hubris, writ large
19 October 2004 10:16![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomJoey DeVilla, aka AccordionGuy, has a link to a NYT magazine article, which includes a really disturbing passage on one Bush adviser's view on "creating reality".
Joey pretty much says it.
Update: on reflection, this article touches on another theme that is worth pointing out.
A candidate who bases his decisions on reasoned interpretation of evidence and on rational discourse, and who is willing to change his mind in the face of new evidence, is never, in our present culture and society, going to get the quality of support that Bush has. I don't mean that they can't win; fortunately, I think that Kerry's chances for doing so are looking pretty good at this point. But Kerry doesn't believe that he's divinely inspired, and he is constitutionally incapable of displaying the sort of certitude in his opinions that Bush does, and that means that he won't attract the fervent loyalty that someone like Bush--who appears to believe in his fundamental (heh) rightness in a manner that would do any pope proud--naturally engenders in those that want more than anything to see a leader who radiates that he Knows What He's Doing.
Make no mistake: this is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing, not really. This is a religious fundamentalism vs. rationalism thing. I can easily imagine a Democrat getting elected using an approach something like that which Bush has used--and it would be all the more potent for the unexpectedness of the affiliation, I suspect.
There are people that put a great deal of importance on rational decision-making. But we don't give unconditional loyalty, and there are a lot fewer of us.
Joey pretty much says it.
Update: on reflection, this article touches on another theme that is worth pointing out.
A candidate who bases his decisions on reasoned interpretation of evidence and on rational discourse, and who is willing to change his mind in the face of new evidence, is never, in our present culture and society, going to get the quality of support that Bush has. I don't mean that they can't win; fortunately, I think that Kerry's chances for doing so are looking pretty good at this point. But Kerry doesn't believe that he's divinely inspired, and he is constitutionally incapable of displaying the sort of certitude in his opinions that Bush does, and that means that he won't attract the fervent loyalty that someone like Bush--who appears to believe in his fundamental (heh) rightness in a manner that would do any pope proud--naturally engenders in those that want more than anything to see a leader who radiates that he Knows What He's Doing.
Make no mistake: this is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing, not really. This is a religious fundamentalism vs. rationalism thing. I can easily imagine a Democrat getting elected using an approach something like that which Bush has used--and it would be all the more potent for the unexpectedness of the affiliation, I suspect.
There are people that put a great deal of importance on rational decision-making. But we don't give unconditional loyalty, and there are a lot fewer of us.