Maureen Dowd’s Not-So-Funny Column about ‘Blockheads’
Sep 18th, 2011 | 19 responses
I started to read a real funny piece in today’s New York Times—at least funny to Democrats and perhaps even to some Republicans with a sense of humor. Others need not read any farther…
It is written by the columnist Republicans love to hate: Maureen Dowd.
It is about “Eggheads and Blockheads.”
It is about the “egghead Eastern lawyer who lacks the skills or stomach for a gunfight,” and about the “tough Western rancher and ace shot who has no patience for book learnin’.”
It is about the “skinny Eastern egghead lawyer who’s inept in Washington gunfights” and it is about the “pistol-totin’, lethal-injectin’, square-shouldered cowboy who has no patience for book learnin’.” (Sorry if this book learnin’ thing has been mentioned before).
But, to be fair, it is mostly about the man from Paint Creek, Texas, who is no John Wayne as in the 1962 Western, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” even though:
… he has a ton of executions notched on his belt…wears a pair of cowboy boots with the legend ‘Liberty; stitched on one. (As in freedom, not Valance.) He plays up the effete-versus-mesquite stereotypes in his second-grade textbook of a manifesto, “Fed Up!”
It is mostly about the kind of guy Texans elect, “The kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning, packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights and loaded with hollow-point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter’s dog,” as the tough Western rancher himself writes.
It’s about the cowboy who “stands up with a smirk to talk to students about how you can get C’s, D’s and F’s and still run for president.”
I guess, by now, everyone knows who Dowd’s “blockhead” is.
And, I guess, by now all Democrats (and perhaps some Republicans) are laughing their heads off.
Yes, I did say that Dowd’s article was funny—initially—but after reading her conclusion and after reflecting on it, I have changed my mind. I think it is quite ominous and scary, and I am not even smiling anymore.
Dowd:
Sarah Palin, who got outraged at a “gotcha” question about what newspapers and magazines she read, is the mother of stupid conservatism. Another “Don’t Know Much About History” Tea Party heroine, Michele Bachmann, seems rather proud of not knowing anything, simply repeating nutty, inflammatory medical claims that somebody in the crowd tells her.
So we’re choosing between the overintellectualized professor and blockheads boasting about their vacuity?
The occupational hazard of democracy is know-nothing voters. It shouldn’t be know-nothing candidates.
Read more here, and smile—if you can.
If Dowd’s article was somewhat boring, please read this one by that other “Darling of the Right,” Gail Collins.
19 Responses to “Maureen Dowd’s Not-So-Funny Column about ‘Blockheads’”
The cowboy persona is very interesting to me. It’s completely false. From the history I have read, “cowboys” during the 1800’s rarely kept the job long. It was generally a temporary occupation. Few were armed. Most were not racially Caucasian either. Most were Black or Native American/Hispanic in origin. Even the cowboy hat as we know it today, was not widely worn. I suspect that this ‘cowboy” tough guy image was mostly created by Hollywood. In my opinion the toughest men during the 19th century were the sailors working or serving aboard sailing ships. That must have been one hard life.
I enjoyed Dowd’s column as I usually do. I’m glad she has gone after the Reps for a change, as she has been mercilessly skewering O and the Dems lately.
“The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.
The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?ref=maureendowd
That was a good one,too, dduck. I hope “The One” read it and assimilated it.
you know, there was a time. But since Molly Ivans and ‘The Buck” passed, there are not a lot of laugh out loud writers who write consistently “funny and serious’…
‘Any nation that can survive what we have lately in the way of government, is on the high road to permanent glory.’
Ivins
‘Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.’
Wm F. Buckley
Buckley skewed a few facts himself.
“Any nation that can survive what we have lately in the way of government, is on the high road to permanent glory.” — Molly Ivins.
Dr. E., this one—depending on who quotes it and when—could be apropos for all time…
I didn’t think it was particularly funny but the article does reflect a general difference in how people value academic knowledge vs common sense and practical experience. Too much of the prior you have possible inability to work effectively and paralysis by analysis. Too much of the latter and you have inadequate understanding of the issues. If you tilt too far to either side you will be ineffective.
Perry seems to tilt too far to the latter side, moreover he doesn’t have the humility to admit what he doesn’t know.
Perry’s not a serious candidate. None of the Republicans are, at least, the ones that we’re permitted to see. The GOP is effectively at war with itself, the establishment defending their comforts and pork, the upstarts who’re too rough to take home to meet the parents, and nobody who can talk to both without offending the other.
I miss Molly Ivins.
Da Goat-
You know, what you describe is exactly the secret to success or fail regarding leadership. Promote a well trained person before they have enough practical experience, or promote a well experienced person beyond their training, and things start going awry.
A President only exists for eight years at best, (with very rare exception). Not much time for gaining solid experience within a job that carries potentially global catastrophic consequences. Even worse if you are a dummy promoted up the ranks by a an Army of publicists.
Allen, thanks for your evaluation of Obama and the Dems.
duck-
Oh you are such a cracker, quacker.
The point Dowd is making is that Perry and his supporters are taking the extreme position of celebrating his dumbness, valuing experience and common sense to such a level that academics are portrayed as a negative. This mindset existed with Bush but to a lesser degree. After reading Bush’s autobiography I could see where he was hampered by trying to apply the simple solutions he had used earlier in his career to very complex problems.
Obama tilts another way. Voters valued his academic background but especially his charisma and oratory skills, but downplayed his lack of experience. The lack of experience has been a liability for Obama. He had not developed many close ties to Democratic senators and congress. He is great at explaining complex issues but not great at solutions.
Obama’s level of intelligence is still a mystery. I think he’s a pretty smart guy but if you use college grades as a measure like you do with Perry, Obama hasn’t released his undergraduate grades.
I will say this about Perry – it’s very unlikely a dumb person could become a pilot in the Air Force. His hubris worries me more than his intelligence.
Top gun decides to run. Perry will make them (the Dems) merry while Dowd plays to the crowd.
Perry is in good company:
– Vladimir Lenin derided and disenfranchised intellectuals and expelled hundreds to Germany, Poland, and elsewhere
– Joseph Stalin converted all schools to a Soviet-centric educational system, meaning they tossed out all science, learning, and research that did not back communist philosophies or Stalin’s policies.
– Chairman Mao’s goon squads murdered thousands of educators, professors, students, and other members of the intelligentsia
– Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge executed thousands of professionals and intellectuals, often on no more “evidence” than the wearing of glasses
– Adolph Hitler was so afraid of education he used his Hitler Youth programs to interrupt education and train children to be soldiers. Thousands of German intellectuals fled to other countries while Nazis burned their books
Beware folks who decry education or educated individuals. They are tyrants, one and all.
Maureen diminishes herself and democrats by using these gross oversimplifications and mischaracterizations. She portrays her opponents with such a cartoonish bigotry that her characterizations are beyond being even remotely believable. I guess it is supposed to be humor, but bigoted humor was never my cup of tea. Wouldn’t an “EDUCATED” person be more concerned with the actual ISSUES rather than her mean-spirited potshots? Who is she writing to then? I think she makes a mistake that many people make, confusing education and self described (big emphasis on self described) intellectualism with actual intelligence or perhaps wisdom. Did anyone tell her that there is a big difference? The Democratic pundits are making a huge mistake using this strategy to discredit Perry. They look petty and mean, making Perry come off as the nice guy getting picked on by a bunch of elitist entitled-minded snobs. You don’t want to alienate the electorate by looking down your nose at them and calling them stupid simply because you cannot understand their grievances. They started this with the Tea Party. They hate the very people that they are there to SERVE? The very people they claim they want to help? It would be wise, If the democrats want to hold on to power, to ditch calling their opponents stupid, and better argue the merits of their policies. Perhaps are unable to do this effectively so to save face they resort to calling the public dumb. Maybe they are the dumb ones?
Come on, Barky! Really? Perry reminds you of Mao, Hitler, Stalin et al? Are you referring to Perry or to the mood of his supporters? Either way, I am not sure hyperbole ever made a good argument.
No one is “deriding intellectuals” here, no one on the right and not Perry. I do hear many people saying that perhaps too much emphasis is placed on an Ivy League education. We do grow tired of Intellectual self-interest, however. It is time the “eggheads” realize that experience IS education. Sometimes DOING things is more important than simply reading about them and analyzing them. What I hear is people without the advantages of extended formal educations simply asking to be respected and valued rather than looked down upon.
Education in many respects is a familiarity with ones own culture, what is relevant or important to the concensus. Knowledge could be said to be the same. When we say we “know” what we know, it may or may not be actually true, it is simply what we understand to be true, our understanding being fallible. I have a background in laboratory science, where once highly regarded “knowledge” or “facts” are routinely turned on their ear by newer discoveries, which is why it drives me bananas to hear Al Gore and others say “The science is settled.” That very statement is the antithesis of Science, which is about exploration and new discovery, new understanding, constantly evolving theories. Knowledge is never in a steady state but is constantly evolving. We have to be prepared to evolve with it. In that vein, what I am hearing from the left any time anyone challenges their belief system, rather than try to understand the other point of view, the less objective of the lot always scream “He’s anti-science!” I think Perry’s stance is simply allowing discussion about creationism in the classrooms in Texas. It is a part of many people’s cultures and should be included and discussed, compared and contrasted with evolutionary theory (which has actually changed a great deal from what you probably remember due to recent studies in genetics). That is what they do where it is allowed in Texas. No one is denying science, they simply want to including their culture along with it. But you will never hear this honest assessment from the left or from Perry’s opponents. If we have issues with Rick Perry, let’s start by trying to understand Rick Perry in an honest and open minded way. Let’s debate facts honestly and not be afraid of what we may or may not find. If we cling too tightly to what we have always known, If we are bigoted about the “D” or the “R” next to someone’s name, or bigoted about his education or his accent, we do ourselves no favors. We could deny ourselves the opportunity of having a good leader…I’m not saying I think he will be, I am just saying I would like to find out in an honest way.
I laughed when she skewered Bush and Clinton. Don’t you get it, she writes funny satirical stuff, don’t get worked up, or just watch MSNBC for your input.
Global warming: slandered by the GOP despite all the scientific evidence.
Vaccinations: slandered by at least one GOP whack-nut despite all the scientific evidence and decades of success in eradicating horrible diseases
The inability to do basic math in the case of resolving the deficits. The ENTIRE GOP and Teabagger movement has this problem.
The whole No Child Left Behind act, a GOP initiative, that has done more to kill education than help it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8609450.stm)
Disavowing evolution, despite 400 years of study and science, even suggesting man & dinosaur existed together a mere 4000 years ago (supported by GOP leaders) (http://cfsint.org/columns/kidders/229-creationism-conservatism-and-the-republican-party).
The GOP is an anti-science, anti-thought, anti-rationality party. Of that there can be no doubt.