Matthew Yglesias has an article in The American Prospect about why George Bush’s intellect ought to be a serious political issue. The punchline:
“That the country should be secured against terrorist attacks, that deadly weapons should be kept out of the hands of our enemies, or that it would be good for a wide slice of the world to enjoy the blessings of freedom and democracy are hardly controversial propositions. But these things are easier said than done. Even a person of goodwill is by no means guaranteed to succeed. Yet succeed we must. And if we are to do so, the question of intelligence must be put back on the table. The issue is not “cleverness” — some kind of parlor trick or showy mastery of trivia — but a basic ability to make sense of a complicated, fast-changing world and decide how to confront it. Any leader will depend on the work of his subordinates, but counting on advisers to do the president’s heavy lifting for him simply will not do. Unless the chief executive can understand what people are telling him and follow the complicated arguments they may need to make, he will find himself paralyzed at every point of disagreement, or he will adopt the views of the slickest salesman rather than the one who’s gotten things right.
The price to be paid for such errors is a high one — it is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. Already we’ve paid too much, and the problems confronting the country are growing harder with time. Unless the media, the electorate, and the political culture at large can shift their focus off of trivia and on to things that actually matter, it’s a price we may pay again and again.”
I think that Yglesias is right, not just in his basic point but in the examples he cites — e.g., US policy towards North Korea, trade policy, and the like. However, I have two minor quibbles. First, I am not sure that Bush’s problem is that he’s not intelligent. I don’t really know what to make of him in this regard; my best guess is that a lifetime of intellectual disengagement will produce the functional equivalent of stupidity, just as a lifetime of being a couch potato will produce the functional equivalent of a lack of athletic ability; and since Bush has led such a life, it may be impossible to tell how smart he is underneath it all. But the problem Yglesias is getting at is an apparently complete lack of intellectual curiosity, of interest in actually thinking through the implications of various policies, assessing their pros and cons, and deciding accordingly. Given some level of intellectual engagement, intelligence is of course an asset; but in its absence, intelligence in itself will get you nowhere. (To be fair, Yglesias sometimes describes the problem he’s getting at as a lack of intellectual curiosity and/or engagement; my point is that the lack of these things is distinct from a lack of intelligence, and that it, rather than a low IQ, is Bush’s problem.)
Second…
Yglesias seems at times to buy into a mistaken view of “character”. For instance, he writes:
“Reviewing Clinton’s My Life in the June 24, 2004, Los Angeles Times, neoconservative Max Boot happily concluded that “conservatives like character, liberals like cleverness.” He’s right. But to state what should be obvious, the president is not your father, your husband, your drinking buddy, or your minister. These are important roles, but they are not the president’s. He has a job to do, and it’s a difficult one, involving a wide array of complicated issues. His responsibility to manage these issues is a public one, and the capacity to do so in a competent and moral manner is fundamentally unrelated to the private virtues of family, friendship, fidelity, charity, compassion, and all the rest.
For the president to lead an exemplary personal life is surely superior to the alternative. But within obvious limits — no one would want an alcoholic president, for example — it doesn’t really matter. Clinton’s indiscretions caused his family pain and produced awkward moments for the parents of some young children. But Bush’s bungling has gotten people killed in Iraq, saddled the nation with enormous debts, and created long-term security problems with which the country has not yet begun to grapple.”
Granting for the sake of argument that there’s a clear distinction between one’s personal life and one’s performance of public duties, it seems clear that one’s character is not revealed only in the former: that if one is President, character is not just a matter of marital fidelity and the like, but can also be displayed in, say, one’s choice of proposals for social security reform. As President, one needs the decency to state one’s positions and one’s reasons for holding them honestly; the courage to do what’s right when it isn’t popular; the generosity to consider the implications of one’s proposals for everyone affected, not just for those one knows personally or for one’s supporters; the fairmindedness to accept legitimate defeat rather than trying to win by any means necessary; and, in addition, a commitment to this country and its institutions that precludes any attempt to undermine them for political gain, a genuine interest in figuring out what the right thing to do is, and the humility needed to recognize that it’s not always easy to figure out what the right thing to do is.
Yglesias clearly recognizes this, as his reference to managing issues “in a moral manner” indicates. But he often writes as though “character” were a private matter, albeit one that might spill over into the public sphere in extreme cases. It’s only this assumption that makes it possible to claim that liberals are in general not concerned about character. Obviously, I don’t know every liberal, but those I do know care a lot about the character of their Presidents. They recognize that it is chiefly character that will determine how a President responds in an unforeseen crisis, for instance. Those who say that they don’t are (as far as I can tell) responding to Republican claims that character, defined as private virtue, is a central Presidential desideratum; and they rightly reject it without questioning its real error: the mistaken definition of moral character.
One reason people do take character to mean mostly marital fidelity, not making one’s wife go to sex clubs, and the like is (I think) that many people do not have the background knowledge of various policies and agencies that would allow them to assess the character revealed by policy proposals, and it’s hard for non-wonky people to find sources of information about these things that they can trust. So when the President makes some proposal, they are not in a position to say what it reveals about him; they hear a liberal saying one thing and a conservative saying something else, and many of them tune out. But everyone understands marital infidelity, and so everyone can reach conclusions about what this reveals about a person’s character. Policy wonks can set this against the background of that politician’s character as revealed by, say, his trade policy or his proposal to reform Social Security and draw more nuanced conclusions (more nuanced, since they incorporate more relevant data about the politician’s character). But non-wonks have to draw their conclusions based on the infidelity alone.
This is one more argument for having media that do their job, and also for having people who are manifestly trustworthy, and who can tell those of us who don’t want to slog through all the policy details what a given proposal reveals. In our current state, however, most people have to draw conclusions about character based mostly on private morality. But that doesn’t mean that that’s all character is.
good one.
I’m still chuckling over this line:
“But within obvious limits — no one would want an alcoholic president, for example — it doesn’t really matter.”
More seriously, I think that not all of these things can be attributed to ignorance. Ideology plays a role as well.
This “intellect’ myth permiates every hate-Bush tirade. From what I understand, George Bush had better grades and SAT scores than Gore, JFK I and FDR. I don’t recall hearing JFK II’s comparative scores, but I’ve not seen any evidence that he’s exceptionally smarter than the others. Clinton obviously had better credentials, but even that couldn’t keep his cigars where they belong.
Agree or disagree with his decisions, but try to avoid making up your own facts or parroting the silliness of unhinged Bush-haters.
A fine post.
And what, by the way, is the evidence for the proposition that conservatives do not like cleverness just as much as anyone else? It seems to me that a conservative with a facility for the clever turn of phrase can get plenty far, even if his/her personal morality is maybe less than exemplary.
Certainly, if there’s disapproval in conservative circles for policy choices that are more about cleverness than character — an example that comes to my mind is the nomination of a conservative black woman from California to a seat on the D.C. Circuit — I’m not hearing it.
[Lest anyone be offended at the wrong thing, I am not implying in any way that Justice Brown’s character is anything less than exemplary. The character/cleverness choice to which I refer is between (a) forcing Democrats to oppose a black woman (clever!) and (b) appointing judges with long-standing local ties and a distinguished record in relevant areas (and there are many Republicans of fine character who meet this criteria).]
I’m not a Bush-hater or a Bush-lover. Put me down as a Bush-barely-tolerator. But blogbudsman’s point above is absolutely critical. Let’s pull out Mr. Gore’s SAT’s and college grades and match them up with Mr. Bush’s. If Gore comes a cropper in the comparison will Mr. Yglesias loudly proclaim that the right man was elected? Or is he merely attempting to harness another horse to a partisan cart?
We’ve elected very few intellectuals to the presidency (Jefferson and Wilson, possibly one or two others). It’s just not a requirement.
blogbudsman – I think MY defines intelligence thusly for the purposes of this essay:
“It requires intellectual curiosity, an ability to familiarize oneself with a broad range of views, the capacity — yes — to grasp nuances, to foresee the potential ramifications of one’s decisions, and, simply, to think things through.”
Praktike is right. Just to be really clear about this: my quibble with Matt is not that he says that what matters is IQ (or gpa, or SAT scores), pure and simple. He doesn’t say that at all. It’s that he doesn’t adequately separate the question of intelligence from the question of intellectual curiosity and engagement.
Fair enough, hilzoy. Intellectual curiosity isn’t a constitutional requirement for the presidency and it’s never been a de facto requirement, either. Let’s restrict ourselves to the 20th century and go through the list of presidents. With the exception of Wilson intellectual curiosity is just not among the qualities that immediately leap out when thinking of them. They’ve all been above-average in intelligence (as is Bush) but that’s about as far as it goes.
Some were absolute dolts like Harding. Nixon is reputed to have been very bright indeed. Are we really looking for philosopher-kings?
I agree that we draw some degree of collective comfort with a leader that has a high degree of oratory skills. And there is no doubt that President Bush struggles with that. All evidence seems to point that he is very good one on one, either with staff, the Cabinet and even foreign leaders. There is a great likelihood that he will debate well. As far as:
“It requires intellectual curiosity, an ability to familiarize oneself with a broad range of views, the capacity — yes — to grasp nuances, to foresee the potential ramifications of one’s decisions, and, simply, to think things through.”
There has to be a trade off. It seems the most successful president will pick a few nation shaping issues (yes, in their view or issues thrust upon them), and concentrate a large part of their efforts toward that end. Many, many issues are delegated out to the great bureaucracy and Cabinet level staff to contend with. Carter struggled with this, Reagan did not. And frankly, there is no real body of evidence that President Bush does not possess most of these traits. And:
“But Bush’s bungling has gotten people killed in Iraq, saddled the nation with enormous debts, and created long-term security problems with which the country has not yet begun to grapple.”
The election should very well decide is most voters believe this to be true…or not!
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
“no one would want an alcoholic president, for example”
Yup, just look at the mess that drunkard Churchill made of things …
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt
iD8DBQFBIQ1nOgWD1ZKzuwkRAhezAJ4hoCg0HuNvEoXG89ipg8NJPTTHPgCdFqu5
Nkfp3yyWypdM4msLUEptiOE=
=MpgJ
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Dave — By ‘intellectual curiosity’ I don’t mean curiosity about e.g. the latest developments in literary theory or high-energy physics, but curiosity about the world in general. And I would argue that, as with intelligence, it’s not true that the more intellectual curiosity you have, the better you would be as President, but it is true that you need to pass some threshhold if you’re going to be any good. That threshhold would be sufficient to ensure: (a) that you actually try to understand the pros and cons of policy proposals on issues you need to deal with, and to notice when what your advisors are telling you leaves crucial questions unanswered; and (b) that your general knowledge of the world, which results from a lifetime of exercising this level of curiosity, is rich enough to allow you to assess those proposals and their likely effects. It’s the failure to meet that threshhold that (imho) dooms a President, and meeting it does not, as far as I can see, involve being a philosopher-king.
The criticism of George W. Bush is that he doesn’t meet that threshhold. As far as I can tell, he’s fairly unusual in that respect; only lack of familiarity with Harding and McKinley prevents me from saying that he’s the only 20th/21st century President who does not meet it.
…only lack of familiarity with Harding and McKinley prevents me from saying that he’s the only 20th/21st century President who does not meet it.
I think you could fairly charge Harding with failing to cross that threshhold; my dislike for McKinley aside, I don’t think he’s guilty in that manner.
Blogbudsman said:
“All evidence seems to point that he is very good one on one, either with staff, the Cabinet and even foreign leaders. There is a great likelihood that he will debate well.”
This statement is false. All evidence does not point this way. Paul O’Neil, in his illuminating book, talks about the time when he went in and met with Bush for the first time. O’Neil put on a presentation and expected lots of questions in return. But Bush sat there dumb as a stone.
Remember O’Neil famous characterization: Bush is like a blind man in a room full of deaf people. I think that is probably one of the most accurate things one could say about Bush.
“Yup, just look at the mess that drunkard Churchill made of things …”
Oh, the irony … considering that it is to ratify Cairo Conference borders for which American boys are dying.
“This statement is false. All evidence does not point this way. Paul O’Neil, in his illuminating book, talks about the time when he went in and met with Bush for the first time. O’Neil put on a presentation and expected lots of questions in return. But Bush sat there dumb as a stone.”
O’Neil, a disgruntled bureaucrat falling out of the loop, has been discredited several times over. This trashy “Book of the Month” tour has been an incredible political phenomena of this tabloid millennium.
My statement was absolutely not false.
Once again, hilzoy, fair enough. You wrote:
The criticism of George W. Bush is that he doesn’t meet that threshhold.
How do you know he doesn’t meet that threshold? It’s not self evident; opinion appears to be mixed. Paul O’Neil has said so; Tommy Franks seems to say exactly the opposite.
I suspect that the true criticism is more one of style than anything else. Bush follows a paradigm of presidential management style consistent with Eisenhower and Reagan—not a detail man. The opposite paradigm was followed most recently by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
Believe it or not I do have an open mind on this subject. At this point I’m neither a Bush nor Kerry partisan. I feel that each is severely flawed (as I felt about Bush and Gore in 2000—it’s why I didn’t vote for Bush the first time around).
I just have a sneaking feeling that Mr. Yglesias has a deep antipathy towards Mr. Bush and is rushing around trying to justify his antipathy. If that’s the case the prudent thing would be to conclude “I just don’t like the guy and that’s enough”. No further justification is needed.
Intellectual curiousity?
He could not name one regret or mistake about his foreign policy post 9/11. Case closed.
More subjectively: I do not remember ever seeing him engage in an honest debate. It’s all vague generalizations soundbites, cliches, canned questions from carefully chosen audience members, and ridiculous straw man characterizations of his opponents’ arguments that most OW blog commenters would be ashamed of.
Off the top of my head, there’s John DiIulio, Paul O’Neill and Ron Suskind who have all made claims about Bush’s intellectual incuriosity. Some (all?) of those subsequently recanted their views — though not all those recantations are considered plausible.
“…no one would want an alcoholic president, for example….”
Just to be a trouble-maker, I’ll point out that, for instance, if Winston Churchill wasn’t an alcoholic, he sure gave a good impression of one, starting off with a morning sherry, drinking throughout the day, finishing with brandy or whisky as a nightcap, after the drinking before, during, and after dinner.
But for all his flaws — and I could write an essay on the many, including specifically on his flaws as a war leader — he is generally thought to have been, in his first Prime Ministership, a good, if not great, war leader. (And had much, if also deeply flawed,success at earlier stints as First Lord, Chancellor of the Exchequer, etc.)
Just an observation. I’m suddenly wondering how a dope-smoking President like the Dude in The Big Lewbowski might work out.
“Clinton obviously had better credentials, but even that couldn’t keep his cigars where they belong.”
You lost your thread there; the point you were reaching for was that Bush was as smart as the other guys. You got to a non-sequitur there.
“With the exception of Wilson intellectual curiosity is just not among the qualities that immediately leap out when thinking of them. They’ve all been above-average in intelligence (as is Bush) but that’s about as far as it goes.”
Teddy Roosevelt, hands down. Hoover was obviously very bright. FDR was intellectually curious up to a point. Truman was a tremendous auto-didact reader. JFK also well-read to a degree. Much as I dislike him, Nixon was a heavy reader and grind. Jimmy Carter writes poetry and novels, for what it’s worth. George W. Bush always seemed a quite bright man, for what that’s worth. Clinton also, of course.
Everyone in-between I deliberately leave out.
George W. Bush always seemed a quite bright man, for what that’s worth.
Given the chronology, George H. W. Bush?
“…only lack of familiarity with Harding and McKinley prevents me from saying that he’s the only 20th/21st century President who does not meet it.”
I’m quite familiar with Harding (only marginally so with McKinley), and I can assure you that he certainly gives George W. Bush a run for his money, if he doesn’t outright beat him, in the un-curious sweepstakes.
And he at least, unlike Bush, spoke well. (He was otherwise a disastrous idiot, to be sure.)
“O’Neil, a disgruntled bureaucrat falling out of the loop, has been discredited several times over.”
Bush must have been wrong about something.
Why did the President hire this “discredited” man and praise him so highly?
“All evidence seems to point….”
Is that “all evidence, save that which I do not acknowledge”?
Gary, wasn’t it of Harding that Mencken wrote “From our midst has passed the only man, woman, or child in America who was incapable of speaking a simple declarative sentence without making five grammatical errors”?
“Given the chronology, George H. W. Bush?”
Whoopsie, yes. Thanks, Anarch.
“Gary, wasn’t it of Harding that Mencken wrote “From our midst has passed the only man, woman, or child in America who was incapable of speaking a simple declarative sentence without making five grammatical errors”?”
Yes, but he did it in a way that convinced people they were listening to a glorious orator.
“It requires intellectual curiosity, an ability to familiarize oneself with a broad range of views, the capacity — yes — to grasp nuances, to foresee the potential ramifications of one’s decisions, and, simply, to think things through.”
I don’t think this is precisely correct. I think Bush lacks the ability to challenge his advisors. You can be less knowledgable in a given area and still challenge dueling advisors through a socratic Q&A. Does anyone really believe that he challenged the idea that we would be welcomed with flowers by the Iraqis? They (Pearle, Cheney, et al) never had to vigorously defend those assumptions with facts. The President might just be cowed by all his advisor’s impressive resumes, or simply too intelectually lazy to poke holes in an overly optimistic and politically convienent hypothesis.
Of course I could be completely mistaken, but events on the ground seem to show that the post-war plan was never subjected to critical questioning.
Let’s let the man speak for himself:
The first three years…can the English language survive?
“The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.”
– George W. Bush
“If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.”
– George W. Bush
“One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and
that one word is ‘to be prepared’.”
– George W. Bush
“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in
the future.”
– George W. Bush
“The future will be better tomorrow.”
– George W. Bush
“We’re going to have the best educated American people in the world.”
– George W. Bush
“I stand by all the misstatements that I’ve made.”
– George W. Bush
“We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a
firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe.”
– George W. Bush
“Public speaking is very easy.”
– George W. Bush
“A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the
polls.”
– George W. Bush
“We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.”
– George W. Bush
“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”
– George W. Bush
“Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our
children.”
– George W. Bush
“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
– George W. Bush
“It’s time for the human race to enter the solar system.”
– George W. Bush
These are all verified quotes. Ok, if he is not dumb, then what is he?
Ok, if he is not dumb, then what is he?
Smart enough to make some people certain he’s dumb?
Smart enough to make some people certain he’s dumb?
Or dumb enough to make some people certain he’s smart…
“I think Bush lacks the ability to challenge his advisors. You can be less knowledgable in a given area and still challenge dueling advisors through a socratic Q&A.”
I’m not convinced that you are correct about Bush, but this sentence certainly identifies an important trait for leadership.
I don’t think that the Bushisms prove much. Both Sam Goldwyn and Yogi Berra had a similar way with words. Nobody who knew either believed they were dumb. I’ve met Berra and went to school with nephews (or grand-nephews?) of his. He is definitely not dumb.
I’m not saying that I believe that Bush is a great intellect. I’m just saying that the Bushisms while amusing are meager evidence that Bush is dumb.
mkultra, I enjoy a good, legitimate Bush-bash as much as the next person, and I enjoy laughing at solecisms, but as a proof of lack of intelligence, giving examples of mis-speaking fails. We all mis-speak from time to time. I rather suspect that if I followed you around with a tape recorder, I could find some solecisms from you, too.
Your first “verified quote” was previously attributed to Kerry, Dan Quayle, and President George H.W. Bush. Please forgive me if I suspect you didn’t work hard to “verify” these. Wait, you didn’t just take someone’s word for it, did you? And not provide a cite?
Hmm, “If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure” is also attributed to Quayle. So is “Public speaking is very easy.”
So is….
Yes, good work with that “verification.”
Someone unkind might ask “Ok, if someone who presents a bunch of quotes as ‘verified’ who doesn’t bother to verify them is not dumb, then what is he?”
I wouldn’t, though. That would be cruel and unkind, and not at all a fair turn-around. I’m sure.
“the point you were reaching for was that Bush was as smart as the other guys. You got to a non-sequitur there.”
Guilty as charged. Too quick a point, well misplaced, was that even with intellect, without basic self control, ’tis wasted.
“These are all verified quotes. Ok, if he is not dumb, then what is he?”
I truly despise these “arguments”. Public officials these days, quoted endlessly, 24/7/365 are going to rack up a few strike outs with their home runs. Cheap, cheap, cheap – on both sides for using them against either speaker.
Another problem with those quotes (as if the multiple attribution isn’t enough) is that they are devoid of context. I can imagine some of them making perfect sense as jokes, or intentional tautologies used for rhetorical effect.
Look, talking about smart or not isn’t really on point, is it? The question is whether the country is being well-lead. Ultimately, we’ll have to defer that question to historians. We are all a little too close to see just how bad the policy decisions have been.
but come on, let’s leave the partisanship behind for a post. the medicare bill? no child left behind? steel tariffs? textile tariffs? shrimp, bra and other tariffs? flip-flopping on DHS? and on the 9/11 commission? a BUDGET-BUSTING tax cut? not a single spending cut anywhere on the horizon? what happened to saving social security?
and on the international front, can left and right centrists find any common ground? is afghanistan really going in the right direction when Doctors Without Borders quits and the president needs to be protected by US soldiers? are we really a country which disappears iraqis? can we agree that Abu Ghraib, and the response to it, represents a gross failure of leadership? or that the Gitmo policy makes a mockery of our claim of moral high ground?
so, von and sebastian and other moderate righties, are we well-lead by this president?
cheers
Francis
“so, von and sebastian and other moderate righties, are we well-lead by this president?”
Yes. And I suggest that you keep to your own advice when it comes to leaving the partisanship behind for a post.
Moe
“the medicare bill? no child left behind? steel tariffs? textile tariffs? shrimp, bra and other tariffs? flip-flopping on DHS? and on the 9/11 commission? a BUDGET-BUSTING tax cut? not a single spending cut anywhere on the horizon? what happened to saving social security?”
The funniest thing is that your preffered candidate is worse on all these. Especially medicare, teacher’s union education, and social security.
I bet Warren Harding was very charming one-on-one.
Seems to me that much of the “Bush is a dummy” meme comes from his own attempts to mitigate his elite prep school upbringing. I have no basis for drawing a conclusion one way or the other, judging the intelligence of a politician is like judging an actor, in that you don’t really know what is scripted. But GWB seems to be trying to appear to a substantial part of the elctorate as not-an-intellectual. The quotes for this sort of thing are all over the place: “fuzzy math” and “I don’t do nuance” etc. How many times can you find advisors calling him “plain spoken?” This is the deliberate creation of an image, and if Jay Leno gets to have some fun at GWB’s expense, that’s probably to the good as well.
There was a piece in the Atlantic a while back where the author had reviewed tapes of Bush debating Ann Richards, and found that his elocution had significantly deteriorated in 2000 from 1994.
“‘But Bush’s bungling has gotten people killed in Iraq, saddled the nation with enormous debts, and created long-term security problems with which the country has not yet begun to grapple.’
The election should very well decide is most voters believe this to be true…or not!”
My kingdom for an election actually about this.
Instead, the Pres is following the intelligent course of making the alternative look even worse. If the Pres wins because some number of people think Kerry lied about his injuries to get medals, others that he is waffling about his vote on Iraq, still others because they think he’s going to force heteros to divorce and enter into gay marriages, and yet more because there is no difference between the parties — well, not exactly a referendum on whether or not Bush’s policies are working out as planned.
hilzoy,
Do you even understand what you are saying? That he lacks the intellectual curiosity to weigh pros and cons of particular policies or actions?
Nathan S.: yes. What makes you think I don’t?
“The funniest thing is that your preffered candidate is worse on all these.”
Taking up the issue I know best: how is Kerry “worse” on the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Sebastian?
Dave S: I’m just saying that the Bushisms while amusing are meager evidence that Bush is dumb.
True. A person can be smart as a whip and still be a lousy public speaker. But if you are smart enough to know you are a lousy public speaker – both on a one-to-one level in an interview or on a one-to-crowd level (that is, without an autocue) – surely you’d also be smart enough to stay out of politics?
Bush’s career prior to becoming President follows a pattern of doing the absolute minimum to get by and depending on his father’s cronies to pull him out of trouble when the absolute minimum proves not to be enough. From his “service” in TANG – even those who claim his months of unexplained absence somehow don’t constitute going AWOL cannot deny that he wasn’t exactly serving with enthusiasm – to his “gentleman’s Cs” at college to his business “career” from flop to flop – even to his years as governor of Texas, a role with minimal powers: nothing about Bush suggests an enthusiastic desire to do anything very much.
As Hilzoy says, “a lifetime of intellectual disengagement will produce the functional equivalent of stupidity”: it is by now probably impossible to tell whether Bush is really stupid or if he just doesn’t care enough to use the brains he’s got. (Sitting for seven minutes in the classroom reading My Pet Goat is yet another example of functional disengagement…) And it doesn’t really matter.
Criticizing Bush for being stupid is a waste of space. Criticizing Bush for the abominably stupid things his administration has done – that’s more to the point.
But if you are smart enough to know you are a lousy public speaker – both on a one-to-one level in an interview or on a one-to-crowd level (that is, without an autocue) – surely you’d also be smart enough to stay out of politics?
It’s remarkable, isn’t it, how few politicians take this advice? The late Mayor Daley and the current Mayor Daley for example are the very types of at best indifferent and at worst incomprehensible public speakers. Both extremely shrewd characters. Perhaps it’s because being a successful politician requires a more-than-healthy self-image.
Jesurgislac, I agree with absolutely everything in your comment.
Perhaps it’s because being a successful politician requires a more-than-healthy self-image.
Perhaps, but I’d also say that the wish to become a politician – at best – derives from the wish to get things done. The gifts useful to being a politician include being a good public speaker, but – as you point out – many successful politicians aren’t particularly good at speaking on their feet.
My point about Bush is that he appears to lack even the basic motivation for being a good politician: the will to get things done and see them done his way. And that is an even more serious lack in someone supposedly a leader than any IQ test failure or mispoken word.
I think President Bush probably made a pretty competant hack. He ran more than one campaign office in his day, and seems to have a genuine enthusiasm for politics. He also seems to have a loathing for wonks. Policy doesn’t seem to interest him and it never did. Intelligence is beside the point, he probably has enough. What he lacks is interest in the knowledge and skills it takes to run a country (or company, for that matter). That’s why he compares so unfavorably to Clinton whose passion was wonkery (and who could hack with the best of them, as well).
What fabius said. Bush is a pretty good attack artist. That’s about it.
He also seems to have a loathing for wonks. Policy doesn’t seem to interest him and it never did. Intelligence is beside the point, he probably has enough. What he lacks is interest in the knowledge and skills it takes to run a country (or company, for that matter). That’s why he compares so unfavorably to Clinton whose passion was wonkery (and who could hack with the best of them, as well).
LOL. That assertion seems to assume that wonks know *anything* about running a country (or a company for that matter).
Macallan:
That’s a perfectly good Fordist point-of-view. And it was the prevailing point-of-view in the U. S. for many years (1932-1982). But it’s been on life support since the Reagan Administration here while coming into full flower in the EU.
while coming into full flower in the EU.
Dave, I believe you make Mac’s point, I hope that was your intention.
Yup.
Criticizing Bush for being stupid is a waste of space.
Space is cheap. “intellectually incurious” is sufficiently vague that it can be substituted in place, without the waste-of-space stigma. Once you’ve done that, it’s just a tiny jump to imagining there’s something like a threshold of acceptability for something there’s no metric for in the first place.
Nixon’s Revenge
The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder
(New York: Norton 2001) 29may01
The anti-intellectual appeal goes way back in American history and is still a potent one; and the Bush team made it with enormous skill, alleging W’s rusticity and hyping Gore’s aggressive braininess with all due unanimity and vehemence. It is therefore remarkable, and cause for optimism, that that drive ultimately failed, although it surely did a lot to redden all those middling states where Bush’s act played well. Despite Gore’s inability to warm the cockles of the national heart-and, more importantly, despite the media’s gigantic bias against him-the majority of voters did not find W so “likeable” or, if they did, were not convinced that he was any deeper or more able than he seemed. Television’s daily revelation of his absolute unfitness was, or should have been, a killer. Just as Nixon’s men could never make him seem like fun, Bush’s propagandists couldn’t make that party animal seem capable of running the United States; and so it finally took five members of the nation’s highest court, and the journalists’ blind eye to what went down in Florida, to place him in the nation’s highest office.
“I think President Bush probably made a pretty competent hack.”
Just to show you how ‘balanced’and thoughtful I’m about to be.
“He ran more than one campaign office in his day, and seems to have a genuine enthusiasm for politics.”
Politics, meaning of course all the vile things politicians have to stoop to do to get elected.
“He also seems to have a loathing for wonks.”
Proof being that he’s not a card carrying member of the ever popular We Love Wonks Society.
“Policy doesn’t seem to interest him and it never did.”
Of course, you have to believe Fabius the All Knowing. Or is this just an unhinged opinion.
“Intelligence is beside the point, he probably has enough.”
Given that’s pretty well established, we appreciate Fabius’ sincere honesty in the matter.
“What he lacks is interest in the knowledge and skills it takes to run a country (or company, for that matter).”
Well hell, Fabius, given your approach is to draw conclusions based solely on what you think you know about another person’s interest, we must conclude that you have no freak’n clue – none what so ever.
“That’s why he compares so unfavorably to Clinton whose passion was wonkery (and who could hack with the best of them, as well).”
We can finally agree, Clinton was a hack. But then, my argument is that you know as little about President Clinton as you do about President Bush. Any Fabius based comparisons are hereby null and void.
Maybe you can tell us why electing a fraud and unaccomplished empty sack of a sugar mommy will advance the cause of any American citizen.
hilzoy,
“What makes you think that I don’t?”
Well, because I would guess that on some level a chimpanzee can weigh the pros and cons of an action. To say that President Bush cannot do so implies that he is either moronic or delusional. To say that he refuses to do so means that he is completely apathetic about his responsibilities as president.
Nathan S: To say that he refuses to do so means that he is completely apathetic about his responsibilities as president.
That’s a pretty good summary, yes.
To say that he refuses to do so means that he is completely apathetic about his responsibilities as president.
You know, I seriously doubt you’re going to hear much in the way of opposition, Nathan, at least amongst those to whom you’re addressing this issue. Whatever point it is you’re delicately avoiding, you might as well just tackle it directly.
Nathan: I meant that he does not do so, not that he can’t. (I have no idea whether he goes so far as to refuse to; just that, apparently, he doesn’t.) I agree with you about what this implies.
Bush – the love of wisdom, the search for truth, and the responsibilities of a student.
GEORGE W. BUSH’S JOURNEY: The Cheerleader (New York Times)
Bush: So-So Student but a Campus Mover (Washington Post)
George Bush Jr. (Irish Examiner)
My point about Bush is that he appears to lack even the basic motivation for being a good politician: the will to get things done and see them done his way.
I thought the problem was that he was a renegade, go-it-alone cowboy who refused to reach across the aisle and was prone to “my way or the highway”-ism. Is this like the “Bush is dumb/Bush is a Machiavellian mastermind” dichotomy?
My personal beliefs notwithstanding, I’m always forced to ask: what compels us to seek a Grand Unified Theory here? Why is it necessary to believe that Bush can be summarized in one simple phrase, let alone the phrase of our choice? Why can’t he be both lazy and motivated, both stupid and smart, both engaged and disengaged, both cunning and gormless? Or more precisely: why can’t he be any or all of those on particular issues (or in particular circumstances, or in particular ways) and not on others? Are we really so hamfisted in our understanding of the world that everything has to boil down to a bumper-sticker?
[Sorry, but given that I’m still trying to polish that damn post of mine these issues are weighing on me more heavily than usual.]
from the Irish Examiner:
At a time when Yale students agonised endlessly over what to do about the draft, Bush does not appear to have talked much about his own choice. To volunteer for Vietnam would have required an act of boldness and outright defiance.
Seeking battle was almost unheard of among undergraduates: it was said that more Yale students were dying in motorcycle accidents than in combat in 1969.
At the same time, according to his Yale friend, Roland Betts, Bush did not want to politically embarrass his father. He took a respectable but easy way out, joining the Texas National Guard.
and this:
An unusual number of Yale men turned down Skull and Bones’s tap that year; senior societies had begun to seem anachronistic in that anti-elitist age. Bush today insists that he had a great time at Yale and doesn’t recall any unpleasantness.
But somewhere along the way he developed a sizeable chip on his shoulder. He would later carp about the self-righteousness and intellectual superiority of the East Coast liberal establishment that took over institutions like Yale in the ’60s. As early as 1964, he had a run-in with one of the avatars of the new order, the Rev. William Sloane Coffin, the Yale chaplain who had turned on his own Andover-and-Skull-and-Bones past to become a fiery radical, advising students to resist the draft.
Bush bitterly recalled Coffin’s telling him, after his father had lost the 1964 Senate race in Texas to Ralph Yarborough, “I knew your father, and he lost to a better man.” To Bush, Coffin embodied the heaviness and guilt of the liberal East.
Haven, try as I might I can’t relate your last two comments to the subject of this post. Could you connect the dots for me?
“…I’m still trying to polish that damn post of mine….”
Do not try too hard. There is no try. There is only do. You must let go, my son.
😉
Dave,
Just noticing a theme for Bush. Nothing big. Just not impressed…I’m sure he is a phenomenal president and was an incredible cheerleader and all. But as a student, he leaves something to be desired.
Just noticing a theme for Bush.
Surprise, surprise. Maybe it’s the glasses.
But as a student, he leaves something to be desired.
As did I. As did Einstein. Was there a point, there?
[Note: not comparing myself to Einstein, or Bush to Einstein. Just saying performance as a student isn’t in itself an indication of competence at one’s chosen occupation.]
You want one of these, Slarti.
Or this. And this, and this.
And, of course, there’s Bush’s “varsity rugby” record.
No, not even thinking about standardized tests..when the Rev. William Sloane Coffin started talking sh!t about his father, was he able to mount some intellectual defense of his father’s position and views? Or did he slink away wondering why someone would say such mean things about his father and a fellow Skull?
Was he able to engage in discourse with any of his peers, attempting to change minds or have his views changed?
Did he shrink from every “intellectual” conversation? Many folks found their journey through college to be quite challenging and an intense.
Did he just learn to spite liberals?
I realize the importance of standardized tests, but I think there are other aspects to being a student that should not be ignored. One of them is constructing and/or reconstructing an intellectual foundation to justify one’s views. I think he didn’t take that aspect serious either.
Gary: In President Bush’s defence I believe varsity as a term has a broader meaning than you may be aware, and as such it is highly possible the rugby he was playing at the time was referred to by those who played it as, ‘varsity’ rugby.
In rugby football, ‘varsity’ can be used to apply to teams representing a college or university, which I believe was the case for President Bush at the time. There although the team wasn’t NCAA-sanctioned, he’s most likely using the British term for a British sport, given that would have been the primary use of the term at the time in US rugby.
” Is this like the “Bush is dumb/Bush is a Machiavellian mastermind” dichotomy?”
Yikes. Is that something you’ve actually encountered? I know of no one, not even his most shameless hagiographers, that think that Bush is a political mastermind.
Rove, on the other hand, killed 7 giants in one blow, last I heard.
Hmmm…Gore’s SAT scores and mine are practically identical (in total; I scored better than him in verbal and slightly worse in math). I must be a genius, and the Right Guy To Be Your President.
Was there a point to this?
Again, standardized tests and grades are for the Republicans, I guess…I notice that Jr. is incapable of defending his views and especially his father’s views. And when he finds he cannot justify them, he blames others for being a [insert label here].
There is a tradition within Christian theology called apologetics. One gives a reasoned explanation to defend and/or justify one’s faith. There is an undercurrent to apologetics called fideism (Pascal, Kierkegaard, the Gnostics) that believes any attempt to systematize the absolute; to reduce belief to a formula is in itself absurd. This view was always believed to work outside traditional norms of faith/epistemology.
I remembered Bush’s answer when asked about his “born-again” experience, “If I have to explain it, you would never understand it.”
Many of the “born-agains” love this.
It’s not just secular society that has marginalized them, but traditional Protestantism has always viewed them as “less than theologically rigorous” I mean how enjoys defending their beliefs?
Anyway, I don’t believe Bush knows the first thing about fideism and could care less…who needs to defend and justify his beliefs?
Then again, members of churches, especially fathers (who are to be the spiritual heads of their families) should be able to teach his children the breadth of Christian history.
He can’t defend his political views, his faith, this dude is more than just “not smart”
I mean his “faith” is his centerpiece, (like Kerry’s Nam experience)? If this is true then why are people not asking about the Rapture? Religious fundamentalism within America? Creationism Vs. Evolution? Predestination?
Some can easily assume he is either a wimp or a phony.
Heh. Bush is a born-again Methodist? Whatever; I didn’t think the Methodists did that rebirth thing, though.
I know this is going to come as a shock to you, Haven, but Methodists aren’t exactly a religious fringe group.
If there were a group within the Methodist denomination discussing “born-again” and “end times” it would be fringe.
By the way, Bush attends (sometimes) his wife’s Methodist Church; he is not a member of that church. Attending and “being a member” is two radically different things, if one is claiming to be a mature Christian. He has claimed to be “born-again” at a Methodist church that does not make him a member.
Most of his Christian training seems to have been in “Men’s Christian Groups” which is not a church. If many of these men are using this space as their Sabbath, then they are indeed fringe. Just because a fringe group is not a pariah, (Scientology, certain Amish groups, Kabala and Buddhism as it is practice by many Hollywood stars) it doesn’t mean that they are not working outside the norm.
Slarti asks: “Was there a point to this?”
That Bush’s scores/grades were comparable to or better than Gore’s. I thought you’d want to make that point; did I misunderstand your position?
That Bush’s scores/grades were comparable to or better than Gore’s. I thought you’d want to make that point; did I misunderstand your position?
Yes.