Perhaps there are a lot of people for whom this is an accurate description. Speaking as a person “on the left” myself, however, I’d have to say that it is patently erroneous and dangerous to believe that Bush is an idiot. I believe he is mistaken regarding a lot of facts, I believe many of his opinions and decisions are wrong. I believe that these things largely result from the fact that he is dangerously anti-intellectual, uncurious about the world, uneducated (despite his formal “education” and despite his intelligence), incapable of critical thinking, small-minded, narrow-minded, arrogant, brutish, reckless, ruthless, unprincipled, immoral, disonest, selfish, bigoted, unsympathetic, cold-hearted, and many other things. But I don’t believe he is stupid. He knows how to get what he wants and he knows how to manipulate people. That requires a great deal of intelligence.
Whether or not Bush is an idiot, this is a debatable issue.
Though I am not certain by any stretch, I find this summary (sundry portions of which have been made by many others) to be entirely plausible. It does seem less complicated to simply jump to the most obvious conclusion (Bush is a moron), but people often fail to validate the naive application of Occam’s Razor.
I think it’s safe to say Bush doesn’t have many of the qualities we associate with intellectuals (or, if you like, “smart people”). He is not intellectually curious and reads little if at all; he’s particularly uninterested in viewpoints that diverge sharply from his own. He was sufficiently privileged to travel anywhere in the world and chose not to. One of his former professors at Harvard remembers him as a poor student who couldn’t justify his often extreme opinions against his fellow students’ arguments. He’s not a thinker; the so-called “Bush Doctrine” is the results of decades of work by groups such as Project for a New American Century which Bush basically rubber-stamped. And while learned people are often very stubborn about their opinions, Bush’s stubbornness seems to derive more from his religious convictions, which provide him a convenient Manichean framework with which to regard not only issues of personal morality, but all issues.
However, George Bush is a very good politician, and while you don’t need to be an intellectual to be a politician, you can’t afford to be stupid. He knows how to reach out to people, he knows what people want to hear, and he knows how to frame a debate to his advantage. (There’s nothing wrong with being good at that; all politicians need those skills.) I think good politicking is as much an instinctual enterprise as it is an intellectual one; still, Bush has managed to convince most Americans that he, the scion of one of America’s most privileged families whose administration has been devoted to relieving the financial burden on his own class, is nonetheless an ordinary joe who understands their problems and has their interests at heart. If that doesn’t take brains, what does?
You think? Bear in mind that Bush is surrounded and assisted and, I am sure, guided by a lot of people who share his beliefs and are much more intelligent than their boss.
If what you say is true, then people on the left must think that everyone on the right is stupid because they don’t agree with them.
But this is not the case. People on the left think Bush, specifically, is stupid, and aknowledge that many people on the right are smart.
So, you can figure out other reasons why people on the left think Bush is stupid, but it is not “because they think he must be because he doesn’t agree with them”.
I agree with much of nonsuch. He does appear to be completely uninterested in conflicting opinions and his advisors know enough to tell him just what he wants to hear. Leaders who isolate themselves from opposing points of view are prone to huge blunders like the Iraq debacle. He may be smarter than he is given credit for, but if he has an adequate intellect it is going unused. I liken him to Reagan- an intellectual lightweight but he has superb political instincts and, unlike Kerry, can communicate with the masses on their level.
I basically agree with Nonsuch and acsenray. I would also add that considering Bush stupid is sort of a charitable interpretation since the alternative is that the silly simplistic things he says (like, “I had a choice, either to take the word of a madman or defend the nation’s security”) are not a result of his stupidity…or his own simplistic black-and-white view of the world…but rather are a deliberate attempt to use semantic abuse, such as the two-valued orientation, to deceive the public.
So, in a sense, the idea that Bush may not know any better is a charitable view which prevents me from finding him as despicable as I do Cheney or some of the other ilk who I think are, without a doubt, smart enough to know better. But, I tend to be coming around more and more to the point-of-view that Bush is smarter than he lets on and thus that I have been too charitable in my judgements of him.
Not to demean the masses, but if you want someone to communicate with them, Bush is your man. If you want someone to lead a symposium at Harvard, then Kerry is your man. Bush excels at giving sound bites and simplistic strategies because that is all that a given percentage of the population can digest. What that percentage is, I don’t know. Call it X% That X% of the population is completely unreachable by Kerry- he just can’t get down to their level.
What about Reagan? Do you think he was smarter than he let on? His reputation for stupidity really came in handy during the Iran-Contra affair. Did he actually know what Col. North was doing, or not?
Far as I’ve been able to tell, George W. Bush has never managed to succeed in any notable venture on his own effort – it’s only by the good graces of friends, advisors, and/or family members that’s kept him from sliding into obscurity as a family failure. Doesn’t seem very book-smart to me.
That said, I agree with the others who say that Bush’s greatest strengths are in charm and charisma. His “Aw shucks, I’m jes’ a Texas rancher” bit is all an act, but he’s easily able to charm folks into believing it, largely due to his strong people-pleasing skills. I’ve long said that Bush would make an awesome greeter at Wal-Mart…
…though that’s hardly any qualification to be President of the United States.
What frightens me is the prospect that the Bush dynasty will be continued by George’s equally evil brother Jeb, who shares all his advantages and connections plus (marginally) more brains. (If I sound especially bitter on the subject of Jeb, it’s because I live in Florida.)
Well, he got off, didn’t he? I like to judge by results. Clinton, on the other hand ended up being impeached becuase he couldn’t resist getting a blow job from Monica Lewinski. Which one is more stupid is, perhaps, a matter of opinion. Personally, I’d’ve passed on the offer from Monica.
For supposedly being the ‘the party of the people’, the SDMB Dems sure seem to hold ‘the people’ in contempt. Funny that.
As for the OP, Evil One answers it well:
How many times has a SDMB lefty posted something to the effect of, ‘Golly Gee, I just don’t understand why anyone would vote for’ or ‘I don’t see how any reasonable person would vote for’ and so forth? GW doesn’t fit into their neat little world view, and therefor must be a raging idiot, along with half the country. :rolleyes:
