Huh? Is anyone else offended by the premise of this cartoon? Are you arguing that anyone with an Elite education is superior to an average person? Are average people laughable and foolish for imagining themselves in places of power? I celebrate de-elitification if it leads to a diversity of voices in politics, even if one of those voices is Sarah Palin, or RP Swillerman. Because it also means that the door may be open to Betty Black, Lucy Latina, Hariett Homeless, Doug Drugaddict, and Sophie Singlemom. I hope more non-elite people feel enfranchised, and that their sense of belonging translates into votes and political involement.

I'm not offended by this at all. I'm frightened. There's a trend in the US that knowledge & inquiry is a bad thing. I don't want uneducated non-thinkers running anything, regardless of where they came from. Take George W. Privileged? Yes. Elitist? Probably. A thinker? Not so much. Don't want him, or others like him, running the show because of that. Not because he went to Yale, but because going to Yale didn't help develop his skills as a thinker or strengthen his powers of inquiry. I want someone who bases decisions on facts and rational thinking & analysis - not 'gut' instincts and personal religious beliefs. That's what this cartoon is saying. RP Swillerman doesn't read the newspaper, thinks the GNP is a new grocery store chain, wants the little woman barefoot in the kitchen and handles disputes by "kicking ass". The only thing he would lead well would be the KKK! The term elitist is being misused. Having an education doesn't make you elitist. It makes you lucky.
Your attitude is what makes you elitist. Bob Dole and Jimmy Carter were extremely well educated, great public servants and thinkers - but they weren't considered elitists.

Elite...well-connected, top 10 percent in income, over-educated not necessarily intelligent or smart, privileged, and immodest. Born again Christians don't look down on being intelligent but rather "not many wise, not many strong, not many rich are chosen." Often when one possesses these things, they boast in the trait or quality rather than in God, and thus they inflate themselves thus elevating themselves beyond the needs, hopes, plights, and aspirations of the everyday person. Let us not forget that the meek shall inherit the earth, whether genius or mentally disabled, whether born into wealth or born into poverty. God is no respecter of persons.

The issue everyone has is that politicians and the two-party system are trying to force everyday people into narrow issues, while from what I've observed, the general population is low government-involvement and into slight but modest social economics. This is distinctly different from our politicians who tend to be to the right on economics and try to narrow us and define us by their morality/ethics when we as people are quite diverse in that aspect. Republican, capitalism, and anti-abortion are not interdependent facets of an individual nor is Democrat, environmentalist, and pro-abortion. It's about time both parties realize this and voters as well as politicians consider the possibilities of creating new movements, sub-parties or entirely new political parties.

The denigration of intelligence and education comes straight out out of Mao's playbook. Who is the "man" behind the curtain?

Education...toward what end(s)? I'll take Hofstadter's intellect over intelligence any day, take Ken Thompson's approach to creative ends in education over indoctrinating commitment to consumerism any day...!