Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the stupidest of them all?
According to many Democrats, liberals, and Leftists, leading Conservatives and/or Republicans seem to fall mostly into one of two molds: the evil clods and the evil geniuses. Bush is one of the former and Cheney and Rove the latter.
McCain is a bit different; he doesn’t clearly fall into either category. That’s why Democrats and the press have had to attack him in other ways: age, recklessness, and loudly and repetitively that he’s Bush in McCain clothing.
Palin, however, is much easier to work into the template: she’s another evil clod. Gibson’s “gotcha” interview that “proved” she didn’t know all the answers to his pop quiz on foreign policy was part of this strategy. She’s a dummy, see?
And it’s readily apparent that she’s got some of the same “stupid” traits as Bush: an accent that most on the urban coasts consider evidence of idiocy, an appeal to the rubes of the world, and a non-academic way of looking at things. Unlike with Gore, Kerry, or Obama, you would not tend to mistake her for a college professor.
And I don’t mean that last statement as a criticism, either. Although I’ve got academic credentials to rival nearly anyone’s, I’m not stupid enough to think that being professorial has anything to do with common sense, judgment, and the ability to lead and make good decisions. These are the traits I value most in a President.
More “evidence” of Palin’s stupidly evil (or is it evilly stupid?) nature: the fake fake pregnancy (that’s not a typo), the “lies” she’s told about this and that (nothing different from most politicians and a great deal fewer than the majority of them), the book bannings that never were, the Dowdified misquotes that “prove” she believes that she and Bush are Joan of Arc & Company and that God speaks directly to them, the assertions that she’s a nutsy creationist, the cries that she’ll take away your right to (fill in the blank) in the absence of any stated intention by her to do so.
It all might have worked to turn voters away. It might still work, for all I know. There are close to two months left until the election.
But if it doesn’t work, it certainly won’t be for lack of trying. The danger for the Democrats is that most of this has been so transparent—and so obviously different from press treatment of Obama—that people will see Palin as a victim and distrust any negative information they get about her, since they’ve seen the sources to be biased and vindictive.
If one wishes to speak of stupidity, it seems rather dumb to underestimate the intelligence of the other side. If Obama supporters believe their own rhetoric about their opponents’ lack of brainpower, they not only will fail to see the intelligence these rivals actually demonstrate, and therefore run the risk of being bested by them, but they will be counting on the fact that the American public can’t see through the bias, hypocrisy, and double standards of the MSM in this case. This would be a dangerous bet to make.
The well-known acid-tongued and elitist journalist of the 20s and 30s, H.L. Mencken (who, by the way, never went to college), is often misquoted as having said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” He actually seems to have made two statements on the subject that are relevant here. The first is:
No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
The second is:
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.
Mencken certainly had a way with a phrase. But he was wrong on a lot of things, including his opposition to America’s entry into WWII, his anti-Semitism—and, I believe, his own underestimate of the “intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” It’s just a different sort of intelligence. There is something called horse sense, which recognizes that Presidents need to be decisive people of action and judgment, and that the erudition of professors and wordsmiths is no substitute for those all-important traits. In judging which candidate best demonstrates them, elitists such as Mencken are often no better at the task than the great unwashed he so derided—and sometimes they may even be worse.
[NOTE: In this respect, please take note of the book The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki.]
“evil clods and the evil geniuses”
but… but… with Bush you get BOTH!
Just for the record, to reduce the number of inaccurate complaints in the comments: Bush’s IQ (estimated from his officer candidate exam and his SAT’s) is about 125 – 95th percentile – and higher than Kerry’s. We know nothing about Obama’s IQ (no released documents) but likely overestimate it on the basis of the schools he attended, combined with the social cues of intellectualism he exudes.
As for Governor Palin, I don’t like her accent much myself. My New England ancestors probably didn’t like Andrew Jackson’s accent and rough country ways much either. They’re pretty irrelevant to the real abilities a president needs: choosing advisors, focusing on the big picture, persuasiveness, balance, determination.
One thing all Democrats are sure of – they’re smarter than everyone else. As a commenter stated today in the Washington Post, any sane, clear-thinking person would choose Obama over McCain. So you see, people don’t vote Republican because they they think differently – they do so because they think poorly. And they’re probably mentally ill. To the author of the editorial commented on, the choice of Obama as our next president is “obvious.”
There really is an anti-democratic impulse among today’s Democrats. I think it’s really a Progressive impulse – the desire to be ruled by a panel of experts rather than elected representatives. The experts would, of course, be Progressives – i.e., Democrats.
Neo,
I am lucky enough to have an autographed copy of “The Wisdom of Crowds”! I really enjoyed the book.
At dinner the other night with my dearest friends, all staunch liberals, I sat quietly (knowing resistance was futile) as they clucked over Palin’s supposed “stupidity”.
We’ll see what happens in November.
Jamie Irons
Along a similar line, this morning I was trying to find cites for the scientists’ political party affiliations. I can find lots of articles that mention that “Most scientists today do lean Democratic…” but no studies.
Any help?
methinks the lady doth protest too much neo. In your anti Obama frenzy you are willing Palin to be many things which clearly is not. The main one being the best, as in most capable, candidate that the Republicans could have found. She is certainly good media material in a battle with the Democrats but as a potential President she is not in the major leagues.
sorry, that should read “you are willing Palin to be many things she which clearly is not.”
“And it’s readily apparent that she’s got some of the same “stupid” traits as Bush: an accent that most on the urban coasts consider evidence of idiocy, an appeal to the rubes of the world, and a non-academic way of looking at things.”
An e-pal of mine from Georgia, a ‘good ‘ol boy’ but a hopeless Lefty, described Republican voters in his State as “Mouthbreathers”.
I love American argot!
johnny cash: I think you’re reading a lot into my statements that isn’t there. I never said she’s the most qualified Republican candidate in every sense. But I believe she’s qualified in the following ways: horse sense, record of integrity (for a politician, that is), a quick learner, leadership. Those are especially important to me. She’s also qualified in the more strategic sense: probably the best candidate to give McCain the most votes.
It’s an extra added boost that Obama, the Democratic Presidential candidate, is in my opinion the least qualified candidate ever nominated for President in my lifetime. That is by any party. He is unqualified in terms of experience and horse sense, as well as leadership and maturity (the latter not measured by age, accent, or oratory). That means that Palin—the VP candidate for the Republicans—measures up quite nicely with the Presidential candidate for the Democrats. Unless, that is, that its accent and oratory you’re after, or a nice deep baritone voice.
I suppose I am repeating the point I made the other day, the system for electing the US President is too media dependent and is producing increasingly weak Presidents. As you point out Obama gets a long way on that voice and the associated gravitas but McCain or Palin are not really much better. There are many more competent people in both parties but the US media circus is not going to let those who are not media friendly get anywhere. Think of all those past Presidents who would have never been selected in the current media atmosphere. Roosevelt and Kennedy being too that come to mind
With regard to Johnny Cash’s comments, what do you mean by whether or not Palin is “the best” VP candidate McCain could have picked? Apparently you don’t think she is, but I’d be curious to know what assumptions and presuppositions lie behind that statement.
Sure, in terms of depth of experience and academic qualifications and whatnot, Condoleeza Rice would have made a better pick than Palin (or most of the other Republicans McCain reportedly considered), but McCain never seriously considered Rice because reportedly she’s not interested in the job, and even if she were, she would have tied him to Bush and wouldn’t have helped him win. The same could be said of many other Republicans. While Mitt Romney, for instance, doesn’t have the ties to Bush that Rice does, he wouldn’t have helped McCain with the same voting groups that Palin helps with, so again, he wouldn’t have been the best pick in that regard, despite the fact that he is very accomplished and very intelligent.
In an election, “the best” always has to be understood in terms of the context of the election. And in the context of this election, McCain was very wise to pick Palin.
It is way too idealistic to expect the best people run for office, or even get nominated. Thus elections are never about the best candidate, it is about the better candidate. It is about a candidate that has the best chance of being elected. The primaries was supposed to do this.
btw, the media loved Kenedy.
they would not have loved him if the current media ability to dish the dirt had been around then. He would have been crucified
johnny cash: that’s where I believe you are wrong. They would have continued to protect him, just as they have protected Obama. They protect those they love and crucify those they hate.
Of course, your analysis of “liberal” opinion is simply the other side of the same “the other team can’t think their way out of their own way” silliness. George W. Bush is very intelligent — more much intelligent than he sounds at times. Cheney has a keen intellect and Rove truly is the “genius” he’s thought to be. I’m not into the whole “evil” thing so I’ll leave the enterprise of discerning what is and what isn’t “evil” to conservatives.
What they all have in common, including Obama and Biden, is AMBITION. Where they differ is in what they believe about how to use power and in what direction to point the firepower of the state. Like Cheney’s hunting partner recently discovered, when power intends to find places to pull the trigger, collateral damage is simply the price of doing business.
Traditional liberals, as you suggest, see the equation far to simplistically — as do conservatives. The problem with this campaign’s conservative rhetoric is that it shows how conservative’s see the whole world and every problem in it with the same over-simplified tunnel vision that liberals see when they try to come up with a formula to counter the Rovian wedge that has keeps Republicans a dominate electoral force in American politics.
Democrats don’t have a counter for the Rove strategy and likely never will. Democrats now have to depend on the backlash from Republican over-reaches to get elected. The Democratic Party does not have a broad theme for their party to provide the same cohesion and passion that Republicans are able to generate with their social policies, their small government mythology and their nationalism breeding military campaigns against “evil” countries that even France could invade and conquer if they wanted to bankrupt their country doing it — like we have.
I really like your blog because it shows how impressively smart “neo-cons” really are and how well you put together sophisticated analysis to support your point-of-view. I have enormous respect for folks like Condi Rice, as I’ve indicated here a couple of times.
Neo-conservative ideas hold a lot of promise for the United States, in my opinion. They are also dangerously easy to abuse as is evidenced by the Iraq War, which I would argue is an extreme abuse neo-conservative ideas.
The Bush years have been a complete failure. McCain will be the same. Palin is a non-issue from a possible McCain administration POV because she’ll have no power and very little influence. McCain simply wants to be President. Republicans often fall into the “whose turn is it” mentality and McCain is the 2nd best example of this after Bob Dole.
It’s not a new idea for fascists & quasi-fascists to pervert an otherwise worthy ideology to gain and hold power. The quasi-socialist Democrats do the same thing from a different ideological under-pinning.
The grand themes of Facism versus Collectivism are no less powerful in today’s world than they’ve ever been. The forces of the “free market” are the fuel that both forces attempt to harness to gain the upper-hand on state power. They both over-reach, eventually, and the pendulum swings the other direction for time.
I don’t expect this to change in my lifetime, but, the two party system in the United States is a farce. America is in permanent decline and there’s little anyone will be able to do about that trend. Within my lifetime, if I live the full-life span I’d prefer, the United States will not be the leading military power in the world. This won’t be because of politics or because of an ideological failure — it will be because of the population driven economic power of China.
America’s only hope is to become a nation of “principle”. Democracy, freedom and a self-defense focused national security policy are the only principles worthy of America’s original promise. The United States could achieve that vision and that would be the best contribution we could make to a world that remains sadly deficient in these fundamental principles of self-governance. Of course, we’d have to decide those principles were the most important values to achieve here at home before we can make those principles a valued export to ship to those who yearn for freedom, prosperity and self-governance abroad.
an accent that most on the urban coasts consider evidence of idiocy, an appeal to the rubes of the world, and a non-academic way of looking at things.
I hate to break it to people, but that’s not an accent. Or rather, if it is, it is the accent of a 19 year old pop music girl with a soft interview voice.
But if it doesn’t work, it certainly won’t be for lack of trying.
That’s how all wars should be fought, isn’t that right, Neo. If you lose, it shouldn’t be for lack of trying given the high stakes.
that people will see Palin as a victim and distrust any negative information they get about her, since they’ve seen the sources to be biased and vindictive.
There will come a time when identity politics and government welfare will make the majority of Americans vicious and vindictive. At that point, it’s a slide down hill.
methinks the lady doth protest too much neo.
You know, Neo, how many times have people said that to you? I remember a couple of ocassions.
I think you’re reading a lot into my statements that isn’t there.
And I also remember that that was your response, too, often to “Loyal Achates”. Loyal to nothing but flim flam character misattributions, of course.
# johnny cash Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
they would not have loved him if the current media ability to dish the dirt had been around then. He would have been crucified
He belonged to the Democrat good old boy club, so he would have been immune.
Reviewing my blogroll to see who’s moved.
Like the new site.
Also like the Mencken.
Another book to reference, particularly with respect to those who have drunk the Obama Kool-Aid, is Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, written By Charles Mackay in 1841.
And I’m completely serious about that.
“They protect those they love and crucify those they hate.” I am not sure what you mean by “they”. Are you suggesting that all the US media support the Democrats? And would hide anything of disadvantage to them?
Palin is a throwback to the old America that existed before resumes, org charts, experts and the get-your-ticket-punched stations were invented, so for obvious reasons she must be destroyed. So the new America has determined. Whoever wins, the differences and bitterness between the two Americas run so deep that it’s hard to see how this divided house can stand much longer.
I think General Sherman is buried in Missouri somewhere, when the time comes I’ll bang on his tomb loudly and shout Wake up!, Uncle Billy, Wake up, ! We got work to do….
POINTED REVELATIONS REPORTS…
“McCain’s Ties to Shadowy Security Company Confirmed”
(revised September 14, 2008)
John McCain makes occasional mention of his friend, Admiral Chuck Larson, whose distinguished career includes the command of nuclear submarines and the management of the Naval Academy.
Not as well known but by no means concealed is Larson’s link to Washington’s ViaGlobal Group, the successor company to ViaFinance and Galway Partners.
In 2004, ViaGlobal was serving as the “business incubator” for Rosetta Research and Consulting LLC, best known as the company involved in luring Afghan tribal chieftain and accused drug kingpin Haji Bashar Noorzai to the U.S., where he was arrested in April of 2005.
Rosetta’s Department of Defense sponsors, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, brokered an introduction to CNN military commentator General David Grange, who serves as an advisor to ViaGlobal.
Grange made the initial arrangements between Rosetta, represented by former Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman partner and ex-NSC attorney Joseph Myers, now with the International Monetary Fund, and ViaGlobal’s chairman, Frank Gren.
Another former Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman partner, Carole Van Cleefe, brokered a deal between Rosetta and Oracle. Oracle project managers Barbara Bleiweiss and Peter Bloom attempted to establish a joint venture using an existing contract vehicle with the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF), but was unsuccessful due to Rosetta’s cost demands.
Gren and his colleagues sought to obtain additional funding for Rosetta, as millions of dollars in investment money had been spent on payments to secure the confidence of Noorzai. Myers, Gren, and others sought sources of funding such as a contract with the FBI as well as an investment from fallen tobacco lawyer Dickie Scruggs.
ViaGlobal appears to have used McCain, acting through staffer Chris Paul, to divert a 2004 FBI internal investigation into dealings between Rosetta contractors and certain FBI employees. This was the subject of a meeting held with the FBI’s Deputy Director John Pistole in late 2004. Paul convinced Pistole and others at the FBI that Rosetta and ViaGlobal were pursuing Noorzai, a “high value target” designated by Bush as part of an operation ordered by Rumsfeld and overseen by Wolfowitz. Since an FBI investigation would disrupt the operation, Pistole relented.
Nonetheless, in mid 2006, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation into criminal activities of the same FBI employees. Rosetta’s phone, email, and contractual records were subpoenaed. In addition, several Rosetta officials and advisors were questioned for several weeks.
Papers filed as part of the Noorzai case show that Rosetta, acting under the orders of senior U.S. officials, promised Noorzai he would not be arrested. Rosetta also paid substantial sums to various foreign government officials who then lied to Noorzai about the actual purpose of the meetings. Noorzai had been indicted as a drug kingpin, and since efforts to secure his cooperation in other matters had failed, the decision was made to bring him to the United States and arrest him.
The papers also show that Rosetta sought and obtained in excess of ten million dollars from investors, who believed they were investing in a security company.
Instead, the money was being used to finance the lavish and extensive travel needed to locate Noorzai and gain his confidence. The investors are understandably upset, but since the Rosetta principals are known only as “Mike” and “Brian” no success has been had in locating them.
Rosetta also had improper relationships with a handful of FBI employees, who were later investigated for contributing to Rosetta’s alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices and Neutrality Acts.
As part of the incubation arrangement, ViaGlobal sought to obtain ownership of Rosetta’s proprietary database of terrorist financiers as well as access to the extensive network of contacts in the Middle East developed as part of the dealings with Noorzai.
Ha ha. All of this is nice, but Tina Fey nailed it yesterday. And, incidentally, nailed the liberals in the process.
The MSM version of Palin has made it across the big pond and been swallowed completely by its pundits.
“Sure, in terms of depth of experience and academic qualifications and whatnot, Condoleeza Rice would have made a better pick than Palin ”
OMG. this is exacty why I support Palin. Condi Rice has been a DISASTER as SecState.. worse than Halfbright if you ask me.
We’ll be lucky if we aren’t nuked in the next year because of her.
Are you suggesting that all the US media support the Democrats?
Conservatives see things as individual decisions. They don’t see a group of people doing something and then say “all” of em must belong to the same group and identified as such via profiling.
That’s something you do.
We’ll be lucky if we aren’t nuked in the next year because of her.
That’s an exaggeration. Bush and the Dod have all the power in the world to stop Iran and Russia. DoS provides difficulties, but difficulties are not the same as impossible obstacles.
johnny cash: If by the use of the word “all” in your phrase “all the US media” you are meaning to point out that today, as opposed to in Kennedy’s time, there are more media outlets on the Right who might be motivated to dig up dirt on Kennedy, I have to agree with you.
But my point is that the MSM, then as now, protect those they like (and that’s mostly Democrats, although certainly not always) and crucify those they hate (who tend to be Republicans, although not always. If Kennedy were President today and a Right wing media person who disliked him were to spill the beans on his infidelities or his drug use, for example, I still think that today’s mainstream media would unite to protect him, exactly in the way that all questions about Obama’s Annenberg connection have gotten hushed up or the way the Swift Vets were dealt with.
It’s as though Annenberg doesn’t exist, and Obama’s lies about the antiquity and depth of his relationship with Ayers (“a guy who lives in my neighborhood”) are best ignored. The word “swiftboated” has come to be the MSM’s and Democrats’ term for “a Democrat accused of wrongdoing by the opposition.” It’s even worse in their eyes if there might be some truth to the accusations.
(See this post of mine for why Ayers matters. And it’s not primarily because he was a terrorist.)
Dear Mr. Cash,
When you have seen and lived with ten presidents, as I have, perhaps your ability to assess them will improve some what.
Dear Folks,
If the Democrats had actually listened to Vlad Rove rather than trying to turn him into Count Dracula they would have heard this statement: (paraphrase)
“You can not frame your opponent. The truth will always out and you lose credibility. What you can do is assess his strengths and weaknesses and frame the campaign around those.”
Regards,
Roy
Pingback:Fresh Bilge » Chiasmus
The Stupid Test:
1. Which candidate has recent and repeated incidents of deception concerning cursory details of his family/religious background, social and significant political associates and influences?
2. Which major party, viable candidate is endorsed by more of America’s enemies than ever before in history?
3. Which candidate is implicated deeply with an organization known to have repeated incidences of voter registration fraud?
4. Which candidate has repeated incidents of campaign finance/donation irregularities, including particularly probable illegal foreign contributions.
5. Which candidate has still failed, with approximately two months to go before the election, just for the “record”, to produce a legally bonafide birth certificate, proving beyond a shadow of the doubt, on that issue alone, his legal qualification to be POTUS?
6. Which candidate is stupid enough to think that, during his short stint as a state legislator, voting “Present” for approximately 135 state legislative issues, in lieu of actual yes or no record votes, was politically and ethically smart?
7. Which candidate is stupid enough to not count on the majority of critical voters not caring about “details”, exemplified in part by the above questions 1-6, but instead voting on the shallow basis of loyal and unchallenged political affiliation, racial/religious/youth identity and, and cultural vendetta.
8. Which candidate is smart enough to know that the number of electoral votes, not the majority vote, will be the critical factor in this election?
Wow, those contortions must hurt.
Both Obama and Palin are under qualified. Full stop!
Re: Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the stupidest of them all?
Setting aside mere opinion: Stupid is, as stupid does.
Out of the last 10 elections, democrats have won 3.
Only Clinton gained a second term and he never garnered more than 43% of the vote…
Not really Toes, one is running for V.P., acceptable training wheels for someone with at least a minimum of reasonable local/state/national government executive experience (ie. Teddy Roosevelt), in the event of an authentic emergency. One thing you have to give them credit for, they were stupid enough to place race pandering above politics this time. The Dimocrats could have had the unstoppable Clinton/Obama ticket. I’ve said it before, but again I can’t resist it, the Dimocrats truly deserve themselves…
“Where they differ is in what they believe about how to use power and in what direction to point the firepower of the state. “
Ah, but Obama has no intention of ‘pointing’ “the firepower of the state” anywhere. Pacifists don’t use power, it scares them.
“the Rovian wedge that has keeps Republicans a dominate electoral force in American politics.”
Ah, it’s that evil, ‘magnificent’ bastard Rove and his ‘wedge’. Rather than 65% of the American public as defining themselves as at least, somewhat conservative…
“The Democratic Party does not have a broad theme for their party”
Really? I’m sure most conservatives would disagree.
And I’m sure democratic party leaders would as well. They might even be able to articulate the major components of their cherished ‘nanny state’ rather well. And I know conservatives and neocons can.
“and their nationalism breeding military campaigns against “evil” countries”
Are we to infer that you disagree with the appelation and reality of ‘rogue’ countries?
Do you also disagree with the proposition that rogue countries are supported in the maintenance of the status quo; that the ‘enabling’ countries use the UN to block both meaningful sanctions and the persuasive use of the threat of military confrontation against rogue nations?
“They are also dangerously easy to abuse as is evidenced by the Iraq War, which I would argue is an extreme abuse neo-conservative ideas.”
How would you suggest we deal with the rogue nations that supply financial, territorial and logistical support to terrorist groups?
How would you suggest we deal with the ‘enabling’ nations, some of whom who out of short-term interest and others out of ideological opposition, maintain the status quo regarding the rogue nations while blocking effective action against rogue nations within the UN?
“The Bush years have been a complete failure.”
Complete? 7 years without a successful attack upon the US mainland or even American airliners doesn’t count?
“America’s only hope is to become a nation of “principle”. Democracy, freedom and a self-defense focused national security policy are the only principles worthy of America’s original promise.
We are a nation of principle’s, just the Declaration and the US Constitution alone prove that assertion.
And in a world where terrorist groups seek Nuclear WMD’s, preemptive ‘war’ whose ‘principle’ is the defense of “Democracy, freedom and a self-defense” is to date, the only serious ‘plan’ anyone has offered.
If you have another, offer it. Otherwise, out of ‘distaste’ you would effectively hand to terrorists the weapons able to kill millions and end the “American Experiment”, the last, best hope for mankind.
My thought when I read the above was, “Two out of three ain’t bad.” It’s hard to be focused on democracy, freedom, and self-defense in a world where oceans are no longer a barrier, giant manned bombs ply the skies in the thousands every day, and a truly global marketplace is not in synch with the ideologies of everyone who benefits from it. We have to try to “proclaim liberty throughout the land” – that is “self-defense” now.
The Bush Doctrine is not, at its root, about preemptive war, as everybody’s friend Charlie Gibson asserted (after Sarah Palin correctly asked for clarification about which aspect of the Bush Doctrine he wanted her opinion on); it’s about the empirical observation that nations where democracy and freedom are the rule don’t tend to war with their neighbors as often as less liberal nations do. The logical next step to that observation is to determine the best way to foster democracy and freedom (and I’d add “the rule of law,” which is a necessary component) in those places where it doesn’t exist. Sometimes removal of a despot and significant support of a replacement regime of more liberal bent is called for; sometimes just the fact of our doing that somewhere else is enough to create pressure for change. We’ve seen both since 2001. And thank you, Mr. President, for acting in our nation’s self-interest rather than talking about “how the world sees us.”
After reading (via the link) about “The Wisdom of Crowds” I was reminded of a great quote from Billy Wilder about the (movie) audience: “Individually, they’re idiots. Collectively, they’re a genius.” This quote appears in David Mamet’s wonderful book about the movie business, “Bambi vs. Godzilla”. I would also recommend, to those that have not read it, David Mamet’s March, 2008 article in the Village Voice, “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead’ Liberal”.
David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal”
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal
I think there is another important trait for a president besides horse sense and integrity and that is a self-deprecating sense of humor. It shows that you are comfortable in your own shoes. It can’t be acquired, it has to be there. I believe McCain has it, while Obama doesn’t.
Finally, it is worth recalling this William F. Buckley quotation: “I’d rather trust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard.”
Dear Sirs,
Actually the Wilder quote was stolen from Edmund Burke who said “The individual is foolish. The species is wise.”
For those of you who would like a better understanding of what is going on with the left and the media try to find a copy of “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer”. This slim volume written by a longshoreman working the San Francisco docks contains more true insight than a years worth of the media combined.
Regards,
Roy
Like Cheney’s hunting partner recently discovered, when power intends to find places to pull the trigger, collateral damage is simply the price of doing business.
You’ve never been bird hunting. If you get out of your line, you will get shot.
Much like golf, it’s a metaphor for the lessons of life. Except in golf, you only get your feelings hurt….
Sad sad bunch you are….
Well then Kerko why don’t you enlighten us?
Troll
This is an amazing, and revealing, interview of Sen. Mike Gravel (D.–Alaska) by the alt-Leftist Radio Pacifica. WSJ’s “Best of the Web” linked to it.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/09/you-have-to-listen-to-this-interview.html
The Pacifica folks clearly wanted to have him on as an Alaskan Democrat to do a hatchet job on Palin. And the wrestling match that ensues when they hear him defend her (with vigor and not a little asperity) is actually comical.
But the answers this Democrat gives, even when he has to shout to be heard as they try, repeatedly, to cut him off, absolutely demolish the storyline the Dems are peddling about Palin. I’m sending it to you in hopes that you’ll post it prominently and help it go viral. This is powerful stuff: a Democrat, who says there’s “no way” he’ll vote for McCain, nevertheless defends Palin as a woman of sterling integrity, a true reformer, and an all-around gutsy dame. It might get through to a bunch of folks who wouldn’t listen to a Republican.
Dear Gray,
You haven’t played as much golf as I have. When you hear Fore! you don’t say huh? You duck and cover. Incoming!
Regards,
Roy
I think it was Einstein who said imagination was more important than intelligence.
The choice of Joe Biden for his VP has seared this shortfall of Obamas in the subconscious of Americans.
To Roy Lofquist,
Thank you for Edmund Burke’s earlier version of the Wilder quote. While I prefer Wilder’s formulation, I’ll try to acknowledge the Burke root’s in future references.
Also, your mention of Eric Hoffer’s “TheTrue Believer”, recalls this Hoffer article from 1968, that first appeared in the LA Times.
http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=5/c/050220061
That IQ scores and and wisdom have almost nothing in common is illustrated by a simple fact: IQ scores do not significantly change since graduating high school, while wisdom is commonly believed to grow with age and experience.
America wouldn’t have invaded Iraq if more conservatives think and behave as you say.
neo-neocon Says:
“..The word “swiftboated” has come to be the MSM’s and Democrats’ term for “a Democrat accused of wrongdoing by the opposition.”
Yes, this really grates on me too. I’ve come to understand “swiftboating” as “telling a truth about a Democratic candidate that the mainstream media is trying hard to ignore”.
No one ever substantially challenged the veracity of the many people who served with Kerry and testified to the material in “Unfit to Command”. One or two people here or there picked at a few selected items, and the MSM declared the whole matter “proven false”.
In reality, the material was true, but needed to be hidden for the sake of Democratic election prospects.
You can tell who is winning and who is losing, by looking at who is using more shortcuts to win: http://snurl.com/evilsheep
Saw these definitions elsewhere:
Swiftboating: Telling the truth about a democtrat politician.
Rathering: Manufacturing “evidence” against a Republican.
Gail,
That Mike Gravel interview was WAY excellent. He took those interviewers to the woodshed. And deservedly so.
I’ll link it again because people shouldn’t miss it.
Mike Gravel Pacifica interview
When it comes to aiming the firepower of the American government, Americans are likely to be Obaman’s first target. See mandatory voluntary service.
Toes: when are you going to enlighten us about the Human Rights Commissions in Canada?
Gringo, yeah, it sucks. But I don’t see why you’re on a tear here. I have no problem admitting weakness in the Canadian system. I was pointing out how the elections in the two countries differ — in the states, it’s less about issues, more about narrative and personal qualities.
Dear Toes,
You, like many others, do not undeerstand conservatism. Limbaugh and O’Reilly are not conservatives. They are rabble rousers with a good act.
Sure has an audience of 20 million – that’s out of 120 million who voted in the last election.
If you want to understand conservatism you might look at this:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html
That is what is in the heart and bones of the people. I know. I’ve lived amonst them for 65 years.
As to what we vote for – we do not vote for policies, we vote for leaders. That’s how a Republic works. We hire people to care of the big stuff. That gives us tom to do the real stuff – life, liberty and the pursuit of happines – that’s what’s in our souls.
Regards,
Roy
My father came up through the ranks in the Marine Corps, won a battlefield commission during Iwo Jima, and retired as a colonel. He told me that the one thing they drummed into infantry officers was that any plan based on the premise that the enemy was stupid had better include a lot of body bags – for our guys.
They are rabble rousers with a good act.
That means they are populists.
Conservatives can also be populists.
Toes gets brownie credit for recognizing human rights abuses, at least.
Toes: good to hear your opinion on the HRCs of Canada. On that we agree.
As a Post-Liberal and in religious terms agnostic formerly atheist, the religious right scares me a lot less than the “politically correct let’s pass another regulation and create another social program give peace a chance and if you disagree with me you’re a bigoted ignorant racist” crowd.
The main reason why the religious right doesn’t scare me is that “render unto Caesar..” has been part of the Christian faith since the beginning; that is, the separation of secular and spiritual powers, in contrast to Islam. Moreover, it is a saying that my Christian fundamentalist grandmother said to me on more than one occasion. That is, “render unto Caesar..” is not a mere saying to Christian fundamentalists.
Their wanting a theocracy? Perhaps some might want it, just as a church of 20,000 believers would want to be the only faith in the country. Regarding that being achievable, I find that very hard to believe. A theocracy has a monopoly of faith. The US has a fragmentation of faiths. A small Texas town of 1000 people will have 10 churches, for example, as did my grandmother’s Oklahoma town. Theocracy, one church? It ain’t gonna happen. Only in the nightmares of the liberals.
As Christians fade a new faith will come to replace it. One that comes with its own theocracy…. and wont the secularists wish the christians were still around
Not for lack of trying. It’s difficult.
The thing I find most disconcerting about the conservatism laid out by Kirk is that the future is likely to be radically discontinuous. The globe is facing unprecedented stresses from overpopulation, and narrowing windows of time in which to deal with each new crisis. Countries that fail to keep up with the waves of crises spiral down. Check out this two-page article by Homer-Dixon (author of The Ingenuity Gap), called SEPTEMBER 11 AND THE CRISIS OF EXPERTISE.
Education and media literacy is where it’s at. That’s why I don’t get this last thing you write at all:
Uh, aren’t citizens supposed to vote on the big stuff (described in policy platforms) and to leave the small stuff to the politicians?
The globe is facing unprecedented stresses from overpopulation,
When you have one half of the world subsidizing the food of the other half, of course it is unprecedented.
The half of the world that doesn’t have huge birthrates use their resources and technology to subsidize the other half of humanity, who does have huge birthrates. And this subsidization allows the morality rates to fall so low, that the birthrates exceed it.
That is why parts of the world are suffering from overpopulation. Social and government institutions in the third world do not improve. But the money flowing from fake liberal organizations increase all the time.
Without that unbalanced ratio going on, you’d have things like natural disasters, famine, disease, and human made wars like Rwanda that’ll take care of the population right quick.
However, wars are down because of American military power locking in territorial expansion and collapse of almost all nations on this planet.
Famine is down because of the largesse of the Western world, with their huge amount of guilt for the brown people but not enough guilt to actually uplift them to First World status.
Disease is in the same ballpark. Quarantine and medicine is important for all nations on this world and cooperation is very high, for disease in one area can easily spread to another. The sharing of resources is very high in this area.
The Tsunami is another example of the largesse of America, who had the only military capable of landing supplies in bulk and in time.
The globe does NOT face unprecedented pressures of overpopulation.
The rate of birthrate increase is declining, and even the most liberal of reasonable estimates means a slowing of growth until the planet tops out at a population somewhere around 14-billion.
That’s not bad, it’s not the end of the world. What it is is completely unmanageable, which is as it should be because people and populations and cultures are not to be ‘managed.’
There will be enough resources, provided there is enough freedom and rule of law to enforce contracts.
Watch out for people who use words like “unprecedented.” They’re usually trying to end the debate by scaring you.
Everything is precedented.
I could turn that around and say there will be enough freedom and rule of law provided there are enough resources (energy) to sustain both.
T. Homer-Dixon again:
I know this is a conservative value, but just stating it is pointless:
So I’ll just call it nonsense and back that up:
That’s T. Homer-Dixon again.
Last time …
All T. H-D quotes are from one of his non-academic writings, originally published in the Globe and Mail. It’s two pages long:
http://www.homerdixon.com/download/prepare_for_tomorrows_breakdown.pdf
“aren’t citizens supposed to vote on the big stuff (described in policy platforms) and to leave the small stuff to the politicians?”
Not really. Citizens are too ignorant and lack basic skills of logical reasoning to even understand these policy platforms. What they can and must choose are moral values and priorities, as well as personal integrity and sutability of potential leaders for leadership. Such choices are made not by reasoning and knowledge, but by horse sense. That is why they are in everybody competence, and that is why republics endure centuries, while democracies, like Ancient Greece, go to pieces in decades.
Ancient Greece had ten times more philosophers and scientists of all kinds per capita than Rome, but lasted ten times less.
Homer-Dixon seems to be worried about a world that is too interconnected. He also seems to think we have that now.
That’s not an overpopulation issue.
Ike, the impact of population growth figures prominently in his book, The Ingenuity Gap.
Sergey, that’s why a platform pushing for education and media literacy is critical (although, who’d read it, eh?). Re. the rest of your post, Jefferson is flipping in his grave!