A NOTE TO NEAL STARKMAN ON THE BUSH "S" FACTOR: ARROGANCE IS THE ULTIMATE STUPIDITY

Orbusmax™
E-MAIL: ORBUSMAX@ORBUSMAX.COM

*** ORBUSMAX GUEST OP/ED *** A NOTE TO NEAL STARKMAN ON THE BUSH "S" FACTOR: ARROGANCE IS THE ULTIMATE STUPIDITY - By Dan Brown January 11, 2004 *** Editor's note: The following is a response to a guest column appearing in the Jan. 5, 2004 edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "The S factor explains Bush's popularity". It can be read at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/155107_firstperson05.html. *** DEAR MR. STARKMAN: Thank you for your missive published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer this last Monday the Fifth of January; it was a worthy read, and indeed a worthy re-read. You made many good points, but the most important point you made, I posit, was the point made about yourself and so many of the not so loyal opponents of the current administration, and the larger point about the state of American politics in general. Allow me to elucidate: I suspect you are what many people would call a "liberal;" you might refer to yourself as such. I don't like that term, I have frankly gotten very tired of listening to simplistic, black and white thinking ranters like Sean Hannity turn that word into the political equivalent of "bastard," i.e. a general term of insult or disdain. A lot like the term "stupid."… I'm a Conservative. A mind your own business least government is best Conservative, not a neoconservative like President Bush. I voted for him, but I won't again. You see, I agree with many of the points you made in your letter. I agree his domestic policies could be improved, and his dissembling as he led us to war against Iraq disgusted me. I think the notion that six percent of the World's population, no matter how mighty, well intentioned, or well motivated they may be can remake the other ninety-four percent is foolish. I'm a Conservative, and I accept the intractability of the nature of man. Anything else would be stupid… But more stupid still is the failure of so many Bush bashers to provide a better alternative, to explain their positions, not with a mixture of condescension and cleavage, but in understandable terms. If you cannot explain your views concisely so most men can give them fair scrutiny, who is really stupid? And if you cannot explain your views, what value do they have? And what of the "Who" in those alternatives? I voted for George Bush despite the fact I disagreed with everything from his religiosity to his foreign policy objectives, plainly stated before the fact. I voted for the Republican because the Democrats did not field an acceptable candidate. And even stupid people plainly see there are only two possible outcomes to an American Presidential election. One or the other of the major party candidates will be President. Looking ahead, I ask, who will the Democrats give us as an alternative? That bad mix of George McGovern and Walter Mondale, Howard Dean? Or will it be the closet communist Hillary Clinton after all? And what of the "What" in those alternatives? Do you believe any other candidate could have fared radically better in today's geopolitical situations? These issues we face are old and not even mostly of our making. Certainly, they are not of George Bush's making, or, in fairness, the making of his immediate predecessors. We, the United States, have been making enemies for most of a hundred years by aiding and abetting the Colonialism of Europe so recently ended, a Colonialism our founders spurned long ago. Yet through it all, it is difficult to support the position America acted out of desire for personal gain. We have earned hatreds we do not merit, and now those hatreds are visited against us in ways that take advantage of the very essence of what we are. Our freedom is threatened by freedom itself! Our lax immigration policies, for example, have left us terribly vulnerable. My privacy is more important to me than almost anything, but that which guarantees it can be perverted into our undoing. Something like the Patriot Act was inevitable, given the world we live in, the destructive potential of technology, and the vulnerability of our infrastructure. 9-11 was a great tragedy. But it could have been worse. A lot worse. To suggest that any other President would have formulated policies significantly different than the current ones is, well, stupid…. And how about Iraq? What of the larger issues of the middle east? As long as there are significant reserves of cheap oil in the region, it will continue to be a focus of world concern. And like it or not, we're involved. Yes, there is a lot we could do to improve our resource utilization; even a humble American has a big "environmental footprint." But it's not just US! Europe and Japan are far more dependent on the international trade in oil than we. And we need them. We live in a global techno-economy. If their economies are undermined, they will undermine us in turn. It really is one world. And what of the Israelis? Saddam Hussein was paying twenty-five thousand dollars each to the surviving relatives of the Palestinian suicide bombers! He was supporting mayhem! To think the Israelis would have continued to suffer an ever-escalating uprising supported by foreign interests is unreasonable. Eventually they would have done something themselves. To think we wouldn't have been drawn into such a conflagration is…. Stupid. I was bitterly opposed to this war. But I think it was inevitable that the policies of the Baathist regime would precipitate yet another bloodbath. At least we got the inevitable at a time of our choosing. It might yet be worth the cost. Any mule can kick down a barn. Can you build a better? Or is name calling the extent of your construction skills? So to the final, awesome, arrogant stupidity: Politics is a numbers game. I have an IQ that would make Al Gore, the "IQ Candidate," green with envy. But when I vote, I get the same number of votes - one - as the most minimally competent person on the Registrar's list. If I - or you - want to "vote more than once" we must convince others our positions are correct. You have to enter the debate with more than just "the other guy is a moron and so are his supporters." You're inflaming the very people you should be trying to convince. Did you think demeaning them would shame them over to your side? Or have you just given up? Now, that's really stupid…

----------------------------------------------------------- Dan Brown is a Materials Management Chemist, a graduate of the Evergreen State College, and of the University of Adversity.