[BRussell]

It seems like Republicans usually go after Democratic presidential candidates on their character, and Democrats criticize Republicans for being unintelligent.

On the Democratic side: For Kerry it's flip-flopping on issues and exaggerating his war record. For Gore it was exaggeration and lying. For Clinton it was lying and womanizing. Not sure about before that.

On the Republican side: For W. Bush it's stupidity and poor communication skills and lack of intellectual interest. For H. W. Bush it was mainly poor communication from what I remember. For Reagan it was stupidity and lack of engagement. Again, I'm not sure about before that time.

Some questions:

1. Is it true that Republicans are more likely to go after Democrats on character, and Democrats go after Republicans for dumbness? Or am I just imagining it?

2. If it is true, why? It just doesn't make sense that Republicans would have better "character" than Democrats, or that Democrats would be smarter than Republicans. Does it? Or is there some difference in the parties that really could lead to this difference. Maybe because Republicans largely represent the religious population in the US, they see moral character as important, and Democrats see religious faith as "unenlightened."

And maybe it's only a recent phenomenon - since Reagan and then Clinton. Nixon, a Republican, is largely considered to be both extremely intelligent and extremely immoral, so that would break character. Carter, though not considered unintelligent I don't think, was considered very moral despite his ineffectiveness. But certainly for the last 25 years or so it seems to be a trend.

[dreilly1]

Based on my experience, I'd say your observation is accurate (in general, of course -- there are always exceptions). I think this has to with how the "party base" of each side percieves both issues, ans the things they value.

Conservatives (at least, the ones I interact with daily) seem to have an anti-intellectual bent to them recently. I don't mean that they shun smart people, but I think they shun the intellectual establishment, and don't hold much value in it. Many Conservatives think that the university system is hopelessly Liberal, and that there is tolerance for everyone on campus except white males. Many conservatives also see a left-wing slant to many classes, especially in the Liberal Arts (which seems like a silly thing to complain about until you realize that true traditional Liberalism has very little to do with the style that the Democrats currently practice). Just look at GWB: He's made no attempt to hide his "Gentleman's C" at Yale -- he's embraced it and wears it like a badge. It's like he's establishing his anti-intellectual credentials, and saying he made his way in the real world of business, not in the fake world of the ivory tower. (Of course, GWB's business acumen can be debated, but I don't feel like doing that right now). Democrats can attack Bush for being "dumb", but Republicans can reply that just because he wasn't a model student doesn't mean he's stupid.

Liberals (at least, the ones I interact with daily) also are strict adherents of a kind of moral relativism. Everyone's beliefs are valid, your belief system should be contantly evolving based on everyone else's beliefs, and everyone who doesn't think that way should be shunned. It's ironic, in a way: they preach moral relativism and tolerance so much that it becomes a strict doctrine that they berate people for straying from. I don't think I'm quite expressing that the right way, but that's not my point anyway. My point is that Conservatives tend to not be moral relativists at all, they have a belief system and they stick to it. I guess my point is that Democrats and Republicans both base their decisions on a set of values, but Democrats' values tend to shift according to how they see their relative place in the world that day, while Republicans tend to have a more stable set of values. So Republicans attack Democrats on character issues, because they can't make sense of the shifting value system they use to make decisions.

I'd spend a little more time refining this thought, but I need to get back to work. Please feel free to hack my argument apart, I've made a lot of generalizations here and I think there are parts that need improvement...

[Millennium]

It seems as though this is the case: Democrats attack Repubolicans on intelligence, and Republicans attack Democrats on character.

This is rather intestering, given the stereotypes each side has of the other. Usually, the stereotypes are that conservatives are evil and that liberals are dumb, yet the campaign attacks seem to go in the opposite direction from this. Does this mean that political campaigns are basically a very expensive game of "I know you are, but what am I"?

[zigzag]

I think all of these points are valid to a degree, but as always there are paradoxes. For example, while Republicans claim a certain moral rectitude in contrast to the more libertine Democrats, it's also the case that Democrats claim the moral high ground with respect to social and economic fairness ("bleeding hearts"), and Republicans are regarded as the street-smart, self-interested realists. Idealism vs. pragmatism, nurturer vs. father figure, Protestant vs. Catholic, etc. etc. - you can really go in circles.

Democrats do seem to have become more associated with the intellectual sphere, and Republicans with anti-intellectualism, and Bush certainly epitomizes it. I don't think it means that Republicans aren't ever intellectual - I think it's more an extension of the idealism vs. pragmatism dichotomy.

As for character, I think it's partly a function of circumstance. For example, in the '70's it was the Republicans who, thanks to Nixon and Agnew, had the rep for dishonesty and thievery, and Carter was supposed to be the antidote (although, in my jaded opinion, Carter is pious to the point of being annoying). Clinton seems to have reversed that trend for the time being. But insofar as Republicans cloak themselves in moral rectitude, then yes, I suppose they're more likely to focus on character.

I share the concern about Dubya's lack of engagement. It strikes me that he wants to run things like an MBA, which I don't think is feasible - I think the job calls for a genuine interest in the subject matter, which he doesn't demonstrate IMO. As dreilly said, he wears his detachment from intellectual discourse and scholarship like a badge of honor. The entrepreneurial class (with which I'm intimately acquainted) really goes for this but I don't think it suffices. You can understand the complexities of history and world affairs and still be decisive and pragmatic.

Reagan might not have been a scholar or policy wonk, but unlike Dubya he had a lifelong interest in the affairs of the day and seemed to have a sense of history. Clinton was likewise, and had a real interest in policy details to boot. Bush Sr. was knowledgeable and experienced but couldn't relate to people like Reagan or Clinton. Apart from a certain charisma, I don't see any of these qualities in Dubya - it seems that he could just as easily be running a baseball team. I hope I'm mistaken.

[zigzag]

Andrew Sullivan seems to go most of the way towards agreeing with me:

"WINNING" THE WAR: Looking at the context of president Bush's remarks yesterday on the Today Show does not undo the weird gaffe. The odd thing is that [it] really does sound like a parody of Kerry. And if Kerry had indeed said that, we would be hearing nothing else for weeks. And indeed, every time I hear the president talk extemporaneously about the war - his interview with Tim Russert last February was a classic - he does seem to have almost no conceptual grasp of what he's talking about. Back then, he seemed flummoxed by the very concept of a distinction between a war of choice and a war of necessity. Now he seems to be parroting a Council on Foreign Relations confab on the permanence of terrorism. We're all told that the president knows what he believes about this war and today he corrected himself. But the issues here - how to fight Islamist terror, what constitutes success, the necessary blend of military action, diplomacy, police work, etc. - are not minor. You have to be impressed by this president's resilence in the war and his aggression. He also deserves enormous credit for shifting U.S. policy toward democratization in that part of the world. But there are times when you have to wonder whether he really understands this issue as deeply as he needs to; and whether that limited grasp has led to some of the calamitous "miscalculations" that even he has now acknowledged.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I share the concern about Dubya's lack of engagement. It strikes me that he wants to run things like an MBA, which I don't think is feasible - I think the job calls for a genuine interest in the subject matter, which he doesn't demonstrate IMO. As dreilly said, he wears his detachment from intellectual discourse and scholarship like a badge of honor.

Everything I've read and heard abut Bush points to his beung a big question asker. He finds experts in their respective and relevant fields, then barrages them with questions, takes the info under consideration, then either comes back with more questions or makes his decision.

Have you never heard this about him? Sure sounds like genuine interest to me.

There are certain "intellectual" interests that he does refrain from partaking in, and he does admit this freely. One recent quote I heard from Bush seemed to sum this up...

Bush to Matt Lauer: "You mentioned Pakistan._ It was an unpopular move in Pakistan as you might recall. And yet it was the right thing to do. When I’m making my calculations and I say to the Taliban, ‘You know cough up al-Qaida or face serious consequences,’ I’m not doing a focus group in Pakistan, Matt. "

[itai195]

Interesting topic. I can't believe we made it this far without a single mention of Dan Quayle.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Everything I've read and heard abut Bush points to his beung a big question asker. He finds experts in their respective and relevant fields, then barrages them with questions, takes the info under consideration, then either comes back with more questions or makes his decision.

Have you never heard this about him? Sure sounds like genuine interest to me.

There are certain "intellectual" interests that he does refrain from partaking in, and he does admit this freely. One recent quote I heard from Bush seemed to sum this up...

Bush to Matt Lauer: "You mentioned Pakistan._ It was an unpopular move in Pakistan as you might recall. And yet it was the right thing to do. When I’m making my calculations and I say to the Taliban, ‘You know cough up al-Qaida or face serious consequences,’ I’m not doing a focus group in Pakistan, Matt. "

Yes, I've heard it about him, and it only serves to reinforce my feeling that he's trying to manage like an MBA and that that's not adequate to the task. Asking questions is certainly a good practice, but I'm inclined to prefer someone who has independent knowledge, interest and judgment. That, of course, is no guarantee of success either, and I have other biases against Bush, but either way I haven't developed much confidence in his abilities to navigate the rather complex waters we're in.