter....

Conservatives argue these famous lines affirm their belief that the "Creator" authorized "Men" (meaning "men") to establish a "Government" which has authority to maintain "Safety and Happiness," which generally means enforcing an order based on the traditional hierarchy.  (Both sides claim their "Right" to "alter or to abolish... and to institute new Government... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive....")

The American Citzen Sandra Bland did not consent to be subjugated to the whims and moods of poorly trained government "Law Enforcement Agents" who see their role as defenders of the traditional hierarchy more than they see themselves as public servants in a society where no one is above the law and everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  She consented, like we all do, to allow police broad powers to effect our "Safety and Happiness."  But we only give these broad powers to police so that we may enjoy our "Right" to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," not so they can take it away.