The other day someone asked me for my professional opinion of the job George Bush has done so far. By profession, I am a teacher. In the context of the question, I took "so far" to mean the time beginning with Kyoto, continuing through the WMD fiasco and going up to hurricane Katrina blunder and the CIA leak.
Here's my professional opinion: George Bush's performance as president is exactly what I would expect from a `C' student. In 43 years of teaching I have seen a lot of students. Some were `A' students; some were `F' students. Most of them were `C' students. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a `C' student; most of us are, in some areas.
For example, think of a course you aced. It was probably something you liked and wanted to know more about. You thought about it a lot, and it excited you. You might even have asked other people for information. You thought outside the box. You cared enough to study hard, and you got an A+. You deserved it.
Now think of a course in which you pulled a `C'. I know what that was like, and so do you. I'd put off studying it as long as I could. It was the last book I'd crack before calling it quits for the night. I didn't think about it much outside of class. I just wasn't all that interested in it, and it wasn't my major, so it wasn't really all that important anyway. That's when I deserved and got a `C'.
George Bush fits the `C' student profile. He is not a curious person, not particularly quick or insightful. He's not a thoughtful person. He expresses himself poorly and makes a public show of his distain for manners and politeness and even for intellectual excellence. He is frequently unaware of the effect his words are having on others. These are all characteristics of the typical `C' student. His blunders, the self-defeating choices he has made, the countless Bushisms that you can easily find on the web, all of these are what may be expected of a `C' student, one who is out of his depth, in over his head, one who has been promoted to his level of incompetence. And so, as a president he is, as he has proudly described himself, a `C' student, and his work shows it.
But that is not the worst of it. What I find extremely disturbing is that the conservative half of the country thought this `C' student thing was a really hot selling point for their candidate. They thought it was a good thing to have a `C' student for president and they played that up as a big part of his image during the 2000 campaign. George Bush was proud of his lack of excellence and said so in a commencement speech. His conservative base thought this was a good thing too, and so did a lot of my fellow Amrrrk'ns.
Here's the saddest part of all. George Bush's `C' mentality is a reflection of the mentality of the people who put him in office with their support, their money and their votes. It's easy to forget that just because you have a democracy, that doesn't mean it's automatically a good one. The quality of a democratic society is determined by the quality of the electorate. If you have a poorly educated, misinformed electorate with the taste and vision of a `C' student, then you will have a `C' democracy.
George Bush's presidency is now a matter of historical record. He described himself just fine. He's a gut-player. Unfortunately he is playing with sophisticated, highly educated and incredibly subtle foreign diplomats and heads of state, all of whom speaking three languages better than he speaks one. What a tragedy it has become, that half of the American electorate gave the country a `C' student to represent the United States in this very complicated and dangerous international community of nations.
We have a `C' student in the White House, seeking to guide us through these troubled times of our own making. It's no wonder things are going horribly wrong. That's just the kind of job you'd expect from a `C' student. And haven't we all been `C' students at one time or another? Don't we all know what it's like? You bet we do. That's why I still can't believe that half the country would want to elevate one to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world.
I would think that a reasonably smart electorate would want someone much smarter than themselves to sit in the oval office. They would want someone with better credentials than they themselves have, a better resume, more experience, a quicker or deeper mind. But no, we have a majority of the electorate who value mediocrity over excellence. That's the saddest part of all. But then, maybe that's what you should expect from a `C' democracy.
Daddeeo