During the most recent presidential election seasons, a lot of the familiar election strategies have remained consistent.

People accuse each other of being flip-flops, or being too soft on terrorism, or not implementing policy to better the economy. But recently I’ve noticed a new trend that both baffles and frightens me: the glorification of ignorance.

Herman Cain, for instance, points to “Obamacare” as an example of our laws being too long and convoluted and has said he would only sign short bills of three pages of length or less. Moreover, he’s also suggested building an electrified fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. Rick Perry has argued for an effective invasion of Mexico to combat the drug cartels there.

And, as the New York Times so poignantly pointed out in a recent editorial, “Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul say they would forbid the Supreme Court from ruling on same-sex marriage, forgetting perhaps that presidents don’t actually get to do that.”

I have to wonder at times if some of these candidates even know what a president is supposed to do or if they’ve read the Constitution that they would be charged with upholding by being elected to office.

To think that by electing these people we would trust them with the launch codes for every one of our tactical nuclear weapons is terrifying to me when I’m not even sure some of them could find Pakistan on a map.

What’s even scarier to me however is that so many of them seem to revel in this ignorance. In 2008 then-Sen. Obama was derided for being an out-of-touch Ivy League snob. To some he was simply another member of the “intelligentsia.” Essentially, the problem a lot of people had with the man was that he was too smart.

Are we really in such a position right now where the most effective political platform is being less intelligent than your competition? I don’t know about some people but when it comes to ideal qualities of an executive officer, I’d prefer for them to be smarter than the competition. I want a candidate who has a thorough understanding of both Keynesian and monetarist economics. I want a candidate who is well versed in constitutional law and the historical development of this nation.

I want a candidate who can tell me both how we ended up in our current situation in the Middle East and how we ought to go about resolving our problems there.

Most importantly, I want a candidate who can tell me the executive provisions of Article II of the United States Constitution.

People like to criticize the president for “talking down” to the American people as if they wouldn’t understand what he’s talking about a lot of the time. Personally, I really don’t have a problem with that.

I know for a fact that United States foreign and domestic policy is infinitely more complex than 24-hour news networks might insist, and anyone who pretends that “simpler” policies like a 9-9-9 tax plan or a 20 percent flat tax are going to immediately solve all our problems are doing more of a disservice to us than the “condescending” leaders already in office.

You wouldn’t take advice from a doctor without a medical license and you wouldn’t expect a person who failed out of law school to represent you in court.

Why then do we offer so much praise to candidates who pride themselves on not knowing what they’re talking about? It baffles me, but then again, maybe I just need someone to “talk down” to me to explain it.

Brandon Bub is a sophomore majoring in English and edits The Daily Campus opinion column. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].