“The thing that’s wrong with the French is that they don’t have a word for entrepreneur. “
George W. Bush
entrepreneur: noun, a person who sets up a business or businesses. ORIGIN: French, from entreprendre ‘undertake’.
Oxford English Dictionary
I seriously doubt that there are too many people left in this country who would, with good conscience, argue that George Bush is an intelligent man. You might well get significant arguments about how dumb he really is, with opinions ranging from “blithering idiot” to “somewhat stupid,” but the basic premise of all of such arguments is that our sitting President clearly lacks a first rate intelligence.
I chose the opening quote carefully to illustrate the point that George Bush is not only less than stellar in his thinking, but woefully ignorant to boot. If I had wanted a true “howler” to illustrate the point, it would not have been difficult since there are multiple websites devoted to Bushisms. Most Bushisms would be hilarious if uttered on Saturday Night Live; they are an embarrassment when uttered publicly by a sitting American President. My point, however, is not to trash George Bush as a person – I am certain that he must have some redeeming qualities even if I am stumped as to what they might be. My point is simply this: while there may be humor in the occasional verbal mistakes of our leadership, there is no humor in understanding that the electorate, in the face of clear, convincing evidence of his insipidity, ignorance and downright stupidity, put George Bush in office – not only once, but twice.
This causes me to wonder why the electorate would favor someone who is clearly less than first rate to be in charge of our government. You may say what you will about how much power the President has or hasn’t, but the fact remains that he or she is the leader of our country and its spokesperson to the world. Why is it that we do not prefer to put our best persons forward and are content to elect a man as President who is, essentially, little more than a bumpkin?
H. L. Mencken’s theory about this subject was best summed up in his faux-French descriptor of the American electorate as the “booboisie.” Sadly, I have to agree that he was right in this conclusion as in so many of his other observations on America and life in general. Mr. Mencken was as fond of humor as he was of wry observations on the state of our Union. He had the ability to take a truth and make it seem funny as a way of driving home a point. His was a first rate mind.
As in so many other areas, we seem, as a people, to always seek the lowest common denominator in our culture and politics. We have such an aversion to the concept of “elitism” that our efforts to avoid it are woefully awesome in their practical application. If you don’t agree with this observation, I challenge you to try this: Turn off your television for a period of 90 days. Watch nothing, especially the pap that serves as “entertainment” in the minds of the network executives. During this interval, as your primary source of entertainment read good books of any variety that appeal to you. Then turn the TV back on and take a good, hard look at what you see. If you can then honestly tell me that what you see isn’t insipid, stupid and a true insult to your intelligence, you have no reason to be reading this piece.
The lowest common denominator phenomenon extends to our politics. We seem to have more desire to watch our politicians stumble drunkenly from gaffe to gaffe than we do to take pride in their individual achievements and character. We believe it is more important to take sides in our politics, and true partisanship requires blind loyalty even unto the lowest common denominator. As far as I am concerned, as a liberal I would much rather have an intelligent conservative as President than an idiot who happens to be liberal. I would rather vote for the quality of the person, than his or her politics. Fortunately, in this election there is a liberal with brains running for President, and I can safely vote both for the character of the man and for my beliefs.
In short, I think, before we go into the polling booth, that we ought to consider the value of an office holder being a person who is truly smart and worthy. Don’t make the mistake of confusing someone who is truly first rate, with those who claim to be the “elite” because their club is bigger than yours or who know how to manipulate the media better than the rest of us. Don’t get so confused by arguments against the specter of “elitism” that you sacrifice the pride we should all have in those we elect to govern us. In other words, don’t vote for a boob for any office, especially the Presidency.
As a liberal, I do not fault President Bush for his conservatism so much as I fault him for being President. He is not Presidential material – neither in this time nor in any other. He is no more, nor no less, than the scion of the variety of “elite” of which we should be wary. His is not a first rate mind, and I leave it to each of you to classify his mind in whatever lesser rank you feel it belongs. His mind is well and truly “bush league” (look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls).
One more definition for your consideration in light of the above. I offer it without further comment or explanation than to suggest the definition represents the inevitable result of our continuing to adhere to blind partisanship. It is taken verbatim from the online website, Dictionary.com:
bushwa
bush·wa /ˈbʊʃwɑ, -wɔ/ –noun
rubbishy nonsense; baloney; bull: You’ll hear a lot of boring bushwa about his mechanical skill.
Also, bushwah.
[Origin: 1915–20; perh. repr. Bourgeois, from its use in political rhetoric, the actual sense being lost; taken as euphemism for Bullshit]
