I think Bush is like President Clark from Babylon 5.
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
–Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVII
I think the fear that Bush invokes is not Hitlerian or Hussenacious but like some one operating a roller-coaster without knowing how it works.
Holy shit, that is absolutely perfect. 
It will endure.
P.S. Doghouse, unless he’s playing an especially clever game, it will take me a lot of persuasion that GWB is in the least bit Machiavellian.
Well… in that case how is it different from the “fear” that old Ron inspired c. 1981?
(BTW, Niccolo then appends a conditional paragraph to the effect that the prince should see that while feared, he should not become despised as being cruel and rapacious. Which however does not quite fit here as it looks more like “W” is despised just for not being the sharpest pencil in the box)
This describes the feelings of roughly 50% of Americans as well. And of the 50% that do support him, a very large fraction do so with considerable unease. Bush does not have the support of the American people.
Personally, as a Canadian, I honestly think it’s impossible to judge his efficacy as a President when we’re this close to the events at hand. 10-20 years from now, we’ll know better.
He does some things extremely well. He is a deceptively good politician and he’s smart enough to select talented people to run his government. His response to 9/11 was exactly correct, and his decision to attack Afghanistan with little delay was unquestionably the right one (today, just over a year later, an amazing number of people on the SDMB seem to forget how they guessed the U.S. would lose that battle, and indeed more doomsayers than I care to count throughout the media predicted the same thing.) He is, by the account of almost everyone who has ever worked with him, a surprisingly good leader of people. My impression of him is that he is, in fact, NOT stupid. Anyone who says he’s stupid just doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about. He’s obviously fairly quick on the uptake.
On the other hand, he’s done a very, very poor job at handling the economy. He’s far too quick to spend and he’s far too quick to give in to protectionist interests. His determination manifests itself as stubbornness on many points. He doesn’t place a lot of value on the rule of law or the separation of church and state, two things I find unforgiveable in an elected leader, and he’s not a serious supporter of free trade. His decision to go ahead with this “Homeland Security” department is a bad one. And, frankly, his stubborn nature simply doesn’t make for good P.R., so his support at home and abroad is sinking.
I have a sneaking suspicion Bush will lose the 2004 election, and will be remembered little differently from his father; one of those “eh, whatever” Presidents. But only time will tell.
Several people have said something like this to me. And I would actually like to believe them. He’d really have to be smart, right? He couldn’t have gotten this far being as stupid as he sounds, could he?
So then my question is, why does he come across to me as sounding like a complete idiot? Never mind the fact that I disagree with a lot of what he says, he just strikes me as verbally clumsy, wilfully ignorant at times, and generally not in control. Perhaps he’s shrewd to get the advisors he has, but I’m just not buying it. I can barely listen to him talk, actually (skipped the State of the Union entirely), and that’s not all because of politics.
So when I say that I think GWB is stupid, that’s my gut reaction from listening to the man. I can imagine he’s smarter than he is, but I’m just not seeing it. He seems calculated, but would he calculate stupidity? He’s gotta know how to pronounce nuclear by now.
Anyway, I’m from the USA so I don’t know if that was a hijack. Sorry if it was.
I can not abide a President who doesn’t enunciate! It just sets my teeth on edge!!! Urrrggggh! When he says “didnn’ut” and “wouldnn’ut” I cringe to think what the rest of the world must think of us.
And how brilliant can his advisors be if they continue to let him mispronounce words ad nauseam?? Dang, if I were on his staff I’d take him aside and say, “George dear, today we’re going to have a little elocution lesson. We’re going to start with the word NUCLEAR.” How can they let him go out there like that???
Sorry if this was a hijack…I thought maybe this had morphed into a general discussion of what a weenie he is;)
Tony Blair seems to more than just like Mr President.
While I do not like the guy that much, I think that all the hate being directed towards the guy is a bit scary.
He may not be the best president the US has ever had but he certainly isn´t evil and I do not believe that he is stupid either.
Like Greensabre mentioned above a lot of unfortunate events have occured so far during his presidency which are not his fault and had someone else been president circumstances may have forced them to make similar decisions.
Gotta agree with almost everyone else is this thread. He doesn’t fill me with confidence and I also wouldn’t misunderestimate his hawkish advisors.
I find Rumsfeld particularly distasteful.
I seem to recall that, in the early 1980s, it was the Conventional Wisdom in Europe that Ronald Reagan was a trigger happy maniac, itching to start a nuclear war. Europeans, who are far more worldly and sophisticated than us dumb Yanks, understood that it was foolish and unduly provovative to suggest that the Berlin Wall should come down, or that Communism belonged on the “ash heap of history.”
No, no, no… Europeans understood clearly that “convergence” was the answer, that ultimately, we would all move toward the Soviet model, but to a NICER Soviet model. You know, WITH the state control of everything, but without the Gulag and all that other nasty stuff.
In retrospect, I think “dumb” Ronald Reagan looks a lot better than the erudite Europeans who mocked him. And I suspect “dumb” George will have the last laugh, too.
Lard2000:
He is verbally clumsy and, he prefers to oversimplify than to niggle on details. Beyond that, I think that any perception of him as stupid is colored by your distaste for his politics. Considering how he managed to ram a good chunk of his agenda through Congress, buck the trend toward his party’s losing congressional seats in the midterm election, and sway the UN to focus on Iraq (even if they are not quite ready for all-out war), any feeling that he is “generally not in control” is so absurd as to be delusional. The man knows what he’s doing - you just don’t like it, and that colors your perceptions.
I mean, compare his first two years to Clinton’s. Would you say Clinton was “generally in control”? His massive health-care plan bombed, even with both houses of Congress in his own party’s hands, he lost both houses of Congress in his midterm election, a shift of 60 House seats. What was he in control of? The NAFTA debate? Granted, he was a better speaker than Bush.
But in other ways, you really should distance your personal issue-stances from your perception of the presidents as capable individuals.
Because if you were to go up to the President of the United States and say something like that, he’d fire you. I mean, that’s sort of obvious, isn’t it? Sheesh. Who would tell their boss “Hey, boss, you’re pretty dumb! Let me teach you how to pronounce words!” I don’t know anyone that arrogant or that stupid. Being smart doesn’t make you gutsy enough to insult your boss.
People like staying employed.
Having said that, Bush is not by any stretch of the imagination the worst public speaker among Western national leaders. That title obviously belongs to Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada. “For me, ah put pepper on mah plate!”
But . . . but . . . he fehlt owre payne . . .
Dang it, that refers to Clinton, not Chretien.
Well, okay. My feeling was that he was being led around by his advisors, but I’ve been assured that that’s not true. I guess if he really is in charge like some folks tell me, then I dislike him not because of his personality but because of his politics. Got me there.
Still can’t listen to him pronounce words, though, and I know that’s got nothing to do with foreign policy.
OK, so he combines his father’s ongoing war with the syntax of the English language with the broader American tendency to mangle the vernacular with a stereotypical Texas oilman’s “who cares ‘bout soundin’ superphisticated if you git things done” attitude.
I’d still pay closer attention to WHAT he’s saying. Plenty to be dismayed about in the content.
Agreed. I’m pretty ambivilent about Bush, but I’m dismayed by the Two Minutes Hate that seems to get rolling every time his name is mentioned.