The Clue-Free President

Jesse at Pandagon links to this article in the NYTimes about the Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Bush yesterday. When I read it, the first thing that struck me was the nonchalant way this sentence appeared in the middle of the article:

White House officials say the idea should appeal to blacks because they have a shorter average life span than whites and end up putting more money into the retirement system than they take out.

The administration keeps saying this and I don't understand a world in which they don't have to worry that it will bother anyone. Tossing off the fact that a particular group of our citizens don't live as long as others should lead to all sorts of conversations, about poverty, health care, crime...and private Social Security accounts should not be on that list. I want every Democrat (and/or every person of conscience) who appears on television during this debate to quote that justification and point out how callous, cynical, and cruel the use of that statistic is..

Jesse was struck by this sentence:

Mr. Watt said Mr. Bush seemed surprised by some of the statistics he was given on how black Americans were lagging in income, employment and health insurance coverage.

and I was too, because it reminded me of this Molly Ivins column from 2003, which describes Bush perfectly.

In order to understand why George W. Bush doesn't get it, you have to take several strands of common Texas attitude, then add an impressive degree of class-based obliviousness. What you end up with is a guy who sees himself as a perfectly nice fellow -- and who is genuinely disconnected from the impact of his decisions on people.

...

The Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty, told the New York Times that shortly after his election, Bush had said to him, "I don't understand how poor people think," and had described himself as a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it, but I'd like to." What's annoying about Bush is when this obtuseness, the blinkeredness of his life, weighs so heavily on others, as it has increasingly as he has acquired more power.

There was a telling episode in 1999 when the Department of Agriculture came out with its annual statistics on hunger, showing that once again Texas was near the top. Texas is a perennial leader in hunger because we have 43 counties in South Texas (and some in East Texas) that are like Third World countries. If our border region were a state, it would be first in poverty, first in the percentage of schoolchildren living in poverty, first in the percentage of adults without a high school diploma, 51st in income per capita, and so on.

When the 1999 hunger stats were announced, Bush threw a tantrum. He thought it was some malign Clinton plot to make his state look bad because he was running for president. "I saw the report that children in Texas are going hungry. Where?" he demanded. "No children are going to go hungry in this state. You'd think the governor would have heard if there are pockets of hunger in Texas." You would, wouldn't you? That is the point at which ignorance becomes inexcusable. In five years, Bush had never spent time with people in the colonias, South Texas' shantytowns; he had never been to a session with Valley Interfaith, a consortium of border churches and schools and the best community organization in the state. There is no excuse for a governor to be unaware of this huge reality of Texas.

And there is no excuse for a President to be unaware of...well, everything. Bush's deliberate cluelessness is nothing less than criminal. The man took an oath, and every day that he blocks himself off from information about the citizens of his country (and the countries he's invaded), he breaks that promise.

•  Feedback?

  by opus on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:47:03 AM PDT

•  Good post.

  Good post. I remember reading that Ivin's column. She's right on. At times I don't actually believe Bush is the tootal asshole he appears to be. But then I have to realize that he chooses to be uninformed and insulated. Any efforts by him to be "compassionate" are hollow when placed in the context of the bubble he insists on being in.

  People liked to mock Clinton for "feeling your pain", but Bush gets off scot-free for never feeling any.

  by Mr Furious on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:57:36 AM PDT

•  Stand GOP rhetoric on its head.

  Blacks have shorter average life spans?

  OK, so they must consume less government resources over their lifetimes.

  Sounds like somebody deserves a tax cut, to me.

  by Kagro X on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:10:35 AM PDT

•  Last week...

  at a SS 'town hall' meeting, when Bush said, "that the idea should appeal to blacks because they have a shorter average life span than whites" the black man sitting next to Bush almost fell out of his chair.  The look on his face was incredible.  I think he was thinking much the same thing that Jon Stewart was when he made this point later that day:

  Shouldn't we instead be addressing the issue of WHY blacks have a shorter avg life span & thus work improving THAT?!?!

  can the SS issue in regards to the black community be framed more effectively using this argument?
  

  by billiammm on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:14:46 AM PDT

•  Sy Hersh,

  in his speach at Democracy Now, linked by Tom Kertes here, claims Bush actually believes in what he is doing and has no ability or desire to learn anything else.

  When you truely believe you are right, there is no motivation to learn anything different.  That is where his arrogance comes from.  He lives in a shell, demands to be be surrounded by like minded people and values loyalty over competency.

  Perfect anti-leader.  Perfect roadmap to disaster.  And Bush is using that map to guide the direction of the country.

  Go to the link above and listen to Hersh's speech.  Scary...and right on.

  by NYBri on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:16:26 AM PDT

•  This is way beyond 'Bushisms'

  The fact that Bush is so incredibly clueless about almost everything is something we've known (or at least strongly suspected) for a long time. I also go back and forth between believing he's a true moron and thinking no one could be that ill-informed and be president. I think that at the very least he has a personality disorder. When I read Sy Hersh's comments (linked in a post above) that Cheney and Rumsfeld are really the ones in charge that rang true for me. I think Bush would be able to be influenced and even controlled quite easily. Now that Dear Leader is becoming more comfortable with his absolute power, I think we will see more examples of his ignorance. Maybe 'His Ignorance' is a better way to refer to him.

  by Nag on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:35:31 AM PDT

•  job #1 with these guys

  is looting the planet. they are singleminded. they are focussed. you must excuse them if they don't know every sad story.
  bush apparently is unconcerned with the carnage in iraq as well.

  by rasbobbo on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:42:31 AM PDT

•  More Bushite lies

  Aside from the obvious race-card implications of this, is it even true? Why should we believe this of anything Bush says, even if it sounds plausible?

  It seems to me that any group that dies earlier than average would benefit more than average from the disability and survivor's benefits parts of Social Security.

  And higher infant and children's mortality rates for blacks (and also other poor people) would be factored into overal mortality rates for a racial group. But infants and children (and most of the young black males who die violently) have paid little or nothing into Social Security. So how are their survivors better off with private accounts?

  Hopefully, someone like Krugman will look into this.

  by devtob on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:04:56 AM PDT