Home > Is Bush a Reflection of American Stupidity or an Anomaly?
Is Bush a Reflection of American Stupidity or an Anomaly?
by Open-Publishing - Tuesday 22 August 20067 comments
Their life is so practical, so confused, so excited, so active, that little time remains for them for thought.
Alexis deTocqueville - "Democracy in America" 1835
Much has changed since deTocqueville, a French aristocrat visiting America for the purpose of finding solutions to the penitentiary problems in France, toured America. At least on the surface. New ethnic groups. The suburbs. The Digital Revolution. Paperless money. Super highways. Super markets. Super sized food. And artificially super sized bodies.
Yet, despite these changes and all the diversity they’ve caused, the foundation of the American character that was so firmly developed by 1835 has remained in place 171 years later. If you haven’t yet read "Democracy in America" (the unexpurgated version) please, do so, for there you will see today’s America. There you’ll find the conditions that bred a culture supportive of dumbed-down politicians and ideas. There you’ll see a foreigner’s diplomatically guarded disgust for people who shunned profundity as if it were a disease. In a nutshell you’ll see - the Tyranny of the Majority, a phenomenon that provided a platform to Bush and the Neocons.
"I know of no country in which there is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America," he noted. And what’s the modern variation of this? Campaign slogans substituting for critical thinking. Thirty-second ads that encapsulate entire platforms. Debates that superficially cover polarized issues. A mass media aiming for the common denominator and the Almighty Dollar.
Sure, there are blog sites like this where intelligent people gather, but for the most part these efforts represent the lost voices of the minority - a choir continuously preaching to itself while, unfortunately, yet invariably, the idiocy of the majority perpetually rules the fate of all.
The fix is in, and it’s not those alleged Twin Towers bombers, or the Masons, or the Illuminati, or the Jews, or whatever other bogeymen you’ve got. The most formidable enemy of all is mass stupidity, which is especially tragic in a land of "well" educated people who should know better. Who should care more about their collective welfare and the values ruling it.
Even if Bush and his team finagled two elections, they were close enough so that only a minimum amount of finagling was required. How was that possible? How could so many people vote for such an incompetent, bluntly ignorant person for president of the most powerful nation in the world? Is that Bush’s fault? Or the American people?
"In the principle of equality I discern two tendencies: the one leading the mind of every man to untried thought; the other prohibiting him from thinking at all," deTocqueville wrote. It’s now indisputable; the riddle can be solved. America chose the latter. Oh, for a while there, when America was generating a fair share of originality - Copland, Gershwin, Satchmo, Tennessee Williams, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Miles Davis, Jackson Pollack - it appeared that this was going to be the land of untried thoughts. But not long after the Chrysler building came the cookie cutter skyscrapers. Not long after Miles came hip-hop sampling that respun old rock as if old rock needed to be revitalized.
Now Broadway’s a shadow of its former self. Cinema is geared almost exclusively for commerce. Literature has run out of vitality. Journalism is woefully short of verity. Politics is a circus of bankrupt values. And all over the landscape - from coast to coast, from Canada to Mexico and within the borders of Canada and Mexico - you hear that grinding monstrous soundtrack, rumbling along the Earth like a prehistoric creature, blaring out of Hummers and SUVs and midsize cars, grotesquely overemphasizing the bass range so that the bolts are incrementally spinning loose, accentuating hip-hop rage and indignation. It’s the music of thoughtlessness. It’s the product of cyclical corporations packaging rebelliousness for $12.99, as if it’s gonna make a dif, hear what I’m sayin’? It’s elementally Untried Thought writ large. It’s the concerto of tragedy - the requiem for a lightweight. A country running on empty fooling itself that its stupid little toys are true rewards.
For deTocqueville, the prevailing appetite for equality was going to be the chief influence on America. At first, it sound like an aristocrat whimpering because he’s lost his status. But his observations have become true; equality has been the great leveler. What was lost via the grand embrace of equality was the culture of excellence - the highest level of art, music, literature, respect for the classics, etc.- that was cultivated by the elite. America’s common individual, who wanted to feel equal to the highest rank, lowered the highest rank in order to do so. Hence, the "um, ah, my fellow Americans I’m just a regular guy like you" persona of Reagan, the "aw shucks" approach of Bill Clinton, until, it finally spirals down into the unmitigated idiocy of GW Bush.
John Edwards talked about "Two Americas - rich and poor." A more apt characterization would be "Two Americas - stupid and smart." It’s a strategy the Republicans have played quite well: Put the bumbling puppet out front - GW - and rule the country according to Neocon ideology. Keep Wolfowitz behind the curtain and drag out Rumsfeld, only half an intellectual. If America had critical thinking skills it wouldn’t focus on Bush bashing, but instead would deal directly with the ideas and values ruling this country. But, unfortunately, that kind of thinking is too unattractive.
"I think in no country in the civilized world is less attention paid to philosophy than in the United sates," deTocqueville claimed. So is it any wonder Americans never really understood that Communism would fail because it was based on utopian ideology that could never be made real? Is it any wonder that many American still can’t discern that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11? Or what the difference between Sunni and Shia is?
So, indeed, if the Illuminati or the Templars or the Jews are ruining the world through a sinister cabal, then they’re doing so because most common individuals have little interest in understanding profoundly the ideas and values ruling their world. So who’s fault is it then? If, on the other hand, it’s a matter of a few hundred utopian Neocons running the world, the same is true. In all fairness, they’ve compiled a literature. They’ve made their ideas clear. But, sadly, Americans are more interested in following the fate of a few moderately talented singers on American Idol than they are in discovering and discussing the ideas ruling this world.
Forum posts
23 August 2006, 05:50
thank you
23 August 2006, 09:40
Clueless in America.
23 August 2006, 22:11
It’s a good post, but the author should reveal his name.
Maybe it’s affluence that is creating the intellectual laziness described in the post.
The problem of Communism was aptly described, but what about capitalism? The idea of capitalism is "getting ahead" of others. That’s the carrot offered by those in control. We think we are egalitarians in America, but what we are really trying to do is show up those around us and rise to our "potential."
That is an illusion. Money and long-established power rule by dangling this carrot that we so foolishly grasp after. They will decide which of us get the carrot.
We need to think for ourselves as the poster suggests. That way we will be less manipulable. Maybe 50-some million won’t vote for another Dubya that way.
C. Hallmark
24 August 2006, 08:55
Appreciate the kind words. I understand the sentiment regarding the use of my name, but the validity of the message is neither strengthened nor weakened by its presence. And since it wouldn’t add any credibility, I choose anonymity with all due respect.
Your response addresses an issue that was left out for the sake of brevity - capitalism. Of course, not schooled in the ways of Adam Smith, deTocqueville didn’t analyze capitalism per se. But, about America, he noted, "I know of no country indeed where the love of money has taken a stronger hold on the affections of men..." But is the cause for that phenomenon capitalism?
Too often capitalism is treated as a monolithic system, e.g., Marx, that supposedly operates in the same ways no matter where it’s practiced. Max Weber’s highly recommended "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" illustrates how diverse it’s been over the centuries. He insisted, "Unlimited greed for gain is not in the least identical with capitalism, and is still less its spirit." Maybe that’s a stretch, but it wouldn’t take long to cite the greedy constituents within non-capitalist societies or factions, ranging from pirates to the Ming dynasty, from Nigeria to Red China, who have demonstrated the same sense of pigishness as the most notorious capitalists such as J.P. Morgan and Carnegie.
For Weber, it was the prevailing ethos, in his case, Calvinism via predestination, that encouraged capital formation and desires for wealth. Accordingly, Protestantism legitmized the accumulation of wealth as a sign that God had approved of one’s existence. When society was moderated by religious restraint, behavior tended to be more Victorian, i.e., the wealthy weren’t blantant with their luxuries. As the noveau ruche grew, however, all bets were off. Then you have Thorstein Veblen’s "conspicuous consumption" and "pecuniary emulation" as standard models of behavior.
At that point the unreflective nature of deTocqueville’s America combined with Jazz Age frivolity, brilliantly accentuated in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s work, resulting in a rather shallow culture. There were still meaningful efforts in art, literature, etc., but, arguably, they had their roots in the European thinking - the residue of the Enlightenment - that was still part of the overall educational system. But now that’s been gutted for the masses. What’s left, mainly, is the quest for bling.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this if John Adams had his way. He wrote, "I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy." Somewhere along the line, the pracrtice of philosophy was abandoned execpt for a few privileged individuals pursuing it. Exhaustive searches of philanthropic organizations turn up few opportunities to further the art of philosophy. Grants for projects, pay for essays, Internet sites established to cultivate philosophy that are updated within the past two years are extremely rare. And cultivating philosophy as a public practice, such as they do throughout Europe, and even to some extent, Iran, seems to be of no interest even to "philosophers" like George Soros.
Capitalism alone didn’t strip the meaning out of this culture. Britain, France and Germany - all capitalist countries - are far more involved in critical thinking, worldly affairs, and common philosophical debates than is America. No, it’s sad to say, but there’s no convenient scapegoat here. It is the American trait of thoughtlessness - the abandonment of thinking - the pecularities of geography, escapism, and secular liberation with minimal reflective meaning that are to blame for these sorry conditions we face today.
24 August 2006, 12:22
Wacky Rascal, I wholeheartedly agree with your reason for not using a "real name," although "Wacky Rascal" is perfectly legitimate. As someone who also writes articles and commentaries on the Internet, I am working on my fourth incarnation. The last thing I want is for any particular nom de plume to begin to stick. My reason for doing this is that the ideas expressed is what is important, not the personality who expresses them. In fact, it is the cult of personality that is partly responsible for humanity’s numerous problems. "So and so said this - I love him/her. So and so said that - I hate him/her." On this basis, issues and ideas become an adjunct to the personalities expressing them.
By the way, I thought your article was very well written. Thank you for your anonymous effort.
24 August 2006, 15:52
Yes, there is some stupidity. There is also petulance, impatience, laziness, a daddy’s boy attitude, and there is the swagger, the smirk, the nodding of the head, the lies, the twisting of every fact he ever recites, and I also detect a hint of malevolence in his egotism. The overwhelming fact is that he is an outstanding failure, living in a fantasy world of his own, isolated from all reality by denial or simple ignorance.
24 August 2006, 18:29
Yes , " stupidity " has a " color " . Human being can be divided and classified .