tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8898001510096480182..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Bush, Principles, and PresidentingJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-28783925935111980172013-04-28T14:35:35.892-05:002013-04-28T14:35:35.892-05:00I disagree.
I'd say that Sir Humphrey is gre...I disagree. <br /><br />I'd say that Sir Humphrey is great at what he does -- but he doesn't have the same job as the minister, and if he always won, and "being here tomorrow" always won, that would, in fact, be bad for Britain. British government needs, the show says, Hacker and the politicians to win sometimes too, because what they bring to the system is also important -- and Sir Humphrey is, in his own way, as naive to not realize that as Hacker can be to not realize the value of what Humphrey stands for.<br /><br />But I don't think that what Hacker and other politicians at their best bring to government is morality and principle; I think what they bring is representation. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-35845946546369662472013-04-28T14:30:44.111-05:002013-04-28T14:30:44.111-05:00OTOH...FDR. OTOH...FDR. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-40915721030136573622013-04-28T14:20:49.576-05:002013-04-28T14:20:49.576-05:00Well, he chose Karl Rove, or at the very least all...Well, he chose Karl Rove, or at the very least allowed himself to be chosen by Rove. I count it as his accomplishment...but surely a lot of it was that GOP party actors, and again I always think here especially about those swing-state governors, who might not have trusted him if his name was Smith or Jones. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64828114734523745552013-04-28T14:17:38.243-05:002013-04-28T14:17:38.243-05:00Coming to this late, but: basically, the south was...Coming to this late, but: basically, the south was already moving away, for a variety of reasons. Moreover, the Dems did fine in the South outside of presidential until the 1990s -- and it's hard to see 1964-65 as a presidential bright line. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-13850337390557076742013-04-27T20:21:40.545-05:002013-04-27T20:21:40.545-05:00Scott,
Of course. But it's often hard to sepa...Scott,<br /><br />Of course. But it's often hard to separate charges of deceit from what the person is allegedly deceiving others about. I can imagine a right-wing conspiracy theory charging that Obama lied about his age and is actually two years younger than he claims. But I doubt that sort of theory would attract as many followers as birtherism. It just wouldn't resonate as deeply, because the subject of Obama's alleged deception would seem trivial to almost everyone, even hardcore right-wing paranoiacs.<br /><br />In contrast, the claim that Obama is a Muslim isn't rooted simply in a fear that Obama is misrepresenting himself. It's based on a fear and hatred of the thing Obama is charged with secretly being: a Muslim. Somehow I suspect that the same people would be at least a tad less agitated if they believed he was a secret Presbyterian.<br /><br />Anyway, looking over all these responses I think people are slightly missing the point of the comparison I made. I wasn't intending to imply that "Bush is stupid" and "Obama is a Muslim" are equivalent claims, either factually or morally. For one thing, I think the second claim reeks with bigotry, whereas the first does not. My point was simply that these two claims both reflect what the left and right respectively value, and that they aren't necessarily meant to be taken literally. The left typically places great value on intellect, whereas the right more often values being a "real American" as opposed to being foreign or subversive. As a member of the left, I think the former is generally a more positive value (though it can bleed over into snobbery). But regardless of the respective merits of these values, they are expressed in similar ways.<br /><br />As I said, I recognize there are many liberals who believe, in a strictly literal sense, that Bush is of below-average intelligence, and likewise there are many conservatives who believe Obama is literally a practicing member of the Islamic faith. But from talking to liberals and conservatives on these topics over the years, I've gotten the distinct impression that these claims are often a lot less literal than is commonly assumed. To many on the right, "Muslim" is just a stand-in for implying Obama is subversive and un-American, and to many on the left, calling Bush "stupid" is just a way of saying the man is foolish, unthinking, and reactionary.<br /><br />Even here, I don't think these are remotely equivalent claims. I think the idea that Obama is subversive and un-American is ridiculous, whereas I think the idea that Bush is intellectually lazy holds considerable merit. Nevertheless, I think many partisans on both sides of the political divide are prone to a kind of empty talking point where they use one category (stupid, Muslim) to imply something else.Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-77001299479885144342013-04-26T21:10:14.281-05:002013-04-26T21:10:14.281-05:00Thanks for the compliment, Jeff; like Scott I was ...Thanks for the compliment, Jeff; like Scott I was reflecting on the "bad" part of the scion politician. I was thinking about the following: there's a ways to go yet, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that virtually all nonpartisan sources will regard the 44th President more favorably than the 43rd.<br /><br />One of those two Presidents had an upbringing that was soft as a baby's bottom, the other spent his formative years a black kid with a white mother in the homeland of his SE Asian stepfather. <br /><br />In adulthood, the one continued to gravitate toward circumstances greatly favoring him, while the other broke down barriers and held his peace at the unhappiness from all the china he was breaking.<br /><br />So to the extent that politics ain't beanbag, and successful politicians are good at overcoming conflict, does it surprise anyone that the one President will end up (at worst) "not bad", while the other will universally be regarded - by non-partisans - as a complete failure?CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-38924263095102818102013-04-26T12:08:11.694-05:002013-04-26T12:08:11.694-05:00For me, it raises questions about Kim Jong Un, the...For me, it raises questions about Kim Jong Un, the third-generation heir of a highl successful political family.Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-68735345804065654492013-04-26T11:53:44.439-05:002013-04-26T11:53:44.439-05:00I agree, but I think the "Obama is a Muslim&q...I agree, but I think the "Obama is a Muslim" meme is also intended to imply deceit and untrustworthiness because of the presumed refusal to admit who he really isScott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-54734059947392769252013-04-26T11:22:57.471-05:002013-04-26T11:22:57.471-05:00"Also -- it's not actually true that the ..."Also -- it's not actually true that the CRA and VRA cost the Democrats the south -- it's more complicated, and not only was much of that cooked in by then, but the alternative for Johnson and the Dems wasn't really better."<br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />Can you elaborate on this statement, or provide reference material? I have to admit that until now I've never heard anything but the conventional wisdom that the conservative white Southern element of the Democratic party jumped ship in direct reaction to the civil rights laws.AWJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-15416919764186212512013-04-26T10:57:21.261-05:002013-04-26T10:57:21.261-05:00Not those of us in the top income tax bracket! We ...Not those of us in the top income tax bracket! We twice voted for Bush, and he rewarded us with sizable tax cuts (voters making over $200,000 per year voted for Bush over Kerry by 63-36%, according to the CNN exit poll). While Obama has now raised our taxes, we paid far less from 2001 through 2012 than we would have if Gore had won in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, and as a result our net worths are substantially higher due to Bush's two election victories. How was that stupid of us?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-36034768107361508672013-04-26T08:59:38.401-05:002013-04-26T08:59:38.401-05:00Bush's ideas weren't formed by party they ...Bush's ideas weren't formed by party they were formed by class. In terms of the interests of the elite he belongs to his policies were very beneficial. He is not a stupid man, but, he is a limited one -- someone who has had no reason or need to think beyond his own experience or elite class expectations. And, someone who naturally sees those expectations and values as beneficial to everyone else. Both the most harmful things he did as president and the most beneficial and useful things he has done as an individual arise from the same set of class values and interest. And, of course, he was/is extremely shrewd politically -- why wouldn't he be? Politics, even more than finance, is now the family business. <br /><br />Bush is an aristocrat (not a small "d" democrat or a "regular guy"). The funny thing is that anyone, the media most especially, saw him as anything else. <br /><br />In 2006 I wrote an essay about Bush as "Speechmaker in Chief" that makes some points that, I think, get at why democrats and conservatives always hear him so differently -- points that go beyond the usual complaints about his difficulties with the language or the usual compliments for his "regular guy" style:<br /><br /><br />"Commentators often note how comfortable Bush is with the language of (Evangelical) "faith." But less noted, and in light of his administration's failures and his falling popularity more important, is Bush's extreme discomfort with both moral argument and the traditional language of small "d" democracy.<br /><br />Time and again, Bush has explicitly rejected moral argument as little more than an attempt to make him justify, second guess or explain himself. Even more interesting, to me at least -- and unique among Presidents in my lifetime -- it never seems to occur to him to appeal to us, in the democratic tradition, as fellow citizens who he hopes to inspire to unite with him (in a great cause or enterprise). The reason for this, I believe, is because frankly he doesn't see us that way.<br /><br />However "regular guy" he strives to be, at heart Bush is both an aristocrat and autocrat.<br /><br />His speeches, whatever the subject, tend to be not about us (we, the people), but, primarily about himself -- his resolve, his faith, his beliefs, his responsibilities, his suffering ("It's hard work").<br /><br />This, for instance, is how he opened the first speech (in a series) he gave to win back our support on the war in Iraq, "My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people."<br /><br />It's a sentence (often repeated) that immediately asserts his rank, his centrality and importance as our leader, and his wish to reassure and comfort those of us who follow. But it is not one that can, or is meant to, inspire or activate. Instead, it reflects an attitude that sees "the people" as dependent, childlike, waiting to be reassured and led by the leader's higher resolve and wisdom. Not as, in the democratic tradition, a powerful, active, moral force.<br /><br />There are many Americans -- and perhaps more today than in the past -- for whom the language of simple faith, unyielding authority and comforting assurance are enough (and the complexity of moral judgement and ethical choice, perhaps, too much). If that weren't true Bush wouldn't have won the last election.<br /><br />But, as new information and events continue to undermine Bush's credibility, and therefore his authority, and more Americans feel less protected -- from the realities on the ground in Iraq, from the suffering of military families, from the incompetence on display after Katrina, from the shock of oil prices and health care costs, from doubts about the economy, etc. -- it may no longer be enough.<br /><br />With his authority tarnished, and their faith (in him) waning, it is probably now too late for Bush to make the moral arguments, and the democratic appeals to shared sacrifice, he failed to make earlier."Esmensehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141557318700033479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-77894489348133636902013-04-26T06:51:48.814-05:002013-04-26T06:51:48.814-05:00I don't think it matters very much whether Bus...I don't think it matters very much whether Bush was smart or stupid. What matters much more is the reality that the people who VOTED for Bush (Twice!) were very stupid indeed.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167853931127184984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18417467007819033922013-04-26T04:56:38.364-05:002013-04-26T04:56:38.364-05:00My general comment on the original post here is th...My general comment on the original post here is that I agree with the analysis about skill at "presidenting," and that mere moral impulses are not sufficient to it and may often be harmful. I believe that was also the gist of Machiavelli's argument, yes? But as it happens, just last week I screened an episode of "Yes, Minister" in one of my classes. It's called "The Whisky Priest" and is available on youtube. It was basically an extended argument over what the point of government is, and whether it doesn't somehow include doing the right or moral thing. To the smarmy civil servants and their allies in the party leadership who spent the whole series running circles around Jim Hacker, our hapless Minister hero, the very idea is ludicrous and indeed troubling. As this episode makes especially explicit, their vision of governing is all about stability, keeping things going, "being here tomorrow," as Sir Humphrey explains. For them, moral intuitions can ONLY be a problem; they have no place at all in the larger scheme. And these chaps, we are given to believe, are very, very good at "presidenting" or its British equivalent. They know the system, and the levers of power, and the interests in play, like they know their own names.<br /><br />So I guess I'm saying that a full account of what makes presidents good or smart can't just sound like "Yes, Minister." It would have to include, at some point, an explanation of why it's better for a president to be a moral and (good-)principled person rather than not.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18318866329650059232013-04-26T04:43:27.698-05:002013-04-26T04:43:27.698-05:00That's a very good point about the "brand...That's a very good point about the "brand" and the likelihood of the Bush type continuing to be popular going forward. Raises a question for me about whether there might be such a thing as an "Obama brand," or why in general Democratic leaders have not been successfully branded in ways that their successors wanted to mimic. The last example of a popular Democratic presidential "brand" was, I think, JFK's.<br /><br /> Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-29032768390794512862013-04-26T04:32:41.781-05:002013-04-26T04:32:41.781-05:00Sorry, typo there, Kylopod.
-- KeffSorry, typo there, Kylopod.<br /><br />-- KeffProfessor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-54440644527792442582013-04-26T04:32:06.129-05:002013-04-26T04:32:06.129-05:00True, Jylopod. "Bush is stupid" wasn'...True, Jylopod. "Bush is stupid" wasn't primaily some literal assessment of his native intelligence (although I do believe the left had a low opinion of this). It was more a shorthand way of saying he's a terrible president, i.e. "stupid at presidenting" in the sense that JB is talking about there. The difference between that and "Obama is a Muslim" is that the latter is just a non sequiter. I mean, even if he were a Muslim, what would that have to do with his abilities as president or the merits of his policies?<br /><br />Then again, I say that as a left-liberal elitist who would have no problem with a Muslim president. To the GOP base, "Muslim" is presumably the name for a package of ideas which (as you say) have little to do with actual Islam, and more to do with whether one is culturally "American" in some sense. If that crowd sees "Americanness," defined their way, as a prerequisite to being a good president, then I suppose they, too, are essentially using their chosen insult, "Obama is Muslim," as shorthand for "Obama is a terrible bad president," and in a way that's coherent within their terms of reference.<br /><br />Long-winded way of saying: I agree with you.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-17228389571517398042013-04-25T21:47:38.006-05:002013-04-25T21:47:38.006-05:00Whether there's evidence for the "Bush is...Whether there's evidence for the "Bush is stupid" meme is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. There's no evidence he had a low IQ. (In fact, his reported SAT scores--566 for verbal and 640 for math--while not remotely Yale material, are unlikely to come from someone with a below-average IQ.) Beyond that, any measure of intelligence is highly subjective. We all have at times succumbed to the temptation to call particular public figures "idiots" when they're quoted saying ridiculous and/or ignorant things. The problem is that smart people have been known to say ridiculous and/or ignorant things.<br /><br />So, I was comparing a belief that is objectively false (Obama is a Muslim) with a belief that is either objectively false or a matter of subjective opinion, depending on how you define "intelligence." Either way, the truth or falsity of these statements is almost besides the point. The point I was making was that many of the right-wingers who assert that Obama is a Muslim don't actually believe it in a literal sense, but simply say it as a way of expressing their hatred for him, and I think "Bush is stupid" has performed a similar function on the left.Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-61289626559800481332013-04-25T21:20:32.847-05:002013-04-25T21:20:32.847-05:00Another thought: maybe y'all are missing the f...Another thought: maybe y'all are missing the forest for the trees in directing your ire at George W. Bush personally. Perhaps he represents a "type" that will remain common going forward, and thus continuously dangerous to democracy.<br /><br />The good thing about George W. Bush is that we all love a good brand, especially in a hyper-partisan media saturated world. Bush's brand was especially powerful in the late 90s, as a reminder of a better time, before Monica's blue dress and "what the definition of is is" and all the rest.<br /><br />That's what's good about Bush 43. And then what's bad: y'all know Finley Peter Dunne's famous axiom "Politics ain't beanbag", right? You know what <i>is</i> beanbag? Being the scionic, third generation offspring of a powerful, political family.<br /><br />From which we might shake our head, and channeling Dunne, wonder why the hell we ever thought that Bush 43, or any other late-generation scion of a powerful family - even a political family - would be good at politics. They aren't dispositionally cut out for it!<br /><br />And yet we can't resist them, especially Republicans can't resist them. Like moths to the flame.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-4475839869625510222013-04-25T20:47:02.190-05:002013-04-25T20:47:02.190-05:00Back in the Nixon era, I remember some appologist ...Back in the Nixon era, I remember some appologist saying that he was an intellect, not an intellectual.<br /><br />Bush isn't stupid, but he is not even an intellect. He is a spoiled, lazy, incurious, contemptuous elite frat boy who had everything handed to him; and then, whenever he screwed up - which he did in the guard, in baseball, as an oil executive - Poppy or his buddies were there to bail him out.<br /><br />This made him the just about perfect puppet in the hands of Cheney and the neocons.Jazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-31264332285090379892013-04-25T20:44:16.487-05:002013-04-25T20:44:16.487-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-36413762623784304022013-04-25T20:39:12.144-05:002013-04-25T20:39:12.144-05:00Its been a while since I've had a chance to so...Its been a while since I've had a chance to so link, but as a devotee of the <a href="http://www.geoffcolvin.com/books/talent-is-overrated-by-geoff-colvin/" rel="nofollow">10,000 hour excellence school</a>, the apparent contradictions in Dubya don't bother me at all. We 10,000 hour advocates know that no one is inherently smart or dumb, some people just put in more effort than others.<br /><br />It would seem that Dubya is a fellow from a family of 10,000-hour experts (Prescott and GHWBush were, I think, personally excellent, whatever you think of their politics). The third generation didn't really pick up where Grandpa Prescott or Dad George HW left off; from Neil to Jeb to Dubya they pretty much all ambled where prior family generations hustled.<br /><br />Though Dubya's generation was mostly slackers, they would have been at least exposed (cause the family is close) to what it takes to be an expert, from the model of their father and Grandpa. So they all would have realized that, if you cared about something, you had to put in the effort to be good at it, which they must have learned from dad and Grandpa.<br /><br />So when Jonathan says "I've heard George W. Bush talk about baseball and I think he's smart", perhaps another way to frame that is "I've heard George W. Bush talk about baseball and he obviously cares about it, and he knows that if you care about something you have to work pretty hard to become expert at it, and thus he did."<br /><br />And if it follows that politics was something he was bad at, well, maybe he just never really gave a shit. Maybe that's just how it goes, sometimes.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-8817257057768952542013-04-25T20:29:45.377-05:002013-04-25T20:29:45.377-05:00I always had the feeling that he was pretty close ...I always had the feeling that he was pretty close to irrelevant to his own presidency. Did he ever defy Cheney on any item other than refusing to pardon Scooter Libbey?Jazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-54823654009349645612013-04-25T20:27:39.462-05:002013-04-25T20:27:39.462-05:00Winning the '00 nomination was a real accompli...<i>Winning the '00 nomination was a real accomplishment, though. </i><br /><br />But was it HIS accomplishment? That was Karl Rove was at his peak. Didn't he make the GWB candidacy? Or am I totally off base?Jazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-38997068115702102672013-04-25T20:25:12.120-05:002013-04-25T20:25:12.120-05:00If this is your idea of success.
http://www.austi...If this is your idea of success.<br /><br />http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/news/2013-04-15/texas-on-the-brink/Jazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-8249249979103617932013-04-25T20:11:22.436-05:002013-04-25T20:11:22.436-05:00"Good presidenting, perhaps more than anythin..."Good presidenting, perhaps more than anything else, is the art of extracting information from political action and actors"<br /><br />I really like this idea. I really, really, really like it. It explains so much, and makes a lot of disparate stuff fall into place. It's not that a president has a good idea, it's that he knows how an idea will come off and be able to do the internal calculation of trying to put it together in such a way that it will occur to its best effect. bellisauriusnoreply@blogger.com