I know I’ve posted before about a very common error on the Left:  The belief that, if someone speak fluidly and articulately, his ideas must be as good as his presentation.  The examples of famous evil demagogues, with the most famous being Hitler, fail to deter Progressives from this belief.  The same people are equally committed to the corollary idea, which is that a hesitant speaker, such as George Bush or Moses, must have bad ideas.

Let me say this very clearly (given my wonderful verbal skills):  Oral fluency has nothing to do with the quality of ones ideas.  Both Hitler and Churchill were gifted speakers.  One was a fount of evil thought; the other a man deeply committed to Western freedoms.

I mention this because, once again, the New York Times has given space to an idiot, this time a man who is outraged that Joe the Plumber got a book deal, when others who handle the English language more elegantly (at least, in the opinion of this particular Times‘ guest writer) did not.  Certainly, if you have good ideas, it’s easier to convey them if you’ve mastered your audience’s language.  But for this writer to assume that those who have mastered the language have good ideas, while someone who is not verbally gifted has only bad ones, is the kind of typical failed logic that characterizes modern education and that drags our world down on a daily basis.

My big push in the next two weeks is to keep the focus on the two parties’ differing visions of America.  It’s much easier to get a handle on the big picture, and avoids the mud-slinging associated with the personalities lined up behind these ideological views.  I’ve pointed out that, if you like big government, whether it’s supposedly benefitting you or actually burdening you, pick Obama/Biden, no matter the problems with those candidates.  Likewise, if you like smaller government (because, sadly, there is no small government), even though it means you get fewer benefits, go for McCain/Palin.

Jonah Goldberg (unsurprisingly) is also writing about these huge ideological divides — statism versus individualism, small government versus big government — divides that transcend personality.  His starting point is by-now-very-symbolic Joe the Plumber:

Wurzelbacher symbolizes an optimistic, individualistic vision of America sorely lacking — until recently — in McCain’s rhetoric.

Barack Obama, in contrast, has offered the most rhetorically eloquent defense of collectivism since Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his biographical video at the Democratic convention, he proclaimed that in America, “one person’s struggle is all of our struggles.” In his acceptance speech, he artfully replaced the idea of the American dream with the century-old progressive nostrum of “America’s promise.”

But the two visions are in opposition: the former individualistic, the latter collectivist. We each have our own idea of the American dream. Joe the Plumber’s is to own a small plumbing company; yours might be something else entirely. In America, that’s fine, because the pursuit of happiness is an individual, not a collective, right.

Obama’s “America’s promise,” meanwhile, harkens back a century to the writings of such progressives as Herbert Croly (author of The Promise of American Life), who demonized individualism while sanctifying collective action overseen by the state. Obama often articulates a vision of government inspired by the biblical injunction to be our brother’s keeper. Few would dispute the moral message, but many disagree that such religious imperatives are best translated into tax or economic policy. (Where are the separation-of-church-and-state fetishists when you need them?) But individualists haven’t had much of a voice in McCain, at least not until last week.

I’m sure you’ll want to read the rest, which you’ll find here.

We’ve become used to political dirty tricks aimed at those who stick their neck out and actually run for office (as well as their wives, children and unborn babies).  However, Obama’s Chicago style campaign, media and fellow-travelers have used those dirty tricks to try to destroy an ordinary Joe.  Sickening.  Perhaps this is what it will take to make people understand that Obama is politics as usual only if your community bears an uncanny resemblance to Chicago or to politics in, say, Cuba, North Korea, Hiterlite Germany, Soviet or Putin-esque Russia, etc.

UPDATE:  So far, Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, has my favorite post about what the whole Left wing attack on Joe means.

UPDATE II:  Lee Cary also weighs in on the larger meaning of the MSM’s attacks on Little Ol’ Joe.

UPDATE III:  Ace explains why the media’s savage personal attacks on anyone who threatens the Obama campaign stifle the free-flow of information relevant to voters in this election.