True, in the most literal meaning of the word, Bush is far from an aristocrat.

from wikipedia: The Ancient Greek term aristocracy originally meant a system of government with “rule by the best”. The word is derived from two words, “aristos” meaning the “best” and “kratein” “to rule”. Aristocracies have most often been hereditary plutocracies (see below), where a sense of historical gravitas and noblesse oblige demands high minded action from its members.

The fact that you start off a post condemning condescension with the line “If you want to be taken seriously,” pretty much says it all about the limits of your self awareness. Likewise, you counsel staying on topic, but your post includes not a single word about the subject of this post: Who’s the adult?

Juvenality is indeed a worthy topic, especially as regards the condescension that’s dripping from your post about me. You resort to the classic childish rhetorical device of arrogating to yourself the unearned role of group spokesman. How do you know whether others take me seriously? People take the time to respond, as you have, so the evidence is pretty clear that they do take me seriously enough. Yours is the lowest form of condescension there is.

When I say Bush is lazy, I mean intellectually lazy. That should be obvious enough, but I will indeed admit that it wasn’t. Your point about marathons is absurd. Bush’s job is supposed to be to think, not run.

When I say Bush is stupid, I mean relative to other recent presidents, i.e. his father, Clinton and Carter. (Reagan’s a close call, as I have mentioned.) Bush has difficulty forming simple sentences and even more trouble combining them into complex ideas. We can have a reasonable debate about whether this is some kind of specific, limited disability, or evidence of limited analytical skills. But when I add the other evidence: limited knowledge of major world affairs, an aversion to science and an attraction to fundamentalist religion, I come down on the side of Bush’s mangled sentences showing exactly what they appear to: limited intelligence.

That’s where I come down, Jim. If you want to debate the subject, bring it on. I’m open minded about the evidence. But, please, remember you’re among people who say they despise condescension.

I’m not sure I know of any examples of successful leaders who condescend to their followers. There may be managers who do that, but not leaders. There is a difference between the two.

Second, respond to the subject of this post, rather than trying, again and again, to move it off topic. Your arguments may interest you, but they are too ill-informed to interest me, whereas Ginny’s argument is interesting and, I believe, well-founded.

In short, admit that you were wrong (and perhaps slanderous), and stay on topic. (And if you aren’t willing to do those two things, I would suggest that other commenters treat you as a troll, ignoring you and perhaps banning you if you persist.)

(I am reluctant to do this, but since you have gone on at such length about politicians not talking down to the voters, I will simply tell you that the idea is very old one, at least as old as the ancient Greeks. I used it in this post on Senator Patty “not a rocket scientist” Murray, but I didn’t mention its long history because I thought that every person who was even modestly informed about politics knew that.)

It’s interesting that the losers appear to have, on average, higher credentials than the winners. The margin is quite small, though, and could vanish, depending on how you count experience like Carter’s study of nuclear physics as a naval officer.

Evidence that secondary degrees are a political liability would support the case made by some here that there is a measurable “academic resentment” vote that tends to swing to the right. It also also meshes with the mainstream media analysis saying Gore lost to Bush because voters thought he was condescending.

Having met Gore, I can say that he’s as sincere as any career politician. Having just seen his film, I have to agree that he can come off as condescending. But it would never even occur to me to consider that a reasonable indicator of leadership ability or lack of it.

That appears to be a clear difference between liberals and conservatives in America. Whereas conservatives seem forever aggrieved at being talked down to, you hardly hear liberals complain about the moral condescencion coming from conservatives in the media, politics and religion.

Look at the rhetoric here, calling liberals jackasses, “vacuous,” unprincipled and on and on. Talk about condescension! Yet as a theme, liberal aggrievement just hasn’t caught on. Wonder why?

The idea that San Marcos is a training ground for intellectuals is a bit of a reach, as is the belief that someone that manages to drop out of both a seminary and law school is superior to someone who gets an MBA. Though I’m quite sure Boston College is a fine law school, it is not exactly Ivy League. You seemed to see books published as a criteria for Carter’s intellectual reach. While I come from a culture that rewards people for books published, I don’t think it is the best criteria for anything other than promotions and pay raises.

Frankly, I can think of no one on the right that(though I have no doubt there are some) has the remarkable vacuity of Kucinich. Someone who doesn’t bother to understand what is going on in Iraq any more than he does and has the termerity to run for president does, indeed, have a major character flaw – as attractive as his idea of the three pillars of civilization may be.

“the opponents of those you cite have approximately the same credentials.”

then you wrote:

“Let me state this very dramatically so you do not miss it: EVERYBODY ARGUING WITH YOU AGREES WITH YOUR ASSERTION! You don’t seem to grasp this. I don’t know why.”…“you say that Democratic candidates have more academic achievements than Republican candidates!” We say, “Yes, that is generally true and here is the reason why,” then you reply with, “but you didn’t admit that Democratic candidates have more academic achievements than Republican candidates!” ”

Shannon, can you work this one out with Ginny, the two of you seem to disagree about whether Democratic candidates have, on average, higher academic credentials. (But please note that my claim is that presidents in or lifetime divide that way.)

I’ll let you two work that out…meanwhile:

Some here have asserted that “character” is a better indicator of a person’s suitability as a president.

“Character” is far too subjective and too diffuse as a concept to provide a reliable guide to presidential performance.

Take the current crop of presidential candidates. By all appearances, Dennis Kucinich is a man of sterling character. You may not like his personality, his speaking style, his haircut or his dietary choices, but, as far as I know, his character is unassailable. Yet I’m relatively certain that Shannon, Ginny and most of the other regulars here would expect disaster from a Kucinich presidency.

Let’s look at Guiliani. He dropped out a senate race against Hillary, surely a moment of great shame for conservatives, in no small part because he was he was trying to move his wife and daughter out of the mayor’s mansion so he could move his girlfriend in. Yet I would hazard a guess that Shannon and Ginny would walk over ground glass to tell us how much better a president Giuliani would make than Kucinich. Fair enough.

A moron can possess superb character and many, if not all, of the greatest leaders through history achieved much despite possessing significant character flaws: Churchill comes to mind and, while I would argue that Nixon’s character flaws overwhelmed his leadership ability, I suspect many who read this believe they didn’t.

Newt Gingrich is divorced twice and reportedly visited his wife in the hospital while she was dying of cancer to tell her he was filing for divorce, though we don’t know whether he mentioned he was having an affair with his office assistant. Personally, I couldn’t care less. I’m willing to let the man figure out his own personal life: he may well have had very good reasons for divorcing and remarrying with a colleague. I just don’t care. Rather, I don’t like Gingrich’s policies, it really is as simple as that. His “character” is irrelevant to me.

As portrayed in the mainstream media, reporting on the “character issue” in presidential politics is a monumnet to lazy journalism. It is very hard work to write compelling stories about candidates political positions, track records, financial/lobbying connections and so on. This kind of stories requires extensive factual research and, even more difficult, very careful news judgment about how the mass of facts can be arranged to make clear why they are important to readers.
Writing about “character” is much, much easier.
By introducing the “character issue,” a journalist can, in one swoop, shifts the focus to emotion and personality and away from objective fact.

The political process can go wrong when parties don’t do seriously try to get elected. In the USA the Democrats are currently not seriously trying to get elected, which is why they keep choosing poor candidate for President. And do not have coherent policies – they are simply hoping to get elected by the Republicans being rejected, and this has worked for Congress and the Senate.

We have seen this in the UK. When Mrs Thatcher was elected in 1979 the Labour party chose Michael Foot as their leader – a kind of ultra-left, aristocratic human-scarecrow. They kept on with this kind of self-destructive line until John Smith then Tony Blair whipped them into shape and won the 1997 election; after which the Conservatives imploded and made some disasterous leadership choices (notably Iain Duncan Smith) while rejecting Michael Portillo who was probably the most gifted leader since Thatcher aside from Blair. The Conservatives have still lack coherent policies, although they now have an electable leader (David Cameron).

My point? Party members (whether in the UK or the US) are not always trying to get elected as their main priority. Much of the time they do things that make them feel good, feel morally pure, but do not appeal to the electorate – and they just hope that the electorate will get sick of the ruling party, or that the ruling party will makes mistakes or just be unlucky. Clearly this remains the implicit strategy of both US Democrats and UK Conservatives.

In this frame of mind, party members indulge themselves by choosing leaders who make party members feel good, but do not appeal to the electorate. Eg. Leftists choose intellectuals, rightists chose nationalistic fanatics.

When the Democrats eventually decide they want to win a Presidential election, and are prepared to make the necessary compromises, then we may see them choose a Presidential candidate on the basis of their broad personal appeal and a clear simple program.

It’s arguable that Truman, the president with the least academic accomplishment in the last 130 years, was the best president. I would certainly never judge his relative intelligence by his lack of academic credentials. I wouldn’t judge the intelligence of anyone on the below lists by academic credentials.

WINNERS:
Truman: 2 yrs Kansas City Law School no degree
Kennedy: bachelors Harvard
Johnson: Bachelors Southwest Texas State
Carter: bachelors USNA
Clinton: bachelors Georgetown; law Yale

Eisenhower: bachelors USMA
Nixon: bachelors Whittier; law Duke
Ford: bachelors Michigan; Yale law
Reagan: bachelors Eureka
Bush I: bachelors Yale
Bush II: bachelors Yale; MBA Harvard

LOSERS:
Stevenson: Bachelors Pinceton; Law Northwestern
Humphrey: Bachelors Minnesota; MA LSU
McGovern: Bachelors Garret; PhD Northwestern
Mondale: Bachelors Minnesota; Law Minnesota
Dukakis: Bachelors Starthmore; Law Harvard
Gore: Bachelors Harvard
Kerry: Bachelors Yale; Law Boston College

Dewey: Bachelors Michigan; Law Columbia
Goldwater: 1 year U 0f Arizona no degree
Dole: Bachelors Washburn; Law Washburn

I have clearly, repeatedly said that, as measured by academic achievement, Republican presidents in our lifetime fall well below Democratic presidents. Moreover, I have provided direct evidence to back up my claims.[emphasis added]

Let me state this very dramatically so you do not miss it: EVERYBODY ARGUING WITH YOU AGREES WITH YOUR ASSERTION! You don’t seem to grasp this. I don’t know why.

It’s as if you said that, “the flowers in your garden are PURPLE!” and we said, “Yes, we like purple flowers,” and you reply with, “but they’re PURPLE!” We might innocently conclude that you do not like purple. We try to explain to you why we like purple but all you can say is, “The flowers are PURPLE!”

Likewise, you say that Democratic candidates have more academic achievements than Republican candidates!” We say, “Yes, that is generally true and here is the reason why,” then you reply with, “but you didn’t admit that Democratic candidates have more academic achievements than Republican candidates!” Therefore we innocently concluded that you believe that Republican relative inattention to academic achievement is a bad thing. We try to explain again why this is true but to no avail.

Did we misunderstand something?

I am not sure you have challenged my assumptions – your arguments have not grown nor brought in evidence I haven’t seen before. (I was, of course, aware that Carter had published books. So did Kennedy. So, of course, did Nixon. Amd the Clintons. I’m not sure what that was all about.)

Nor are your arguments original. Everyone from Roseanne Cash to Al Gore have argued they have taken their political positions because they know more than those on the other side. But, of course, those on the other side feel that they have taken their positions through reasoned thought as well. Your assumption – from the first comment on this thread on – is that we will agree with some things are self-evident (that Bush is a dumb, lazy aristocrat) your assumption. Even that first argument ignored the thesis of the post, but all of us are pretty discursive around here. Your arguments have not defined your terms – what is a reasonable approach, what makes a good leader, what is intelligence, what are the motives of those that find a condescending leader unacceptable.

You do make several arguments that appear to tell us what those assumptions are: a reasonable approach is that by Carter, Chomsky, et al. Intelligence is defined by what you seem to consider self-evident acts, but you don’t deal with the fact that others do not consider those self-evident nor the other fact – that the opponents of those you cite have approximately the same credentials. If voters don’t vote for a man they find condescending, you see that as proof they are anti-intellectual.

The reason I thought you didn’t often argue with others was because you don’t seem to take other arguments into account nor listen when you don’t hear what you want to hear. But, of course, we are all like that to some extent. Good luck, however, with trying to convince your opponents that way.

Like all Al Gore says is in his Academy Award winning film (eat your heart out, righties!)

I didn’t know I was supposed to take any one’s winning of an Academy Award personally.
I’m not sure what is more shallow, the award ceremony itself, or Wes’s contention that I should be distraught about it.

Chicagoboyz is more than obviously not a forum where a liberal would go to swim with people who agreed with him.

Note that Ginny and Shannon didn’t even bother to ask anything about what I read, where else I post, what else I write, what I do for a living: nothing. Yet they feel safe, somehow, nakedly assuming, diametrically opposed to the evidence, that I “swim among people who agree with me.” And these same people blame others for being condescending. Unbelievable!

Interestingly, I do note that Shannon and Ginny spend a lot of time here at chicagoboyz, sharing opinions among people who agree with them. I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with that, mind you, it’s just not the way I choose to spend my time on the Internet, Ginny’s hilariously false allegation notwithstanding.

I post here because I’m absolutely certain that my views require correction and because I happily conform my views to whatever facts and logic are available to me. I fear nothing less than an opposing view and I seek nothing more than facts that would prove me wrong.

And then there’s this closer from Ginny: “It could be that you should take a rest from our blog.”

Indeed. Moments after accusing me of not exposing myself to views such as your own–as part of an exchange of views with you, absurdly enough–you conclude with the suggestion that I should refrain from exposing myself to your views. Or are you suggesting that I refrain from exposing you to my views? Which is more condescending? Hard to tell, isn’t it?

Like all Al Gore says is in his Academy Award winning film (eat your heart out, righties!): What we don’t know isn’t nearly as dangerous as what we’re sure about that’s wrong.

You have indeed repeatedly said that, but you haven’t provided direct evidence. Can you help us out a bit, and tell us what you see as the evidence? The list of academic degrees earned by presidents doesn’t support your claim. And your list of books by Carter shows that all but the first two were published after he left office.

Perhaps it’s a function of the “lifetime” you mention. Exactly what period are you considering as “in our lifetime?” I suspect we have a wide variety of lifetimes represented here. And exactly which sets of Democratic and Republican presidents are you comparing?

Is there something you include as academic achievement other than degrees granted? If so, what is it?

I didn’t say that you didn’t think there were some intelligent Republicans. However, your immediate remark is that you believe the standard bearers for Democrats were more intelligent than those for Republicans. And you believe you have proved that. You have repeated it. If it isn’t important to you, then I don’t know why you keep bringing it up. As Jim Miller pointed out most clearly, that is not a supposition most of us are willing to accept. The fact that you keep repeating it seems a bit strange, frankly. You seem to imply that it does have to do with leadership – but, I’m sure you are wise enough to know that is true only in broad terms. You acknowledge that. Then you bring it up again.

Secondly, you seem to think that condescending is the attitude of an obviously intelligent person. I suspect that I am not the only person on this thread that would argue that it is generally an indication of a stupid one. That people are insulted when someone condescends to them goes without saying; part of the reason they are insulted is because they have observed that the person who is condescending to them is not very bright. Certainly that would apply to Al Gore; his debating style was that of someone who asserts facts he thinks he “knows” and which turn out not to be facts. People were not turned off because of his intelligence but his lack of it. And the fact is that Gore doesn’t seem to realize he doesn’t know.

But, he appears not to be a bad person. I don’t think I was thinking of him as a jackass; I can’t, however, take him seriously. Actually, Clinton’s great charm comes from the fact that he doesn’t condescend and Carter’s limited charm comes from the fact that he takes himself so seriously he is seldom bothered to condescend (except to Bush at formal occasions). Clinton and Carter do, however, suffer from extraordinary arrogance. Clinton’s takes the form of a sense of entitlement that is, at least, lively; Carter’s is a sadder form but it probably occasionally propels him to do good (build houses, hunt down disease in Africa); it more often leads him to contribute to harm. But then Clinton can assume that a lot of people like him. They do. Carter is still suffering from the 1980 election and it clearly drives him. If you want to argue that Bush Sr is not very articulate, I would agree with you. But clearly, his reaction to losing an election was far more mature than Carter’s. This indicates a sense of proportion.

You keep treading the same ground and circling around – not realizing that you are contradicting yourself within the same comment. It could be that you should take a rest from our blog.

I have restated five times previously, this makes six, that there are very many intelligent Republicans, including elected officials. I have restated twice, this makes three times, that intelligence isn’t by any means a guarantee of leadership ability.

Still, you and Shannon persist in misrepresenting my view as being “obsessed” by “academic credentialism,” and that I somehow don’t understand that intelligence isn’t a guarantee of leadership ability.

Ginny writes:
“You seem to accept as a given that people like the standard bearers of the Democratic party lately are more intelligent than those of the Republicans.”

That’s a highly misleading fabrication. I have clearly, repeatedly said that, as measured by academic achievement, Republican presidents in our lifetime fall well below Democratic presidents. Moreover, I have provided direct evidence to back up my claims. You have responded with a torrent of assertions, misdirection and mischaracterization, as I demonstrate above.

“You find someone saying that people don’t like being condescended to and you assume that is because the person doing the condescending is intelligent. No, he’s a jackass.”

You should take that up with Bruce and others who said, plainly, that voters go Republican because Democrats say Republicans are stupid, an insult these voters take personally.

I wonder, are you accusing Al Gore of being a jackass? Apparently, GOP voters found him “condescending.” What do you mean by jackass? Can you explain why you’d apply that label to him? And if not, who are you talking about? Clinton? Carter? Barack?

It’s bracing to hear a rightist acknowledge that Republicans vote on the basis of personal emotional needs. I wonder if you realize how insulting that analysis is to the Republican electorate. I wonder if you would admit to voting against a Democrat because he or she “doesn’t like you.’’ Talk about juvenile.

Most people have their own prism issue, the one subject through which they view politics. Mine is protecting innocent people’s lives.

The Democrats have consistently advocated laws which restrict the private ownership of firearms. They do this even though it has been proven by no less an authority than the National Academy of Sciences that such laws have no benefit in reducing criminal violence, which is the major justification for their actions. In fact, there is evidence that banning private gun ownership leads to increased levels of violence and death.

One can look at this any number of ways, but it seems most likely that the Democrat strategy is a cynical move to garner support from those who have a knee jerk emotional dislike of guns, no matter how many people they put at risk. If any Democrat politician actually ignores the evidence and believes in the anti-gun arguments themselves, then they must be in thrall to their own knee jerk emotional spasms.

There have been instances when politicians have expressed a dislike of gun owners and their property. Since there isn’t any rational justification for their stance, I would have to say that they are claiming that they don’t like those of us who go armed. They certainly seem to care little about the lives of innocent people, which means they will never get my vote.

Does this mean that I am driven by my own emotions? You betchya! My efforts to protect innocent lives certainly doesn’t bring me any payoff except for an emotional one, and I even have to make some serious sacrifices to keep at it.

James

You don’t seem to understand some basics about human interaction. If a guy keeps telling you he’s intelligent, either he isn’t or he’s ridiculously insecure about something. A guy who is comfortable in his skin is not likely to care about what others think about him; he’s more interested in what they think. That’s the kind of guy whose decisions we are more likely to trust; that’s the kind of guy that can see the bigger picture and is less likely to be handicapped by problems with his ego. It’s hard to grow up – I’ve gotten fairly old and my ego still gets in the way. But it is a characteristic that I want in someone who is making the big decisions.

By the way, pride in academic accomplishments is not unreasonable – they are usually bought with considerable time, sacrifice, and work. Nonetheless, the people who are most likely to put Dr. on their checks, etc. (other than medical doctors) in my acquaintance have been those that got theirs from teacher’s colleges. (Perhaps I see what I want to see – but that has certainly been my impression.)

You seem to accept as a given that people like the standard bearers of the Democratic party lately are more intelligent than those of the Republicans. Intelligence isn’t all that quantifiable in an abstract form – and I actually do believe that IQ tests, College Boards, etc. show something, unlike many liberals who feel that differences reflect class and not intellectual skills. This is not a given that the rest of us on this blog are going to give you. But you toodle along as if we had. You find someone saying that people don’t like being condescended to and you assume that is because the person doing the condescending is intelligent. No, he’s a jackass.

This is not a new subject to this blog nor to human history. You might contemplate Robert E. Lee’s comment: “A true man of honor feels humbled himself, when he cannot help humbling others.” Or you might consider Benjamin Franklin (who was quote often the smartest guy in the room) observation about making an argument in a more subtle manner if achieving a good end was your aim rather than achieving a fleeting acclaim.

A refrain on this blog is Acton’s great observation: Power tends to corrupt and and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The average American is quite aware that the worst trait a leader can have is arrogance. Arrogance matched with insecurity is deadly. You will notice that that is returned to repeatedly in the comments above, but I’m not sure if you understand that it is the arrogance of the left, not its intelligence, that many of us don’t just despise but actually fear. And we should fear it. Franks is so sure that he knows more than the farmers out there – but he might pause for a moment and perhaps contemplate that those farmers have seen what farm collectivization, what government farming did in the twentieth century; it wasn’t exactly good for anyone, but most especially the farmers. There is a reason that my brother-in-law goes to the Ukraine every year to discuss agricultural methods and preach the no-till gospel. That is because their farming techniques are generations behind ours, not because their land isn’t rich or the people weren’t willing to work.