Monday, August 21, 2006
W is for Witless
Joe Scarborough debates the president's stupidity, complete with some video evidence. I think the key to understanding the question lies in the various components that amount to overall "intelligence." There's reading comprehension, mathematical skill, wit, memory retention, creativity, social skill, spacial relations, abstract thinking, athletic intelligence, logic, extemporaneous thinking and many, many others. Mostly, Bush shows a staggering inability to articulate even simple thoughts.
But what Bush lacks, above all, is intellectual curiosity. (The dude never left the country until he became president). Combine this with his insistence every complex problem has a simple solution, his refusal to hold anyone accountable for obvious mistakes and his apparent easy manipulation by ideologues like Cheney and Rumsfeld. And I don't know if he's stupid, but he sure is dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I never thought I'd be defending w., but according to my high school physics teacher, "Internets" really is the correct term.
But more to the point...I know the line on Bush has always been that he's dumb, but would anyone seriously be bothered by this if things were running remotely well in this country? If he appointed just one or two competent people to powerful and important positions, and fired anyone who wasn't?
Carping on Bush's intellectualism seems like the ultimate red herring these days. But then, how else to distract us all from the war in Iraq and Lebanon, North Korea's underground nuclear testing, Iran's uranium enrichment, terrorist threats and a massive national debt? Even gay marriage can't do all that.
I think he's a very shrewd guy, not just in an evil way, and a genius at interpersonal skills. He's also a spoiled rich boy who's never had to face consequences for his actions (Texas Rangers, anyone?), and has a bunch of that AA-inspired obsession with certainty mixed in. Dumb? Nah. But not responsible enough to babysit a child, let alone a country (and a set of armed forces)? Well...
One of these commentators argues that calling Republicans dumb is just a way to avoid arguing with them. True, I can't think of any Democrats who are labeled as dumb. But that's only because Republicans like to label them as wonkish know-it-alls who you'd never want to have a beer with. It's all an image game, and both sides just happened to end up where they did. I mean, surely Bush has a hand in all this, considering how he desperately tries to hide his roots as a Connecticut Yankee, Andover-cheerleader, Yale and Harvard grad with a trust fund and a fake farm, and portray himself as a brush-clearing cowboy.
Of course, if I were in charge of a country in the shape it's in right now, I'd be hoping everyone thinks I'm too dumb to be responsible too.
How can a president's obvious imcompetence DISTRACT us from all the problems in the world? In my view, it makes me even MORE worried about what happens when the shit really hits the fan.
And asking whether this would matter if things were going well in this country? We'll how about you call me when things ARE going well under Bush and I'll let you know? Social Security reform? Iraq? Katrina? "Strat-ee-gery" (as voiced by Will Ferrell)? Exactly.
Well he ain't all that bad. How about how quickly he led our Armed Forces to capture Osama Bin L-- oh wait. That was Sadaam Hussein. Sorry.
Or if all he needs to do is "appoint just one or two competent people...", then he's merely a figurehead, right? Well then he's the worst fuckin figurehead I've ever seen. Maybe Bush can wear one of those Jack Bauer/Sydney Bristow hidden earpiece things and someone can constantly prompt him with every single word he should say? Or just stick your hand up his ass and pull a string to make his mouth open and close? Something? Anything's better than this sham of a leader. Clinton was one smooth motherfucker (excuse me- internfucker), Reagan was a fucking actor -nuff said, etc. In contrast, a spoiled rich former-drunk fake-cowboy cheerleader who can't put together a complete sentence is hardly the inspiring image of a powerful leader.
But maybe I'm wrong - if he's really that secretly shrewd guy like the Gregory Itzin character in the past season of "24" (sorry to use 2 "24" references in one post), then he's got me completely fooled, and I'll give him credit for the greatest acting job in history.
And I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Please let me be wrong.
Incompetence is worth debating. But these guys were going on about native intelligence and how articulate the man is, not whether his actions in office demonstrate any competence. Which is all a very good way for Fox News and a WSJ columnist to look like they're being critical of the president without delving into any of the horrific failures he's responsible for (him and his henchmen). The argument they were having was does it matter that he's perceived as dumb - not is he fit to lead the world. And that seems to me to be a red herring.
And no, we shouldn't be looking for a president who's just gonna appoint competent people, but appointments are important, and a guy who picks the guys Bush does, and then sticks by him, is a pretty scary creature. Especially considering he never goes against anything they advise.
My point is that as a semi-wacko liberal, I think it's stupid for us wacko liberals to be carping on his intelligence when there are far more tangible things to go after him for.
The guy's clearly got some skills in life. And I'm pretty sure he's actually far smarter than the average person (though also far less curious, and with an obsession with certainty that's downright terrifying). But if intelligence is all that matters for a president, we should just mine the depths of mensa and leave it at that. Personally, I'd prefer to have that internfucker back, but mostly because he was brilliant at running a country (ok, at least good at it), not because he's also a genius. And I kinda had a thing for him back in the day.
Agreed - there's no point in debating his intelligence. We're all generally in the same ballpark on our views of this guy.
Plus, I hate debating politics (although it might be hard for you to tell on this blog). I'd rather debate things like Simpsons epsidoes, current TV & movies, baseball, having 3 kids in 3 years, wearing black shirts with a black tux, etc.
Ask Bones to offer up more fluff pieces here, so I can rant about stuff I actually know something about.
Comb the sweet tarts out of your beard and you're on!
But seriously, black shirt with a black tux? Really? Is that allowed?
And yes, Bones here needs to update this blog more often. Otherwise I'm stuck at work writing stories about wildlife contraception and people who put their cats on the pill.
I think you'll notice my original post condemned bush not for his lack of intelligence, but for his black-and-white worldview, blind stubbornness and ability to be manipulated by his evil henchmen.
Some have speculated that his "you're either with us or against us" view of everything stems from his born-again Christianity. When you go from a coke-snorting lush to president of the United States, perhaps you are relying on religion as a bit of a crutch.
Here's a guy who needed the Christianist brain-washing to even function in life. Now he believes everything can have the same kind of self-imposed solution. All you need to do is want it and apply enough pressure.
Is this a sign of stupidity? I don't think it matters. Point is, he's one dangerous motherfucker.
[Curious musical note: R.E.M.'s "World Leader Pretend" just began on my iTunes random shuffle]
And you two can talk for hours about the certain disappointment of The Simpsons movie.
Or, if you'd rather. I'd be happy to give either of you a password to guest blog here whenever you want. Considering you are possibly the only two people here regularly.
Post a Comment