A look at the verbal stylings of George W. Bush and societal presumptions about who’s smart, and who’s dumb.
Who’s smart? Who’s dumb? I rest my case. Ross Perot
Just back from a cruise (on which, more to follow later in the week), I’ve been catching up on my email backlog. A blogger I enjoy and respect (but who shall remain nameless) recently took an admittedly humorous shot at the two George Bushes in his small-l liberal blog. He recounted a story that email traffic between the father and son — both former United State presidents — had been hacked. But good news! There was no indication that any intelligence had been compromised. Ba-da-bsh! (Ed. notes: Percussive flourish added, and no pun intended.)
Cleverly playing on our fears of internet security lapses as well as on two meanings of ‘intelligence’, this little story and the comments thereon from his readers illustrate what I see as our cultural presumption: liberals are smart; conservatives, umm, not so much. Over the years I’ve seen this attitude in religious as well as political circles. (If I could document this observation with, you know, facts, I’d be writing a book; as it is, I’m writing this blog.)
As an easy target for ridicule, George W. Bush should have been the darling of liberals while he was in office. A chatty but not an articulate guy, he gave the media many legitimate opportunities to pounce on his verbal manglings. As for the presumption of stupidity, surely only an idiot would use words like ‘misunderestimated’, not just once but several times. Git your commemorative mug here! How in the world did this clown manage to graduate from both Yale and Harvard?
Now the good folks at snopes.com take a more generous/balanced approach, acknowledging that Bush used ‘misunderestimated’ more than once, but also caught himself at it.
Conservatives like to play the Say What? game too: check out the fuss over President Obama’s consistent/determined mispronunciation of ‘corpsman’ as ‘corpse-man’, or his talk of the 57 states he had already visited in his first campaign. Yet I believe they play this game under a cultural-assumptions handicap in which the gaffes of liberal public figures are dismissed as aberrations or excused by fatigue or nerves, whereas the gaffes of conservative public figures are taken as proof of what is already suspected.
After all, if conservatives were really smart, they’d be liberals. Right?
Postscript: Despite two attempts, Mr. Perot never made it to the presidency, but in 2012 Forbes ranked him as the 101st richest person in America with a net worth of $3.5 billion. With his blend of liberal and conservative positions, maybe he’s onto something here. Who’s smart, who’s dumb, indeed.