July 31, 2001

11:23 AM

The Bush DyslexiconEver since the presidential campaign, George W. Bush's adventures in the English language have alternately amused and horrified the nation. But according to media scholar Mark Crispin Miller's scathing new book, The Bush Dyslexicon, to conclude merely that Bush is dimwitted would be a grave mistake. The President's linguistic fumbles, argues Miller, mask a deep and shrewd political vindictiveness; at the same time, the shallowness revealed in Bush's unscripted remarks has been largely ignored or coddled by a national media more interested in soundbites than in political substance.

I don't know what is more frightening: that this guy is right, and we have much more to fear about Bush, Jr. than we thought...or that he is wrong, and we do indeed live in a land whose president is an imbecile.
posted by mapalm (54 comments total)

I suspect that Dubya will never be classified as an "intellectual", but I sincerely doubt he's as dumb as he's made out to be. As Mr. Miller points out, it is to Bush's advantage to be perceived as dumber than the average bear. First, you have the "Look, honey, he's just like us - not one of them high-falutin' smarty pants types". Also, and this is the main point, there are the lowered expectations. If he ever does anything even reasonably well, it's fantastic - for someone who's just an average Joe.

Our local NPR station has a call-in program on weekdays, and they had a gentleman from a self-identified conservative news organization. His main purpose seemed to be defending Dubya from allegations of stupidity, and at one point he said "Look, do you really want a smart, intellectually curious president? I don't think so. You want someone who makes up his mind and gets the thing done without weighing the issues too much since that slows down the process." Not a direct quote, but that was the gist. Personally, I find that attitude frightening. Yeah, God forbid a world leader should get bogged down in "issues"....
posted by binkin at 11:34 AM on July 31, 2001

Whatever may be true of Bush, nothing! I mean nothing! that comes from someone describing himself as a "professor of media ecology" is to be taken seriously. Made up by the same magic Scrabble game that gave us "creation science."

-- jfuller, former director, stable isotope laboratory, University of Georgia Institute of Ecology.
posted by jfuller at 11:47 AM on July 31, 2001

It's good to see we're still on track. Sometimes I wonder how great this country could be if people would just shut up once and a while, stop criticizing others and go out and actually do something to make somebody's life better. Grumble, grumble, grumble, damn Bush, grumble, grumble, grumble, idiot, grumble, grumble, where's my remote...
posted by fluxcreative at 11:54 AM on July 31, 2001

What issue do you take with the term "media ecology"? It appears to be a legitimate, albeit stupidly-named, department at NYU, and is hardly something I'd compare with "creation science".
posted by binkin at 11:56 AM on July 31, 2001

> What issue do you take with the term "media ecology"?

It's an attempt to steal the appearance of substance and smear it on something made of fluff. And it shows a distinct (justified) inferiority complex on the part of the, uh, discipline. Imagine a professor of sociolinguistics who suddenly feels compelled to call himself a sociolinguistic physicist.
posted by jfuller at 12:09 PM on July 31, 2001

Oh, now we're slamming sociolinguistics? Wrong field to pick on ;) Anyway, the term "sociolinguistics" pretty well covers what's being studied, whereas "media" needs something after it to tell you what you're dealing with. I guess I don't know as much about the discipline of "media ecology" as you do, but I have read parts of the book (been too cheap to buy it outright, and the library copies are always checked out) and the ideas being advanced seem reasonable enough.

Oh, well, I suppose I'll continue to fail to understand why you take such umbrage at someone's use of what (it seems) you perceive as "your" word.
posted by binkin at 12:18 PM on July 31, 2001

Er, "the book" referring to "The Bush Dyslexicon", not some mysterious volume on the field of media ecology.
posted by binkin at 12:24 PM on July 31, 2001

Is Dubya an idiot? Probably. But then so was Raygun.
Do we need to fear this? Probably. Just because the poster child propped up in front of us has no content doesn't mean those behind the scenes are not totally capable of sending us to the Dark Ages.
Jfuller- Attacking the messenger doesn't obviate the message. Perhaps the author doesn't meet your expected qualifications or expectations, that won't render him incapable of making valid points. Hell, Rush may actually say something one of us can agree with someday!
posted by nofundy at 12:25 PM on July 31, 2001

Here's media-ecology.org's recommended reading list. I note that the first three titles are by Marshall McLuhan, a fellow who built a long-running pop-academic career out of the one single idea, "it ain't hotcha do, it's the way hotcha do it." Mental belly-button lint.

They don't list anyone important until Lewis Mumford, down at no. 11. (And I note that they're kidnapping Mumford from outside the field: "Mumford is, for many, the founder of the media ecology approach, even though he had relatively little to say about media.")
posted by jfuller at 12:35 PM on July 31, 2001

It goes both ways, jfuller: too many brain scientists have declared themselves psychologists, without any right to do so, in the past decade. A specialist in any discipline gets rightly annoyed when that field is appropriated by others: it's one of the best signs of the dumbing-down of modern academia that colleges use the silly names of their chairs as recruitment perks.
posted by holgate at 12:45 PM on July 31, 2001

I don't think you can base your judgement of an entire field on one web page. Also, just because you don't recognize someone's name doesn't mean they're not important. As far as I can figure from your postings, the social sciences would, in your opinion, be better referred to as social "sciences". Maybe I'm wrong and you have more experience with media ecology than you're letting on, but all I'm seeing from here is a bias against non-hard sciences.

From my perspective, the field is a legitimate one - of course we should have an interest in how people interact with the media, given that it's so pervasive.
posted by binkin at 12:47 PM on July 31, 2001

Getting back to the topic at hand:

Even if he is dyslexic, however, that condition can't account for all his verbal slips, which are so many and so various as to indicate a range of disabilities, including simple ignorance.

Though no W supporter, I disagree with this statement. While he's definately guilty of a few embarassing gaffes, on the whole, I think he speaks quite well. More than once, while expecting to be outraged, he's made me laugh. They were simple little jokes that he probably didn't come up with, but they worked.

Though most would disagree with me, I think W has a bit of that Clinton magic in him. When speaking, he somehow manages to come off as "one of the guys".

No matter what you think of him, one doesn't get to be president by being stupid. He may be dyslexic and unlearned, but underneath it all lies a ruthless brilliance.
posted by aladfar at 1:00 PM on July 31, 2001

Uh, jfuller - i think ya kinda missed the point here. Miller raises some fairly provoking issues regarding the debate over the intelligence of Bush (or lack thereof)...no matter what he chooses to describe as his profession.
posted by mapalm at 1:02 PM on July 31, 2001

I think he speaks quite well

I don't know. I have to restrain myself from shutting the radio off when I hear him talking. The slow pace just drives... me... nuts. That and he really does make a lot of slips and glaring grammatical errors that kind of downgrade the whole experience for me.
posted by binkin at 1:04 PM on July 31, 2001

No matter what you think of him, one doesn't get to be president by being stupid.

Maybe not, but being the son of a President seems to do the trick...(oh, and the fact that the Supreme Court was stacked in your favor - thanks Dad and Uncle Ronnie).
posted by mapalm at 1:05 PM on July 31, 2001

I think he speaks quite well.

Joking, right? He goes on and on...and doesn't say anything. Nothing. Zilch. Hey, come to think of it, that's how most pols and media folk come off as well - guess that's just the vapid culture we live in here in America. Read a newspaper from another country. Listen to newscasts. Talk to people in bars - and one thing becomes painfully clear: substantive debate on issues affecting our lives are hard to find in America. Bush is just playing the same game.
posted by mapalm at 1:10 PM on July 31, 2001

No matter what you think of him, one doesn't get to be president by being stupid. He may be dyslexic and unlearned, but underneath it all lies a ruthless brilliance.

I don't buy the Chauncy Gardner interpretation of George W. Bush at all. I can't think of a more underwhelming off-the-cuff speaker in modern presidential history. He always looks like a person fumbling for an answer after a long night cramming for a test.
posted by rcade at 1:12 PM on July 31, 2001

So..... paraphrasing..... Dubya is diabolically stupid.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:29 PM on July 31, 2001

rcade: gw bush is not quite as bad as (the living) mayor richard daley of chicago
posted by moz at 1:34 PM on July 31, 2001

We were all sold this fantasy of this meek man who every one was calling stupid, but who was actually just 'misunderestimated' who was going to sweep in and amaze people in Washington with how great he was, and prove everybody wrong.

Didn't happen.
posted by brucec at 1:46 PM on July 31, 2001

Why is it that the choice is that the author is right and Bush is evil or that the author is wrong and Bush is stupid.

Isn't possible that the author is wrong and Bush is just a poor public speaker?
posted by obfusciatrist at 2:02 PM on July 31, 2001

The back and forth arguement as to the IQ of Bush will go nowhere, it seems clear at this point. Why not, instead, judge the man not by how he speaks, not by what he says, but by what actions he takes or does not take? That way, since he is the one finally calling many of the shots, there is something solid to argue for or against. What a politician says often times is hogwash, as all know. How he delivers what he says can be good, no good, lousy, very effective....but what does that mean compared to what he signs into law or tries to make the path of action we are taking or are to take. Here too of course there will be those who believbe that what is done is good and others who will think otherwise. But at least they can argue about something of substance.
posted by Postroad at 2:14 PM on July 31, 2001

Why not, instead, judge the man not by how he speaks, not by what he says, but by what actions he takes or does not take?

Because sometimes a president has to be able to use the office as a bully pulpit, persuading the country in hard times that an unpopular course of action is the right one.
posted by rcade at 2:28 PM on July 31, 2001

That way, since he is the one finally calling many of the shots...

Not likely - I've worked too many places where the secretaries knew how to sign the bosses' name.

I, for one, delight in having a President who has clearly visible puppet strings. Ooh, look, Oil Industry is making Dubya dance! Ain't that cute!

The White House really should just get a life-size Dubya cutout and attach a pen to its hand. At least the cutout wouldn't habitually embarrass itself. And at least people would know the true depth of our President, and look beyond that for who's really in charge.

Or maybe they'd just pose with the cutout and shut up. Sigh.
posted by solistrato at 2:43 PM on July 31, 2001

Why judge him by his words? Because he is the g-dammed president of the United States, and his guffaws and good'ol boy, homespun-speak is, at best, an embarrassment to me, personally, as an American citizen...and at worst (as Miller suggests) an effective screen with which to distract the media and the citizenry from what his cabal is really up to.
posted by mapalm at 2:50 PM on July 31, 2001

anyone here a former fighter pilot?
posted by clavdivs at 3:15 PM on July 31, 2001

I think he speaks quite well

I don't know. I have to restrain myself from shutting the radio off when I hear him talking.

Apparently, reactions to someone's speaking ability are quite different depending on if you're watching them or if you're listening to them. Your posture, your intonation, your facial expressions, and other non-verbal communication factors weigh much more heavily than what you're actually saying. Over the radio, this is also true, but as there are less non-verbal cues, the actual message becomes more important. (So says Bert Decker in his book You've Got to Be Believed to Be Heard)
posted by annekef at 3:29 PM on July 31, 2001

Anyone remember the senior NYT reporter who Bush called "A major-league asshole." ?

That's part of what this guy is talking about.
posted by Ptrin at 3:37 PM on July 31, 2001

Bush has no sense of register: that's all too clear. Of course, in American politics, being multi-faceted can easily work against you, and make you look "multi-faced". And I do often resent Blair's chameleon-like ability to go from working-man's-club mateyness to I Am A European Stateman in seconds. But if you read, for instance, the transcript of his press conference with Blair at Chequers, his inability to get the tone right isn't charmingly folksy, but squirmingly embarrassing. (Rather like his daughter's wearing jeans to meet HMQ.)

Among friends, that's fine; but it's when negotiations rest upon fine details, tone and tenor, that you have to worry. And, whatever you say of Clinton, he was good at that to the point of absurdity: the lawyer's training that helped out in situations such as the Northern Ireland negotiations was also there when he was quibbling about the meaning of "is" to Kenneth Starr.
posted by holgate at 4:30 PM on July 31, 2001

He's an even better George W.
posted by rushmc at 4:37 PM on July 31, 2001

anyone ever been president?
posted by clavdivs at 5:05 PM on July 31, 2001

Yeah. As a matter of fact, a bunch of people have been president.

And very, very few of them have come across as stupid and frightening as this one.
posted by Ptrin at 5:39 PM on July 31, 2001

To each his own, Ptrin. For many people (including me), the last 8 years were very frightening indeed.
posted by gyc at 5:57 PM on July 31, 2001

like lyndon johnson, he was dangerous and shy of IQ.
posted by clavdivs at 7:27 PM on July 31, 2001

And this would be LBJ, who probably got more done (whether your agree with what he did or not) then any other president in history?
posted by Ptrin at 7:33 PM on July 31, 2001

anyone here a former fighter pilot?

Yep.

Oh wait, that was Goose in Top Gun.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:02 PM on July 31, 2001

"Mavvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvverick!!!"

I don't see why we're arguing about fighter pilots. We're discussing GWB, who spent most of his Texas National Guard duty AWOL, tossing back highballs and doing lines of coke off of hooker's asses while munching on aborted fetuses and consulting with Azothoth, Dread Lord of Genocide.

...

I went too far there, didn't I?
posted by solistrato at 9:20 PM on July 31, 2001

To each his own, Ptrin. For many people (including me), the last 8 years were very frightening indeed.

Frightening in what way? What was done under Clinton that was ever cause for alarm for any conservative? He lived up to his bargain with campaign contributors, paving the way for "freer trade", stamping out his own ignition for socialized health care. He was a lackey in every sense to multi national corporations as Bush is. Only, much more likable, statesmanlike and seemingly fascinated by international affairs. No ground was ever claimed by the liberals during his tenure. What scares the right so much about Clinton (even to this day)?
posted by crasspastor at 9:51 PM on July 31, 2001

What scares the right so much about Clinton (even to this day)?

It's either that he actually likes to have sex (the horror!) or that people weren't horrified that he liked to have sex, I think.
posted by lia at 11:42 PM on July 31, 2001

I went too far there, didn't I?

Not far enough, my good man.
'...doing lines of coke off of hookers' asses' got my attention, though, I'll tell ya! One hopes the air-con was cranked up at the time.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:42 PM on July 31, 2001

And this would be LBJ, who probably got more done (whether your agree with what he did or not) then any other president in history? hahahahahahahaha
posted by clavdivs at 6:36 AM on August 1, 2001

Clavdivs-
LBJ = Civil Rights Act. A major piece of legislation to those not of the white sheet persuasion. Much more important than Star Wars I'd say.
LBJ = Medicare, Medicaid. Ask granny if she appreciates that. Or does it count when it doesn't benefit some corporate master?
Need more? There's lots the man did, and I never even cared for him personally. Does his party affiliation negate his achievements in your eyes? Or are you just opposed to human rights, especially if they trump property rights?
posted by nofundy at 7:14 AM on August 1, 2001

"into the danger zone" Freud fucked around, did the ya-yeah.
Iceman: "man, now you will never be president"
Mav: "THIS ISNT ABOUT MY OLE MAN(cries)

jez. learn to debase a president with real teeth.
(my point, this shit is silly)
DID HIS DAUGHTER MEET THE QUEEN IN JEANS? (now that says volumes, not some frothing Tim Burton harangue)
Lbj did what he was told, that fuck. anyone who pulls his penis out in front of whitehouse aides and says "does ho chi mihn have anything like this" is a loon. why do you think he stepped down? (fucking smartest thing he ever did) i know shrub is short in the smarts dept. BUT he is president, i look at what it took to get there, then place a judgement. (I dont like Cheney, place the evil eye his way, that man is dangerous folks.) to be a fighter pilot requires skill and intelligence. he could not have faked being a pilot.(holy shit, know im scared, what if it was mirrors?)
posted by clavdivs at 7:17 AM on August 1, 2001

yes it was important but he would never had done it if JFK lived, his ass probably would not have made the 64' ticket. my granny does not need the state (thank god) to help her, others do and i applaud this part. dont position me against human rights, ask the dead in Vietnam, a war LBJ put haul balls toward the american people. (i think LBJ had a ton more political savvy then shrub ever will) did not King and two kennedys die while he held high office? I think the civil rights laws were inevitable.
posted by clavdivs at 7:32 AM on August 1, 2001

white house aide and reporter. sorry. i recall the paper as Johnson and Vietnam. (?)as an example, the solders in Vietnam he referred to as "his boys". military hardware as "his planes, tanks, or guns".(he took all but the kitchen sink after AF-one let him off in Texas. ("his stuff") His arrogance while in charge of the space program(id say he did ok in that area) No doubt he was magnanimous. he allegedly had trists in Oval office. The truth was the country was flailing apart. we get into kennedy and Ike here and this is a road that strays from gdubs semantic doublethink. (eyes the steely, minion has bike at ready)
posted by clavdivs at 10:44 AM on August 1, 2001

or we can talk about strippers in chilled thongs,Tool droning that rye eye dollar bill happenstance, pool sharks and peepy bathroom nose pits. ten car alarms outside with pizza boys and romaninan leather figures that grift through our minor underworld.
posted by clavdivs at 10:52 AM on August 1, 2001

DID HIS DAUGHTER MEET THE QUEEN IN JEANS?

The Bushes have denied that story, which originated in the British tabloids.
posted by rcade at 12:04 PM on August 1, 2001

whew. I was worried that he would try and hug HMQ at an airshow or something.
Prezdent:"elephant ears? is that india?"
posted by clavdivs at 2:17 PM on August 1, 2001

The Bushes have denied that story, which originated in the British tabloids.

The Times may not be as good a paper as it used to be, but it's certainly no tabloid.
posted by holgate at 2:37 PM on August 1, 2001

uh, has anybody read holgate's link? It reports that when asked by one of the school children to whom he was giving a 'pep talk' what the White House is like, bush the younger replied, "It is White." Fucking christ! This guy can't even handle a question from a child! Without ever having lived there, please, one of you, tell me what the White House is like.
posted by crustbuster at 3:57 PM on August 1, 2001

naw he obviously couldn't have been joking, crustbuster, could he.
posted by gyc at 4:25 PM on August 1, 2001