Thursday, June 16, 2005

Explaining a Thing or Two to Bobo

Today Bobo actually writes a column I do not disagree with completely. However, it lacks a perception and depth that proves, at least with him (and towards him) his point.

Basically, he is dismayed at how there is no longer even a pretense of trying to appear well-spoken and knowledgable about cultural matters.

Not having lived in the 1950s or 1960s I believe that this is somewhat accurate, but also quite a bit nastalgic. After all, Bull Conner was not what I would call an exemplary aspirant to higher knowledge. And if ever a knuckle-dragger rose too high in American politics (before today of course) it was Joe McCarthy.

There was a definite bias against intellectualism in the 1950s. The Eisenhower-Stevenson races of the 1950s were definitely posed as the "common man of action" versus the "egghead". Any cursory look beneath the surface would, of course, have made this laughable. Dwight Eisenhower helped plan, organize, and administer the most complicated military undertaking in history -- obviously, only a middle-brow could do that! I like Stevenson, but if actual brain wattage were analyzed and measured, I have no doubt that Eisenhower would have cleaned his clock. His handlers, with a willing subject, were determined to make him seem "not too smart". Indeed, Eisenhower's whole army life had taught him how to be efficient and smart, without making himself look the latter. Meanwhile, he outsmarted McArthur, Hitler, Rommel, Montgomery, Patton, and Bradley. His whole career was based on being seen as competent, efficient and non-threatening -- and he became more, and more, and more powerful.

But the same sneering was applied to the last Presidential campaign where seemingly effete eastern "intellectual" Kerry was posed against Texas simpleton Bush.

I make as many Bush is stupid jokes as anybody, but I think of Bush as less stupid, than woefully intellectually lazy. I never thought Kerry was some incredible brain, but rather a serious guy who worked for what he had -- with the added bonus of marrying a really, really rich, and smart woman.

In any case, what Brooks misses is that "commonality" and not being "too smart" has always been an American preoccupation -- intellectualism has always been seen as a liability. Even when obvious intellectuals are in office, they are eventually sneered at [Jefferson, Madison, and Wilson being three examples]. At the same time, there are a lot of intellectuals that LOVE that fact, because it allows them to look down their nose, at the same people who mock their intellectualism. It is no different today than then.

However, that doesn't make Bush's real problem, craven and foolish decisions on war and peace, and a hopeless economic policy any better. It's not necessarily that he is stupid, but the fact that his policies are criminally dumb.

No comments: