Thinkpost - Dualities
Sep. 6th, 2005 03:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penpusherThanks to the always thoughtful ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kansaschica for presenting an argument that sparked this thinkpost.
The comment she made in her journal that sparked the post:
Why is it that the left can, in one breath, say that George W. is this diabolical evil genius of conspiracy, and in the next, claim that he's the dumbest drooling idiot ever to try to learn to tie his shoes?
The response I posted back:
Hm. So which is it, stupid or evil? I guess it's one or the other, right?
Frankly, It's neither one. It's called being self-centered and uneducated. You certainly don't have to be a brainiac to think the world revolves around you.
Holding one's own interests ahead of everyone else's isn't stupid, it's selfish. However, when you are supposedly representing the citizens of your country, then it becomes something closer to evil. You see how the compass can spin between the two poles here. Let me elaborate.
Ok. I think we can agree The Guy isn't that bright in certain specific areas, and he embarrasses himself more often than any president that has been in office... in my lifetime. But that's just casual amusement, and doesn't have a whole lot to do with anything other than image. In fact, apparently some find his foibles charming and "down to earth."
But then, we can start dealing with his policies and his choices, which can be questionable on certain days, flat out incorrect on others and may appear to be evil on yet others. I think this is where the question of "Stupid" and "Evil" gets mixed.
The man isn't "stupid," at least not in an "across the board" way. He attended Yale (on a legacy), and he has some knowledge, we presume. So, I'm willing to cut some slack on that end of the story.
But the "evil" element is actually a function of not having knowledge. Let me give you an example. If an area of the country is particularly vunerable to flooding and you choose to cut money from the budget to help prevent flood preparation, is that evil directly? Or is it that there was a lack of knowledge of the facts about the situation?
You can see how not being aware of a particular problem (especially when making a decision about it that will affect many people's lives) can be considered "evil," because he should know the consequences before taking any action. It's one of those "goes with the job" issues.
Know what I mean?
But I realized that maybe I didn't go deep enough into the argument, and that maybe I shorthanded the concept a little bit.
If you are the leader of a country, there are certain expectations from the citizens of that country. One of those things I believe would be that you expect to be protected and cared for by your leader. Now, if the leader doesn't protect you, would that be "stupid" or "evil?" I guess it depends, doesn't it?
Could it be both? In a way, yes. Because, when you are sworn in to the office, you affirm that you will execute the duties that office represents. So not having knowledge could be considered stupid, and having a lack of knowledge that has a negative impact on its citizens could be construed as evil, because you, as president, should have known the consequences of your actions before making that choice. Reckless neglect I think might one term for it.
It's sometimes difficult to sort out the "dumb" from the "bad," but that's really what we're dealing with here.
Our President's personality isn't that of a deep thinker... or really, even a shallow thinker. So, that affects people's general opinions of him. He's not a great orator. In a time when you have presidents like Reagan, Clinton, even his father, who can deliver a message when they addressed the public, and sounded confident, or at least competant, and who made their points clearly (whether you agreed with them or not) and exuded confidence in what they had to say, This Guy always sounds like he's reading his homework aloud that was written by his best friend, handed to him just as he was walking to the podium.
That's where the "dumb" come from.
As for the "evil," I suggested that focusing on the people he likes to support is really what's going on here. The Fat Cats and the well to do, the landowners and the oilmen. Guess who got a multi billion (with a B) dollar contract to help rebuild New Orleans? It starts with an "H" and it ends with an "alliburton."
See, this is where we get into a problem. Evil is only evil if it's hurting you. All of the people who are having their boats lifted find everything is fine and dandy. That does nothing for those who are below the flood plane.
So it's not really a question of "stupid" or "evil." It's a question of "President For All" or "President For Certain People." I think the semantics need to be corrected, so that the Right Wingers can't bring up this argument again.
EDIT: Remember when I posted that really weird link to a ragdollesque woman falling through a world of bubbles?
Well,grail76 has pointed out a REVISION that relates to this post, so I had to mention it too.
Yeah, I know. It's STUPID AND EVIL!!
kansaschica for presenting an argument that sparked this thinkpost. The comment she made in her journal that sparked the post:
Why is it that the left can, in one breath, say that George W. is this diabolical evil genius of conspiracy, and in the next, claim that he's the dumbest drooling idiot ever to try to learn to tie his shoes?
The response I posted back:
Hm. So which is it, stupid or evil? I guess it's one or the other, right?
Frankly, It's neither one. It's called being self-centered and uneducated. You certainly don't have to be a brainiac to think the world revolves around you.
Holding one's own interests ahead of everyone else's isn't stupid, it's selfish. However, when you are supposedly representing the citizens of your country, then it becomes something closer to evil. You see how the compass can spin between the two poles here. Let me elaborate.
Ok. I think we can agree The Guy isn't that bright in certain specific areas, and he embarrasses himself more often than any president that has been in office... in my lifetime. But that's just casual amusement, and doesn't have a whole lot to do with anything other than image. In fact, apparently some find his foibles charming and "down to earth."
But then, we can start dealing with his policies and his choices, which can be questionable on certain days, flat out incorrect on others and may appear to be evil on yet others. I think this is where the question of "Stupid" and "Evil" gets mixed.
The man isn't "stupid," at least not in an "across the board" way. He attended Yale (on a legacy), and he has some knowledge, we presume. So, I'm willing to cut some slack on that end of the story.
But the "evil" element is actually a function of not having knowledge. Let me give you an example. If an area of the country is particularly vunerable to flooding and you choose to cut money from the budget to help prevent flood preparation, is that evil directly? Or is it that there was a lack of knowledge of the facts about the situation?
You can see how not being aware of a particular problem (especially when making a decision about it that will affect many people's lives) can be considered "evil," because he should know the consequences before taking any action. It's one of those "goes with the job" issues.
Know what I mean?
But I realized that maybe I didn't go deep enough into the argument, and that maybe I shorthanded the concept a little bit.
If you are the leader of a country, there are certain expectations from the citizens of that country. One of those things I believe would be that you expect to be protected and cared for by your leader. Now, if the leader doesn't protect you, would that be "stupid" or "evil?" I guess it depends, doesn't it?
Could it be both? In a way, yes. Because, when you are sworn in to the office, you affirm that you will execute the duties that office represents. So not having knowledge could be considered stupid, and having a lack of knowledge that has a negative impact on its citizens could be construed as evil, because you, as president, should have known the consequences of your actions before making that choice. Reckless neglect I think might one term for it.
It's sometimes difficult to sort out the "dumb" from the "bad," but that's really what we're dealing with here.
Our President's personality isn't that of a deep thinker... or really, even a shallow thinker. So, that affects people's general opinions of him. He's not a great orator. In a time when you have presidents like Reagan, Clinton, even his father, who can deliver a message when they addressed the public, and sounded confident, or at least competant, and who made their points clearly (whether you agreed with them or not) and exuded confidence in what they had to say, This Guy always sounds like he's reading his homework aloud that was written by his best friend, handed to him just as he was walking to the podium.
That's where the "dumb" come from.
As for the "evil," I suggested that focusing on the people he likes to support is really what's going on here. The Fat Cats and the well to do, the landowners and the oilmen. Guess who got a multi billion (with a B) dollar contract to help rebuild New Orleans? It starts with an "H" and it ends with an "alliburton."
See, this is where we get into a problem. Evil is only evil if it's hurting you. All of the people who are having their boats lifted find everything is fine and dandy. That does nothing for those who are below the flood plane.
So it's not really a question of "stupid" or "evil." It's a question of "President For All" or "President For Certain People." I think the semantics need to be corrected, so that the Right Wingers can't bring up this argument again.
EDIT: Remember when I posted that really weird link to a ragdollesque woman falling through a world of bubbles?
Well,
grail76 has pointed out a REVISION that relates to this post, so I had to mention it too.Yeah, I know. It's STUPID AND EVIL!!
