Are you among those sophisticated souls who have, after a great deal of serious thought, reluctantly reached the conclusion that the only possible explanation for GWB's 50% approval rating is that 50% of the American people are simply too stupid to be able to figure out that they are wrong and you are right? Then you'll appreciate this guy's deep thoughts on the subject. Unless it's a parody. Who can tell anymore?
He proposes an IQ test to "earn the right to vote." (But not a literacy or English-comprehension test. That would be elitist and wrong.) He also, rather ironically if you ask me, derides the Stupid People for being "perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides"; and, even more ironically perhaps, proposes a "three-significantly-stupid-behaviors-and-you're-out law." Strike one, dude.
(via Andrew Sullivan.)
Posted by Dr. Frank at January 6, 2004 05:23 PM | TrackBackAlmost sounds like he lifted this little speech from Bill O'Reilly (sp?) and interchanged the name Clinton with GWB. Just how has GWB embarrassed us or what jokes are he the butt of? Sure he's not a great public speaker, but how long and far does a "strategery" go? I guess Mr. Quale took a long time to live down "Potatoes" but GWB didn't insist on correcting anybody in a spelling-bee.
Posted by: Channon at January 6, 2004 07:18 PMIt's great that we have smart guys like this to explain to the rest of us how stupid all the people who disagree with them are. Otherwise, how would we ever know??
Posted by: Blixa at January 6, 2004 09:12 PMYeah, that's dumb and unworkable. I do think though that *candidates* ought to be tested and their results made public.
Posted by: spacetoast at January 6, 2004 10:04 PMspace: I would argue that if you're going to test candidates for intelligence, you should rightly go the whole hog and do a personality inventory. After all, sociopaths are highly intelligent and interested in politics and economics.
Posted by: JB at January 6, 2004 11:37 PMI'd support that. I'd bet though that you'd find more uniformity than you'd expect, at least in terms of standardized things--e.g. I've seen various (obviously conjectural) breakdowns of US presidents by MBTI type and so on, and they all seem to be pretty much the same--so I don't know how much usable information you'd get from that, at least in terms of picking one guy over the other. But I'm completely in favor of making all candidates for office run the gauntlet of standardized psychological testing. It's actually pretty damn odd that we don't do that.
Posted by: spacetoast at January 7, 2004 12:14 AMI always rest comfortably knowing that it must be his own private version of hell on Earth knowing that how smart he thinks he is and yet having to be ruled by stupid people. I almost feel sorry for him.
Almost.
Posted by: charles austin at January 7, 2004 03:52 AMI'm a little late to clicking on the link, but I finally got around to it. My problem with that is: I've never claimed to enjoy listening or reading anything that has to do with politics. It just doesn't interest me and I have rarely come across anyone that can state their political opinions and comments completely intelligently. I, for the most part, refuse to talk about politics for just this reason. I wouldn't have even a little chance of sounding like I know what I'm talking about. But, just because I can't or won't talk about it doesn't mean that I'm incapable of coming to my own decision of who I want to vote for. The choice I make for my own reasons, in no way, says that I'm stupid. It says that I listened to the arguments and explored my options as much as I cared to and came to a decision that I can live with. And, I really don't think I'm alone here.
But, I should say, My thoughts on this have no reflection on any decisions I've made. I've never voted 'cos I wasn't old enough to. So, maybe I just really don't know what I'm talking about.
Hello
Posted by: politics at February 19, 2004 07:56 AM