“Shallow Thinkers” – GWB and Other Conservatives

[LisaLynne]

I remember being shocked when I read Molly Ivin’s assertion that Bush, George W. Bush, is not stupid. I believe she said he was a mean, petty, small-minded little man, but not stupid and it was a mistake to characterize him as such.

I’ve decided that I think I mean something different when I call someone, The Decider or anyone else, stupid. I consider Bush to be a stupid person, but I don’t mean that he necessarily lacks intellectual ability. He may or may not have average intelligence. And while I seriously doubt he would score above average on an IQ test, that’s not really my problem with him.

We’ve all known people who weren’t that bright. But, that doesn’t make them into the sort of person that George W. Bush, or a lot of conservatives, are. I don’t think all conservatives, including Bush, are incapable of intellectual or coherent thought. I just think they aren’t deep thinkers.

I know two conservatives. Okay, I know more, but I’m using these two as examples. One is a long time friend of mine. We went through college together and are now studying for the GMAT together. She’s going to do fine on the test, so she’s not stupid in that way. The other is a coworker. He has worked for 30 years in the computer field, keeping up with the ever changing technology. Again, not a stupid person in that way.

However, neither spends much time thinking.

If Bush were actually “intellectually, low-IQ” stupid, I would expect him to ask for help. Say, with the climate crisis issue. Maybe he could call up Al Gore and have him explain it to him. If not Gore, then someone with the knowledge and understanding to advise him.

But, since Bush isn’t a deep thinker, he just doesn’t care. He’s content to ignore it, especially when people tell him that addressing the problem would hurt his financial portfolio (for most cons, it’s that it will cost jobs). For a “shallow thinker”, that’s all he or she needs to know. One quick “reason” why they don’t have to or shouldn’t care about something and they’re good to go.

I think this is a major difference between people who end up being liberals and people who end up being conservatives. I think we liberals and progressives are just naturally deep thinkers. We ponder. We seek knowledge. We consider all sides of an argument. We reevaluate even long-held beliefs. We question. We want to understand. We aren’t always content with the first answer we get or the first conclusion we come to. We are just naturally, basically interested in the world and those around us. We just want to know for the sake of knowing and once we know something, we want to really understand it.

I think that trait is what leads us to be liberals. I think “conservative values”, especially how they are expressed by this administration, only hold up when you don’t really think about them. Poor people are just lazy. Environmental regulations hurt the economy. We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Any of those suppositions – such bastions of conservative “thought” – fall completely apart in the face of facts, evidence, and just plain old common sense. But, you have to think about it. You have to actually consider the statement, gather the facts, and then actually think about it. Even just for a moment.

I think conservatives – “shallow thinkers” – just don’t spend that moment of thought. And thus, we’re in the mess we are in today.

And that’s the sense in which I think Bush, those who support him and those in his administration are “stupid”.

[tanyev]

1. Thinking's really hard work.

Even harder than prezidenting.

[NJCher]

2. in addition

...to what you say above, there is the ability to think things through--to see down the road. To take one's actions into consideration for an outcome.

This is where they really fail, IMO. They don't seem to be able to grasp the variables and take them into account for the outcome.

This is why they always have such simple solutions to problems, like, "Just say no!"




Cher

[LisaLynne]

3. That's a very, very good point.

That does seem to be a problem they have, too. It's sort of all related -- they can't take the next step in thought either way -- to either see the consequences of their actions or the next point in an argument. It all stops at that first step.

[PDJane]

5. All the answers.........

and no solutions.

I get that business of "why do you follow the news, it only makes you depressed....."

I follow the news because, if I am going to die in some holocaust, I want to know why, what's on the way, and if I can do something to stop it.

[unblock]

8. see my post below. it's not that they can't see down the road

it's just that they don't care. they'll all be dead, and if this country gets bankrupted and the chinese take over, then their families will be protected by all the looting they're doing now. they'll be able to move on to the next great country to loot from the inside.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Incurious people suck. n/t

[unblock]

6. that's too generous

it's not that they're incapable of deep thought at all. in fact, i believe shrub DOES engage in deep thought, at least to some extent.

it's much more a matter of priorities and constituencies and loyalties. if you're interested in "public policy" in the sense of what is good for the nation as a whole, its people as a whole, and over a broad period of time, then you need to do the kind of deep thought and study and analysis that we came to expect from bill clinton and al gore. because that was their interest and their aim. they might hvae compromised here and there, and they might have made some mistakes, but they were always very interested in public policy in that sense.

shrub views his constituency as a vastly more limited set of wealthy donors, benefactors, whose primary goal in return is easy money, be it from no-bid federal contracts or tort limitations or tax cuts or easy mergers or less government interference in their screwing over of consumers and employees.

he and they DO give some considerable thought to how to preserve and extend their power and how to reward their benefactors and how to use their power to get further campaign contributions, etc. think about it. these f*ckers are looting the public treasury in broad daylight. that's not something that can be pulled off without some deep thinking.

[LisaLynne]

11. I think * is able to think of his constituency as just his rich friends ..

and indeed see his political career as nothing more than holding on to and grabbing power because of the shallowness of his thought. I think holding on to power and helping only the rich or those in your "group" is the epitome of shallow thinking because you aren't stepping outside of yourself to care about others. You can just short-circuit your thought pattern and never make that step in your brain that what you are doing is hurting others. Now, I think * and his ilk actually wouldn't care, if they ever thought about it, which I'm not sure they do, but I think some "average" Republicans might. But, they never get to that point, where they would have to actually look at their actions or their beliefs in the light of how they actually relate to the world around them.

[unblock]

16. i don't think that's the definition of shallow thinking

i think the inability to step out and care for people outside your immediate sphere is not a sign of shallow thinking.

it is a sign of evil.

in fact, i think it is exactly what evil is, almost by definition, but that's a whole nother topic....

[Arkansas Granny]

7. I think another part of the conservative angle is the herd mentality

that they seem to share. If they are content to let someone else do their thinking for them, they are much more likely to align themselves with others who have been similarly conditioned. It's not easy to buck the tide and change course.

[Mr_Spock]

9. Good topic on *'s Bday. I was thinking "IGNORAMUS"

I was thinking on these lines this morning - trying to figure out what kind of human defect would make a group of people (& their nitwit leader) so seemingly hateful as they simply choose to ignore the terrible harm they are doing to the society in which they live. Theirs is a world where questioning the "one phrase" mentality makes them anxious. They have decided that all controversial topics should have simple "talking points" that make it easy to brush-off any criticism of their perspective. It's more than shallow thinking in my opinion - it's deliberate ignorance of the results of their actions - and for that I label them ignoramuses. If there is ONE thing our founding fathers DIDN'T want for our country, it was for us to all be intellectually lazy & to become stuck in our ways. An extended period of conservative thought/behavior is the last stage in a failed nation. Without vigorous questioning of all aspects of our lives, including government, our society will become stagnant and we will fail as a nation.

[LisaLynne]

10. I think you're right -- it's willful.

I think that anything that causes them a moment of hesitation or inner doubt is something that they avoid at all costs. They just want to be told that they are right and that whatever they're doing is fine and good. They don't want to have those moments where you are forced to actually consider your actions, your place in the world, or how what you do might affect others.

[CrispyQ]

12. They fear change.

They work hard to maintain the status quo. They delude themselves that they create reality. I think they have a large following of Americans who are not ready to face the fact that America is on the down slide. Sadly, instead of working together and honestly accessing our problems & discussing solutions, these types stick their head in the sand, stand by the claim that America is the best ever, & accuse liberals of being anti-patriotic because we dare to point out shortcomings of our country.

[Ron Green]

18. And to fear change is to be insane

because, of course, change is inevitable, inexorable, and right. Our job as humans is to perceive, study and manage change in our own lives and in our spheres of influence, while holding on to what is truly permanent.

People (such as little bush) who try to preserve what is naturally slipping away and being transformed are simply nuts.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. My Term Is Two-Dimensional Thinking

If one cannot imagine the relationships as "X vs. Y" on a flat page, they cannot truly understand.

Two dimensional thinkers say "If we raise the minimum wage, unemployment will go up." Nice theory, and works nicely in two dimensions.

However, there are so many other factors that influence employment levels, that "X therefore Y" just doesn't work. Don't confuse them with facts or complexity. The world only works for them if we keep it to two dimensions.
The Professor

[LisaLynne]

17. Good point.

I notice that sort of thinkign a lot with any discussion of alternative energies. Whatever technology is brought up, they claim, "Well, we can't run everything on that!" It boggles their minds that what is actually being discussed is a solution to our energy problems that is a combination of approaches and technologies: conservation, solar, wind, etc. But, if ONE THING can't promise to solve EVERYTHING, they think they can dismiss it.

[NJCher]

19. yes, I've noticed that, too

We should have as many energy choices as we have detergent choices on the supermarket shelves. Any alternative energy leaves that much less that needs to be taken out as a fossil fuel.

But they can't get that.




Cher

[Fovea]

14. Magical Thinking

Is another component of the current debacle. Cons really DO believe in the invisible hand of the free market, despite the fact that other than say amphetamines, I see no evidence of a free market at work anywhere on the planet currently. Cons also believe in the American empire, which is arguably the least achievable goal America could set itself. But of all the unexamined assertions that current policy squats athwart, the most dangerous is suggested by the republican pejorative, 'the reality based community.'

This highlights a key concept that George W. Bush and Karl Rove both support-- they make their own reality. And when you control 90% of all domestic news stream, it is an easy delusion to slip into. This is the sort of magical thinking that is dangerous, as opposed to merely quaint.

The problem with this sort of philosophy is that your outcomes do not come close to equalling the results of well thought out policies. And, of course here we are, living in a PNAC paradise cloudcoocooland.

[JHB]

15. I think you'll find plenty of "shallow thinkers" on our side too...

There are plenty of people who mouth liberal pieties, but don't really think them through. What they wind up with is a collection of "correctnesses" with no moral or phiosophical center.

You've seen what this can produce:

The old saw about "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

Assorted books and articles we've seen on "I used to be a liberal, but now I've joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and I feel fine)"

etc., ad nauseum.

[NJCher]

20. I always thought those were more con lies

The old saw about "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

Assorted books and articles we've seen on "I used to be a liberal, but now I've joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and I feel fine)"

It never occurred to me that it could have actually happened.




Cher

[JHB]

21. No, it DOES happen...

The lies are about WHY it happens. Ask David Brock.

As I said above, whenever I read an article by one of these "ex-liberals", what strikes me how they mostly just going along with their peer group and not delving into the deeper roots of liberalism -- so when something buffets them, or when more radical lefties push an agenda they disagree with, they bolt for a different peer group that feeds their new view.