Fri, February 20, 2004

We've all been senselessly bombarded with the clips of our president's recent appearance on Meet the Press – if we've been watching Letterman, at least the clips are edited for hilarious, albeit chillingly realistic, effect – and I think it's safe to say that few among us came away from the experience with the sense that President Bush was particularly well spoken in the interview. At first, I had the same reaction that I always do when his handlers trot him out and prop him up in front of a microphone, and that reaction is "Why?"

See, no matter whether you like them or hate them, Bush's advisors are obviously a very clever group of people. They've managed to get a lot of fairly unpopular things done and they've managed to stay fairly popular doing it. We have to assume that they're aware that he looks a little unprepared whenever he's speaking publicly. There is ample evidence to support that evaluation. So, what is their reason for continuing to allow it to happen? Obviously, the administration pays little heed to the criticism that it is excessively guarded in sharing information with the press or with the public at large. They've never apologized for the fact that they tightly restrict access to the president or any other top administration officials. So, I don't think that they sent him to talk with Tim Russert because they were afraid that the administration was starting to appear coy and uncooperative toward the press. That's what they've built their reputation on!

So, I had to start thinking about it for a minute. (And nothing good ever comes of that!) Why would such adroit, calculating people make such a blunder? Why wouldn't they continue to wall him off from the press and keep his meandering "Bushisms" out of the papers? The only guess I can come up with is that they like for him to sound so unpolished. His folksy one-of-the-guys charm is credited for winning him the 2000 election (I blame a partisan Supreme Court, but I digress.) and regardless of whether he is in fact a very smart man or a bumbling drooler, it just might benefit the administration for people – particularly political opponents – to continue to "misunderestimate" him. (His word.) The White House even posted segments of his Meet the Press appearance online (of course, they edited out some of the stammering). Whether he's a shrewd tactician or just an affable façade for a team of shrewd tacticians, his ability to seem unthreatening has its advantages. It had a remarkable effect on the 2002 midterm elections, in which Democrats mistakenly regarded Bush as an easy target and found themselves losing handfuls of valuable seats in Congress.

Appearances like Meet the Press may also have the tangential benefit of rallying Bush's defenders. When footage of his atrocious attempts at public speaking circulates, a handful of the faithful can be counted on to rail against the "liberal" media and the general mistreatment of Bush, proclaiming that his malapropisms and mispronunciations like "nucular" and "subliminable" are just part of his quirky oratorical style. It's rare for these defenders to get a lot of national attention, but they serve to further galvanize those who support Bush no matter what.

While we're on the subject, though, why does he sound so bad on TV? The problem is not confined to extemporaneous conversation only; even in scripted speeches he sounds stiff and unfamiliar with the language – pausing in the wrong places, emphasizing the wrong words, and tripping over common phrases. In interviews, it's usually worse – even armed with a few specific talking points, he manages to sound uninformed and awkward. (But remarkably self-assured. Even when he says the wrong thing, his stern countenance reflects utter confidence.) According to insiders, this isn't because he's a dullard. They say the opposite is true. We're constantly being assured by his close advisors and administration team that behind closed doors he's articulate and smart as a whip. Sure, maybe people like David Frum and Scott McClellan have reasons to lie to us about this, but it still seems rather unlikely that the extreme scenario – Bush as a completely ignorant lackey who says and does what puppetmasters Dick Cheney and Karl Rove tell him – is entirely true. Based on the actions we've seen from his administration, if he really weren't involved, the man would have to be supremely unaware. In fact, the staggering amount of unadulterated evil perpetrated by his administration makes the argument for him – he simply must be sharp and crafty in order to have pulled it all off. But then, shouldn't he sound... smarter?

This leads me to one inexorable conclusion: The man is not a bad public speaker; he's simply a bad liar. Consider it: what's the key difference between the Bush who everyone says is witty and intelligent in private and the Bush we see fumbling with monosyllabic words in public? In private, he's safe. He can say whatever he wants, because he's surrounded by his advisors. If he wants to say "Obviously our reasons for wanting to take over Iraq will be rejected by the American public; let's cook up some fake ones," there are no consequences, because everyone in attendance is as evil as he is. But in public, he has to make sure he says the right thing. He has to choose his words carefully, because he needs to stay popular; and in order to avoid being caught, his story has to match up with whatever the administration is spouting. He happens to be very bad at lying. We all know people like this – they can't come up with a good cover story quickly, or they slip up and give contradictory details, or they don't make sense. Over a lifetime of this, Bush has learned that he's not good at it, so he has strategies to avoid getting caught. Stick to a few simple talking points, for example. And that stern, confident expression – a subtle misdirection. Or the way he often interrupts himself mid-sentence. He's just thinking of a better way to cover his lie. Or the way he pauses a lot when he speaks – he's not searching for words, he's searching for lies. If he were telling the truth, he would be lucid and coherent, but (at least in public) the man is simply never telling the truth. He can't. If he did, we'd find out about all the evil things that he and his administration are up to. (And that's on top of all the evil that we already know about.)

I can't disrespect the man. I despise him, yes, but I must acknowledge that he has been very successful. He's remarkably savvy about human nature and he has an uncanny ability to take advantage of people's weaknesses. Collegiality, nepotism, pity, apathy, fear, greed. He understands them all, and he knows how to make them work in his favor. Of course, it helps that he's surrounded himself with exceedingly opportunistic and steadfastly ambitious individuals with finely honed self-serving agendas – but I truly believe he's an intelligent man as well. He just can't show us that, because he's chosen to use his powers for evil, not good, and being publicly evil is generally bad for re-election campaigns.

© onebee · all rights reserved