there's an amusing article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (via the Smirking Chimp) that rates President Bush's most recent "unscripted" appearance before the Washington Press Corps as if he were a contestant on American Idol, the gist of it being that Dubya's deer-in-the-headlights shtick wouldn't have lasted one week under the withering scrutiny of English badboy Simon Cowell. It's funny, of course, because it's true, but the columnist missed the obvious parallel between Georgie Boy and loveable loser William Hung, who despite making into this season's Idol as the equivalent of a blooper reel has become a pop culture icon with his own recording contract.
Part of the fun of the first few episodes of American Idol is watching the steady parade of the deluded who somehow evade the normal failsafe of family and friends giving them a reality check before going on to humiliate themselves on national television. William Hung was an extreme example of this, a geeky kid with no sense of pitch or rhythm whatsoever who decided that with relentless determination and a big enough smile he could somehow overcome these mere shortcomings. Of course he was terrible - I am still haunted by his whiter than white rendition of Ricky Martin's "She Bangs" - but that didn't stop America from making him a celebrity, almost defiantly so, as if talent shouldn't have anything to do with who becomes a star and who doesn't.
George W. Bush is another extreme example of this angry backlash against the meritocratic ideal. Instead of admitting the President's shortcomings, his partisans celebrate his inarticulateness, his lack of curiosity, and his absolutely terrifying inability to think on his feet (which was on painful display last week when a reporter lobbed him the softball question: "What's the biggest mistake you've made since 9/11?" The only wrong answer was to do exactly what he did and not give an answer) as part of his "just like you and me" character. In other words, the worse the guy is, the more they love him! What's worse, anyone from the opposition who happens to point out those same flaws and question the logic of making them out to be qualifications for the Oval Office are accused of being "Bush-haters", as if not wanting the person leading to country to be an uninformed twit is the moral equivalent of spray-painting a swastika on the wall of your local synagogue.
Anti-intellectualism has always been a hallmark of the American character, but this knee-jerk reaction to defend mediocrity for mediocrity's sake is a disturbing new phenomenon. And it's not just confined to the Right - the Left has campaigned aggressively in our educational system to remove any hint of competition in modern pedagogy, so as not to make losers feel as if they've lost. But to spare a child's short-term feelings while undermining his or her long-term well being is just as stupid as making a man-child with no leadership skills or distinguishing achievements under his belt the leader of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. Speaking well and being able to defend one's convictions on the spot aren't just affectations - they're essential for any public official. Does anyone think that Dubya would be in even a fraction of the trouble he's weathering right now if he had the rhetorical abilities of, say, Tony Blair? If us "Mericans" are so down on people who talk pretty, why then is Bush so eager to appear by Blair's side - as he did this week in a rare Rose Garden joint press conference - if not in a desperate attempt to garner some second-hand credibility.
Maybe next time Dubya should sing a duet with William Hung!
No comments:
Post a Comment