| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Can you believe this?
The S factor explains Bush’s popularity
By Neal Starkman...What can explain [Bush’s] popularity? Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they’ve been impressed with the president’s personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America?
Is that likely?
Granted, there are certain subsections of the American polity that have substantially benefited from this presidency. Millionaires and charismatic Christians have accrued either material or spiritual fortification from Bush’s administration. But surely these two groups are a small minority of the population. What, then, can account for so many people being so supportive of the president?
The answer, I’m afraid, is the factor that dare not speak its name. It’s the factor that no one talks about. The pollsters don’t ask it, the media don’t report it, the voters don’t discuss it.
I, however, will blare out its name so that at last people can address the issue and perhaps adopt strategies to overcome it.
It’s the “Stupid factor,” the S factor: Some people—sometimes through no fault of their own—are just not very bright.
It’s not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren’t the people I’m referring to. The people I’m referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They’re perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don’t have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all—far above all—they don’t think.
The nerve of this guy, calling people names, like a schoolkid.
Well, let’s pretend to take him seriously for a minute, for the purposes of discussion.
First of all, oddly enough, in the first paragraph quoted above, he admirably summarizes Bush’s great achievements.
Second, Starkman (although he doesn’t appear to realize it) is rejecting Democracy, which is of course, majority rule via vote, and just happens to be the basis of our political system.
Since he implicity rejects Democracy, what does he want to replace it with? Let’s see—if not Democracy, what other political systems are there? Presumably he wants a dictatorship of the people he considers to be smart!
Update: Don’t miss Iowahawk’s hilarious parody of this article.
#1
#2Mark, thanks for this great comment.
Dear Vik,
I have to disagree with you. Mr. Starkman is correct, there are a lot of stupid Americans out there. That's why you should pray to whatever you hold dear that the US has an electoral college. Several cases in point; A lot of people in this country actually admire Al Sharpton, in spite of the Tywana case. Some people actually gave him money to run for the Democratic nomination for President! No two ways around it, that's pretty stupid. Some people actually believe Dan Rather when he says, "well, the documents are fake, but the message is "accurate". Now that belief is pretty stupid. Some people actually believe Sandy Berger didn't realize that stuffing National Archive classified documents down his pants and taking them home just might be illegal. Hmmm, that sounds pretty stupid. Some people believe Bill Clinton when he said receiving fellatio in the Oval Office was not sex. Again, that seems pretty stupid. Some people actually believed Jimmy Carter when he came back from North Korea in 1994 and told us he made a deal with them not to make nuclear weapons. Now, that's REALLLLY stupid.
So you see, Starkman is correct, he is just pointing his finger in the wrong direction.
Sincerely,
Wm. Mark Cosby
Raleigh, NC 27615