Elizabeth Bumiller shocks her interviewer:
DU: What are some of the biggest misconceptions about President George W. Bush, and which stereotypes are actually true?
EB: Bush is actually not stupid at all. But he was rigid in a lot of things. He was not as intellectually curious as other presidents; not especially reflective — I think that’s obvious in his recent book. He was different in Washington than he was in Texas as governor. In Texas he was known for reaching across the aisle, and working with adversaries, and that just never happened in Washington. He also got socked with 9/11, and that changed everything. I don’t think you could ever write enough on how much that completely stunned and shell-shocked him and his administration. That accounts for some of the rigidness. One on one, he was extremely personable, very easy to approach, very casual. He demanded utter loyalty from his staff, and his staff by and large was exceptionally loyal, and that was something that always stunned people.
Emphasis mine. Who knew?
The thing that I find weird is the logic in her other criticism, though: “He was different in Washington than he was in Texas as governor. In Texas he was known for reaching across the aisle, and working with adversaries, and that just never happened in Washington.”
Hmmmmmm…Bush in Austin, one thing happened. Bush in Washington, a different thing happened.
Which is it that’s more likely, that Bush magically changed when he went from Austin to Washington, or that there was something different about Austin than Washington? Like maybe the Democrats in the latter weren’t willing to be reached to across the aisle?
Besides, the charge itself is nonsense. What do you call the deal to vastly increase government involvement in education by working with Teddy Kennedy, or dramatically expanding Medicare with Democrats, if not “working across the aisle”? So she’s wrong on both the history and the logic.
For the left, intelligence has nothing to do with being thoughtful, it’s about having the approved answers. This is what makes Joy Behar and Bill Maher such intellectual giants.
Couple of reactions: 1) Plenty of people smarter than me have pointed out that the most effective President in history, Polk, was probably the most narrow-minded. “Rigid” is not necessarily problematic. 2) Bush was, to my mind, almost entirely untested before his Presidency; the governorship of Texas is a largely ceremonial position. So, eh, things could have been a lot worse. And now, they are.
Bush was, to my mind, almost entirely untested before his Presidency; the governorship of Texas is a largely ceremonial position. So, eh, things could have been a lot worse. And now, they are.
Obama was, to my mind, almost entirely untested before his Presidency; two years as a junior Senator from Illinois is a largely ceremonial position. So, eh, things could have been a lot worse. And now, they are.
Jay, I don’t know what Texas you’re talking about but the one I live in isn’t the one you are.
Of course she’s inconsistent, she writes at the NYT.
Stunning, awe inspiring, transcendent brilliance is part of the left’s self-image. They are sooo much smarter than the rest of us, in their own minds. Anyone sufficiently intelligent *must* think like them.
It’s the “not intellectually curious” charge that irritates me. I see it constantly thrown at conservative figures. It’s meaningless, because we never get examples of what these people mean by “not intellectually curious” — and as far as I can tell from the tastes of the current In Crowd, “intellectually curious” means “has a favorite sushi place; only drinks Fair Trade coffee; thinks Piss Christ was great art on par with the Sistine Chapel.”
Andrea’s right. For the most part, the English translation of the Newspeak phrase “not intellectually curious” is either “principled” or “not easily distracted by shiny things.”
In the former case they mean “curious” as in “bi, gay or curious” — not having much in the way of definite ideas about your core identity. The comparison is apt in a second way, since they usually view conservative or libertarian principles as a perversion readily dispelled by exposure to the orgasmic pleasures of “real” (i.e. Stalinist) philosophy.
In the latter case they mean “curious” to mean readily destractable in the Bill Clinton alcohol-induced college sophomore bull session way, where you can sit up all night philosophizing about whether Paul was the walrus or not, punting on such square and boring notions like getting to bed on time since you have a 9 AM class (or job) to get to. They find this grating because they are, themselves, deeply enamored of elaborate theories of How People And Society Work, and generally disappointed with the results of plain action in the real world. The seminar is far more rewarding, in their eyes, to the hour spent on the factory assembly line, getting something actually built. They cheer themselves up for their lack of concrete success by memories of their very elaborate and sophisticated castles in the air.
W. wasn’t stupid, he just let stupid words come out of his mouth *all the time*. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushquotes/a/dumbbushquotes.htm
Wow, better call Robert Stack, we have an Unsolved Mystery…
Bill,
Jay is correct, the governor’s responsibilities are largely ceremonial. The only influence the governor has on legislation is through the veto. The only other influence the governor has is in naming the heads of state agencies. Otherwise he does zilch. He has no authority to even introduce or suggest legislation. That is purely the domain of the lieutenant governor who is the most powerful politician in Texas.
Also the notion of reaching across the aisle in the texas legislature is kinda silly. The aisle doesn’t exist because The legislature is composed of a super majority of conservative republicans, a minority of conservative democrats who work hand in glove with them and a marginalized sliver of liberal democrats(less than 15) from austin and the border areas who are utterly ignored.
Still waiting for someone to tell me what makes George Bush (or any conservative at whom the charge has been leveled) “not intellectually curious.”
“Still waiting for someone to tell me what makes George Bush (or any conservative at whom the charge has been leveled) “not intellectually curious.”
Because he reads ‘My Pet Goat’ upside. Oh wait, that was a completely fabricated picture that many lefty sites used as the entire basis of their Bush derangement. Anytime they’d talk about Bush attempting to do something intellectual they’d just post a photo-shopped image and base their debate on how he looks like an ape; then point and laugh. Their conceptualization of issues goes little beyond the talk show monologue. Hell even their restoring sanity rally was little more than an extended John Stewart episode and a convention to see who could come up with the zaniest sign. But then these same people when stressed enough will suddenly turn all their own arguments on their head and suddenly make Bush out to be some demonic false prophet here to kick off the beginning of the end times. A master of puppets pulling his strings of world conquest and empire building in order to force — PRIVATE SOCIAL SECURITY ON US!!!!! *shriek
But this is the odd dualism that is found in full on Bush deragement that no one on the left has really quite bothered to reconcile. They became too busy using Bush as a back drop to how wonderful Obama’s new hopey changiness was going to be. Only problem is that it is coming back to haunt them as they suddenly realize how inept Obama is it only serves to show how competent Bush actually was. The one biggest difference I see immediately is when Bush said he was going to do something he generally tended to do it. Not to say he didn’t spin things; every good politician has a cadre of spinsters. But the sheer number of outright lies from Obama make Bush begin to approach ‘George and the Cherry Tree’ levels of honesty.
I see the better comparison as to George of the Jungle, Josh. Endearingly guileless, but a bit apt to swing full on into trees.