Leave Dubya Alone
If I don’t dislike George Bush as much as the next guy, I certainly dislike him enough to have stayed up all night on US election night, worrying about chads, and hoping for a Gore victory.
But what I don’t get is how come he gets so much flak for supposedly not being very bright? If it’s true, how exactly is it his fault? Is it okay, then, to attack the intellectually challenged simply because they are intellectually challenged (Madeleine Bunting notwithstanding)?
Or is the objection that he lacks self-knowledge; he should realise he isn’t very bright – if he isn’t – and, therefore, not have stood for the presidency? If so, let’s have a reality check here. Bloggers are hardly paragons of self-knowledge (“Ooohh, I’ve just been promoted to a shiny new university position”. Yeah, right, nobody cares.). And, anyway, since when does a lack of self-knowledge justify the kind of opprobrium levelled at Bush?
And what’s with this business of the fact that he messes up his sentences? Let me tell you something – I’ve interviewed some of the world’s top scientists and philosophers (though admittedly “top philosopher” is something of an oxymoron). Guess what? They make lots of linguistic errors, just like Dubya. Because that’s the way we speak. We start sentences, change our minds about what we want to say halfway through, alter tenses, don’t finish what we started to say, and generally talk in a way which makes little sense when transcribed onto paper. Hell, I even write in a way which makes little sense when transcribed onto paper. Does that mean we’re peculiarly daft? Nope. Does it mean we’re necessarily unable to run a country? Nope.
So, if you want to attack George Bush, attack him for being a religious maniac; or for his stem-cell nonsense; or for cutting the taxes of the rich; or for coming from Texas; but not for getting his words mixed up or for his lack of intelligence. They’re cheap shots.
(The Texas thing was a joke.)
Utter and complete nonsense!
And very sly and rebellious of you to have posted it before I was even on the computer and had a chance to retort. Valuable minutes have passed while this bollocks sat here unopposed. It’s an outrage!
Very easy for you, chum, living in a country where halfwits like Bush can’t get within shouting distance of even being nominated to run for high office as a major party candidate. You don’t know what it’s like!
He should have known he wasn’t qualified to run. He should have realized he had no shred of qualification, and become a real estate agent.
Humility is supposed to be a Christian virtue, isn’t it? Not that I believe in Christian virtues much, but he does.
I think you’ve put your finger on a real big problem. By focusing on the President’s “stupidity” his critics have become completely side-tracked from discussing any substantive issues. Sadly, because I find their goals repugnant, Mr. Bush and his cronies aren’t stupid at all, at least when it come to accomplishing the goals they’ve set for themselves — goals that they’re really quite open about. I worry sometimes that the big problem with the opposition (e.g. the Democratic Party) in America, is that it is forced to focus on Bush’s “stupidity”, because their big picture goals and plans for America really aren’t any different from those of the Republicans. Real pragmatic day to day issues is the last thing any party wants to talk about, and most Americans don’t care about them anyway – for instance, can anyone in America (party leaders included) actually explain either party’s fiscal policies or monetary plans? Do they really have any? (other than keeping unemployment at exactly 5%, no more and no less! Which heaven forbid anybody will ever deabte or discuss.)
Most respectfully O, your wrong. Real estate is beyond W. He is only qualified to be a department manager at a Walmart – probably the sporting goods department, or maybe shoes, though that may be too much for him.
All the same, I think we’ve seen again and again that idiots appear to be just as qualified and effective as politicians in this country as anybody else. I’m not happy about this. I find it pretty damn sad that somebody like Jesse “the body” Ventura was no better or worse than any other state governor. Or that an academic like President Wilson can be just as creepy as President Reagan. They’re all incredible mediocrities at the end of day and we’ve had two centuries of them now. I think Andrew Jackson started the trend. I think its called populism. And again and again we get the leaders that perfectly sum-up our whole.
Jeremy K.? Imaginative choice of alias!
Ha!
Fair points, JK. Up to a point. But I do think for instance Bush is a great deal less effective internationally than Clinton was, partly because of the lack of qualification. I do think he invites contempt for not only his administration but for the country as a whole in a way that Clinton for instance didn’t.
I think you’re right about Jackson and populism and the dire trend. Richard Hofstadter thought so, for instance.
“religious maniac” ranks right up there at the epitome of unsophisticated analysis.
“”religious maniac” ranks right up there at the epitome of unsophisticated analysis.”
Are you sure your name isn’t “Lurker”?
And maybe your middle name is: “Here are my buttons. Please press.” Only that would be a little long for a middle name…
Personally, I’d vote a pig for president rather than a Democrat, but I confess that GWB’s record is so abysmal that Gore might have been a better idea after all.
The tragedy is not that GWB is ‘no intellectual’, but that, thanks to his provocative and contagious dumbness, any debate on the pros and cons of his presidency seems temporarily to reduce the IQ of ALL discussants by at least two standard deviations (as I think Schumpeter says somewhere about politics in general, but I can’t remember where). Mention the B-word, and otherwise quite reasonable people will just go bananas, start foaming at the mouth, and begin to convince themselves that the sky will cave in if Bush is re-elected.
Hence such absurdities as the calumny that Bush is a ‘religious maniac’.
Talk about cheap shots …
Yeah, but I meant “maniac” very affectionately…
Resiliant unsophistication over here!B&W does _ad hominem_ in lieu of analysis, right? Luker is the name. Try not to abuse it. In turn, I won’t make “clever” uses of JS’s and OB’s.
Ralph dear, do you really think I give two hoots what use you make of my name?
This is just blogging, it’s not important. It’s just messing around…
Love
Jerry
Yes, O, Clinton could internationally garner a lot more respect and I agree was significantly more effective – but for the type of world that you and I want to live in. (well, for something closer to the world I want to live in anyway.)
It isn’t Bush’s stupidity/lack of qualifications that directs his belligerent foreign policies. I think it’s a pretty well-thought out (evil think-tank supported) attitude, that’s absolutely intentional. Bush wants to destroy all our alliances, he wants to gain the contempt of the planet. The last thing he wants is international respect. I’m not even talking about conspiracy here, I believe that this is his government’s open policy.
His supporters don’t like the rest of the planet to begin with – especially those thin, secular, urban, smartly dressed, vacation taking, Europeans who aren’t having enough babies and have given up on carrying the white man’s burden. Heaven forbid we get along with these people. Their respect is for wussies. And hey, “don’t mess with Texas.” While you and I cringe, a clear 50 % of this country eats up this bogus folksy “America first” attitude. The more the world hates us, the more we have to go it alone. The more we have to go it alone, the more we get to do things exactly the way we want. Getting to do things exactly as we want, when we want to do them, without any regard for the long term consequences is exactly what many of our fellow citizens believe is their literal god-given right.
And this isn’t a cheap shot. You can stop many a man (and I mean man) on the street and ask them if they think this sounds like what they want, and they’ll say “hell yes!”
Is this stupid? Absolutely. But then again, I’m thin, godless, and like to take vacations.
The difference is, when bloggers lack self-knowledge, they don’t generally make decisions that drag the United States name through the mud in such a huge way, for example.
On the other hand, Bush is in principle constrained by electability concerns, both for himself and his party. We may reasonably surmise that, say, Bush’s political interference in scientific research (stem cell research, sexual health research, etc.) is not all that objectionable to his party – otherwise, wouldn’t they pressurise him to change those policies?
In other words, I think it’s fairly obvious that Bush’s policies are far more determined by – in no particular order:
– the need to look good to a large chunk of the population, especially key constituents who can be made to vote in droves, like the religious right
– the need to please his campaign donors
– the logic of contemporary corporate capitalism (I had to put that one in because I’m a left-wing nut)
than stupidity – or indeed sentiment[1] – on the part of Bush as an individual.
([1] Sentiment like the laughable theory that the US went to war partly because of an “assassination attempt” on Bush I. That’s BS! The Pentagon would never accept such a frivolous reason for deploying so many troops, whether from a president or anyone else!)
“The difference is, when bloggers lack self-knowledge, they don’t generally make decisions that drag the United States name through the mud in such a huge way, for example.”
Just so. My point in retort-N&C.
“the need to look good to a large chunk of the population,”
This is part of the problem. It’s one reason I think the stupidity question does matter, even though JK is quite right that a clever Bush would do the same things. He has clever people around him carrying out his policies, of course. But the business about looking good, and the whole matter of the assumption that an ignorant idiot is just a fine person to have in the office, sends a message to the Murkan people that they don’t need. The message is that it’s good to be stupid and ignorant, and bad to be even slightly intelligent and to know something. They (the Bushies) are (of course) leaning on this very heavily for the campaign. For every possibly-foolish word that gets uttered about Bush’s stupidity, ten words are uttered about how cold and effete and Europhile and out of touch and dull Kerry is. Because, for instance, he doesn’t eat at Wendy’s. I’m not making that up – there was some great outpouring on nonsense from Mark Steyn the other day about how sinister it is that Kerry doesn’t spend all his time at fast food joints, thus revealing that he’s not a Real Amurrican. This endless drumbeat against any tiny vestige of brain or knowledge or even for Christ’s sake not liking bad food – is not constructive. We simply do not need to be endlessly told that it’s Good to be Ignorant. And it disgusts me that anyone campaigns that way – it’s harmful, destructive, selfish, short-term personal interest at the expense of public good. It stinks.
Just for the record, I didn’t say it didn’t matter if a President was not very bright or lacked self-knowledge.
I said that being not very bright or lacking self-knowledge does not justify being *scorned* (opprobrium was the word). I was careful with the words I chose to use.
Welllll
Okay, but then your title did say Leave W Alone.
Of course I realise that’s a tease, but – well you see my point. (Or not.)
My position is that a person is not morally culpable for their lack of intelligence or their lack of self-knowledge. (Edit: Actually, my position with regards to self-knowledge is slightly more nuanced than this, but hey, it’ll do!)
Therefore, they shouldn’t be attacked as if they are morally culpable in this way.
I don’t think it makes any difference whether they’re a blogger or not.
But, of course, it does make a difference in terms of whether lack of intelligence or lack of self-knowledge matters. It does matter in the case of a President, it doesn’t in the case of a blogger.
I would argue that one should attack the consequences of a person’s lack of intelligence or self-knowledge (i.e., their actions). But that one should be careful not to frame these attacks in an ad hominem fashion.
One should also criticse a system – i.e., the US system – which leads to a situation where people who are not very bright are elected.
My worry here is not with Dubya’s feelings; it is:
(a) that attacking his brains, etc., is a distraction from the bad things he does;
(b) that seeming to assign moral culpability for a lack of brains – by treating somebody with scorn on that account – is to do down everybody who lacks brains;
That’s it really!
Jerry, Respect for any sort of analysis, to say nothing of love, would call for avoiding non-sense like “religious maniacs”. Your umbrella dismissal appears to cover most intellectual traditions, east and west.
Ralph, I’m just playing. That’s all.
I think this is where maybe I’m out of step with most bloggers. I’m not being serious.
That’s not to say that I think there is nothing in the arguments I make; but it is to say that people should take them with a pinch of salt.
“(b) that seeming to assign moral culpability for a lack of brains – by treating somebody with scorn on that account – is to do down everybody who lacks brains”
Yeah, that’s the bit where I agree you have a point.
It seems to me that you guys have a very difficult case to make if you want to argue that GB is culpable for his lack of self-knowledge (i.e., if you want to argue that he should have known he wasn’t up to being President).
First, you have to claim that he is (a) not nearly bright enough to be President [because otherwise, how would you know you weren’t bright enough]; but (b) bright enough, and self-aware enough to know that he wasn’t bright enough.
I’d argue that if that leaves any space, it’s a small space.
Second, you have to argue that he is somehow able to step outside his dynastic up-bringing to see that everything he would have held to be true – i.e., that he was suited to leadership, etc., wasn’t in fact true. And he has to be able to do this even though by (a) he isn’t nearly bright enough to be President.
Third, even if you get through both these challenges, you then have to show either that (a) he has been remiss in the amount of self-monitoring he did before accepting the candidacy; or (b) that he does know he isn’t up to it, but went for it anyway; or (c) that he is self-deceived in some morally culpable way about his lack of intelligence. I think given that we’re starting from the assumption that he isn’t very bright, all these things are unlikely.
So I’d be surprised if you can make the accusation of moral culpability stick. That’s not to argue that it is desirable that a President lacks intelligence or self-knowledge. But it is to argue that it isn’t clear that they should be scorned for lacking these things. Indeed, I’d go so far as to argue that it isn’t clear that even if they are morally culpable that one should subject them to the level of scorn experienced by GW simply because of what we’re talking about here (though that isn’t to say that there may not be other more understandable reasons why people might want to scorn him).
You’d make a great academic philosopher, Jerry!
Interesting debate. Two points:
1) People I know that have met GWB (actually I don’t know them, just read their comments on the web) seem to think he is reasonably intelligent. I question whether intelligence is the criteria we want in a president anyway. Maybe we would be better with an ‘effectiveness’ measurement, such as the work strategies model of Kelley and Caplan (www.staratwork.com).
2) When the media picks up an idea they don’t let go easily. Slick Willie, I Invented Everything, Tomatoe, All your base… maybe the ‘stupid W’ thing is mostly confirmatory bias in action?
OB, I love your site and writing but I accuse you of Robert Thouless’ prime example of crooked thinking – emotionally loaded language. For example: religious maniac, for a conventional churchgoer? Please.
ChrisPer
And I accuse you of not reading closely enough. I wrote that entry, not OB.
And Bush ain’t just a conventional churchgoer.
I did see that you wrote the post JS but I thought you were wquoting the fair Ophelia. I unreservedly apologise.
Shall I ask what ‘just’ is, ‘is’? I recently left a church that I think has kissed rationality goodbye. I never heard Bush was of that kind of church, anywhere but in the minds of those who won’t take the effort to distinguish. If you hear him shouting ‘FOUL DEMONS of sickness, come OUT of my House nigga!!!!’ just let me know OK?
“For example: religious maniac, for a conventional churchgoer? Please.”
Just goes to show you how far into the realm of nonsensical mysticism have we arrived at in the USA, when somebody that could reasonably be called a ‘religious maniac’ is at the same time just a conventional churchgoer.
Don’t forget this phrase: “God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did”. If that is not religious nuttery, I don’t know what it is.
Exactly. Oh yes that’s really what we want, a guy with the nuclear briefcase doing what ‘God’ tells him to do – oh perfect.
So I was right all along, he is a religious maniac!
Take that Ralph! ;-)
Just a link that highlights the problem of:
Unskilled, and unaware of it.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Oh yes, I remember that study. Think I linked to news items related to it (newer research, corroborative research, something) here a longish time ago.
Jose,
Fair enough re the ‘God told me’ phrase, but what was the context?
Firstly a ‘just war’ (his position) of (historically) unbelievably low casualties on both sides; second, a believer speaking to a believing audience; and…?
I could invent a cultural rationalisation for these words which strike rationalist ears so gratingly. But that is only allowed for justifying backwardness in powerless victimish ‘approved groups’ such as 3rd world dictators, not the all-powerful POTUS, right?
You have to do a lot more to show that ‘religious mania’ is in charge of the big red button. Let’s accept that it is hyperbole.
Religion of itself is not mania, even if it is a false belief.
“Religion of itself is not mania”
Maybe not, but religious expression is certainly, on occasions, a form of mania.
You ever been to a Louis Palau, Morris Cerullo or Billy Graham rally?
If so, you know what I’m talking about.
Anyway, from this side of the pond, pretty much just praying looks like mania.
And doesn’t the Bush administration, if not Bush himself, have sympathy with all this end-times malarkey?
ChrisPer:
I don’t think any context, not even talking in front of a group of charismatic christians would justify such an irresponsible conflation of personal belief and foreign policy. I cannot justify rethoric like that in any circumstance, especially by the most powerful person in the world. It sends chills down my spine. Even
if the war on Iraq were justified (something I don’t believe) or if the audience had been whoever belongs to his political base, the use of such divisive and explosive language is unwarranted.
‘I could invent a cultural rationalisation for these words which strike rationalist ears so gratingly. But that is only allowed for justifying backwardness in powerless victimish ‘approved groups’ such as 3rd world dictators, not the all-powerful POTUS, right? ‘
No, that’s not my position. Inventing rationalizations for foolish acts or words is unjustified for any group; although it seems sensible to demand a higher standard of behavior from those who hold power, as they have a higher responsibility. Also, there is nothing wrong about subjecting those who claim to be better (as the powerful usually do) to a higher standard.
“You have to do a lot more to show that ‘religious mania’ is in charge of the big red button. Let’s accept that it is hyperbole.”
Nope. George W Bush is a guy who consistently claims that God makes decisions regarding his policies. That does not sound hyperbolic to me at all. On the contrary, I consider it a peek into what really is on his mind. Also, remember that not only the President, but a large and powerful segment of the right believes and claims that ‘America has a relationship with God’.
As long as my life and that of so many people depend on W’s decisions, he has a special responsibility not to let his pious fantasies dominate his judgment.
“Leftist extremes like Stalinism or Nazism have jumped those rails, and use the mechanism of correction to steer to destruction. “
Wait a moment…are you claiming Nazism for the left or was that just an editing mistake? As far as I know, Nazism was a political ideology much closer to the right than to the left.
I hope you are not trying to attribute all ideological failures of the twentieth century to misguided (or just insanely malevolent)leftist political leaders.
Jerry,
Thanks, I will find some Durkheim to read.
You mistake me in thinking I see religion as necessary. You are of course right that there are alternative ways to achieve superior ends, and I see these in action in business and politics every day.
My point is only that so-called religious ‘mania’ has within it the possibility and mechanism for reflective and effective decision-making, despite the unlikeliness (risibility :-) of a claim that ‘God told me to invade Iraq’.
Humanity achieved a surprising amount while in the grip of ‘religious mania’ for the last few thousand years. I find it a more plausible model for believer’s behaviour to assume that 99.9% of what they do is either very beneficial or harmless, rationally decided in the forms of belief and described in that language.
Jose, I really cannot be bothered to attribute all the totalitarian failures of the last century to leftist leaders. You can do the maths yourself.
To me, left and right have meaning within the normal political spectrum of democracies but that distinction is past when they come to extremism and totalitarianism. I am sorry but I don’t know enough about the ideological history of the Left and Right to see why Nazism should be distinguished from the Left; they act the same when firing nine grams of lead into the back of a head, expropriating productive capital, running show trials or forcing people into consciousness-raising.
Nazism was not conservative, religious or supportive of outdated aristocracy. It was ideological, modern, ‘scientific’, atheist, pro-working class (of Germany at least) and used the same methods as other extremist states. Even its racism reflected the racism of the Left in those times.
I was thumbing throught the posts, some on Islamism, some on Thoreau, some on Edward Said, some on contemporary epistemology, and I noticed the post on GW Bush’s syntax has 39 posts, about 4 times more than any other topic. LOL
Of course, GW Bush could speak, in public, like Abraham Lincoln, but then most would either fall asleep or lose track of the dependent clauses and elaborate syllogisms. They might also be put off by Lincoln’s constant references to the Bible and something he called “Providence.” I can hear it now: “Lincoln again invoked ‘Providence’ and the ‘better angels of our nature’, establishing once more he is a religious maniac, hell-bent on driving our nation to disaster in the name of a Righteous God, and his radical Republican God no less!”
By the way, I read somewhere that Bush’s SAT scores were higher than those of “Cerebral” Bill Bradley, the resident genius in the democratic cabal (and Bradley got into Princeton, and was a Rhodes Scholar, no less!).