Ed Firmage Jr.Doomed by the Bell Curve: Why Democrats Can’t Compete
Consistency. If there’s one thing Republicans have going for them, it’s consistency. In fact, no other organization that I’m aware of, whether it be a sports team, a university, a government bureau or a business can point to a track record of such astonishing consistency. For a hundred years now, the Republicans have unfailingly been electing stupid men to high office. I won’t say that these men are the stupidest you could find–one could with concerted effort, I’m sure, find denser, slower, BETTER candidates. But considering that the party has only a year or so each election cycle to find their man, the results are impressive.
I hadn’t appreciated the truly breathtaking nature of this consistency until this morning when it occurred to me to list all of the Republican presidents back as far as the first unquestionably competent holder of the office. This list says more than I ever could in praise of Republican consistency, so here it is in all of its exceptional mediocrity.
George W. Bush
George H. W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
Dwight Eisenhower
Herbert Hoover
Calvin Coolidge
Warren Harding
William Howard Taft
Theodore Roosevelt (the first competent one of the bunch)
Well and truly does Mitt Romney call for the elimination of eastern elites. In his heart, Mitt knows what it means to be a Republican, a true Republican, even if he can see the Republican promised land only from afar off, like Moses on Mt. Nebo. So, frankly, does John McCain, who passed on Mitt as a running mate, because frankly he has too high an IQ to be considered for high office. It’s sad, really, to see a man of Mitt’s stature knocking at the gate of a country club he can never enter. McCain’s own status would be as questionable as Mitt’s were it not for the fact that he shows all the signs of incipient senility, insuring that if he is elected the country will continue to be led by someone who is certifiably incapable of finding his ass with both hands.
Now, some will say that the Republican record isn’t in fact all that sterling. Does Dwight Eisenhower, for example, really belong in this distinguished company? Point conceded. Dwight did have a momentary lapse into greatness when he warned us about the military-industrial-scientific complex. Thankfully for the Republican record, no one took him seriously, and he himself didn’t have the lapse until he was just about to leave office, so we might fairly not even count the highly uncharacteristic moment of greatness.
Richard Nixon too might be debated. Far from having an unblemished record of nearly 100 years of thumb-sucking incompetence to their credit, the Republicans might only be able to claim a mere 35, which any party, even the Democratic, might, with luck, be able to match. But no, one has only to consider Watergate to feel confident in including Tricky Dick (not to be confused with his modern namesake, who is in fact demonically clever). Never in history has there been such a colossally, presidentially incompetent crook.
Nor is breathtaking individual executive incompetence the Republicans’ only claim to fame. Consider what these men have accomplished! George W. Bush has given us a $3 trillion war, a true luxury, Rolls-Royce-level war in the Middle East, the best war that American money could buy. And this war may yet give little George the chance to start a big world war. Not since Adolf Hitler has a stupid man done so much with so little and so little with so much. In the interest of protecting American family values, George has amassed a record national debt that will insure that our children aren’t tempted into vice by excessive discretionary income. George has insured that the world will never again face an ice age. And, last but not least, George Jr. has left us with a true Republican-size recession, just as his daddy did.
Some men, like George Jr., are born to great stupidity. Others, like his daddy, have it thrust upon them. In the case of George Sr. we’re dealing with a man, who, but for his presidency, might have entered the history books as an average, level-headed sort of CIA spook. Instead, destiny, in the figure of one of history’s truly astonishing dunces, Ronald Reagan, reached out and elevated him to the level of his own incompetence–the thing that all men most desire. Rising to the occasion, George Sr. gave us the first war in the Gulf and a modest-size recession.
Ronald Reagan’s accomplishments are too numerous to mention. When I first heard that this B movie star was running for president, I laughed out loud. “Unelectable,” I said. “Americans don’t have the balls to elect someone that stupid.” Well, I admit it now with shame, I was wrong. And I’ve since learned a thing or two about just how bold we Americans are in charting unknown territory. In 1980, though, we were just beginning to explore the jungle of deep incompetence that creatures such as Ronald Reagan call home. Ronald’s chief accomplishment was that he made being stupid respectable, something that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge together over eight years couldn’t accomplish. Ronald even won over smart (or at least articulate) Republicans like George F. Will and Bill Buckley. Ronald had stupid people across America saying, “You know, he makes me think that anyone can be president,” and they meant it. They’re saying the same thing today in the aftermath of Sarah Palin. Ordinary housewives here in West Jordan and Ogden have been heard to say that they too could become president. Inspiring! Ronald Reagan did what a dozen Americans with Disability acts could not have done. He gave stupid people a sense of mission!
Dana Carvey’s “Gerald Ford Dead Today” sketch begged the all-important question: measured at least by brain waves, how could you tell? What more need one say of this man who parleyed his IQ into a long post-presidential twilight of success on the greens. He was a great non-crook. Perhaps the greatest non-entity since Coolidge. Nuff said.
Of the original, incomparable, legendary Tricky Dick what can you say? If Reagan’s gift to us was to make being stupid politically acceptable, Dicky’s was to teach us compassion for crooks. Greater love hath no man.
Of Harding and Coolidge it is perhaps enough to say that they gave us the Depression, and in so doing became the models for all Republicans since. None has yet achieved their level of impact on ordinary Americans, but Dubya is hot on their tail and still has four months.
How one asks, do the Republicans achieve such spectacularly consistent results. Their secret weapon is in demographics, as the following chart illustrates. The key to understanding this chart, however, is the statement of John Stuart Mill, a man who knew a thing or two about being smart (he had an estimated IQ of 210). I paraphrase, “I don’t say that all conservatives are stupid, but that all stupid people are conservatives.”
If the Republicans have the bottom half of the bell curve to themselves, how can a Democrat hope to compete? The best we can hope for is to launch the odd mediocrity, such as Lyndon Johnson. But this is kids’ stuff. The professional idiots are the Republicans. I take my hat off to them. “Hats off, gentlemen, a dolt.” Sarah Palin, if history is any indication, you could well be our next great Republican president. All the indicators are there, and you have the best backing in the world.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
This has to be the dummest articles ever on oneutah.org and that is saying alot. Lets see yeah, Jimmy Carter (peanut farmer) is a real genius, not. LBJ was known as a “great mind”, yeah right. Truman was smart enough to drop the bomb on Japan so we will give him credit for that. There was JFK who’s policies were more Republican than Democrat if you use today’s standards, but dumb enough to drive through a crowd in an open convertible. I would match them up any day with Ronald Reagan who destroyed the Soviet Union without firing a shot. You say Eisenhower was an idiot, but he masterminded the greatest invasion in the history of the mankind and saved the world from Nazism. Then there was the first Republican President, Abe Lincoln, who was a real dunce. Then there is George Bush who you say is dumb as a rock but then believe he masterminded 911 and pinned the blame on an innocent goat herder named Osama Bin Laden.
If your idea of the bell curve, which is Republicans = stupid and Democrats = smart, then why are Republicans considered the party of the Rich, and Democrats considered the party of the poor? Yes, you may have academia but as the saying goes those who can, do (Republicans) and those that can’t, teach (Democrats).
September 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite U.S. president. Until today, I don’t think anyone has ever labeled him as a mediocrity.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I liked Ike.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Richard, Leo,
Teddy was the only competent one in the list, hence the hundred-year idea. To clarify the point, however, I’ve made a note next to his name. Ike was a fine commander, lousy, spineless president. Like George I, he rose to the level of his incompetence.
Ken,
You illustrate my point.
But you do raise an interesting issue, which may be the subject of a future posting, viz. the correspondence between intelligence and humor, and the resulting lack of the latter in the Republican party, except the best, unintentional kind. Meantime, may I suggest that you view Comedy Central’s coverage of the Republican Convention (excerpts on YouTube and ComedyCentral.com).
September 7th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Somebody said recdently that for sure half of the populace were stOOpider than the average (a simple stastical reality, I just never contemplated the break being on political lines til your graphic. Ha!
To Ken: Equating the acquisition of wealth with intelligence is positively unChristian. Smarts ain’t got nuttin’ to do with that. More like greed, hippocracy and denial, when enough is enough. For me…I’ve had enough neocon idiocy..
September 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Ike, as president, ended one war and kept us out of war after that. Would that our other presidents since then had done so well. It actually takes a lot of spine to keep our country out of war. It took some spine to send troops to Little Rock. He put Warren in as Chief Justice. Historians seem to rank him fairly well.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Leo,
I wasn’t dissing old Ike for his pacific qualities. I had in mind things like his standing by for too long while Joe McCarthy conducted his congressional auto da fes, for being the one in office when the arms race got hot and heavy and for allowing things to get that way (a failing he implicitly acknowledged when in his parting shot he warned about the military-industrial complex). More than anything, I blame him for what he didn’t do, as opposed to Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes, who made a policy of obstructing many things they should have been actively pursing (like addressing global warming) and of actively pursuing many other things they shouldn’t have (e.g., Iraq, raping the West, subverting the Constitution and our civil rights, Watergate).
Maybe I’m being too hard on Ike. He is certainly better than anyone else on the list until (working backwards) Roosevelt. In deference to Ike, I’d be willing to do two lists, one from Roosevelt to Ike and the other from Nixon to Bush II.
The conclusion about the general quality of the offering doesn’t change. The Republicans have consistently offered up America at its worst. The Democrats have given us several examples of America at its best. If they didn’t always deliver results comparable to their talent and ideals, it wasn’t necessarily for lack of trying. Compare, for example, FDR in the Depression versus the two Bushes during their much less challenging recessions. The difference is like night and day. Compare JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis versus Bush and 9/11. Night and day again. Compare even Jimmy Carter, unfairly maligned for problems that were largely not of his creation (the first oil crisis and the Iran hostages), with ANY of the Republicans for sheer human decency and principled attempts to govern in a principled way. The Republican record is a disgraceful display of men too stupid to have ideas and too venal to care.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
CAV,
Morally disencompassed. I’m not quite sure what it means, but for sheer euphony I think this is the nicest phrase I’ve heard all summer. If encompassed is to be completely embraced, enfolded, does this mean morally unraveled? Or does it refer perhaps to the last days of an illicit romance with an unusually large woman who has acquired scruples? Have you’ve been released from her encompassing embrace to take up a life newly rededicated to morality? Or does it mean the opposite of this, that having tasted the pleasures of such a large compass you’ve given up morality for a life of dissolution and general Democratic debauchery? The mind boggles at the sheer wealth of ambiguity inherent in the idea. Did you pick up the phrase perhaps from Alexander Haig?
September 7th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Ed, you are a riot! No Moral Compass. That you can take this back-shot on our oppositions wandering in a wasteland caused by their disenfranchisement of REALITY with all the questions about right and wrong as well as the Constitution, flushed down the crapper, replaced by convenient rationale and back-dated laws, and read into it such a poetic, is almost enough to make me misty. Keep up the good work.
But, I’m glad you like it. I’ll be done with it soon, you may consider it yours if you like. There’s plenty where that came from and with your ‘insightful readings, we may well have ourselves a fountain of some sort of literary gold that will make us proud. Or not. Thanks
One more thing on the Bell graphic / Ken and the not too smart voters, I read recently that stoopid people are not smart enough to apprehend thet anyone can be smarter than them. That anyone can have their vote so long as that person is at least as stoopid or stoopider than them. Conjunct this notion with the red / blue dived captured so well in the Graphic and THAT, ‘My Friend’ is the problem we face today. Talk about voting against ones own best interest! Later. Cav
September 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
LBJ gets mixed marks in my view. He had some very impressive accomplishments. If he had kept us out of Vietnam the Republican era that followed him might have been avoided and historians might now rank him higher.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
CAV,
Did I mention that I was trained in textual interpretation by a rabbi? Combine roughly equal parts Hugh Nibley, Rashi, Edward Abbey, Wendell Berry, and Basho, stir in six years of intensive verse by verse reading of Leviticus and the Code of Hammurabi (in the original Akkadian, no less), ten more years worth of marketing bullshit and eight years of sage, juniper, and wildflowers, and you have some idea of why my writing so tantalizes Paul Mero, though he vehemently denies this. Just as determinative, however, is the fact that as I get older, I seem to suffer less and less from the inhibiting effects of the frontal lobes. Unlike Paul Mero, whose control lobes are as massive as the buttocks of the all-encompassing woman I still think you’re hiding from us and whose pleasure centers are therefore completely outgunned, my lobes diminish daily, and the centers of the brain responsible for bursts of uninhibited irresponsibility grow stronger. I therefore write with the abandon of Mark Twain speaking to a men’s dinner club in Paris on the subject of masturbation. (Have you read this, by the way ? It’s one of the funniest things ever penned by the hand of man. If you haven’t, I’ll post it for the enjoyment of all.)
September 7th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
CAV,
Recalling Twain’s notorious speech brought me such pleasure, I couldn’t resist another read. And wanting to corrupt as many others as possible, I’d like to share it. So, here it is. Paul Mero, if you’re reading this, I’m hereby posting the PG-13 warning. Reading further could cause you to laugh out loud the next time your bishop interviews you about your sex life.
Some Thoughts on the Science of Onanism
by Mark Twain
[One evening in Paris in 1879, The Stomach Club, a society of American writers and artists, gathered to drink well, to eat a good dinner and hear an address by Mark Twain. He was among friends and, according to the custom of the club, he delivered a humorous talk on a subject hardly ever mentioned in public in that day and age. After the meeting, he preserved the manuscript among his papers. It was finally printed in a pamphlet limited to 50 copies 64 years later.]
_________________________________________________________________
My gifted predecessor has warned you against the “social evil–adultery.” In his able paper he exhausted that subject; he left absolutely nothing more to be said on it. But I will continue his good work in the cause of morality by cautioning you against that species of recreation called self-abuse to which I perceive you are much addicted. All great writers on health and morals, both ancient and modern, have struggled with this stately subject; this shows its dignity and importance. Some of these writers have taken one side, some the other.
Homer, in the second book of the Iliad says with fine enthusiasm, “Give me masturbation or give me death.” Caesar, in his Commentaries, says, “To the lonely it is company; to the forsaken it is a friend; to the aged and to the impotent it is a benefactor. They that are penniless are yet rich, in that they still have this majestic diversion.” In another place this experienced observer has said, “There are times when I prefer it to sodomy.”
Robinson Crusoe says, “I cannot describe what I owe to this gentle art.” Queen Elizabeth said, “It is the bulwark of virginity.” Cetewayo, the Zulu hero, remarked, “A jerk in the hand is worth two in the bush.” The immortal Franklin has said, “Masturbation is the best policy.”
Michelangelo and all of the other old masters–”old masters,” I will remark, is an abbreviation, a contraction–have used similar language. Michelangelo said to Pope Julius II, “Self-negation is noble, self-culture beneficent, self-possession is manly, but to the truly great and inspiring soul they are poor and tame compared with self-abuse.” Mr. Brown, here, in one of his latest and most graceful poems, refers to it in an eloquent line which is destined to live to the end of time–”None knows it but to love it; none name it but to praise.”
Such are the utterances of the most illustrious of the masters of this renowned science, and apologists for it. The name of those who decry it and oppose it is legion; they have made strong arguments and uttered bitter speeches against it–but there is not room to repeat them here in much detail. Brigham Young, an expert of incontestable authority, said, “As compared with the other thing, it is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” Solomon said, “There is nothing to recommend it but its cheapness.” Galen said, “It is shameful to degrade to such bestial uses that grand limb, that formidable member, which we votaries of Science dub the Major Maxillary–when they dub it at all–which is seldom, It would be better to amputate the os frontis than to put it to such use.”
The great statistician Smith, in his report to Parliament, says, “In my opinion, more children have been wasted in this way than any other.” It cannot be denied that the high antiquity of this art entitles it to our respect; but at the same time, I think its harmfulness demands our condemnation. Mr. Darwin was grieved to feel obliged to give up his theory that the monkey was the connecting link between man and the lower animals. I think he was too hasty. The monkey is the only animal, except man, that practices this science; hence, he is our brother; there is a bond of sympathy and relationship between us. Give this ingenuous animal an audience of the proper kind and he will straightway put aside his other affairs and take a whet; and you will see by his contortions and his ecstatic expression that he takes an intelligent and human interest in his performance.
The signs of excessive indulgence in this destructive pastime are easily detectable. They are these: a disposition to eat, to drink, to smoke, to meet together convivially, to laugh, to joke and tell indelicate stories–and mainly, a yearning to paint pictures. The results of the habit are: loss of memory, loss of virility, loss of cheerfulness and loss of progeny.
Of all the various kinds of sexual intercourse, this has the least to recommend it. As an amusement, it is too fleeting; as an occupation, it is too wearing; as a public exhibition, there is no money in it. It is unsuited to the drawing room, and in the most cultured society it has long been banished from the social board. It has at last, in our day of progress and improvement, been degraded to brotherhood with flatulence. Among the best bred, these two arts are now indulged in only private–though by consent of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the fundamental sigh.
My illustrious predecessor has taught you that all forms of the “social evil” are bad. I would teach you that some of these forms are more to be avoided than others. So, in concluding, I say, “If you must gamble your lives sexually, don’t play a lone hand too much.” When you feel a revolutionary uprising in your system, get your Vendome Column down some other way–don’t jerk it down.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Ed, I see you’ve broken with political correctness to speak truth. Numerous studies have shown conservatives lie at the lower end of spectrums from education to athletic ability, from intelligence to quality of family (has anyone noticed how many children of current and past candidates have come against their father’s candidacy?
The only place where conservatives were close to progressives was on income. Thanks to Reagan, Republicans now own the back end of that one too (Hopefully Obama’s candidacy will reverse the scourge of the blue collar economically challenged morons who started voting republican in the eighties.
As for poor white southern trash, there is probably no hope. For them, being white is the only thing that under girds their belief that they are better than Americans with darker skin who are otherwise their economic equals but their intellectual superiors.
Great post!
September 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Ed, write that intelligence/humor treatise soon. I think you will prove a theory a friend and I have been discussing for some time. And we concur, Republicans seem to lack the ability to laugh–they lack wit and they don’t get the joke.
The Mark Twain speech was priceless. Careful though, if certain people read the part about ‘wasted children’, we may get into another of those long abortion debates.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
The Misanthrope writes again. Ed, your opinions are more than wrong, more than pedantic…they are irrelevant. Alas, you have accomplished your mission and, now, I award you a Pulitzer for blogger insanity. Congratulations.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:09 am
That was funny, but funnier still thru the braille translator I had to get for my ‘puter.