Bachmann Smart, Media Dumb
Stanley Kurtz | June 14, 2011
Seems like only yesterday when Michele Bachmann was supposed to be dumb. Come to think of it, it was yesterday, until about 8:30pm anyway. I found out how silly it was to think of Bachmann that way late last year, when I heard her speak at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. I was sitting at a table full of professor types. We kept turning to each other and saying, “This woman is sharp, not at all the dunce she’s been portrayed as.”
I suppose this is what the National Review has to do. Somebody better do something to justify all that pay. Michele Bachmann is running for President, the bigwigs like her, it’s high time to prop her up.
Her being crazy stupid, or stupid crazy, makes her unelectable. But it’s not Stanley Kurtz’s job to point the fact out, it’s his job to whistle it past the graveyard.
Is this sort of makeover good for politics? Good for the country? They’ll tell you: A skull-hacked, maggot-infested side of goat– if it were a loyal Republican — would be great for the country.
So you get a ‘Michele Bachmann is razor sharp’ post, like this one. Where did all the free floating anti-genius animus come from, incidentally? Bigoted misogynists, AKA liberals:
Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves [BLAH BLAH BLAH] flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.
You can call me bigoted. I do hate stuff like this:
“Where do we say that a cell became a blade of grass, which became a starfish, which became a cat, which became a donkey, which became a human being? There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That’s where it’s difficult to prove.”
I happen to be a biologist (no kidding). And the evidence for speciation and its many roles in evolution is substantial. Similarly, the evidence for Bachmann being eminently unqualified to judge Science and evolutionary scientists is overwhelming.
This leads me to an eternal mystery: Why are stupid people so arrogant? For example, who’d be so presumptuous to pronounce upon the spiritual fitness of a person, Melissa Etheridge, whom one has never met? Particularly while Melissa’s life hangs in the balance?
“Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers. This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian.”
Bachmann’s gall is atomic-powered. And I believe that’s it. That’s the key to understanding the difference between how the two sides view ‘smarts.’
Our side would be more interested in accumulating facts, appreciating realities and nuance, and integrating all of this into a complicated but prioritized world view. Their side would be more interested in accumulating just enough tidbits of ‘truth’ to wield with spirit in defense of some Sacred American thing. One side sees the world as complex and ever-expanding, daunting but providing stimulation and opportunities. The other sees the world as America. Period. (but look at how it’s being destroyed! [note: it's always being destroyed])
With this in mind, watch this, if it pleases you. Perhaps each of the two sides could see this clip and say the same thing: “Our side got the better of the exchange.”