January 6, 2004
WHAT AN BRIGHT:
The S factor explains Bush's popularity (NEAL STARKMAN, January 5, 2004, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER)
What can explain his popularity? Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America?Is that likely?
Granted, there are certain subsections of the American polity that have substantially benefited from this presidency. Millionaires and charismatic Christians have accrued either material or spiritual fortification from Bush's administration. But surely these two groups are a small minority of the population. What, then, can account for so many people being so supportive of the president?
The answer, I'm afraid, is the factor that dare not speak its name. It's the factor that no one talks about. The pollsters don't ask it, the media don't report it, the voters don't discuss it.
I, however, will blare out its name so that at last people can address the issue and perhaps adopt strategies to overcome it.
It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.
Somehow, the Left has, in just the past year, managed to turn the word "bright" into a pejorative.
Posted by Orrin Judd at January 6, 2004 5:23 PM
It's so fabulous the way this article is all over the B'sphere like stink on a monkey. People just can't get away with writing this tripe without it biting back, as well it should.
Posted by: Andrew X at January 6, 2004 5:28 PMOne of these days, the electoral reality (at least from the last Presidential election) that if you are a millionare you are more likely to vote Democrat will not sound hard to believe. By then, perhaps the "little guy/man on the street" will also begin to realize that the Democratic establishment has no time or sympathy for him (or even her).
Posted by: MG at January 6, 2004 5:49 PMMakes perfect sense to me. Since it fully explains why Bush will win 67% of the popular vote in November:
Sympathy.
For all those poor Democratic candidates who are getting themselves all worked up and bending themselves out of joint. Them por fellers needs a break. They needs to relax.
About four years of R & R oughta do it. Mebbe eight.
(The American people may be stupid. Possibly. But at least they know how to demonstrate decent human emotions....)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 6, 2004 5:49 PMHow could I have known all those years ago that my SAT scores wouldn't even qualify me to be a Bush Hater. This is a sad day indeed.
Posted by: John Resnick at January 6, 2004 5:50 PMBarry:
Not sympathy. Identity politics. "Stupid does as stupid is" to paraphrase Forrest's momma.
Now if you want to discuss a means test for voting rights, well now you have something.
Oh, and Mr. Starkman: STRIKE ONE! for this article.
Posted by: Rick T. at January 6, 2004 6:52 PMHe was on a local Seattle radio show yesterday trying to defend his thesis. I only caught bits and pieces but it seemed that he seemed awfully testy and defensive and the leftists who called in to support him came off as 34 watt bulbs in a 100 watt lamp.
Given the current trend of the Democratic Party's public rhetoric, odds are Starkman's thesis will end up as part of the keynote address at the DNC convention in Boston.
Posted by: John at January 6, 2004 10:08 PMHe's misunderestimating me.
Posted by: Genecis at January 6, 2004 10:47 PMGoogled him. Multi-culti / HIV-AIDS sensitivity author. Guess he's not sympathetic to pc-challenged Bush voters. Be polite.
E-mail to Nealstarkman@msn.com.
Fax to 206/281-4323.
Mail to 3038 32nd Avenue West, Seattle, Washington 98199.
Mr Starkman,
I read your column in the Seattle Post and I almost dismissed it but you are so delusional and misguided that I thought a word or two might be worthwhile, especially since your thesis that supporters of Bush are stupid is so easily rufuted.
Argument 1: My father is a Republican. He voted for Bush and will again. He received a PhD in International Relations from Georgetown University in 1969.
Argument 2: My uncle is a Republican. He voted for Bush and will again. My uncle is a surgeon at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale AZ and is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force.
Argument 3: I am a neuroscientist working at Northwestern University. I too voted for Bush and willl again.
Argument 4: Another uncle is a biologist working at Kent State University. He is a democrat and will vote for Clark.
Now, you may think that, despite our similar professional pedigrees, me and two members of my family are actually quite stupid whereas my Democrat uncle is the smart one.
Mr Starkman, that is a stupid theory.
Differences in political persuasion have little to do with IQ. There is no evidence for that-- I should know-- one of my professional interests is the neurobiological basis of intelligence. Rather, clear-thinking people arrive at their political positions on the basis of careful thought and consideration. I personally believe political philosophy is an extremely important aspect of our lives and devote a lot of time thinking about it.
Why are you a Leftist, Mr Starkman? What in the philosophy of Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, and Nikolai Ceucescaeu do you identify the most with? Can you name a single humane communist regime on this planet? Can you identify a single socialist state that doesn't punitively tax its most productive citizens, perversely inverting the values of honest labor and just reward? Can you explain how Leftist policies advance human liberty and freedom? Just what is so intelligent about taxation and the redistribution of wealth?
I think you probably know better than the views you expressed in the newspaper, and now perhaps regret having slandered the ~ 55 - 60% of American citizens who approve of the job our president is doing and may vote for him in November. But in case you don't, you should know that your column not only was factually incorrect, but it made you and other Dems who share your opinion look like a bunch of whining, pusilanimous fools that can do little more than lob bitter curses at their betters.
Enjoy the election.
Sincerely,
Bradley M Cooke, Ph.D.
WCAS Neurobiology & Physiology
Hogan 2208, Tech #2-160
Evanston IL, 60208
Brad:
Pusillanimous has 2 ls: you are obviously stupid, so I will ignore you and continue to trust in my superiority.
Posted by: seattle man at January 7, 2004 3:57 AMMr Starkman is speaking utter tosh of course...
...But let us at least give a pc-lefty credit for coming out with a theory that is hilariously and outrageously non-pc.
Posted by: Brit at January 7, 2004 5:57 AM"Vote for me, you ignorant stupid sheep! I'm smarter than you."
"Paid for by the [name of Democrat] 2004 campaign committee, Harold C. Cranchford, chairman."
Boy, that'll be persuasive!
Posted by: Mike Morley at January 7, 2004 6:01 AMIs the left talking itself out of democracy?
Posted by: David Cohen at January 7, 2004 8:56 AM"One man, one vote, one time" may have been adopted by Islamists in places like Algeria, but it was invented by Socialists in the 19th century. The Left was never interested in democracy once they acheived power.
What's got them so down right now is that they've run out of ways to fool the public, and have finally realized the old tactics no longer work.
It's the stupidity, stupid!
Posted by: Robert D at January 7, 2004 5:54 PMWow, and there I was sure that the article was satire written by a right winger. Kinda blows your mind.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 9, 2004 2:37 AMWell, Did Seattle man and Mr. Starkman vote for Patty Murray and Jim McDermitt last time around?
Excuse my stupidity if I misspelled the names of those prestigious representatives to Congress, I just couldn't care less.
Posted by: Genecis at January 9, 2004 4:01 PM