An interesting piece by Hitchens. Helps shed some light on this ridiculous myth of US President George Bush being of lower intellect.
NOT SO DUMB THEN?
Nov 11 2004, Christopher Hitchens
(excert from article)
"No, if I feel upset at all it is at the herd mentality that seems to have seized almost all my British friends (and quite a few of my American ones, as well).
I don’t mind being shouted at, while having discussions around the dinner table or the studio set. After all, I have done some yelling on my own account.
What I do mind is the pitying glance, or the heavy sigh, that is deployed these days. I am not ready to be patronised, or condescended to, unless by someone of some eminence who has earned that right. And even then I regard it as a sign of weakness rather than strength.
To be frank about it, I don’t know all that many geniuses in the anti-Bush camp. In Britain, I gather, conceited nonentities such as Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy (neither of whom could be elected as mayor of Hogwallow, Nebraska, in a bad year) are treated as serious party leaders, while George Galloway and Tariq Ali pose as leaders of an “anti-war” movement."
I read the article but missed the part where Hitchens provides supporting evidence or arguments for the thesis that Bush isn’t dumb.
The only thing resembling a supporting argument was the fact that Bush got re-elected by a healthy margin. That, as the Daily Mirror has pointed out, can reasonably be interpreted in more ways than one.
I’ve always been mystified as well by the repeated claim that Bill Clinton is unusually intelligent and gifted. Like Bush, he couldn’t have navigated the few real tests he was put to during his administration with any more buffonery than he did.
His supporters always seemed a day late and a dollar short too whenever they were pressed to give some kind of supporting evidence for his supposed superior abilities – other than the fact that he was re-elected to a second term in office too.
I think everyone agrees that Bush is a poor public speaker, but I can’t say the man’s an idiot. He was able to manipulate a gullible population into a war despite the fact he lacked any real solid evidence to justify doing so, and that takes talent. With any President it’s always unclear who is really pulling the strings, though. Reagan was also able to manipulate a paranoid population into believing that Grenada, a tiny Caribbean country, was somehow a threat, and he still manages to be idealized by conservatives despite the fact that he broke his oath by lying to Congress for the Iran-Contra affair and providing money to drug-dealing terrorists (the Contras in Nicaragua, a CIA-organized army who killed 18 civilians per every 20 people they attacked and sold cocaine for additional funding, particularly at a time when crack was becoming pandemic in the US) and the Iranian army, which was considered an enemy. To pull of scams at these levels certainly requires some intelligence.
Well, Tainan, interesting how you consider what is known to be factual (there are many, many government documents on the Iran-Contra affair) is typical of someone uncomfortable with history. History is ugly, but it’s pathetic to try and rewrite it. Mao and Stalin tried but failed. Please feel free to challenge any of the facts I mentioned about Reagan supporting Iran and the Contras or about the nature of the Contras; you can also talk to one of my friends, Danielo, who was machine-gunned (7 scars to show) by the Contras, who burned down a local school and shot several local doctors and nurses (prime targets for Reagan’s Contras).
As for the sad article, it is interesting to note the intellects in the Republican party. There is no doubt that there are intelligent Republicans. It is perhaps more useful to write down who you think is intelligent and THEN to see which party they belong to. Most film producers seem to be Democrats. What about scientists? Obviously a lot of it really comes down to funding. Most educators I know (and I’ve been a college professor for 5 years) are STAUNCHLY Democrat. Most artists are Democrats. One of the ‘top’ Republican intellectuals is Rush Limbaugh, a sad excuse of a man with no real political experience to begin with and certainly no qualifications to run a propaganda show. Also, can any member of the Christian Coalition really be considered an intellectual? So please try to find a better list and feel free to try and rewrite Reagan’s history with terrorism any time you want.
[quote=“sbmoor262004”]Well, Tainan, interesting how you consider what is known to be factual (there are many, many government documents on the Iran-Contra affair) is typical of someone uncomfortable with history. History is ugly, but it’s pathetic to try and rewrite it. Mao and Stalin tried but failed. Please feel free to challenge any of the facts I mentioned about Reagan supporting Iran and the Contras or about the nature of the Contras; you can also talk to one of my friends, Danielo, who was machine-gunned (7 scars to show) by the Contras, who burned down a local school and shot several local doctors and nurses (prime targets for Reagan’s Contras).
As for the sad article, it is interesting to note the intellects in the Republican party. There is no doubt that there are intelligent Republicans. It is perhaps more useful to write down who you think is intelligent and THEN to see which party they belong to. Most film producers seem to be Democrats. What about scientists? Obviously a lot of it really comes down to funding. Most educators I know (and I’ve been a college professor for 5 years) are STAUNCHLY Democrat. Most artists are Democrats. One of the ‘top’ Republican intellectuals is Rush Limbaugh, a sad excuse of a man with no real political experience to begin with and certainly no qualifications to run a propaganda show. Also, can any member of the Christian Coalition really be considered an intellectual? So please try to find a better list and feel free to try and rewrite Reagan’s history with terrorism any time you want.[/quote]
So…what was your opinion of the Christopher Hitchens article?
Cowboy, the only time I enjoyed the article was when I used it to blow my nose in. By the way, I think we’re up to a Triple Dog Dare on you defending Reagan on Iran-Contra.
:raspberry: :raspberry: :raspberry:
The myth, while unfair was never completely spurious. Bush is a man from a very wealthy family who failed at almost everything he did before middle age. He did poorly or average at school, despite having all the advantages. He had an undistinguished military career. His businesses were failures, again despite all the help connections and old money could provide. He speaks poorly, again despite going to the best schools. (Now it seems likely he has some sort of dyslexia but it is his shamelessness about his blunders that offends people. For Christ sake, self-correct you bozo. When you hear yourself say that Saddam Hussein attacked us, stop and get it right.)
Furthermore, during the few unstaged interviews he has allowed Bush has not shown a complex or even deep understanding of his own policies.
Hitchens argument is unpersuasive in that at best he is able to show that Bush has been successful. But notice where in the essay he brings up this point:
[quote]I have to say that I don’t feel myself in the presence of genius at all. While Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Jon Bon Jovi, Ben Affleck and Bill Clinton (who left my university without being able to take his degree) strike me as having a long way to go before they even attain intellectual mediocrity.
It’s quite a few years now since George W Bush took down the Democratic Party’s then-favourite daughter, Ann Richards, as governor of Texas.
[/quote]
If Bush’s intelligence is proved by his success then so too is the intelligence of Michael Moore and Bon Jovi. Argue that Bush is bright because he has been successful and I’ll ask if you are willing to say the same thing about MM, Bon Jovi, Ben Alleck or any other successful Hollywood star. And if not, why not?
Having said all this, I agree Bush is no dummy. But like most politicians and artists his success is probably due more to EQ than IQ to put it simply. And like Madonna, Bush is always going to strike very literate people (like journalists) as a buffoon because they cannot grasp that talent and intelligence are not only measured by how well one wields words.
with regards to the intellect (or lack thereof) of the two most recent US presidents:
somebody above wrote
I’ve always been mystified as well by the repeated claim that Bill Clinton is unusually intelligent and gifted. Like Bush, he couldn’t have navigated the few real tests he was put to during his administration with any more buffonery than he did.
compare the performance of the two gentlemen (and i use the term advisedly) in interviews, such as American 60 minutes…absolutely chalk and cheese…and yes, Bill Clinton’s ability to speak in grammatically correct sentences strung together in eloquent passages, complete with conditional clauses, literature references, a touch of self-deprecation, and an obvious awareness of the view from other people’s vantage wins hands down, IMHO.
and as for the ability of each president to do their own political analysis, never make the mistake of thinking that they operate in a vacuum: they are merely the ‘electable’ front end of a vast idealogical army, most of whom remain far from public view, and their hands are often tied or led by others. of course that goes equally for BOTH sides of politics. stop living in denial, that’s a river in africa.
i don’t know any other professors or academics who fall for Bush’s petty religiosities either.
MM…good points. Bush was painted with his, IMO, undeserved image as slow/retarded/dumb/etc., early in his political career by the speech writers for Democratic Party Texas Governor Ann Richards. It has stuck with him and has been a convenient fall-back for his detractors.
President Bush is not an eloquent public speaker. He stumbles, he stammers and he does mis-speak with alarming regularity. To his supporters, and I did vote 2x’s for him, this is a pain to see. As I mentioned, to his detractors it provides a base for them to build a myth regarding him.
By the way, Bush did well in university and did well in his MBA classes. Was he at the top of his class in either? No…neither was I, but I wasn’t at the bottom. And neither did I flunk out (Algore), nor was I asked to leave a program (Rhodes - Clinton*). Was he helped by his Father - probably so. I hope I’m not laying this on you too hard…but thats one of the ways the world works. Sure its not fair…who believes the world is fair? It sure as hell ain’t.
Hitchens writes an interesting column. I thought it has a good twist to it . Coming from his former position as one of the more rabid left-wingers, in some ways similar to David Horowitz, he puts a lot of perspective into what he writes. And, to my mind, does it in a pretty balanced way.
I’m not sure I agree it was an interesting column, but it was a useful one. Or at any rate I hope it will be for those who think the second coming in nigh.
Hmm. Maybe that’s how democrats could begin to display their faith to the public. "Of course we share the religious views of middle america. You think after this election we don’t believe in the anti-Christ?
Yep. Yep. What? Hitchens, Horowitz…same sentence? Are you talking about Horowitz, as in the Frontpage right-wing nutbar partisan dipshit? Chomsky’s polar opposite?
I think you respect the office of the President even if you don’t respect the person. I respect both. I also think that Christopher Hitchens is an effete, arrogant ass without any original ideas and not an ounce of wit. What a boring and terrible writer. I refuse to read anything else by him.
Yep. Yep. What? Hitchens, Horowitz…same sentence? Are you talking about Horowitz, as in the Frontpage right-wing nutbar partisan dipshit? Chomsky’s polar opposite?
Does not compute.[/quote]
Horowitz and Hitchens share a few common characteristics; notable they were members of the
Chewy…the leftwing background of both was indeed what I was referring to. Didn’t I mention that?..hmmm.
Horowitz is certainly more the reactionary and his views have placed him at the top of the lefts hit list. Funny things…the information he presents does tend to be supported by facts. Facts are funny things.
Hitchens is consistently a good read.
Of course…unless otherwise indicated opinions stated are my own.
Mucha Man wrote: The myth, while unfair was never completely spurious. Bush is a man from a very wealthy family who failed at almost everything he did before middle age. He did poorly or average at school, despite having all the advantages. He had an undistinguished military career. His businesses were failures, again despite all the help connections and old money could provide. He speaks poorly, again despite going to the best schools. (Now it seems likely he has some sort of dyslexia but it is his shamelessness about his blunders that offends people. For Christ sake, self-correct you bozo. When you hear yourself say that Saddam Hussein attacked us, stop and get it right.
[i]Some of his ventures wild-catting in Texas were not successful. However, his ownership of the Texas Rangers (which he bought in his early 40s), has proved to be very successful. Like any entrepreneur, he has had successes and failures. Therefore I disagree with your statement that all his ventures were failures. Do you want me to teach you how to read accounting reports?
He did poorly in school? He performed better than John Kerry and has a graduate degree to boot. Kerry, who is a polished speaker, had very unimpressive grades at Yale. Stlye over substance seems to be the pattern of Kerry’s life – and marrying rich heiresses.
Speaking poorly? What does that have to do with going to school? Many educated people have trouble sometimes articulating themselves clearly. You are a case in point. Bush is very articulate when the cameras are turned off. Churchill was a bad public speaker. Did that limit his leadership qualities? No way.[/i]
While it’s true some very intelligent people were poor public speakers they were still articulate in some medium.
On the other hand, it’s hard for me to believe that any truly dumb person can be articulate in any medium.
Maybe they can be expressive, maybe they can be persuasive . . . but profound or insightful – original – I don’t think so.
Bush is shrewd, tough and focused, but he’s still very average intellectually. I don’t think he’s dumb though. It’s inconceivable that a dumb person could end up the most powerful person on earth.
I think what’s going on is average intelligence seems below average in the searing spotlight of the presidency. Most likely any of us would have some very bad moments if we were thrust into the same spotlight until we learned to camouflage our inadequacies.
[quote=“Chewycorns”]Mucha (Muzha) Man wrote: The myth, while unfair was never completely spurious. Bush is a man from a very wealthy family who failed at almost everything he did before middle age. He did poorly or average at school, despite having all the advantages. He had an undistinguished military career. His businesses were failures, again despite all the help connections and old money could provide. He speaks poorly, again despite going to the best schools. (Now it seems likely he has some sort of dyslexia but it is his shamelessness about his blunders that offends people. For Christ sake, self-correct you bozo. When you hear yourself say that Saddam Hussein attacked us, stop and get it right.
[i]Some of his ventures wild-catting in Texas were not successful. However, his ownership of the Texas Rangers (which he bought in his early 40s), has proved to be very successful. Like any entrepreneur, he has had successes and failures. Therefore I disagree with your statement that all his ventures were failures. Do you want me to teach you how to read accounting reports?
He did poorly in school? He performed better than John Kerry and has a graduate degree to boot. Kerry, who is a polished speaker, had very unimpressive grades at Yale. Stlye over substance seems to be the pattern of Kerry’s life – and marrying rich heiresses.
Speaking poorly? What does that have to do with going to school? Many educated people have trouble sometimes articulating themselves clearly. You are a case in point. Bush is very articulate when the cameras are turned off. Churchill was a bad public speaker. Did that limit his leadership qualities? No way.[/i][/quote]
I seem to really get on your tits don’t I?
If Bush’s bought the Texas Rangers and ran it successfully in his 40’s this does not negate my point that he was a unsuccessful before middle age. Duh!
References to Kerry are irrelevant as I did not make my points to suggest that Kerry was better than Bush.
Last point, why are you criticizing what I wrote (and me personally)? I was stating why people felt Bush was an idiot. Stating the commonly held opinions. Did I not end by saying I believe he was not an idiot?
Bush is very articulate when the cameras are turned off. Churchill was a bad public speaker. Did that limit his leadership qualities? No way.[/i]