Question

I found this picture of Sarah Palin in a recent New Yorker magazine book review with one of the most apt titles that they came up with... It read "she represents the erasure of any distinction between the governing and the governed".

Hmmm… Makes one think - now is that a good thing or a bad thing - “erasure of any distinction between the governing and the governed”. Sarah Palin would doubtless resonate with a portion of those people with the mindset that revolves around the fact that even a two bit hockey mom who claims that she can protect our country from Russian missiles just because she can see Russia from her home (purportedly) and who shoots moose from airplanes as sport is eminently fit to be the president of this country. When one encounters individuals like Palin being touted as one of the 'contenders' for that office, then one desperately desires a definite difference between the people who are supposed to be governed (the likes of Palin and her followers) and the people who are supposed to do the governing (the likes of an Obama).
On the other hand, America is also supposed to be a glorious union (or an experiment?) of people who had explicitly decided to shun the outward trappings of power, pageant and pomp when it comes to governance and establish a level playing field between the governed and the governing. Reports of Presidents throwing the first pitch at baseball games and of Presidents being lampooned and roasted at White House Correspondents dinner are legion. America also is supposed to represent an ultimate democratization of people's ambitions where just about anyone can aspire to be the next millionaire provided they work at it and children are taught from an early stage that they can be anyone they want to be. This lends to the argument that there should not be any outward difference between the governing and the governed. I am still unsure.