Speaking of stupidity, the ultimate renewable resource

Remember when stupidity was something to be ashamed of rather than a point of pride?

Posted by JMG (Guest Contributor) at 3:30 PM on 28 Jun 2007

Read more about: politics | elections | Bill Richardson

The saying goes that during one of his bids for the White House, a woman told Adlai Stevenson "Not to worry, Senator, all thinking people are with you," to which he replied: "But I need a majority!"

Not only was Stevenson smart and quick-witted enough to make that story plausible, it suggests that the smartest candidates have always had to do a little bit of hiding their lights under a bushel.

But now we live in what Vonnegut called the ultimate scary reality show: C-Students from Yale. The blog called The Daily Howler does a superb job, day in and day out, showing how the press has gone from chronicling our decline into demanding it, as the so-called liberal media positively makes intelligence into a disqualifying trait for leadership.

The relevance here is this: managing our multiple serious environmental challenges in the context of a world with diminishing resource availability and rising population (and poverty) is going to require the sustained application of intelligence of the first order. But rather than consider the intelligence of Bill Richardson a possible asset for a president, Dana Milbank speaks of the burden of having to listen to an erudite speaker drone on. Far more refreshing and relaxing to listen to the malapropisms that come tumbling out of Bush's mouth, perfectly reflecting the dysfunction and chaos behind his dull eyes.

From today's Howler:

MILBANK BOLLIXED AGAIN: Once again, Dana Milbank ran into too many big words when he watched a Big Dem give a speech. White House hopeful Bill Richardson was giving the speech -- with subsequent Q-and-A's, no less! -- and poor Milbank found himself stuck in the audience:
"MILBANK (6/28/07): Leading a detailed, hour-long discussion about Iran in which words such as "fissionable" and "Abrahamic dialogue" were invoked, Richardson demonstrated why he is running a distant fifth for the Democratic presidential nomination, and why, in a CNN poll released this week, 54 percent of respondents had either never heard of him or had no opinion of him.

Poor Milbank! The discussion in question had lasted an hour, and several large words had been said! Later in his confessional "sketch," Milbank helps us see how brutal it was. The speech "occupied nine single-spaced pages and had the warning `3,325 words' at the top of the text," he explains. He details the brutality:

MILBANK: When an attempt at a joke fell flat, the candidate added: "That's supposed to be funny." He could be heard to utter phrases such as "I revert back to the Nunn-Lugar initiatives, which have been underfunded," and "the IAEA naturally has the lead on nuclear issues," and "there are at least six major reasons why Iran is strategically significant." When he finally uttered the words "in conclusion," Richardson chuckled, perhaps realizing the challenge he had presented to his listeners.

Imagine being asked to sit through such statements as "the IAEA naturally has the lead on nuclear issues!" And imagine how it feels to be told that there are six reasons for something!

For years, the Post has reveled in its growing know-nothing culture, with various pundits rushing to complain about the long speeches they're forced to endure -- speeches which may contain long words and statements of stunning complexity. In August 2000, David Broder said he almost fell asleep during Gore's convention speech -- a speech which plainly rocked the election, sending Gore soaring in the polls. In recent years, Broder has continued to grouse when Hillary Clinton makes him listen to detailed discussions, and Milbank recently embarrassed himself with the utterly ludicrous "Washington Sketch" about all the big, long words Gore used when he discussed his new book. The sheer stupidity of such presentations doesn't faze these toasted Posties, who express the type of Versailles culture often found among powdered elites.

For story: Speaking of stupidity, the ultimate renewable resource
7 Comments | Post a Comment

Nothing Changes

The people, especially the cross-section I encounter on this media

>> positively makes intelligence into a disqualifying trait for >>>>>

rational discussion.

It seems the masses are not amused if their rock is overturned.

Typical human trait.... wonder where the saying

"shoot the messenger" came from.

Nothing changes on this Earth, except existence.

by JohnCaley at 4:02 PM on 28 Jun 2007

Micro-Layer

>> Far from harming marine life, George says, the plans of iron enrichment will actually revitalize phytoplankton, whose numbers have been steadily dropping over the last couple decades, as was reported in a Dec. 7 paper in the journal Nature.

"The plant life in the ocean is collapsing at a rate of 1 percent per year," the same amount of decline as is seen in terrestrial rainforests, George said.

But the total amount of decline in phytoplankton biomass is equivalent to the disappearance of all the rainforests on Earth, George said, and which he describes as "an absolute cataclysmic state of collapse." >>

Ever wonder why the CO2 levels are rising ?

Wonder why the marine micro-layer biosphere has collapsed ?

by JohnCaley at 3:04 AM on 29 Jun 2007

Incorrect Posting

Sorry wrong thread, technical problems

by JohnCaley at 3:05 AM on 29 Jun 2007

Impeach cheney!!

Great simple slogan for july 4th parading. Even simple bush voting chimpletons can understand that.

Another good one. NEXT TIME, VOTE HUMAN! NO MORE CHIMPS AS PREZ!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 5:58 AM on 29 Jun 2007

We Don't Elect Wonks

If you want to sit in a office and research policy then do so -- just don't expect us to elect you.

Those who get in, bring us to the mountaintop.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 8:12 AM on 29 Jun 2007

the Stevenson dilemma

This is a good post and an important observation, JMG.

There are a few things going on here. It is certainly a truth of long standing in American political culture that many members of the electorate resent any sign of elitism in politicians, and one form of disliked elitism is great advancement in education. As I observed a while ago in some other, long forgotten Gristmill thread, the presidents of Mexico for the last few decades have all had Ph.D.s (from US universities, in economics or engineering mostly), but the only US president to have a Ph.D. by his own academic efforts was Woodrow Wilson.

And presumably there is an element of masculinism, not to say machismo (which might have come to the fore in Mexico, actually, if their own politics were not so prickly, so to speak), whereby American voters, especially many men, mistrust other men who are too clever with their tongues and brains, but seem unable to express themselves with fisticuffs, or guns, or high-tech missile guidance systems. Hence, in a presidential debate back in 1988, when Michael Dukakis gave a self-controlled, thoughtful, reasoned response to CNN's Bernard Shaw's question, "What would you do if your wife were raped?," that did not help him one little bit.

And in that connexion, Shaw and the "toasted Posties" seem to represent fairly well the press corps and the punditocracy, who cover campaigns as horse races, and emphasize how much better they understand the electorate than do the candidates, and how very well qualified they are to be drama critics, or beauty-contest judges, as it were, whenever the candidates step in front of a camera.

On the other hand, while I like Bill Richardson a great deal, and hope everyone gets an opportunity to hear him say what he has to say, let us not assume that going on for an hour is a sign of intellect and profundity. He plainly realizes that he needs as much free exposure as he can get, at this point, seeing that he has not broken out of the "second tier."

But in fact, in the paper-reading meetings of scholars in classical, biblical and religious literature in which I have participated, individual papers are not supposed to go on longer than 20 minutes -- and even that can be deadly.

In school, meanwhile, a class meeting lasting an hour or so is doable, but it involves a bit of self-discipline on everyone's part, and a good instructor knows it is part of the job to keep the energy level up. In classes lasting 90 minutes or more, it is definitely helpful to try to fit in a brief break at around 55 or 60 minutes in.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 8:30 AM on 29 Jun 2007

stupid consumers = stupid media

Dana Milbank speaks of the burden of having to listen to an erudite speaker drone on. Far more refreshing and relaxing to listen to the malapropisms that come tumbling out of Bush's mouth, perfectly reflecting the dysfunction and chaos behind his dull eyes.

This gets at an issue that is, to me, one of the most difficult conundrums of a free society.

We have a free (as in speech) press. But there is no such thing as a free (as in beer) press. So the media is run by corporations, and they want to make a profit, and they do this by providing goods that the market will pay for. In this case, the good is information, but the most profitable information is not the most useful information. People will pay to be entertained, and will pay for perspectives that reinforce their existing beliefs. The media conglomerates respond to this.

I have no doubt that there is a degree of corporate agenda-setting that influences the media. But at the end of the day, if the media companies are providing what the consumer wants, they prosper; if they don't, they fail. The problem is, what the media consumer wants, and what they need (in order to be effective citizens of a democracy) are not the same thing.

I really don't see any good resolution to this, other than to have a educated, engaged citizenry (and wouldn't that be nice; I'd like a personal immortality too, while we're dreaming). But as long as we have a market that demands pandering, drivel, and stupidity, that's what we'll get, and no amount of regulation, anti-trust action, or other forms of regulatory or legislative tinkering will change that fundamental reality.

by GreenEngineer at 9:56 AM on 29 Jun 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.