No Replacement For Displacement

The First Letter from John to the Idiotarians

"George Bush is a buffoon and is against everything I stand for."

OK, the first question is, which clause do we debunk? The first one, or the second? The first item is much easier to debunk, the second, only depending on your point of view. If you are Saddam Hussein, you would be mostly correct. If you are a Democrat, you would be somewhat correct. It is a characterization more emotional than logical in nature. A nice campaign slogan, but lousy as a statement of fact.

Is George Bush a buffoon, dunce, dolt, slow, an idiot? If one compares level of academic achievement, the answer would be no. George W. Bush received an MBA from Harvard Business School in 1975. Al Gore, on the other hand, did not achieve any higher degree. So the amiable and incurious dunce Bush achieved a higher degree than the intellectual Gore.

Another reason why Bush might be considered a dunce might be because of his malapropisms. However, speaking with less than perfect diction is not symbolic of a lack of intelligence. If it were, then people like Aristotle, Charles Darwin, and Isaac Newton would all be considered dullards for stuttering, and George H. W. Bush(41) should also be considered less than intelligent, as he committed the same malapropism as his son. However, no one considers Bush 41 a dullard at all.

Perhaps those who think George W. Bush a dullard are those who have an ease with the written or spoken word, such as commentators or news anchors. However, if we are to judge the intelligence of someone by their ability in an area outside their own field, shouldn't we judge commentators on their knowledge of high energy physics? Shouldn't we also judge the intelligence of television newsmen by their ability to comprehend chaos theory?

Of course, we don't judge newscasters by their ability to understand chaos theory, or commentators by their knowledge of the strong and weak atomic forces. To measure their ability using such a yardstick would be unfair and unenlightening. Yet that is exactly how George Bush's intelligence is measured.

If we examine George Bush's record as a politician, it is pretty obvious that he is not dumb at all. Ann Richards was widely favored over Bush, but lost. Bush wasn't expected to be reelected, but he was the first Governor in the state of Texas to be reelected in the state's history. In the presidential race Bush defeated a popular war hero in the primary, and a member of an incumbent administration during a time of economic growth.

After winning a very close election, Bush managed to implement most of his domestic agenda right up until September 11. There is also a strong possibility of the Republican party picking up seats in a midterm election, something that typically does not happen to the party of a sitting president. Again, this is not something that a "dunce" could possibly hope to accomplish.

Many people have thought of Bush as dumb. Ann Richards thought he was dumb. So did John McCain, and Al Gore. Tom Daschle thought he was dumb, until Bush managed to get a tax cut in over his opposition. So, no, Bush is not dumb, and those who have underestimated his intelligence have paid a price for thinking that he is a buffoon.

Update: (this was supposed to be here, I put it in the wrong place) I just came across an article by Jonathan Freedland in that other hard core conservative publication, the Guardian. One quote:

Painful as it is for Democrats to admit, they face a president who has many of the qualities the job demands. He inspires loyalty: the Washington press corps complain that this is the least leaky White House anyone can remember. He is resolute, in a way that makes his lack of curiosity an asset: he is not tortured by seeing all sides of an argument. His back-slapping, frat-boy image does not convey it, but he also has some steel: not for nothing was he his father's "enforcer", on one occasion breaking the news to his dad's scandal-plagued chief-of-staff that his time had run out.