George W Bush is NOT a dummy!

The BBQ Pit
1

Let me be clear about this: No, George W. Bush is not a dummy.

Also, let me be clear about this: I don’t like George W. Bush. I voted for John McCain in the primary, because I thought he was a much better choice to run the country than Bush. I voted for Al Gore in November, because I thought he was a much better choice to run the country than Bush. In general, I tend to vote Democratic.

And, no, I’m not being facetious. Are you surprised?

I was in a discussion with some friends yesterday. One of them mentions how stupid Bush is. Bush doesn’t know that Social Security is a government program! Bush can’t pronounce subliminal! Bush can’t remember nuances of his own policies, in debates! Well, no, I say, you’re confusing intelligence with public speaking ability. The attitude that “George Bush is a stupid frat boy” (a phrase I’ve seen in print!) bothers me. It bothers me a lot.

In fact, it’s bothered me for a long time. Why, you ask? Why do I, someone who thinks George W Bush is the wrong person to run the country, disagree with any attitude that denigrates Bush? I’ll tell you why:

Because the focus on this, Bush’s slips of the tounge, his reputation as a lightweight, has consistently deflected attention from real policy issues. Instead of being concerned about the environmental damage Bush can do, or if his proposed Social Security changes will destabilize the system, or what his troop pullout will do to NATO, or whether he really does have a secret abortion litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, people laugh at his gaffes. Ha ha, what a dummy!

No, it’s not funny. I’d rather people looked at the issues. This whole campaign has seemed to boil down to “the dummy” versus “the liar”. I suppose this simple characterization of both candidates makes them easier to cover on the campaign trail (“Bush mispronounces antidisestablishmentarianism! Gore exaggerates the size of his vocabulary! News at eleven!”), but it does so at the expense of reporting and discussing real news, and real issues. It also leaves people with a one-dimensional view of the opposing candidate, one that can’t be argued away. “Bush is so dumb, there’s no telling what kind of crackpot scheme he’ll concoct.” “Gore’s always been a liar; I’ll never believe what he says.” And, since those opinions can’t be argued away, that leaves no room for other, more policy-related considerations.

So now, a month after the election, half the population still thinks Bush is an idiot. How about considering his proposed agenda for a change? Are his ideas right for the country? Nope, sorry, it’s more fun calling him an idiot. Or calling Gore a liar.

And that level of discourse, devoid of any real thought process, is what really bothers me.

And, yes, I know I’m a month late with my complaint. Bite me.

2

:bites zut:

3

*pats zut on back

there there.

4

[homer]
Mmmm…zut.
[/homer]

5

Zutt, I agree with everything that you say, but you’re forgetting one major point; a politician has to be able to give a good speech, to clearly expound on his ideas and convince others they’re worth following. Bush doesn’t have this ability. Actually, he can give a speech, but it’s really not a good one.

Despite what you may think of Pres. Clinton, the man can give a good, effective speech. He has charisma. Bush lacks this quality.

6

Here’s my feeling, Zut (and how’s Dingo these days?). I would pay attention to Mr. Bush’s opinions, proposals, and policies if I thought they were really his in the first place.

To steal a sig, the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Mr. Bush, in my opinion, is much more inclined to figurehead for his advisors. Which is not necessarily a bad thing–many presidents in the past survived only through their advisors. But so far, Mr. Bush has shown me no inclination toward any independent thought. All I have, then, to criticise are his public appearances and his record of failure, ineptitude, and ignorance.

7

Zut, I think you are completely wrong.

I do not believe that malapropisms, stumbling in speeches, and general lack of charisma mean that Bush is a lightweight. Quite the reverse, actually. They are symptoms of his ankle-deep intellect.

Rather than cite a laundry list of little things that I have observed that reveal the character of Bush’s mind, I would rather discuss one that I find particularly compelling: his appalling lack of curiosity.

There was an extremely telling interview with Bush and several of his campaign managers in the Times a month ago. I would post a link, but the archives are only free for the past seven days. He and his handlers discussed Bush’s interests, his skills, and his expertise. In every area he came up short. His own manager admitted that Bush would probably be able to remember the names of foreign leaders if he were actually interested in them. But since he has advisors whose position it is to keep track of such trivialities, he wasn’t interested in doing it himself.

The interviewer even broached the subject of evolution and the origin of the species. Again, Bush just wasn’t interested. He said that he neither believed nor disbelieved evolution, and couldn’t be bothered to investigate the scientific principles any further. Nor was his faith in Scripture so strong that he dismissed evolution outright.

Sure, these issues are not cut and dried. The office of the president demands that he make decisions based on information provided by advisors, so why should he have to be an expert in everything? He is a pragmatic fellow, so what’s wrong with his disinterest in anything speculative or scientific?

But the bottom line is that Bush seems to be the kind of man who accepts the first and simplest solution to any problem. High crime rate? More executions. Problems in the Middle East? More military and non-military support. Trade deficit with the Far East? Pass some laws restricting free trade.

But I do not believe that the first and most obvious solution should always be implemented. And I do not think that George W Bush has the intellectual curiosity or intellectual power to do more than scratch the surface of most issues. And even if his advisors can, what good is a decision-maker who is inhibited in his ability to evaluate their findings due to his own lack of curiosity and subtlety?

Bush is certainly not the stupidest man on the planet. After all, you can’t be completely stupid if you lose $4 million dollars in three failed oil ventures. But I do not believe that Bush has a presidential intellect.

8

I agree with much of what you say, Zut.

I wonder how many people who’s interests would be better represented by Gore decided not to vote for him because of his lie in the debates about the dog medicine? His point about drug costs may have been perfectly valid, but because the example he chose was bogus, they voted for Bush.

I also wonder how many people who’s interests would be better served by Bush decided not to vote for him because he mispronounced stuff?

I think for most people, this election SHOULD have been decided on a single issue: Supreme court nominations. If you want conservatives on the Supreme Court, vote for Bush. If you want liberal/democrats, vote for Gore. To hell with all that other fluff.

9

Maeglin: Actually, you and I might agree on more than you think. Or maybe not; we’ll see. Notwithstanding the title of this thread, I don’t exactly see George W Bush as a MENSA candidate. All in all, he seems pretty…dim, I guess.

However, there are two points about peoples’ reaction to Bush’s perceived slowness that irritate me:

  1. Forming an opinion on Bush based solely on his reputation as a dummy, to the exclusion of examining his position on any actual issues.
  2. The willingness to propogate this simplification of Bush’s character, to sum up his policies in the three-word phrase, “He’s a dummy”.

I think you’ve covered the first point in your “bottom line” statement. You disagree (as do I) with many of Bush’s positions. You further argue that Bush’s intellectual incuriousity is at the root of many of his policies. I argue that I don’t care what’s at the root of his policies, they’re still bad; i.e., the “bottom line” is his policies.

And this leads into my second point. It may be true that Bush is a lightweight. I will even so stipulate, if you prefer. I’ll even agree that using the lightweight theme as thread which unites Bush’s positions, as you’ve done, is at least an interesting point of debate.

However, for many people, the impression that he’s a lightweight comes not from a thorough examination of his policies, but a superficial examination of his public persona. And, as Revtim alludes to, that leads to voting decisions based solely on the “knowledge” that Bush is a dummy.

The propogation of the “Bush is a dummy”/“Gore is a liar” simplification is due, in my opinion, as much to the news media as it is to individuals. Think a minute, Maeglin: you say that there’s “a laundry list of little things that I have observed that reveal the character of Bush’s mind.” Things reported by the media, correct? I would argue that, since Bush has a rep as a lightweight, reporters siezed on it and nailed him every chance they got. C’mon, you don’t think Gore’s ever mispronounced words? Likewise, Gore got nailed on the “exaggeration” thing, while Bush got a free pass.

Neither simplistic characterization serves as a basis for actual discussion of policies. As I said before, the focus on the simplistic characterizations deflects attention from real issues. I would prefer, for instance, that people focus on what they dislike (or like) about Bush’s environmental stance, so they can do something about it, rather than focus on how dumb he is, or is not.

Overgeneralizations do everyone a disservice. [sub]irony intended[/sub]

10

On public speaking ability vs. intellect:

I’m willing to say that public speaking and writing ability are not necessarily true or final tests of intellect. However, I follow the same policy for political candidates that I do on the SDMB. You (a global, all-encompassing you) may be a freakin’ genius, but all I have to go on is what you say. If you must rely on advisors to answer even the simplest questions, if you have problems getting a coherent sentence out, or you post incomprensible ramblings, I am going to question what you’ve got going on upstairs.

I’m sick of hearing about the “media conspiracy” to make Bush look like a dummy. He said a lot of dumb-ass things! He was running for president, and therefore had herds of reporters following him around the country on buses and planes, hanging on every word. Of course people are going to report on it a) because the smarts of the guy in charge DO count and b) because it’s fucking funny. And sad.

It looks like Bush is going to be elected. And I hope to god that he is smarter than he came off during the campaign. There are going to be a lot of situations that come up in the next four years that his advisors haven’t already written a crib sheet for. I hope, for all our sakes, that he rises to the occasion, is a good president, and that we (the global we, including the media) were mistaken.

11

Dubya’s mispronunciations of certain words are not simply dialect - they betray a deeper problem - that he really does not know the meanings of the words he is using, nor of the words he is mixing up. A malapropism isn’t simply a slip of the tongue - it’s a slip of the mind. At the very least, it’s a sign of a sloppy thinker, who cannot and will not make the distinctions clear in his language. Say what you will about Willie C., but he’s an eloquent speaker and he is, in fact, a very bright man. A person’s language does, indeed, present a window into his mind. (I know, I know, there are surface features which are irrelevant. Spare me the criticism on that point.) I thought Ronnie Reagan was the stupidest man to occupy the White House, but that was partially because he was so damned locked into outdated and untenable positions. But this guy, he doesn’t seem to have a clue. Fraternity boy. What does he really think? Why? Haven’t heard an intelligent word from him - nothing grounded in anything but plattitudes prepared for him by handlers. No - he’s not particularly bright, and I worry, too, that when the time comes for HIM to make the call, he just wont be able to figure some of this complex stuff out.

12

CC you don’t understand much about speech do you? If someone has a accent do you immediately say they are retaaded? Nobodys perfect, expecting people to not slip up on words and phrases every once in a while is not very grounded in reality unless your perfect.

Magelin where do you get bushes ideas that the most direct is the best?

Bush has no control over executions. Bush has favored “sizing the military to its missions”, Gore has been equal at least in support for increasing the military. The last one I simply have no idea where you got it from.

13

I’m not certain about this… he does look incredibly wooden, and about the same time as the cocaine scandal got buried, I heard tales about him with someone else’s arm up his butt. – Wooden, arm up butt… sounds like a dummy to me – or perhaps he is just going to explode out of the closet one day?

14

FWIW, I read an article in the Globe and Mail that, based on various psycholgists’ analyis of G,G jr, and J Bushs’ speaches, it was supposed they all might suffer from some dyslexia. They all have refused to be tested.

15

A few observations, if I may…

Public speaking is a skill, and it can be learned. Some folks have more aptitude than others, but how many here ever had to take a speech class? (Show of hands.) Thank you. I just can’t fathom how anyone pursing major office would neglect to polish up their speaking skills, become familiar w/ teleprompters, etc. It’s essential for communicating from the “bully pulpit”.

As far as intelligence goes, Dubya is no intellectual heavyweight. (I hasten to add that common sense, etc. are essential too.) But he’s oddly indifferent to the mechanics of governance, policy making, etc. Wonkiness isn’t required but a solid, working grasp of the workings of government is.

Again, a charismatic leader can rely on a well-chosen cabinet and advisors. I’m thinking more of Eisenhower here than Reagan. Eisenhower knew how to make things get done and chose able people for the jobs. I will maintain grim silence about the people Reagan surrounded himself with.

Dubya will be the next President, so I’ve watched his “picks” with some concern. They haven’t been inspired. Most are obvious loyalists from his father’s tenure. Outside of a few token conservative Dems, none of the choices have shown much realistic planning toward forging a working, efficient coalition of talent.

Let’s face it, this election was a total pisser, and the next 4 years are gonna be rougher than can be imagined. Dubya will have to get very canny, very strong, very quickly. I sincerely hope he can, but can’t find much in his background or track record to support that hope.

Veb

16

I do think Bush is a dummy. I would wonder the same about anyone that voted for him (yeah, so what, I know I’m gonna get flamed, bring it). Gore was pretty much a career politician, he knows what’s going on, and how things work. George W. Bush was a “business man” and not a very successful one at that. What? You want to use the Rangers as an example as a successful business of Bush’s? Well, I hate to break it to you, but they weren’t all that successful, and wouldn’t be, if it wasn’t for the tax payers that decided to build a new stadium for the team. Bush is a dummy.

17

What I don’t understand is why people get so upset when you use GW’s very own utterances against him. He said these things. How in the world am I, or anyone else, supposed to think he’s smart in spite of his very own words!.

I do not agree with his policies. I have had many conversations with people who do not agree with his policies. On this very own messageboard there have been countless discussions about his policies. People are discussing his policies. But, damnit, if it walks like a duck. . …

18

Like Reagan, Bush is simply a smiling front man for powerful right-wing interests. I’m pleased he’s not paying lip service to Robertson-style Christian loonies to the extent Ronnie did (of course, Ron didn’t actually DO anything they wanted him to, but he was happy to have their votes), so he’s going to be a much more obvious tool of Big Money.

As I’ve said elsewhere, the thing that really bugs me about Bush’s intellectual indifference is all the fucking OPPORTUNITIES the guy’s had to develop his little grey cells. Reagan at least had the excuse of living in Hollywood, with all that implies…Bush spent a healthy chunk of his life in the rarefied atmospheres of private prep school, Yale, and Harvard.

Sure, he got in everywhere because of his name…same with the Presidency…but you’d hope some whiff of academic endeavor and higher ideals would have occasionally passed under his nose.

“Willfully ignorant.” Could there be ANY phrase more irritating to true Straight Dopers?

19

Yes, it’s terrible when people use the wrong word. :wink:

I agree with zut’s original point that focusing on insignificant details tends to draw attention away from debate on serious matters. I remember the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, which were hijacked by the whole Anita Hill thing. Never mind whether CT was even remotely qualified to sit on the highest court in the land (my view: no), the Anita Hill issue involved sex(!), and that’s far more interesting than legal niceties (see also the Starr Report). Ratings rule, alas, and sound bites of Bush saying stupid things or Gore “exaggerating” make for better viewing figures.

As for GWBJr., while I find the verbal gaffes amusing I try not to base my view of him on those. It’s the cronyism, the dependence on his father and family connections, and the aura of “I should be president because I deserve it” that to me suggest a lack of emotional maturity needed to be an effective president. Here’s hoping I’m proven wrong…

Speaking of maturity, here’s an question someone recently asked me and I got completely wrong: what is the age difference between Bush and Cheney? (No fair looking it up – what’s your guess?)

jr8

“In democracy it’s your vote that counts. In feudalism it’s your count that votes.”
– Mogens Jallberg

20

It’s, like, six years, right? Bush is 53 or something, and Cheney hasn’t cracked 60 yet.