Bush lets out his inner asshole

[Plant Woman]

This is a much different situation then passing someone on a street, where no interaction is expected. We are talking about a set up meeting where the president is expecting to interact with the audience. It is my opinion that when he called on her to ask a question, that in his position as an adult and leader, that he treat a child with respect and sensitivity. It is my opinion that any reasonable person would treat a child in that situation with utmost care. That's what reasonable people do. If he was at a party with a bunch of friends who normally talk rudely to each other as a sign of affection, that would be a different story. He was talking to a child, and he should have acted in an appropriate manner with her. At least that is what I would expect from someone in his position, especially when what he was doing was part of his job as president.

[viscousmemories]

I'll go a step further and say that I'd hope the "leader of the free world" would show a little respect when responding to anyone's inquiries, regardless of whether the questioner is a child.

[BDS]

I think anyone who ever says, "Yeah, thanks" should be pilloried.

It is obviously NOT the case that any man who is rude enough to a child to make her cry is a bully. Every one of us has probably unintentionally made a child cry, just as Bush did. I'm sure Bush would agree that he should have been more sensitive, but the notion that his comment (a wisecrack that he obviously regretted -- as his backtracking comments about how it was a good question clearly show) makes him a "bully" is ridiculous.

On the other hand, I don't think the journalists are "spinning" the story. Bush tried to make a wisecrack, and it made some girl cry -- that's the story. A Bush supporter might not run the story, but I don't see how there's much "spin" involved.

[erimir]

I don't think it proves anything about Bush.

I think it's just a funny story. Cuz it's fun to say that Bush makes little girls cry.

And not in a good way, like Sanjaya does.

Also, am I the only one who thought of ass tulips when they read the title? I have unfortunately seen such things, back when I would look at Consumption Junction sometimes. They is some disgusting things on there.

[Shelli]

Can an asshole have an asshole?

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Then I guess it's fortunate for her that she never claimed it was a moral issue. She described the President's behavior as inappropriate, rude, hurtful and churlish, but she didn't say anything about whether it was immoral. You're the one who framed it as a moral question:

Indeed. Just for the record, mickthinks, I never said or suggested that Bush's behavior here is evidence of moral repugnance. I doubt I've ever said anything of the sort about anyone, frankly, with the possible exception of lisarea.

I entered this thread to question what seemed to me your vague, unsourced rhetoric about feminism, not to make moral judgements about the president. That I personally find him churlish is not a moral judgement, anymore than, say, my thinking someone is being dense or rude or silly are moral judgement.

So, how about we set aside the president's behavior altogether and address the objection I first raised? Namely, can you please provide a source for your claims about the feminist position on young girls crying in reaction to a comment an adult made?

[BDS]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

That I personally find him churlish is not a moral judgement, anymore than, say, my thinking someone is being dense or rude or silly are moral judgement.

Edmund Burke once said manners are "harbingers of morals writ large". So I (at least) think finding someone rude is a moral judgment (although a relatively minor one). Unintentional rudeness seems less culpable than intentional rudeness, although Oscar Wilde said, "A gentleman never offends unintentionally." I suppose not all actions that give offense are "rude", though.

Many of the words used to describe manners (just as an aside, and including "gentleman" and "churl") are derived from descriptions of social class.

[livius drusus]

Had Burke posted what I posted, perhaps mickthinks would have been justified as interpreting it as a moral judgement. I, as it happens, am not Edmund Burke and disagree with the notion that manners determine moral stature.

Perhaps he saw it from the classist perspective from which those words are derived; ie, poverty = bad manners = loose morals. He could probably afford to.

[BDS]

What kind of a judgment is finding someone rude, if not a moral one?

(I know that "rude" can mean "lacking in polish or refinement", and certainly you may have meant to thus characterize Bush, although it seemed like you were using the word to mean "offensively uncivil". It's strange that it's so difficult to get away from social class in this discussion, since "civil" refers to cultural distinctions, just like rude and churlish do.)

[mickthinks]

Thanks viscousmemories!

I said that the President being unabashedly rude to a young girl is evidence of his moral repugnance. It may not be very strong evidence, but like I also said I didn't really need any more evidence for that conclusion - I drew it years ago.
In other words, your previous observations have led you to a final judgement that you now apply to all reports of Bush's actions, and you aren't that concerned about the quality of the evidence. That amounts to prejudice, in my view, which is precisely what I am on about.

Prejudice leads us to lower our standards of truth and honesty, of justice and mercy, and of liberty and honour. Of course, we can justify these lowered standards on the grounds that it is only those who are 'on our side' who are excused from the full requirements of truthfulness etc. and we have nothing to fear from our own people.

But if all parties make the same excuse for their own people (and, naturally, they usually do) then truth is sacrificed at the first hint of social conflict. We start to demand that our journalists match the dishonesty of their journalists and, before you know it, the entire press corp is lying to us with every word they write and every frame they shoot. (But it is OK, because we're not fooled by the lies of the opposition, and we actually like being told the lies of our own side!)

But the problem is this; the media provide the only window through which the voters can observe their leaders in action. So if the window is full of distortions, then our politicians are obliged to present themselves in a distorted way. And when the newscorps have all been bought up by the barons, this means selling out to some vested interest in exchange for the necessary protection of some friendly coverage. It becomes a requirement for anyone who seeks political office to cultivate a conspiracy to manipulate the truth.

In this way, the corruption of our democratic system is a direct consequence of the corrupt influence of our media. I think the corrupt media is a direct consequence of insufficently high standards of honesty and integrity imposed by us citizens, because we lowered our standards for reasons like those you have presented here.

"We don't need to be as upright as they do" is the new mantra, and in my view, just like it's twin "The end justifies the means", it is a false and dangerous one.

Thanks for giving me the chance to talk this through!

Mick
the President being unabashedly rude to a young girl is evidence... ... except there is no evidence in the reports I've read that the President was unabahedly rude to the girl. I concede that it takes an open mind to see this, and that many Americans' minds have long been understandably closed on this issue.

[mickthinks]

Hello BDS!

What kind of a judgment is finding someone rude, if not a moral one?
Yes, well said! I am beginning to suspect that some people are just not aware that they are making moral judgments. For example, Livius believes she has never suggested that Bush's behavior here is morally repugnant. Yet she quite clearly implied here that she was appalled by it. Now, I accept that a skilled philosopher may be able to count a few angels hiding in the gap between that which is morally repugnant and that which is merely appalling, but I have to say I'm not even going to try!

Mick

[mickthinks]

Thanks Plant Woman!

This is a much different situation then passing someone on a street, where no interaction is expected.
Yes, I agree. It's just an example to illustrate that denying rudeness isn't necessarily asserting sensitivity. I needed to show it isn't because you implied it is.

He was talking to a child, and he should have acted in an appropriate manner with her. I haven't seen any reason to believe he didn't act appropriately. Sure, she cried! What does that prove? She's a kid, for heaven's sake! That's one of the things they do. In fact, it's one of the ways we recognise immaturity.

Mick

[Deadlokd]

Hi Mickthinks,

The Head of State must be held to a higher standard than the people within that state. To the outside world he, or she, is the embodiment of that country. When the Head of State treats his countryfolk with contempt, he effectively says to the outside world that his people are scum, and feel free to treat them as such. He also sends the message that if this is how he treats his own people, how will he treat other nations.

For seven years people have had a chance to judge the type of man that Bush is. To me, he comes across as a perpetual underachiever with severe self-esteem issues. Throughout his whole life, his family and family friends have rescued him from one gaffe after another. Every media appearance was stage managed.

With that kind of perspective it is nigh on impossible to consider his recent actions dispassionately. To paraphrase Milamber "He has been judged and found wanting."

Incidentally I'd love to have a beer with him, just so he can say something stupid to me and I can glass him. I'm not a violent person, but for the 'sensitive' one, I'll make an exception.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

In other words, your previous observations have led you to a final judgement that you now apply to all reports of Bush's actions, and you aren't that concerned about the quality of the evidence. That amounts to prejudice, in my view, which is precisely what I am on about.

No. I obviously never said that I'm not concerned about the quality of the evidence so your conclusion that I'm blinded by prejudice (and your subsequent continued attempts at moralizing) completely miss the mark.

Originally Posted by mickthinks

the President being unabashedly rude to a young girl is evidence... ... except there is no evidence in the reports I've read that the President was unabahedly rude to the girl. I concede that it takes an open mind to see this, and that many Americans' minds have long been understandably closed on this issue.

Your ad hominem arguments are getting as boring as your moralizing. It is my opinion that the President of the United States giving a "wry 'Yeah, thanks'" in response to the enquiry of a young girl at a press conference is an example of unabashed rudeness. I believe this is a valid opinion, but feel free to enlighten me as to what strict criteria a comment must meet to qualify as real "unabashed rudeness".

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by vm

It is my opinion that the President of the United States giving a "wry 'Yeah, thanks'" in response to the enquiry of a young girl at a press conference is an example of unabashed rudeness.

Considering his subsequent attempts to repair the damage, I think I would have to describe his behavior as "abashed rudeness". He did appear to recognize the inappropriate nature of his initial response and made an effort to ameliorate its effects.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by BDS

What kind of a judgment is finding someone rude, if not a moral one?

That's a good question, but as far as I can tell the jury is still out on the answer.

This excerpt from A Short History of Rudeness (starting at "Are Manners Moral?" - about halfway down the page) gives a little glimpse of some of the reasoning that's been brought to bear on the subject. I don't have a strong opinion, but given what I know today I'm inclined to agree with Kant (as paraphrased in the book excerpt) that etiquette belongs in a category of its own: Complimenting, but inferior to, morals.

Manners, [Kant] argued, "call for no large measure of moral determination and cannot, therefore, be reckoned as virtues." Yet he didn't finally dismiss them, for "even though [manners] are no virtues, they are a means of developing virtue.... The more we refine the crude elements in our nature, the more we improve our humanity and the more capable it grows of feeling the driving force of virtuous principles."

But of course the notion that one must have (and be prepared to defend) a cast-iron comprehensive moral philosophy before commenting on a politician's public decorum is as ludicrous as the notion that criticising the character of a President halfway through his second term might be deemed as a "rush to judgement", or the implication that labelling behavior as rude requires scientific proof.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Considering his subsequent attempts to repair the damage, I think I would have to describe his behavior as "abashed rudeness". He did appear to recognize the inappropriate nature of his initial response and made an effort to ameliorate its effects.

I suppose that's possible, but it seems more like political sensibility. I mean was he really abashed, or did he just quickly realize how bad his insensitivity would look in the news reports?

[Angakuk]

Well, to answer to that question would impy that one has the ability to examine his motivations. In any case, it is not necessarily an either/or sort of situation. He could well have been both abashed at the immediate consequences of his response and conscious of the potential for political damage. Remedial action in either case would present pretty much the same appearance.

[viscousmemories]

True, true. I will concede that he may or may not have been abashed.

[Angakuk]

OK, so let's take another look at mickthinks' spin argument. If Bush's subsequent actions could be interpreted as a result of his being abashed at the consequences of his initial response, then describing that initial response as an example of "unabashed rudeness" constitutes a particular interpretation of his behavior that is not necessarily required by the behavior itself. So, how do we account for one choosing this particular interpretation over one that is a little more charitable and equally supported by the evidence. I would submit that there is no way to discuss the event without introducing some element of spin. One chooses to be either charitable or uncharitable in one's interpretation of the evidence. I have completely forgotten the language used in the initial news coverage of the event, so I am not going to comment on whether it was charitable or uncharitable.

[viscousmemories]

Just to clarify, I introduced the term "unabashed rudeness" to describe Bush's behavior. The linked article certainly implies it, but those were my words. And while I agree that the characterization isn't required by his behavior in this particular instance, it is certainly consistent with a pattern of behavior I've observed over the years. So I would disagree that an innocuous interpretation is equally supported by the evidence - unless for some reason I was forced to evaluate his behavior in this circumstance in a vacuum, devoid of any knowledge of his previous actions.

I'll concede that the linked article could've been (and perhaps should've been) more objective, but that observation is pretty far removed from mickthinks' immediate insinuations (the "rush to judgement" in his first post, if you will) that everyone who perceived this event as yet another example of Bush's defective character as uncritically accepting sensationalistic journalism, instead of drawing what seems to me the most reasonable conclusion: that this was just another in a long line of social blunders from the sitting President.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

OK, so let's take another look at mickthinks' spin argument. If Bush's subsequent actions could be interpreted as a result of his being abashed at the consequences of his initial response, then describing that initial response as an example of "unabashed rudeness" constitutes a particular interpretation of his behavior that is not necessarily required by the behavior itself. So, how do we account for one choosing this particular interpretation over one that is a little more charitable and equally supported by the evidence. I would submit that there is no way to discuss the event without introducing some element of spin. One chooses to be either charitable or uncharitable in one's interpretation of the evidence. I have completely forgotten the language used in the initial news coverage of the event, so I am not going to comment on whether it was charitable or uncharitable.

All I know is I have seen other examples (especially the incident with the glasses that TLR posted) of him behaving rudely, so that would account for me not being very charitable anymore. It all piles up.
I don't like Tony Blair's politics either for instance but I do not think he is a rude man, so it is not just that I dislike his politics.

[Zadalya]

I don't see any need for the article to be objective, why is it necessary to be objective about someone's asshole-ish behavior?

[viscousmemories]

I guess I believe that journalists should report facts and leave (semi/pseudo)moral judgements to Internet forum posters.

[mickthinks]

Thanks viscousmemories!

Your ad hominem arguments...
LOL! Just because the Romans have a name for it doesn't prove it's a bad thing! Tell you what; if you apologise for your unprovoked "Don't be silly!" ad hominen, I'll take this complaint seriously. Otherwise, viscous, may I suggest you shove it right tight up your GW!

Mick