A particularly interesting passage from The Times on Friday caught my eye. The article entitled "Still Special" referred to the special relationship between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, drawing heavily on the words of its principle architect, Winston Churchill.
Of particular poignancy is the last paragraph, from which I shall quote:
"Mr Bush spoke of the right of his opponents to protest against him when he reaches British soil, indeed he seems to regard abuse on the streets as an occupational hazard. But the president is entitled to a fairer hearing than he has received and to be treated as a politician on his merits rather than be caricatured as a cartoon figure. Those who are so contemptuous of a nation which has so clearly been a force for good in the modern world need to contemplate, even if only for a moment, the possible alternatives. this trip should be thought of as part of a continuing and extraordinary bond between peoples. Presidents, prime ministers and political controversies will come and go. The special relationship, as Churchill hoped, should be more enduring"
The key phrase amongst that remarkably insightful passage refers to the constant fall-back position of the anti-bush activist of referring to the man in terms of a bumbling idiot. An imbecilic cowboy who's profile has been constantly distorted by the press and media. There is nothing wrong per-se with cartooning and caricature. There is however something wrong with assuming that they provide anything more than an exaggeration of that person. One of the most criminal aspects of the most anti-Bush lampoon is that it depicts him and those people working in his administration as simpletons and regrettably a lot of remarkably stupid people, upon presentation of such an image come to one devastatingly idiotic conclusion:
"I am more intelligent than that administration"
I am certainly not going to claim that Mr. Bush is mensa material. I don't think he has the intellectual prowess of Churchill or Roosevelt, but the man is certainly not an idiot.
There is a book I bought upon President Bush's inauguration. It was entitled "The Bush Dyslexicon" and on the cover was a picture of Mr George W Bush with a cartoon speech bubble emanating from his mouth. Inside that bubble was written "They Misunderestimated Me", one of his more famous aural screw-ups but also a particularly telling one. People did both Misunderstand and Underestimate George W Bush. Precisely because people thought he was such a prize fool, a village idiot, a halfwit they presumed that he was not a political force and ultimately he won the presidential election. Admittedly one could debate the legitimacy of that 2001 result all day however his party later cleaned up at the national elections in the states.
I remember reading a great article in The Onion which made me laugh but, like many Onion articles had a point. It was about Laurence Pettibone getting angry at people who criticized the rebuilding effort in Iraq with a "well why don't you do it then" attitude. This paragraph was found towards the end and hints on the same principle I'm trying to establish:
"Those working on the reconstruction effort are not just a bunch of idiots," Pettibone said. "Many have studied Mideast policy for decades. They have extensive experience serving under past presidents. What have you done? You read an article in U.S. News & World Report !"
By insinuating that President Bush is some sort of intellectual bantam-weight a lot of people have fallen into the age old mind-trap of thinking: "He's stupid.. I think I'm intelligent, therefore I must know more about him on this issue".
I have been honestly told by immensely, truly magnificently stupid people that George Bush is "thick" and by further application of logic that they know better than him.
See, mate. When you have 3 GCSE's to your name you don't presume to know more than the collective intelligence of a Whitehouse Administration nor a man who is fundamentally no political fool.
A lot of people who will be out there, lining the streets of London ought to take a look at what they plan to say in their protests against the President's trip here. More importantly, who is it they are going to protest against?
George W Bush? Or his cartoon caricature, riding on his steed (undoubtedly facing the wrong direction) with Tony Blair trotting alongside in the form of a poodle.
Those who answered the 2nd option need to recognize that they are, as Jack Straw so succinctly put it, "basing their argument on a parody" and as he also noted: a calculation with flawed variables will always reach a flawed conclusion.
Posted by John Swaine at November 15, 2003 05:02 AM