My recent piece about the New York Times has provoked some amusing responses. Andy Ward wrote to tell me that it smacked of paranoia. I should stress that while I did want to make the point that Bush is more intelligent than his critics make out, I don't really suppose that the NYT actually planned to leak this revelation as part of a smear. That was 'tongue-in-cheek'.
The reason that Bush is considered an idiot by so many is that he's a terrible speaker and he especially doesn't seem to speak well to large non-friendly crowds. While this doesn't inspire confidence, it doesn't per se mean that he's not an effective leader or decision maker. A president is a commander-in-chief not a debating champion. It is widely said that Kerry won the first debate. I didn't see it, but I heard that Bush repeated himself many times and looked rather worn, while Kerry spoke better and looked more assured. I suppose I should have seen that coming, given that Kerry is a Senator, which almost by definition means that he's more of a talker than a doer. Bush was a governor, where the virtually the opposite applies.
All of this reminds me of something I read many years ago in a review of a book about business. The author listed various types of people not to hire. One of these was 'the articulate incompetent'. I agree that such people exist. But if they do, then it's likely that there are others who are 'inarticulate competents', people whose understanding is superior to their ability to express it. I've met many poker players with a great intuitive understanding of the game who could not express how they arrived at their decisions, as well as educated professionals from business, academia and medicine who played appalling and justified losing plays with eloquent nonsense, which they sincerely believed. I know whom I would rather back in a game.
_ DY
at 3:04 PM GMT