Where are the scholars in Washington?

Does anyone else have the feeling that our nationally elected officials are not learned in the ways of economics? It is painful listening to our leaders lecture on the economy. It's like listening to someone give a book report after reading Sparknotes. Not even the complete Sparknotes, just half of it. I mean, just listening to politicians babble about the urgent need to take action, without describing (or presumably knowing) the action that should be taken is scary. I'm convinced that there are very few people in positions of power within our government who actually know how our financial system works. 

I remember history class, learning about the scholars that used to run things. Where are the scholars today? We used to have philosophers, inventors, educators and just generally smart people elected to office (Not that every historical figure in American history is a scholar, but I'm looking at the brighter side here). Honestly, what was the last intelligent thing Nancy Pelosi said? What was the last thing she said that made you think she was a really intelligent person? Or Eric Cantor and John Boehner and the rest of this current crop of Know-Nothing Republican Leadership (I say Know-Nothing because they appear to not know shit about anything, including the fact that a budget proposal needs actual numbers in it). What was the last thought provoking thing they said. Hell, what was the last thing they said that wasn't from yesterday's Limbaugh show?

Which begs the question, could an president (or any politician) win an election on the basis of being intelligent and qualified? It could be argued that Barack Obama is the most scholarly candidate to be elected president in quite some time. But look at how much he had to downplay that for fear of being called "elitist". His rhetoric about struggling families was to appeal to the "common man", his half hour prime time network television special showed how he understood the "common american", he allowed his family in the spotlight and made a point to remind American that he was a Christian in order to show his family was just  like the "common American family."

Shouldn't the person anointed to (successfully) run the country be un-common. Our president, the most powerful person in the world, should be extraordinarily smart, not common; he should be unbelievably qualified, he should be educated and versed in the ways of the economy, the law, foreign affairs, history, and what not; a scholar, if you will. He should be much more than a "common" man (dare we swallow our pride and vote for someone knowing that they are better than us). What is it with this country that makes us want to elect a "common man" to office? Why should someone like Barack Obama, or any candidate for that matter, need to downplay his intelligence and qualifications in order to appear "common"?

I voted for Obama. I am not a Democrat, I am not liberal, I really don't fit into either of those labels. I will admit that I do have disdain for Conservatism; not traditional Republican ideas, but Conservatism. Those two labels have seemed to merge lately, but they are not necessarily the same thing. I would have considered voting for McCain had he not given in to the Conservative base and ran on a Conservative, anti-intelligence, "Real America" platform. I digress. 

I voted for Obama because, yes, my opinions and views aligned more with his than McCain's, but just as importantly, because he is smart. He appeared to be smarter and more qualified than John McCain. He seemed like someone capable of reason and pragmatism (In a president!? Whoda thought!). He seemed a hell of a lot more qualified than me, or any other common man I've met throughout my life, to assume the mantle of the most powerful man in the world.

Now, we can only hope that his qualifications extend into the realm of economics....