The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - The Perils Of Casting Bush As A Bumbling Child

August 20, 2004

Bush | The Perils Of Casting Bush As A Bumbling Child

I was going to pull a quote or two from this Straits Times commentary piece, but instead I’ll think I’ll post the entire thing. [Note: Remember that my posting the commentary is not the same as my endorsing the commentary.]

MAYBE it is just that I am having too many long talks with my 16-month-old these days, but I find myself sensitive to the language of ‘daddies’ and ‘dummies’. This is the language of toddlerhood; it is not how we should be framing a national conversation about the President of the United States.
It cannot have escaped anyone’s notice that much of the current Bush-bashing aims to infantilise him. The most devastating segment in director Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, for instance, features President George W. Bush - just after he learnt of the second attack on the World Trade Centre - perched on a chair in a Florida classroom, looking glazed and confused as he listens to a reading of The Pet Goat. Mr Bush’s aide might well have whispered the news to one of the students to greater effect, and the implication is inescapable: For seven long minutes, the President was not a man.

A glance at the top 150 advertisements selected by MoveOn.org for its recent political advertising contest, Bush In 30 Seconds, similarly reveals the extent to which childishness is woven into the current Bush-bashing. While kids have long been used in political advertisements to represent the future, many of the MoveOn entries use them to satirise the actual candidate.

Several of the proposed anti-Bush commercials use kids to condemn the President for unsophisticated thinking, for an infantile world view, for the fact that his daddy purchased his every big break and for the fact that he is beholden to the wealthy and powerful grown-ups around him. The clear message is Mr Bush is more a child than an adult.

What is wrong with continuing efforts to characterise Mr Bush as a not-particularly-smart third-grader? For one thing, it plays to every stereotype of liberals as snotty know-it-alls who think everyone in a red state is anti-intellectual or simple-minded. It answers name-calling from the right with name-calling from the left. These assertions also insult anyone who voted for Mr Bush in 2000.

Rather than offering an argument for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, they merely disparage voters who may be tempted to defect to the Democrats over the Iraq war or the economy, by sneering that they voted for a kid - and a dumb kid at that.

One of the most enduring memories from the Bush-Gore debates in 2000 was then vice-president Al Gore trapped in what must have felt like the middle-school playground fight from hell instead of a presidential debate. Everything about Mr Gore’s demeanour signalled that he felt he was giving a punk kid a much-needed scolding.

Which missed the point: A lot of very smart people voted for Mr Bush in 2000 because, to them, he represented a return to honesty and morality. Dismissing him as a stupid child, and these voters as stupid-children-by-association, is no way to win them back.

Furthermore, the campaign to cast Mr Bush as a bumbling child ignores the very grown-up machine that stands behind him. Infantilising the President shifts the focus away from the Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Ashcrofts and Wolfowitzes.

These are the men who promised us short, easy wars and painless little suspensions of the Geneva Conventions. These are the men of the secret energy-policy meetings. They are not a bunch of rowdy juveniles. They represent one of the most secretive, powerful administrations in recent memory.

Finally, there is a psychological consequence to labelling the President an incurious frat boy. With each attempt to cast him as a baby, we craft excuses for his childish behaviours. If Mr Bush misled us into a war in Iraq, it is because children have trouble telling the truth. If he sees the world in too-stark terms, it is because nuanced reasoning is not easy for children. With each comparison between the President and a youngster, we subtly lower national expectations and exonerate bad behaviour.

This presidential election is not a choice between adults and children, and it will not be won or lost with jokes about whether Mrs Laura Bush ties the President’s shoes each morning before she points him towards the Oval Office. Nothing is gained by offering Mr Bush even a metaphorical second childhood. Much may be gained by offering our real children a safe and just first one.

Posted by Alan at August 20, 2004 07:35 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Thanks for finding that, it’s hilarious as well as revealing.

Did Don write it?

Posted by: TL at August 20, 2004 10:22 AM

A very good article and whilst true that:

a) its damaging for the Democrats to adopt the negative politics game.
b) the real targets should be Dick, Don, John and Paul. They’re the real evil doers.
c) it gives Bush, incorrectly, an aire of ‘innocent’ foolishness.

In reality its just so apt.

Bush really is a hillarious dope. And, even apart from the politics, I’d just be so plain embarrased if someone like him were a political representative in, never mind the leader of, my country.

It just wouldn’t happen.

Posted by: symptomless at August 20, 2004 10:27 AM

Ya know…when the registration policy went into effect here at TCP I was concerned that some of the lively discussions I enjoyed here would be no more. While the “lively” discussions have been curtailed somewhat I don’t think it’s because of the registration policy.

A couple months ago this article would have raised the ire of all my conservative brethren. I have to wonder where the outrage is now…oh…that’s right…it’s the same tripe we’ve been reading since day one and it’s become boring.

Maybe if we just agree they’ll go away…

Yes…you are right…the man that had the foresight to bring onboard the men and women that make up the most powerful foreign policy group in recent memory is a child mentally. Yes! You are quite correct that the man who did in 3 years what 2 men couldn’t do in 12 years(turn Libya around) is nothing more than jello with legs. Absolutely, you are dead on…this president has yet to be indicted or even seriously threatened with legal action…therefore he must SURELY be intellectually inferior to the Nixon’s, Clinton’s, and McGreevy’s of the world.

Geesh…can’t wait for November 3rd.

Posted by: Wayne Fielder at August 20, 2004 10:29 AM

Posted by: symptomless at August 20, 2004 10:27 AM

Ahhh yes…the President of International Society Of The Intellectually Inept, castigating The President of The United States of America and Leader of the Free World. I feel certain that he will take great heed of your valuable criticism and look to better himself, using you, Poster Child of the Laughable Left as his shining example.

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 20, 2004 12:51 PM

You obviously have low standards in your country for what is required to be a president.

He’d be a laughing stock if he wasn’t so dangerous.

As for, “the foresight to bring onboard the men and women that make up the most powerful foreign policy group in recent memory”, did he also have the foresight to predict that the same group would lead America to their lowest level of respectability and credibility in living memory.

And the Libyans actually turned themselves into MI6, presumably because the US Army were rumbling into Iraq at the time I grant you, though it was probably more out of the fear of GWB’s unstable actions rather than any rational political foreign policy.

Posted by: symptomless at August 20, 2004 01:24 PM

Yes, you are quite the mental heavy weight.

Personally, I don’t give a RATS ASS about being respected and/or credible to the likes of sniveling, apologists and appeasers like you…I would PREFER to be feared. Sad that Libyans got the message loud and clear. Guess that they are FAR smarter than you.

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 20, 2004 01:31 PM

I think there’s a certain error in the logic of finding a corellation between someone’s level of intelligence and level of articulation. I can find very little fault in the current Administration’s policy of pursuing the ousting of Saddam Hussein, nor can I find much reason not to aggressively pursue the War on Terror.

Would you consider Stephen Hawking unintelligent because he has a little trouble speaking? I’m also quite sure that some of history’s greatest authors had trouble with the spoken word, too.

Then there are the hundreds of quotes, or “Bushisms” that run rampant throughout the mainstream media. I, for one, speak in the colloquial when conversing amongst those I’m trying to relate to. Only a shyster like former President Clinton could get away with perfect speech. He is reported to have a photographic memory, which is probably a genetic mutation, not a sign of intelligence.

Liberals, by definition, are snotty-nosed. They look to change the currenty socio-economic environment through their “bright” ideas. Anyone that believes capitialism and the free-market can provide solutions to our socio-economic problems are fools, in their point of view.

The sad, sad conclusion to be drawn upon all of this nonsense is this: even a 3rd grader would have made the same logical conclusion as to the means for pursuing the battle against terror and the battle against the recession.

Posted by: jackhammer at August 20, 2004 01:45 PM

Alright symptomless (by the way, what symptoms are you missing, other than a fully functioning brain?), I’ll explain to you why it’s funny to somebody that reads AND thinks, and I’ll use small, simple words to give you a shot at keeping up:

1. The article is unintentionally ironic (you’ll have to look those up — I can’t dumb those down for you): While discussing the “dangers” of calling Bush an immature idiot, it goes about doing just that in the must smarmy and revealing of ways.

2. The article reveals a willful dishonesty on the part of the Dems/libs: the premise is basically that Dems must not say what they really think because it might keep them from convincing others to do what they want.

3. Further irony: the author manages to insult and condescend to all those who voted for Bush while expressing a desire to avoid doing just that.

Unfortunately, we can’t post pictures, otherwise I’d draw it for you, but hopefully this helps.

Posted by: TL at August 20, 2004 01:59 PM

If anyone was a ‘spoiled child” it is John kerry.

The guy is an arrogant snob. He’s never worked a day in his life, he spent it snobbing with the Kennedy’s.
This makes all the loony left a bunch of hypocrites.

while the lefty media tries their darndest to portray Bush as a stupid man, he’s quite smart. he handles people, not the other way around.

He hasn’t had to say one word about kerry’s war record and his lies and cowardness. kerry is destroying himself.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 20, 2004 02:02 PM

Watch the New Ad. Real Heros are telling the world about Kerry.

POW’s View of Hanoi Kerry

Democrats like Kerry and Moore say things like this

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 20, 2004 02:23 PM

When GWB ran for Governor of Texas, most “intelligent” voters (inlcuding me and my family) did not believe he was a serious politician. He had a frat boy image and no personal political experience other than behind the scenes with his father’s campaigns.

In Texas, the Governor is not a very powerful position compared with other states and so it has often been viewed as a type of vanity office for wealthy businessmen or members of prominent families. Ann Richards was an exception having worked her up from county level politics.

GWB has made a career out of having others underestimate him (Ann Richards is Exhibit A) — like a Jackie Chan character, he is willing to suppress his vanity and look less than impressive in order to accomplish a greater goal. Plus he has an uncanny way of connecting personally with people who might be inclined to dislike him. (I understand Clinton could do this; Kerry most definitely cannot, try as he might, he may be the worst in modern memory on this point.)

One of GWBs guiding principles is that you can accomplish amazing things when you don’t worry about who gets the credit — that’s almost unheard of in politics. Add to that his willingness to let opponents punch themselves out before responding and you are beginning to see what I predict will be a masterful dismantling of the Kerry campaign. Like Wylie Coyote, the Democrats keep thinking they can destroy Bush if they can just get the correct “Acme” weapon — AWOL, Howard Dean, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, George Soros and on and on. It’s driving them crazy and if you don’t believe it just listen to Kerry and his surrogates — it’ s pathetic.

Believe the Michael Moore simplistic characterizations as our friend in the UK apparently does and this election will be an even bigger landslide.

Posted by: ter0 at August 20, 2004 04:12 PM

I’ve been saying for several months that I don’t have the same sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that I did at this point with W.’s father. He’s taken an unprecedented number of vicious hits and still seems unruffled. LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Arnie didn’t endure the relentless shelling that this guy has. I’m curiously reminded of Ali bouncing up off his chair and waving his opponent on with both gloves. Bush the Younger is rope-a-doping his foes. At some point they’ll be all played out - nothing left but their own bitterness. And W. will be standing there, his face all bloodied and wearing that smirk that drives the opponents crazy.

Posted by: jeauxjeaux at August 20, 2004 07:53 PM

TL, thanks, you’ve almost of re-written the article per se, though in a very unintelligent manner and in a way which only an ideological republican might want to condescend a small child. Much in the way George Bush might want to try describe the war on terror to a gullible American public.

At some point I’ll describe what it is in my opinion to be a respected political figure, not even a president, but someone to respect through belief of principal and of conviction.

Insult me if you will, though it makes no odds when you accept the low standards of GW Bush as your standard bearer.

Posted by: symptomless at August 20, 2004 11:12 PM

I believe that someone with intellect, though maybe a handicap in articulation, would find an alternative method of communication, as Steven Hawkins may do. Bush has the political forum, in which he’s expected to communicate though the means that he has at his disposal, i.e. debate.

He fails to that.

Posted by: symptomless at August 20, 2004 11:17 PM

symptomless -

I’m really glad that your post was the last in the line when I checked back in. Before I get started I do want to ask the others in the forum here to PLEASE refrain from personal attacks…we have enough of those in the media. Did anyone see what Chris Matthews did to my girl Michelle Malkin last night? geesh.

Now then, Symptomless…you said:
As for, “the foresight to bring onboard the men and women that make up the most powerful foreign policy group in recent memory”, did he also have the foresight to predict that the same group would lead America to their lowest level of respectability and credibility in living memory.

Like another poster said, I don’t care what the other countries think of us. When the next natural or man made disaster hits we will be there to help them whether they hate us or not. They will accept our help whether they hate us or not. I REALLY don’t care what France and Germany think of us. My grandfather shed alot of blood to free France FROM Germany as alot of our grandfathers and fathers did. Looking back a bit further our fathers and grandfathers saved France from Germany in WWI as well. Looking back further still, the best that France could do during the Civil War was flirt with the Confederacy giving them the futile hope that France might come to their aide. France hasn’t been a TRUE ally of America since those ships left our coasts after our Revolution.

We are respected around the world either sincerely or because we are the most successful people on the planet.

See, Symptomless, America is blessed because of the fact that we are so giving. Remember the Bam Earthquake in southern Iran? Who was the first country to offer assistance? That was America. They refused our aide at first but accepted our humanitarian stuffs later albeit quietly. We don’t care for the credit. We don’t want Thank You notes in Farsi. What we do want is for people the world over to realize the freedom that God gave them. We don’t even care if they worship the god we do…but we do want them to be free.

I wish I could understand the depths of hatred you seem to have for President Bush. Perhaps if I did I could help you to at least put it aside…maybe not vote for him but at least set your hatred aside. You do not wear it well.

Posted by: Wayne Fielder at August 20, 2004 11:49 PM

France hasn’t been a TRUE ally of America since those ships left our coasts after our Revolution.

But England, whose asses (arses?) we kicked in the Revolution, is now one of our staunchest allies.

Ah, the sweet ironies of history.

Posted by: gus3 at August 21, 2004 12:19 AM

“GWB has made a career out of having others underestimate him.” by: ter0

…or “misunderestimate” him as GW has said.

George Bush is the perfect example of the right man for the time. In my estimation, he has been almost flawless in his response to the radical Islamist War against America in particular and western civilization in general.

This thread has brought to mind a story concerning comments made to President Lincoln about General Ulysses S. Grant during our Civil War. When told that Grant was an alcoholic, Lincoln replied that the general won battles and added (and I paraphrase), “If I knew the brand of liquor he drinks, I’d send a case of it to each of my generals.”

GWB is a strong leader who has assembled the most impressive government in recent memory. He’s taken on the most serious threat to this country in the last 50 years with unflinching courage and determination.

Like DevilDoc said, I really don’t care what anyone thinks about our country or our President. He’s getting the job done. That’s all that matters to me.

Posted by: Jim at August 21, 2004 12:30 AM

When the “alcoholic frat-boy” accusations were coming out during the 2000 campaign, and the accusations weren’t answered, I realized then what was going on. Candidate Bush was letting the mainstream press and all the wagging heads on the Left go ahead and dig their traps. The more frantic the press became about Candidate Bush, the more desperate they appeared to the public.

Much like Chris Matthews last night. I guess they didn’t learn their lesson, or else they forgot.

Posted by: gus3 at August 21, 2004 12:48 AM

///Bush really is a hillarious dope. And, even apart from the politics, I’d just be so plain embarrased if someone like him were a political representative in, never mind the leader of, my country.

It just wouldn’t happen.///

ROFL.

Wow, sure glad I have to clean the soda I just sprayed out of my nose off my screen. This from the guy in a country where a pinhead former bus driver was prime minister. Just wouldn’t happen, my ass.

Posted by: johnnymozart at August 24, 2004 01:59 PM