How Dumb is Dumb Enough
A bumper sticker popular in the 2000 election and moreover a good question. I was reminded of that question recently when I posted the snippet from the boondocks cartoon. "What good is it having a smart bomb when you have a dumb president." One reader, a Republican, responded.
Bush is an average intelligence, not the smartest man in America but by no means the dummy some make him out to be. Now, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld, and most especially Rice, have intellectual credentials overflowing and intelligence to spare. As a loyal Republican, this approaches blasphemy, but Bush is basically just a figurehead for his advisors.
To which dende offered the following thoughtful commentary and that I felt deserving of a post.
I think that there are a lot of different kinds of dumb and a lot of different kinds of smart. Most people would agree that Bush is not what you might call 'book smart', or even 'life smart', not even in that area of learning that is related to politics. Most of his adult life, he had little to do with politics except for his dad's election campaigns.And yet, many people insist that Bush is more intelligent than he seems, or more intelligent than people make him out to be. But that's not saying a lot, since he does in fact seem to be very dumb. In fact, I'd say that (in a tribute to the late, great senator from NY) Bush has "defined dumb down." W. makes Reagan and Dan Quayle look like a wise old sage and an intellectual boy wonder. Remember all that fuss about Quayle's "potatoe"? Goodness, we have to grimace and try to ignore more than that just about every time Bush opens up his mouth. He shows very little grasp of the ideas that he attacks and embraces, from nation-building to tax reform. He parrots the same reasons for his policies, without ever being able to put those reasons in more simple or more detailed terms on the fly. It's hard to think of one coherent thing he has said which could not have been coached into him. "Faith based initiatives stop the government discrimination against church charities." That's an interesting point, but could you say more about what you mean? "Didn't you hear me? We've got to stop the government discrimination against church charities!"
Reagan was always best with the script in front of him, but he could think on his feet, most notably in the presidential debates. Quayle made slips in grammar and seemed clueless at times, but he was a more sophisticated ideologue than Bush ever will be--he understood something of the roots and implications of his ideas.
During the 2000 campaign, the constant attacks on Bush's intelligence (especialy from idiots like Jay Leno) actually made him more sympathetic to me, since he seemed to me to be a more capable a politician than most of his critics. The attacks seemed like cheap shots by people who couldn't do any better. And in a sense, it's true that he never could have had success as a governor without some leadeship skills and sense for political strategy.
But being a good president takes more than that. Every president has advisors, and most policy ideas that come out of a given adminstration aren't cooked up by the chief himself. But without an above average level of critical intelligence, it's hard for an executive to say "that idea sucks" or at least "the reasons behind your position do not make any sense."
Bush's advisors may be intelligent, but they have differing opinions on many issues. Indeed, praising a president for his advisors is quite strange, since there's never any shortage of good and bad ideas trying to get the president's ear. The problem with putting our faith in the advisors is that they aren't always heeded (see Powell), they often act out of a desire to better their position in the administration (see almost everyone else), and they often hold very extreme positions because they have no electoral responsibility to worry about (see Wolfowitz). Your average cabinet is far from a marketplace of ideas, where the best ones rise to the top--its more like a power grab, especially when you have an exectutive who doesn't know he's being duped. To say that Bush's advisors are in charge is frightening indeed, for it means that most of the time, no one is in charge.One more ironic aspect of intelligence is a kind of humility. If there is any common thread at all through the Bush presidency, it is the notion that stubbornness in holding to a position is a virtue. Nope, I haven't thought it through, I'm not going to reconsider, it doesn't matter if people think differently. 'Trying to see the other side of the issue? That's like making decisions based on focus groups.' Intelligent people may be full of themselves sometimes, but they can also comprehend arguments against their position, and then understand why someone could see differently. Sometimes, this understanding can cause smart people to waffle. This is bad, but like most other firm believers in the terrible potential of bad government, I'd rather have a president waffle between a pair of moderately good positions than charge blissfully ahead with very bad ideas, all the while speaking of truth and goodness.







, Mr. President
Mmmhmm



