{pic by mecredis}

The heated debate between the campaigns of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama over which candidate is more or less “elitist” is, ultimately, laughable. Regardless of how much Obama’s Chicago home cost, or how much he earned last year—or how many homes McCain really has, or how he defines “rich”—suffice it to say that neither candidate is living paycheck to paycheck like the archetypal “common man” for whose favor they are competing.

Politics in the United States is a game for the wealthy no matter what the size of a particular politician’s portfolio. You don’t make it into the U.S. Senate and then become your party’s presidential candidate unless you’re willing to drop your pants and bend over for rich campaign donors looking for favors. That is the nature of the U.S. political system. Successful politicians spend a lot of time prostituting themselves and showing potential contributors how morally “flexible” they can be in return for cash.

Still, the criticism emanating from the McCain camp about Obama being an “arugula-eating, pointy-headed-professor type” is rather telling. It is a sad commentary on the state of the U.S. electorate when a politician feels the need to advertise the fact that he is less educated than his opponent. But McCain is in a difficult position. He must win the votes of the Republican base, which is dominated by poorly educated conservatives among whom college degrees tend to be viewed with suspicion. Conservatism is, by its very nature, anti-intellectual; meaning that a politician who courts conservative voters must assure them that he doesn’t think too much—lest he be accused of questioning any of the unquestionable “truths” upon which conservative ideology is based.

Given a choice between two “elitists,” I think I’ll choose the smarter one. The past eight years have shown what can happen when the nation is run by the dumber one.