George W. Bush a genius?

[Bogart]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/watson.policy/index.html


Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or an independent, it is hard not to look at President Bush's re-election victory last week and conclude that he is probably one of the three or four most talented politicians of the last half of a century.

Why do I write that? Think about it. In 10 short years, George Walker Bush has won not just one but three high-profile political races that most able politicians would have lost.

In 1994, with no real previous political experience, he beat a popular incumbent governor in the nation's second most populous state. Six years later, he beat a sitting vice president during a time of peace and prosperity. And last week, with a mediocre economy, an unpopular war and a well-funded and unified opposition, he not only won his race but also helped increase Republican majorities in the House and Senate.


[Ed: Quote from CNN trimmed to be within fair use guidelines.]

An interesting take on the election.  I'm not sure it qualifies Bush as a political genius. I've never really thought of him as such, but rather an astute and effective politician.

Regarding his second term and what it portends, I did, and still do, have reservations. He is too beholden to the religious right--he is one of them after all. I can only hope that the Democrats are strong enough to act as a mitigating force on policy and do not simply become relegated to interfering for its own sake.

[Angel of Death]

You forgot your source:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/watson.policy/index.html

[opebo]

Well, either he's really just a Religious Right robot, or he's faking it to get power. The former is brainless, the latter genius, assuming he doesn't mind destroying the country on the alter of his own ambition.

[angus]

nah, genius is an overused word these days.

he's quite an astute politician who obviously learned from his father's mistakes.  will he learn from his own? 

in any case, he's generally 'misunderestimated' and that has served him to great advantage. 

[Erc]

The politician that I most like to compare Bush to is Napoleon III.

Again, Napoleon III gets his start in politics because of his family (in this case, his uncle)--although probably more so than Dubya, in fact.  Without Napoleon, Napoleon III wouldn't have had a chance, as most people voted for him in the 1848 elections because they remembered the good days of Napoleon in comparison to all the instability of the current days (both eventually did run on a platform of basic security).  George Bush actually ran on his own merits with a solid campaign, while Napoleon III ran unabashedly on his name alone (somehow pulling off flip-flopping worse than Kerry's)--and of course it's not like people had the best memories of Bush I.

Like Bush, Napoleon wasn't the best orator and was constantly 'misunderestimated.'  After his election to the National Assembly he gave a speech before it that was nigh-on the quality of Guiteau's campaign speeches--they said his political career was finished after that, but it wasn't to be.  In fact, it was this very seeming stupidity which allowed him to get far in politics; the royalists, unable to sort out their own differences and pick a candidate of their own, threw their massive political weight behind him, figuring they could control him.  Similarly, Bush did so well in the 2000 debates precisely because everyone thought he was stupid.

Of course, in the end, Napoleon outwitted them all and took power himself at the end of his term...

...but don't count on a 2e Brumaire of George W. Bush.

[Bogart]

You forgot your source:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/watson.policy/index.html

Yes I did. Thanks.

[Bogart]

Well, either he's really just a Religious Right robot, or he's faking it to get power. The former is brainless, the latter genius, assuming he doesn't mind destroying the country on the alter of his own ambition.

I wouldn't consider him a robot. I believe he honestly relates to many of the values held by the religious right. It is difficult to understand this unless you're "on the inside."  I have a certain wing of my family that I would consider "religious right." They are good people and mean well. I simply disagree with them on many social issues. I think you're being a tad dramatic when you say it is "destroying the country."

[J. J.]

Nicolo Machiavelli wrote in The Prince:

There are three different kinds of brians, one that understands things unassisted, the other understands things when shown by others, the third understands neither alone or with the explanations of others.  The first kind is most excellent, the second kind excellent, but the third useless.

Bush is of the second type.  He has the wisdom to surround himself with good advisors.  He knows where he wants to go, but lets others shape the details.  If read that he oftens asks basic or seemingly "stupid" questions to force his advisors to begin at the basics and justify their policy.

The problem is when someone thinks they are the first type.  The knowledge base since the early 16th Century has increased and nobody can master everything.  Carter, Dukakis, Kerry, and Clinton, during the first two years at least, never understood that.  Bush does; he basically understands that being the most powerful single person on the planet does not grant you omniscience.

[Јas]

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental--men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken, writing in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.

[opebo]

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental--men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken, writing in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.

If only he could be alive to see the day!

[Democratic Hawk]

When I think of George W Bush, the word 'genius' doesn't exactly spring to mind!

Dave

[J. J.]

I bet that I could defeat George W. Bush at Trivial Pursuit.  I don't vote for presidents on their ability to play Trivial Pursuit. 

Bush understands his limitations.  Kerry, et al., never did.

[Beet]

I bet that I could defeat George W. Bush at Trivial Pursuit.  I don't vote for presidents on their ability to play Trivial Pursuit. 

Bush understands his limitations.  Kerry, et al., never did.

There is no question. Genius is there. Whether it resides in the head of George W. Bush or not, or whether it resides solely in the head of Karl Rove, or whether it resides in the heads of an unseen cadre of advisors, or whether it resides in a a network of conservative strategists, politicians, and media, or whether political passion itself creates political genius, there is genius somewherebehind this president. The only question is where it is emanating from.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental--men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken, writing in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.

Elitist nonsense.

[Bugs]

I don't consider Bush a genius or a robot.  And I don't deny that he got where he is with a fair amount of assistance from his influential family.  He had help getting to where he could run for president, but he's president because he knows how to campaign, and he was reelected because he did a convincing job as a first term president.  Many other people born to privelege didn't get as far.  If you don't take advantage of your opportunities....

[Silent Hunter]

Bush may or may not be a genius, but Karl Rove certainly is.

[opebo]

Bush may or may not be a genius, but Karl Rove certainly is.

What Rove did, and has always done, is hardly genious - its just pessimism.  Which of course is the most accurate attitude - assuming the worst about the electorate is the best way to win.