Per Hot Air, the demonization of the informed takes an expected turn, with a Republican candidate questioning why we need lawyers in the Senate:
Our candidate’s statistic is less remarkable when one looks to the history: a full 25 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers; another 5 doctors or scientists; and a only 15 “merchants.” 7 of the first 10 presidents were lawyers (Washington, Jackson, and Harrison are the exceptions). The architects of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Jefferson and Adams, were both lawyers, and Adams an unpopular one, following his defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.
None of this should surprise; we’re a particularly legalistic culture, owing partially to our British heritage, but more, perhaps, to the country’s foundational conceit, that the common law, which required mediators to interpret and apply, is inadequate to the defense of liberty. Our particularly Protestant approach to constitutionalism defines our respect for the laaw, but also compels some distrust of lawyers, because average men and women should be able to understand and interact with the law. This is clearly true. But a decent respect for specialization is all that’s needed to understand that lawyers might be over-represented in political careers because they’re particularly trained for those careers. Shooting holes in statutory regimes is what we’re payed to do; and the guys that know how to break the system probably should be in charge of keeping it in working order.
Interesting, too, how brazenly the Republican Party, or at least this Republican candidate, is willing to write off the entire lawyer vote, and any fundraising that group could provide. It’s true that lawyers are a particularly liberal bunch. I suppose the right’s viscerally appealing but intellectually hollow approach to constitutionalism has been repelling those who know what they’re talking about for years; but stunts like this won’t help.