When John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate last fall, I felt like I had been punched in the gut.

And every time I hear her speak, which has been more frequently in the last month, I’m reminded of who the Republican Party and the McCain campaign overlooked to pick her.
And why that was a terrible choice.

Sarah Palin is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the GOP.

As an independent conservative with a decidedly libertarian bent, I could go on and on about platform problems, but I think it’s something much shallower than that.

The Republican Party is scared of geeks.

There seems to be a thought among the party’s leaders that Joe the Plumber and other “average Americans” are scared of intellectual curiosity and brainy debate – that people just want to vote for someone they’d sit down and have a beer with.

I say that’s false – that people are not scared of smart people.

If you look back on the list of top Republicans over the years, except for the first Bush presidency, the big dogs were always macho, charming and decidedly too cool to do their homework, but they were always supported by pocket-protector-wearing, four-eyed, slightly geeky policy wonks. And it worked just fine for the party.

Think it through: Ronald Reagan, a one-time actor, fraternity brother, football player from a small college in Illinois; his vice president was George H.W. Bush, a Yale graduate who wore glasses and was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and whose image required a makeover before his presidential bid because his advisors said he was too “preppy.”

Exhibit B: The most recent Bush presidency. George W. Bush was known for working on his ranch, talking in a slight Texas drawl and either making up new words or mispronouncing others; his vice president, Dick Cheney, wore glasses and had a master’s degree in political science.

Those in the top job relied on geeks. But it’s not just presidents and their vice presidents.
During the height of the party’s success, there were always nerds in the upper ranks of the GOP: Denny Hastert, a disheveled, overweight former high school government and history teacher; Newt Gingrich, whose dissertation for his Ph.D. in history was on Belgian education policy in Africa (I’m not kidding); and Bill Frist, whose pre-politics resume included the words Princeton, Harvard, Stanford and Vanderbilt.

But with George W. Bush’s presidency came a certain hesitation about intellectual curiosity, and I think much of the GOP’s waning popularity has something to do with that.
Witness also the rising popularity of the conservative columnists and commentators who say shocking things in entertaining ways (Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck) and the declining popularity of those who defend conservative principles in dry, monotonous lectures (George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Walter Williams).

What bothers me about all of this is that in the grand scheme of things, a position of limited government that enables growth and empowers the free market is simply better for the overall health of the nation.

That point can be debated on an intelligent level and that position will nearly always win. Why are conservatives shying away from intelligent debate and those who excel in it in favor of the populist liberal “If you want it, the government should give it to you” argument?

That position can only lead to an unsustainable model for growth and liberty.

To give to one person, something must be taken from another, and that position can only lead to an imbalance between the givers and takers until there are no givers left.

That’s basic economics.

However, a government that provides opportunities by saying that all of its citizens are entitled to seek their own prosperity leaves the giving and taking up to natural processes and value exchanges.

Those who say this attitude is unfair because not everyone can take advantage of opportunities are neglecting the fact that the forced giving and taking is inherently less fair.
With the selection of Sarah Palin last fall – an intellectual lightweight who made her bread and butter off quips and catch-phrases and not high-minded debate – the GOP and the McCain camp were their own worst enemy.

Obviously it didn’t work out too well for them – or for our country.

Bryan Clapper is Leader Publications publisher.
E-mail him at bryan.clapper@leaderpub.com.