Vox Humana wrote:

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is
retarded. He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some
verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.

He makes a very poor spokesperson because he has such difficulty with
both extemporaneous and (especially) impromptu speaking. He'd look much
smarter if he only read from prepared speeches, but in this world where
1/2 the people are of below average intelegence (think about it),
slipping-up and saying something stupid makes him appear more human to
many people (as you further point out.)

The real measure of how smart someone running the show is seen in the
people he surounds himself with. No one can know everything, yet the
President is responsible for making decisions on everything, or to
responsibly delegate authority. (As someone in another thread wrote, you
can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsiblity.)

Unfortunately the President doesn't get his job based on how well he
delegates authority for things he's responsible for. He gets his job by
appealing to the masses. Bush's handlers have done a good job of making
it appear that his faux pas make him human by contrasting them with some
strong, difinitive talk -- even if that strong difinitive talk is
nothing more than well worded chest-thumping. Dan Quayle, another guy
who said some stupid things, didn't have such good handlers.


However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't
feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to
an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you
listen to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model.

Pandering has always been a good short-term stratagy. Most people don't
understand the complex relationships of the world, and have no idea of
the long-term effects of anything. I think most people also have seen
their personal long-term plans change so drastically that they start to
believe that life isn't about long-term plans, but rather short-term
reactions to forces that they don't believe they have any control of.

The good vs. evil paradigm is the easist way to pander. Us vs. them.
We're good. Anything in our way is evil. And if we have any compasion
for the evil, the only reason why we'd ever let it show would be as a
trick to concoure that evil.

One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be
considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an
evolution in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who
want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a
pre-digested
form.

The interesting thing here is that it didn't have to be this way. The
liberals appear more intellectual right now, but there are smart people
on both sides. The liberals could have become the panderers, and the
conservatives could have been the intelectuals. And half a decade ago it
was. Harry Truman and JFK were both big-talkers who loved to pander, and
Eisenhower was an intelectual who didn't.


Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they
have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities
are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who
develop
weapon systems.)

We haven't become a nation of shallow people. We always have been. Only
the details change.

At this point, it seems the conservatives have a lock on pandering, and
will continue to be able to convince people that they are good and the
liberals are evil. But even though in the light of our current
perspective, I have to believe that some day the tables will turn again.
And again after that.

I also suspect that we're at a point in time when that table turning is
in full-swing. Michael Moore does a good job of claiming the liberals
are good, and the conservatives are evil. Is he pandering? You bet he
is. But if the pandering of conservatives for the past 20 years is
acceptable, then the pandering of liberals is too. Pandering is
ultimately the only way to truly gain power.

We're starting to get to the point where the conservatives are seeing
that pandering isn't going to continue to work because the liberals are
beginning to be successful at it, too. We're at the point in the typical
high school movie where the star quarterback (or cheerleader) sees that
the nerds have become better at communicating a populous message, and
the quarterback (or cheerleader) starts to turn to threats to keep
people on their side.

And just as the star quarterback (or cheerleader) isn't retarded in
those movies, on the surface they begin to appear to be the stupidest
people in the school. The truth is that while they may not be the
brainiak that the head nerd is, they just haven't needed to rely on
anything other than pandering. There are always some smart guys on both
sides, and some dumb guys on both sides. You don't get to be a leader by
being retarded. It just doesn't show well in a movie -- and for the new
populous message of the nerds to work, they need to emphasize the
stupidity of the football team or cheerleading squad.

Bush isn't retarded. He's just the chosen leader of the conservatives,
and the conservatives have done the best job of pandering in recent
history. I'm apparently not a very good liberal because I'm being too
intellectual about this. Now is the time for true liberals to start
pandering, and spouting populous messages. We should be painting Bush as
stupid and evil. If liberals want to get back into power, they can't be
like me, and look at it the way I have. Liberals need to flat-out say
Bush is stupid and evil, and Kerry is the savoir.

I won't be voting for the stupid, evil guy this year. I never have voted
for the stupid, evil guy. Perhaps popular opinion will agree with me on
who the stupid, evil guy is this time, and we'll see a liberal in the
Whitehouse next January 20.

Or then again the evil people could postpone the election to try to stop
the inevitable turning of the tables.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgardener/index.html

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:57:48 GMT, wrote:

there are times when seeing a film with others is totally worth the money. Ingrid

And was it Oscar Wilde who said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the
taste of the American public."?

By the way, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 has made eighty million dollars in
the three weeks it's been in theaters...AND he publicly announced that anyone
could pirate it, put it online and trade if for free...it still made record
breaking numbers.

This should prove him right, if there was any doubt left.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:57:48 GMT, wrote:

there are times when seeing a film with others is totally worth the
money. Ingrid

And was it Oscar Wilde who said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating
the
taste of the American public."?

By the way, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 has made eighty million
dollars in
the three weeks it's been in theaters...AND he publicly announced that
anyone
could pirate it, put it online and trade if for free...it still made
record
breaking numbers.

This should prove him right, if there was any doubt left.

I thought the last presidential election was proof of that.