Dumb and Dumber

For the last eight years, the mainstream media, comedians, talk-show hosts and countless ordinary citizens that you and I know, unmercifully assailed President George W. Bush as the second coming of Stan Laurel of Laurel and Hardy fame. They said he was dumb, intellectually unfit for the Presidency of the United States. According to his critics, President Bush set the bar very low for those who aspire to lead our country.

While I would readily admit that President Bush is not an articulate man, I would argue that intellect and articulation are two vastly different entities. Plenty of not very bright folks can be capable of great oration at any given moment. One could memorize, and then deliver a great speech, but that alone does not indicate great intellect. Judgment and wisdom are much better indicators of one's intellectual capability.

Unfortunately, for President Bush, most likely we will judge the wisdom of his decisions long after he has left office. This is because of the unique circumstances and environment in which he made decisions. For the first time in our nation's history, presidential decisions required the factoring of the global terrorism threat. Before 9/11, presidents had the luxury of considering localized threats in reference to terrorist activity. Since that awful attack in New York, in order to remain faithful to the oath of Office, every president must consider the potential threat of terrorism and its impact on our country's interests.

What is amazing is how President Bush received the "Fred
Sanford Dummy Award" from many liberals who apparently were not very well versed themselves in our nation's political climate. According to the video by John Ziegler circulating on YouTube, called "How Obama Got Elected", many of those who voted for President-elect Obama had difficulty even naming which party controlled Congress. Furthermore, they struggled to identify the Speaker of the House, as well as the Senate Majority leader.

To be fair, none of these folks was running for President, and Americans do want to feel that their President is "smarter" than they are. However, it is worth mentioning that nearly all of those interviewed knew much about the family issues and troubles of Sarah Palin. This indicates, as Ziegler has hypothesized, that it is likely many people made decisions primarily based on media influence. That dynamic plagues not only the results of this last election, but many previous elections. We Americans pride ourselves on a spirit of independence, but I wonder how we demonstrate that spirit when we go with the flow of the bubblehead bleach blonde-haired person on the evening news? (Don Henley's words, not mine) J

It would seem the task of the media should be to inform the citizenry without adding its opinion the information, except where announcement of opinion is clear beforehand to the viewer/listener. This may not lead to high Nielsen ratings, sell many papers, or even gain extra website hits, but it will cause the people affected directly by election outcomes to research the candidates and perhaps vote based on the result of that research. Sure, some will still vote as told by party leaders, but then that may always be the case. However, we could then do this without the undue influence of the media. Seriously, when have we ever seen media personalities who often repeat their commitment to journalistic integrity, act as giddy schoolchildren during election season? Not in my lifetime, that is for sure.

In essence, if you wish, give me the label of dumb for voting my principles, but it is decidedly dumber for anyone to allow the media to do their thinking. If you take your citizenship, your vote and your country seriously, then at the very least this warrants a degree of introspection that reaches beyond the opinion of the news anchor of the hour. Based on what we learn from Ziegler's video, we should challenge each other's opinions with the aim of assisting one another in the discovery of truth.