I often find myself wondering, in idle moments: is George Bush really stupid? Or really, really, smart?
Or neither?
Most of the time I end up coming down on the side of "really stupid" -- as well as short-sighted, criminally incompetent, and egoistic to a fault, in other words well-deserving of the historic honorific "Worst President Ever".
This line of reasoning has often, over time, lead me back and back again to a question which I think is of the utmost importance to anyone who wishes to reverse the current ills of this country and reclaim a freer, more prosperous nation:
Who is really pulling the strings in this administration?
Jump with me...
Just how smart is the leader of the free world, really?
If one wants to go after SAT scores (George's is 1206) and IQ, there are a number of sources that purport to answer that question (usually through extrapolating IQ from SAT scores).
To wit: Presidential IQ, SQ and Self-skills, a site which also cites historians as putting JFK's IQ at 117 or 119, and puts George's at 124 (again, using the SAT conversion). Al Gore's IQ, as a matter of public record, is 134.
Ultimately, though, tests are a poor metric with which to assess the capabilities of leadership, especially a leadership role that is as complex and challenged by competing interests as the U.S. Presidency.
There are much more important characteristics to consider in measuring a man's fitness for this role, I think, including his social skills, beliefs, emotional makeup and stability, self-confidence, courage, life experience, drive and motivations, and values.
I think most people understand that ultimately, the complex interactions between this constellation of characteristics is much more information-rich and predictive than an arbitrary numerical scale. To be a good politician, one must be good at storytelling: at selling the public an image that they want to believe in.
Good politicians, I think, share a lot in common with the best cult leaders: their electability results in large part from their ability to use vague and simple language that suggests and promises without revealing or explicating; paint pictures and engage the imaginations of the people; and set up us-versus-them dynamics.
In reflecting on this, I have often over the past 6 years wondered if George Bush's "bumbling Teaxs cowboy" persona was nothing more than an elaborate shtick, a brilliant ruse designed to dupe the American people into trusting him; after all, one of the cardinal Laws of Power is to "appear dumber than your mark" (at least according to Robert Greene).
But I have always, after a moment's consideration, rejected the idea of Bush-As-Disguised-Mastermind; it just seems too improbable, and besides, the actions of Mr. Bush don't seem to me to be the actions of a brilliant strategist, calmly maneuvering chess pieces with calculated precision; rather, his down-home country exterior seems to hide a petulant man-child who just wants things HIS way, dammit, and damn the consequences.
Of course from a political standpoint it is Karl Rove (who has strategized and schemed on behalf of G.W. for so many years he is practically a fixture in the Bush family dynasty) who is readily identified as "the brains" behind the operation, to the extent he was the subject of the book and documentary Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential. But I seriously doubt Rove has the political moxie or grandeur of ideology necessary to cause the kinds of changes we have seen in our country over the past 6 years.
The best description of Mr. Bush I have run across thus far comes from retired Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, a former Pentagon staff member who, in this revealing interview, who made the following apt comparison:
Bush doesn't seem to be much of an organization man. He seems more like the Paris Hilton of politics. He goes to the parties, he shows up, he has a good time, but doesn't take anything too seriously.
I would really love to make some sort of witty sex-scandal crack here, but this comparison is just too dead-on to be anything but disheartening.
Power Behind the Throne
So, if the current POTUS is neither a particularly low-watt bulb nor a calculating cold fish (as was Nixon), but rather just an overgrown, short-sighted and impetuous fratboy given to terminal ineptitude, who is really in charge of advancing the horrendous foreign policy and domestic economic disaster we find ourselves in the midst of?
Some say Cheney; and "some" would seem to be right. Again, I've seen no better words on the issue than from Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, in the same interview as referenced above:
SWANSON: Who's running this show, Bush or Cheney or a group?
KWIATKOWSKI: I suspect it is Cheney, and Cheney's network of like-minded, old Cold Warriors struggling for money, power and relevance in a post-Cold War age. Hence the war on terror, hence the demonization of Russia, Iran and China by members of the Cheney clique. Cheney and those who share his worldview in Washington are dinosaurs, but they have big teeth, big appetites, and they aren't dead yet...Cheney seems to take world domination seriously, and he has a lot of friendly, and fearful, folks on board.
I think her hunch is right. But she also lets slip another very interesting tidbit, buried in the midst of all that:
Apparently, Cheney is also personally feared by many Republicans and Democrats alike. I don't know why. Are they afraid he'll curse at them and call them names?
I'm going to overlook the obvious joke that they may be fearful that he'll shoot them in the face and try to go with a more complex rationale.
We know fear is a powerful method of ruling. But why would Republicans and Democrats alike fear Cheney?
The only possibilities I can come up with off the top of my head:
(1) He holds some powerful "leverage" over them, including perhaps:
- Some dirty laundry that could be aired
- Some sort of unspecified threat to their job security
(2) They know that Cheney is the real power in the Administration, and fear him for the additional powers he's claimed.
Apart from these two extremely general possibilities, I can't stretch my mind around the question of why one old Cold Warrior -- even one yielding a good amount of political clout -- would be so fearsome as to cause Congressional leadership to shrink away from its very duty of upholding and defending the will of the people, and induce them instead into seriously shirking their oversight duties.
Unless there's something else, some other factor at work here...something I'm not seeing.
Help me out here, good Kossacks: who holds the keys to power, and how are they able to wield this power so effectively?