Opinions
   articles

Back to Top

Column:
why st. nick got carried away
Is Al Franken dumb?

Earlier this month Rolling Stone Magazine published an article titled, "Is Bush Dumb?" Unfortunately for everyone involved in the magazine, the article doesn’t outwit the headline. Al Franken takes cheap shots at Bush’s intelligence with petty evidence. He makes fun of Bush for naming The Hungry Caterpillar as his favorite book. First of all, who attacks people’s intelligence based on taste? Second, Franken thinks he’s real smart because he figured out that the children’s book had been written after Bush went to college. So, anyone who reads a children’s book after college is dumb. Very insightful political commentary. 

Unfortunately for anyone following the election, the Franken article wasn’t a first. Since the beginning of the primary race, reporters have repeatedly delighted themselves by calling Bush stupid.

One explanation for this redundant attack may be credited to Al Gore. At the convention in August, he turned his speech into a laundry-list of details. The idea he tried to get across was: "I will be a better president because I can memorize things, and speak fluently about them." While Gore was applauding his ease with policy details, he was merely drawing a contrast between two different styles of intelligence. In attacking Bush for being dumb, the media is misplacing "different" with "inferior." 

Reporters have called Bush dumb for his mispeaking, his evasion of drug-related questions and his college grades. Bush may have gotten bad grades in college. Molly Ivian, author of Shrub, a book on Bush’s political career, said that his grades were never above a D. But who really cares? He screwed off in college, does that make him a bad person. Whatever happened to the mantra of progressive educators that says, "It’s not the grade you get. It’s what you learn."

At Yale, Bush learned the two things that all college students are supposed to learn, how to speak and how to think. Reporters attack his excessive socializing, but all that socializing makes him great with the press. 

Gail Sheehy of Vanity Fair may have complained about the Bush campaign serving fancy hors d’oeuvres meant to "take care of the press." But really, she was just upset because the campaign denied her request for an interview. She should have known better than to ask questions about environmental policy.

One of Bush’s talking points is that he can "get things done." That’s just what he did with the press over the summer. His cordial nature made the press promote the campaign as a bout between Mr. Charisma and Mr. Stiff. Why does it matter if he was two faced? He’s running for president, not for a spot on an honor society. 

Another asset to his personality is his thinking style. He is clear and linear. In foreign policy, for example, he said in the second debate that during the genocide in Rwanda, the African countries should have "come together." For the average American, this approach makes sense. We grew up learning about countries fighting wars like football teams winning Super Bowls. In the debate, Bush appeared to think that African countries are stable, well-functioning bodies. Sure, that’s a little over-simplified, but does it really mean that he’s dumb. If Bush were to explain African countries in their actual complexity, his words would be muddled and untrustable.

Bush’s popularity comes from an image of trust. In policy making, he has created a dichotomy between his plans and Gore’s plans by asserting that Gore does not trust the people. Bush has contrasted his Social Security plan, the tax cut and his prescription drug plan with Gore’s. Unlike Gore’s programs, he says that his programs empower the people with "choice." He claims the Democrats don’t trust working people. If they did, they would let people invest their retirement savings, keep their yearly earnings, and choose between an HMO or Medicare. 

One theme throughout the campaign has been authenticity. The press bashed Gore for "The Kiss" because they thought it a tool in a vote-getting ploy. Bush’s simple style of thinking frees him from these attacks. 

Regardless of why Bush shows such a simplistic worldview, it is popular. The public feels that it can trust him because he shows trust in the people and because his thinking is clear. People can follow his thought process, which cannot be said for Gore and his inscrutable exaggerations. Melinda Henneberger of The New York Times explained the public’s differing trust of the two candidates. They both say false things, but Bush’s mistatements are understandably false. Bush claimed that all three of the men convicted for killing James Byrd were sentenced to death. That was wrong. Whether he lied or was misinformed is irrelevant. What matters is the public’s reaction. She said that the public is more apt to believe Bush’s lies over Gore’s lies because they can understand why he’s lying. Ronald Reagan was the man who said that one tree produces more pollution than a person. That was wrong, but nobody cared that he lied because it was a logical thing for him to think. So, Bush’s lies about executions make sense because people expect him to want convicts executed. 

Calling Bush "stupid" misses the point because it assumes that rote intelligence is the most important asset in running a country. In the last debate a woman asked what Bush’s tax plan would do for her. He floundered, and people probably called him dumb for it. But there are much more important questions for a president to answer than what his tax plan will do for a 32-year-old woman. One is: How them Rangers gonna be next spring?