middle-aged people were scandalized by young people that listened to jazz music, remember? Meanwhile, in 2004, the same people who were complaining about ignorant teenagers re-elected Bush for a second term. Technology does not make people smarter or stupider. If teenagers are indeed becoming more ignorant, then it is the fault of the teachers and parents that educate them for not incorporating the Internet into their education beneficially. In my English class, for example, the Internet is used for discussing the works we read in class- including authors from Arthur Miller to William Shakespeare.

"officials who are democratically selected by the masses don't really understand -- and perhaps aren't even capable of understanding -- the complex global issues that need to be negotiated. American congressmen, senators and even presidents know how to get elected by capitalizing on delusional fears of gay marriage and illegal aliens, but their constituents don't demand that they master high-level economic or scientific concepts. Chances are, the voters haven't even heard of those concepts, let alone formulated opinions on them. How can even the superclass be accountable to a public that can't (or won't) comprehend what they do?"

That is a gross oversimplification that the superclass elite are intelligent while elected officials aren't. It's also giving less credit to ordinary citizens than they deserve. If anything, I would blame general social injustice that prevents citizens from receiving high-quality education that would allow them to grasp economic and scientific concepts.

This book seems to be based on the assumption that powerful and wealthy people are also intelligent and competent. Sure, the Davos people may include the rare scientist or academic, but the majority are CEO's and wealthy tycoons, who may or may not understand advanced economics and science.

The best experts in political, social and environmental issues seem to be local, specialized agencies or NGOs that are knowledgeable about very specific problems in a small community and have the expertise the alleviate those problems (example: Grameen Bank). Once people are involved in wider issues in large geographical areas, they seem to oversimplify and generalize situations (example: IMF's insistence to requiring the same economic reforms for all countries as a condition for lending money to them).

Nor are members of the supposed superclass capable of solving civil conflict, ethnic tensions and fights for limited natural resources in the least. Time and time again, these prove to be the biggest impediments to global development and stability, deeply entrenched in problems related to political corruption, local culture and natural resource allocation. Again, solving these issues need close attention from highly specialized third-party groups, rather than an all-encompassing solution generated by a group of corporate leaders and philanthropists.

LW: Wonderful letter. I'm not sure how to respond because I've never been the kind of person that everyone goes to when they have a problem. Yet I do feel at times that the people around me don't want to help me, and that they only want to talk about themselves. Admittedly, even the closest of my friends and family do not understand my deepest beliefs and feelings. But I think that is true to some extent for everybody. We are never entirely self-sufficient, yet we are all in our own way alone. For years you have been the person that everybody turns to, the person that everybody takes for granted. Truth be told, we all need someone in our life like that. You do, too. It can be a total stranger that you pour out all your vicious thoughts, a therapist who helps people resolve their psychological problems the whole day, a parent who loves you unconditionally. It can even be a child for whom you work selflessly. I don't know how helpful I have been, but I hope that you can see from the other letters that we all feel the same way once in a while and that we are all offering our help to you, through advice and words of comfort. The world is a strange place. People selfishly take from us: businessmen exploit workers, politicians take advantage of their power, religious leaders feed onto our insecurities by offering an explanation of the world. Yet, we selfishly take from others as well: our society rewards the very few of us who are literate, earn wages and have a good quality of life while exploiting who are the poorest. In the end, nobody can judge who the victims are and who the perpetrators are.

Right-wing discourse is often loaded logical fallacies and false information to create strong emotion (usually fear). And people who are most irrationally afraid are usually the loudest people. That's why it is so powerful. And I hypothesize that the people who are the most afraid and the loudest are also the richest, and hence the ones with the most ability of being heard. For those of us who see the world in subtleties and nuances, convincing us takes a lot more intelligence. Unfortunately not many people develop to this stage because of they way they are raised.

Great post, Glenn.

Not only do the press view McCain as a very Serious Expert on Foreign Policy, they also see him as an affable, down-to-earth candidate with a certain knack for making BBQ ribs...

I don't think that journalists are really that stupid per se . It doesn't take much to understand that McCain can't be a defiant maverick and yet be a strong supporter of the Iraq war and fear-mongering arguments of the Bush administration. Journalists are just insecure and use mob psychology tactics to create media hype. Then they tell us that is how "the public" feels. That is, after all, how the press makes money.