Every presidential election cycle, we have the obligatory inane question,
Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?
as if that somehow makes someone more qualified to be President of the United States.
George Bush won that contest with each of his two opponents. Presumably that was the large measure of his appeal since no objective observer could ever determine that George W. Bush was more competent than either of his opponents. Why anyone would want to have a beer with George W. Bush is beyond me, considering: 1) he wouldn’t be drinking beer with you; 2) he wouldn’t be able to hold up his end of the conversation...any conversation; and 3) I’d rather not drink alcohol with any recovering alcoholic who also happens to be an evangelical Christian—the odds of getting a sermon are just way too high.
The advancement of this stupid poll question was probably a large factor in GWB being elected1 and re-elected2 since it provided the unthinking voter with a rationale for basing his/her voting decision on a non-issue rather than challenging people to a serious examination of the candidates. It provided mainstream acceptance for the ultimate intellectual cop-out.
Now recently, Terry McAuliffe, former chairman of the DNC and now paid staffer for Hillary Clinton had this to say in his appearance on Larry King Live:
You know, I give it the beer test. Who would you rather sit down and have a beer with? And she is going to be — and I got to tell you, she is so excited to be in this race. She’s having so much fun.
Now let's leave aside the question that McAuliffe never answered his own question, who the hell cares how much fun Hillary is having? Sure, I’d probably sit down and have a beer with Hillary, but then, if they’re buying, there are few people I wouldn’t have a beer with. (GWB excepted, of course.) But is it too much that we put this ridiculous requirement to rest, already? We don't need people that are ostensibly on our own side offering this stupid talking point as if it's actually meaningful, especially when the candidates we are offering are clearly far more capable than the rabble coming out of the Republican side. We don't need this coming down to a test of who is more fun. (And since McAuliffe supports Hillary, I would think he would be the last person that would want to continue to further this talking point given that she would probably fail the test vs. most of the other candidates.)
But with respect to the stupidity of the beer test itself, when the hell is anyone going to have the opportunity to have a beer with the President of the United States? And why should that be any kind of criteria for someone to lead the nation? There are a lot of people I think I would actually enjoy having a beer with, but very few of them would get my vote for president. Why? Because I’d rather not elect somebody whom you can easily envision kicking back with a brew (or three) at happy hour and shooting the shit with fellow drunkards, to have his/her hand on the freaking nuclear button that could incinerate the world.
Call me crazy, but when I think of a person that I want to be making rational decisions about whom we should go to war with or where the tax burden should fall, I’m not thinking of my buddy Pat, who is a hell of a fun guy to be around (especially when drunk) but for whom the pinnacle of entertainment is lighting farts on fire. I want a policy wonk. I want an egghead. I want a nerd. I want the guy who enjoys reading detailed policy reports by think tanks or governmental research services. I want somebody who thinks, not somebody who drinks.
Now I don't begrudge anyone an adult beverage every now and then, even if that person is the leader of the free world. But my analysis of his/her capability to lead this nation doesn't end with an uninformed choice about whether he or she might be a fun date to bring to a university keg party. And the next pundit or pollster who asks this question as if it were at all legitimate is going to hear from me.
[Update]: For laughs, here is a link to the Onion article about a voter having that much ballyhooed beer with Bush.
1 I know. Gore won.
2 Though less clear cut, it can be argued, "Ditto for Kerry."