The Emperor's New Brain
George W. and the stupidity issue
By Michael Kinsley, editor of Slate
George W. Bush's handling of the stupidity issue has been nothing short of
brilliant. A Martian watching the last presidential debate might have
concluded that this man would be well-advised not to put quite so much
emphasis on mental testing. But Earth-based commentators mostly shied
away from such a conclusion. The rule seems to be that if a candidate can
recite half a dozen policy positions by rote and name some foreign nations
and
leaders, one shouldn't point out that he sure seems a few whereases shy
of an executive order.
The problem is probably laziness or complacence rather than actual
inability, and journalists' reluctance to call someone who may well be our
next
commander in chief a moron is understandable. But if George W. Bush
isn't a moron, he is a man of impressive intellectual dishonesty and/or
confusion. His utterances frequently make no sense on their own terms. His
policy
recommendations are often internally inconsistent and mutually
contradictory. Because it's harder to explain and impossible to prove cold,
intellectual dishonesty doesn't get the attention that petty fibbing does,
even
though intellectual dishonesty indicts both a candidate's character and his
policy positions. All politicians, including Al Gore, get away with more of it
than they should. But George W. gets away with an extraordinary amount of it.
On Social Security, he continues to say he'll get the trillion dollars
needed for his partial privatization "out of the surplus." Does he not
understand that the current surplus is committed to future benefits, which
will
have to be cut to make the numbers work? Or does he understand and not care?
When he compares the "paltry 2 percent" return on Social Security with an
alleged 6 percent return on private investments, does he know he's leaving out
that trillion dollars in one case and including it in the other? Or has this
fact failed to penetrate despite repeated exposures?
When he calls the estate tax unfair, especially to farmers and small
businesspeople, because it "taxes people twice"â€"meaning first when
they earn the money and again when they dieâ€"is he aware that the value of
farms
and businesses in estates has almost never been taxed as income? Or have his
advisers and fellow businessfolks deceived him on this basic point? When
he criticizes his opponent for cutting taxes through the use of tax
credits, then gives an example of his own tax plan in which most of the cut is
through tax credits, is he fooling us? Or is someone fooling him?
When he repeatedly attacks his opponent for "partisanship," does he get
the joke? When he blames the absence of a federal patients' rights law on "a
lot of bickering in Washington, D.C.," has he noticed that the bickering
consists of his own party, which controls Congress, blocking the legislation?
When he summarizes, "It's kind of like a political issue as opposed to a
people
issue," does he mean to suggest anything in particular? Perhaps that
politicians, when acting politically, ignore the wishes of the people?
How does he figure? If at all.
When he repeatedly says he has a "clear vision" about the Middle East
but never gives a hint what it is, should we assume he has one he's not
telling us about? When he complains that there is no general "strategy" for
America's role in the world and promises that he'll ask his secretary of
defense
to come up with one pronto, should we be reassured? When he criticizes the
Clinton administration for misusing American soldiers as social workers
and promises to get other countries to use their soldiers that way instead,
does he notice the logical flaw here?
In the debate, he declared, "I don't want to use food as a diplomatic
weapon from this point forward. We shouldn't be using food. It hurts the
farmers. It's not the right thing to do." When, just a few days later, he
criticized legislation weakening the trade embargo on Cuba "which covers food
along with everything else" had he rethought his philosophy on this issue? Or
was
there nothing to rethink?
When he promises that if he is elected, "we will have gag orders" on
doctors and "100 percent" of people will "get the death tax," it's easy enough
to figure out that he means we won't have gag orders and nobody will pay
the estate tax. But what does he mean when he says that "insurance" is "a
Washington term"?
When he promises "to have prescription drugs as an integral part of
Medicare," does he comprehend that the exact distinction between his
plan and his opponent's is that his is not an integral part of Medicare?
When he says that local control of schools is vital, criticizes his opponent
for wanting to "federalize" education, promises as president to impose
various requirements on schools, complains that federal money comes with
too many "strings," calls for after-school funds to be used for "character
education," endorses a federal law forbidding state lawsuits against
teachers, and so on, does he have a path through this maze of contradictions?
When he promises a federal school voucher program and then deflects
criticism by saying "vouchers are up to states," is he being dense or
diabolically
clever?
In short, does George W. Bush mean what he says, or does he understand
it? The answer can't be both. And is both too much to ask for? |
