Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Why Smart Presidents Do Stupid Things

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why Smart Presidents Do Stupid Things

    Pretty good article that bashes both sides of the aisle.

    [QUOTE]Why Smart Presidents Do Stupid Things
    The GOP's growing anti-intellectualism is a response to intellectuals run amuck.
    Shikha Dalmia | October 4, 2011
    The most depressing spectacle on the political landscape right now (besides a potential second term for Barack Obama) is the party of Lincoln entertaining the presidential ambitions of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann—women with better hairdos than heads. One needn’t be a GOP-hater like Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd to be dismayed by the growing anti-intellectualism of the party. Even David Brooks, a conservative commentator, has observed that Republican disdain for liberal intellectuals has morphed into a disdain for all intellectuals.
    But modern intellectuals, having abandoned honest inquiry for unabashed activism, must themselves bear some blame for the backlash.
    The GOP’s descent into mindlessness began when the gaffe-prone Dan Quayle prodded a sixth-grader to misspell “potatoe.” The more the media lampooned Quayle, the more Republicans circled the wagons around him. Since then, Republican intellectual defensiveness has hardened into intellectual goofiness. No longer is stupidity a disqualification, even for the highest office in the land. Palin, in fact, has turned her lack of intellectual talent into her biggest asset, like Snooki on “Jersey Shore.”
    Hostility toward the philosophes is not unique to Americans, of course. It was the ancient Greeks, after all, who executed Socrates because his philosophy conflicted with their piety. Likewise, there is an element of fear among religious conservatives that the intellectual project as such—not any particular brand of intellectualism—is inherently subversive of their settled wisdom.
    But the bigger reason for this anti-intellectual animus is that every time really smart people run the country, things go spectacularly wrong.
    The team of the “best and brightest” that Lyndon Johnson inherited from John F. Kennedy embroiled America in an ignominy like Vietnam—not to mention Medicare, a fiscal quagmire that, unlike Vietnam, the country can neither exit nor fix without courting bankruptcy or seriously screwing over millions of seniors.
    Moreover, George W. Bush’s failures resulted not from his alleged stupidity, as his most vitriolic critics believe, but the brainiacs in his Cabinet. Bush himself might have reveled in his Forest Grump image. But he assembled a team of intellectual stars including Dick Cheney, who was so smart that Beltway Republicans and Democrats wished that he had run for president; Paul Wolfowitz, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of International Studies; Condi Rice, provost of Stanford University; and Donald Rumsfeld, who made his mark in academia, politics, and military service. But this Mensa-worthy team, backed by Ivy League neocon intellectuals, left a legacy of Afghanistan, Iraq, and deficits as far as the eye can see.
    The prize for discrediting intelligence, however, goes to President Obama. Unlike Bush, he wore his intellect on his sleeve, raising hopes that he could fix the country with sheer brainpower. But he has presided over a deterioration on every front: Deficits are worse, unemployment is higher, a double dip is imminent, and we have added another foreign misadventure.
    So why do intelligent people consistently make such a hash of things? Because they are smart enough to talk themselves into anything. Ordinary mortals don’t engage in fancy mental gymnastics to reach conclusions that defy common sense. But intellectuals are particularly prone to this. Hence Bush’s brilliant foreign policy team used the apparatus of the state to search for evidence connecting Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attackers, which its superior ratiocination told them had to exist.
    The great hope from Obama was that he would be different. That his thoughtful, professorial demeanor would prompt him to look for policies that worked—not push a preconceived agenda. In fact, when he took office, I hoped that he would be an “empirical president” who dispassionately considered the evidence from all sides before making decisions. One’s preferred position might not win every time under such a president, but it would at least have a shot, something that people outside Bush’s ideological kin never felt they had.
    But Obama has been infinitely worse. He has glibly cited Congressional Budget Office scores and stats to argue that extending government-subsidized health coverage to 30 million Americans won’t exacerbate the federal deficit; that a debt-ridden country can borrow its way out of the recession; that pumping tax dollars into pie-in-the-sky green technologies would stimulate growth and produce energy security, and so on.
    Ordinary folks might be unable to marshal facts and figures to counter such ludicrous claims, but they know bull**** when they see it. This has two effects on them: One, they feel profoundly disempowered watching their leaders deploy their smarts not on their behalf but against them. And two, since they can’t become experts and academics, they resist by retreating into their own simple certitudes drawn from folk wisdom, faith and founding principles. Indeed, Sarah Palin is as much Barack Obama’s gift to America as she is John McCain’s.
    The great political divide right now is not between eggheads and blockheads, as Maureen Dowd puts it, or intellectualism and stupidity, as other self-serving liberal pundits sneer. It is between two types of activism: an irresponsible, pseudo-intellectual one and a retrograde, folksy one. This divide will disappear when some genuinely smart and wise leader earnestly addresses the nation’s problems, instead of pushing his or her loopy program.
    [/QUOTE]

    [URL]http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/04/why-smart-presidents-do-stupid[/URL]

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    IMHO:

    The Democrats got us involved in Vietnam to take the anti-communism issue from the far right. The reason for involvement in Vietnam was pure politics not intellectualism.

    The Bush Administration wanted war in Iraq as a hand out to their political contributors in the “military industrial complex”.

    Libya is “...another foreign misadventure”. It was inexpensive and successful. Everything Iraq was promised to be. It may have been done using questionable constitutional grounds but it was succesful.

    The quick solution to our economic problems is massive government spending. [U]Economic growth is spending[/U]. Not spending to get the economy going because we don’t want to add more debt is like not borrowing money to go to college because you don’t want to have to make payments.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,181
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4174842]IMHO:

    The Democrats got us involved in Vietnam to take the anti-communism issue from the far right. The reason for involvement in Vietnam was pure politics not intellectualism.

    The Bush Administration wanted war in Iraq as a hand out to their political contributors in the “military industrial complex”.

    Libya is “...another foreign misadventure”. It was inexpensive and successful. Everything Iraq was promised to be. It may have been done using questionable constitutional grounds but it was succesful.

    The quick solution to our economic problems is massive government spending. [U]Economic growth is spending[/U]. Not spending to get the economy going because we don’t want to add more debt is like not borrowing money to go to college because you don’t want to have to make payments.[/QUOTE]

    How do you qualify Libya as successful? What were the success criteria? Take out Ghadafi, I mean not to take out Ghadafi, uh, I mean, take out Ghadafi. When all is said and done Ghadafi is still there and the country is in disarray and at best we have the Muslim brotherhood taking over.

    Is that success? Not in my eyes.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us