9 ms·

He must have recognised the seachange of populism and created a persona to suit. Reminds me of the BDG video on Polygon on how to create the perfect E3 presenta

He must have recognised the seachange of populism and created a persona to suit. Reminds me of the BDG video on Polygon on how to create the perfect E3 presentation. Particularly the part about Gaffes. I suppose this was a long time coming, in marketing circles, it is agreed that "Generation X" was the first "Jaded" generation, and I feel like there's some link there. Marketing to that generation often involves taking the piss out of their own product, and it is now the generation which is right in the age group to start wielding significant power and still has a number of good working years.

Apocryphon 7y ago
It's been said that George W. Bush already did that decades ago, shedding his New Englander blue-blood upbringing for Texan rustic.
- doesnt_know 7y ago
  I dunno, I don't think it's very healthy that when presented with a bumbling idiot in a position of power you start to think it's a big ruse and they are actually a genius. It's best to just assume they are in fact, a bumbling idiot.
  - zaptheimpaler 7y ago
    In general sure, but when that person happens to be leading a nation, I would not be so quick to jump to that conclusion.
    - jancsika 7y ago
      We're talking about a former leader of a nation for which the body of evidence is in. What is the evidence that he was feigning ignorance on foreign policy, national security, etc.?
  - eschaton 7y ago
    When there are actually samples of his speech before and after moving to Texas, and when he was Governor of Texas versus President of the United States, it kind of lends more credence to the claim.
    - jancsika 7y ago
      There are two essential options: 1. W "knew stuff" and chose to present himself as a Texan 2. W "didn't know stuff" and chose to present himself as a Texan The second option is by far more likely. For one of many examples take the following clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o Is there any evidence at all that W actually knew what tribal sovereignty meant yet chose to completely bumble the answer here?
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      He isn’t an idiot, but he was a extraordinarily weak president. He essentially allowed Cheney, who is in turn puppeteered by his wife, to act as a second president. IMO he is someone who could have developed into a good Senator, but unfortunately was the president at critical point in history.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Would you have links to share?
  - omeid2 7y ago
    > It's best to just assume they are in fact, a bumbling idiot. That is intellectual laziness. Climbing the political ladder is no mean feat. Sure, serendipity plays a big role, you need to be in the right place at the right time but don't dismiss people's intelligence based on public speaking.
    - monodeldiablo 7y ago
      He didn't "climb the political ladder". He was born on the top rung. His whole family are politicians, and his dad was president.
      - omeid2 7y ago
        No doubt that was a massive influence, but we all know every presidents' son is also a president, specially in USA.
  - m-i-l 7y ago
    That's Occam's Razor. There are all these complex theories that people in positions of power who come across as idiots must in actual fact be master manipulative geniuses given they can so convincingly fake blithering idiocy and they can't possibly have got to where they are by being so clueless. But the simpler solution is that they are just idiots. Remember also that Eton has a reputation for drumming into boys on a daily basis that they are born to be future leaders and have to be confident of their superiority irrespective of competence or abilities. BTW, has anyone seen Being There? Edit: Maybe we need a corollary to Hanlon's razor - "Never attribute to genius that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
- probably_wrong 7y ago
  Here's a first hand account from a former member of his staff, in an article aptly titled "George W. Bush is smarter than you": https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/ https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
  - hardlianotion 7y ago
    Tony Blair claimed that George Bush was a very smart guy
    - pcrh 7y ago
      People call their dogs or horses smart as well. It's a view that often reflects congeniality and agreement rather an objective assessment of intelligence.
mc32 7y ago
I think there is truth to that. Author mentions the break from what became spin and polish from the Blair years —where people became jaded and distrusting of that kind of politics. In the US in prior years it became such a farce (this edifice of careful behavior) that candidates would do handwringing over what color tie to wear and how tall their shoes would make them look and how preened their hair should be. In doing that they all but forgot to speak directly to voters. That’s what Johnson, Sanders and Trump, (among others), like them or not have brought. People believed too much in the five o’clock shadow myth of Nixon’s initial defeat. That drove politicians away from the realm of realism to polish and spin.
- olivermarks 7y ago
  https://youtu.be/b5wfPlgKFh8 https://youtu.be/b5wfPlgKFh8 'President Reagan (Phil Hartman) acts hopeless and clueless in public, but in private he's an evil mastermind who knows every detail about everything happening in his administration. [Season 12, 1986]'
neonate 7y ago
> He must have recognised the seachange of populism In 2006? That seems far fetched. Your point about cynicism and politicians of his generation being the first to ironically cater to it seems more solid to me.
- dTal 7y ago
  I don't think it's that far-fetched. The creeping beginnings of populism were detectable in the unusually emotionally-charged election of Obama (Change posters and the like), and that was in 2008.
tobr 7y ago
> Reminds me of the BDG video on Polygon on how to create the perfect E3 presentation. Particularly the part about Gaffes. Perhaps I’m the only one who hasn’t seen or knows exactly which video this refers to, and what it has to say about gaffes, but next time I would appreciate a link to go with a comment like this.
- Arbalest 7y ago
  Sorry, I wasn't in a position to look up stuff on youtube at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP091FeB-3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP091FeB-3o
benj111 7y ago
Do you mean Generation X, or Generation Y (Millenials)?
- Arbalest 7y ago
  I do mean Generation X, 1960s to early 80s
  - benj111 7y ago
    Fair enough, its just Gen Xers are starting to retire, which doesn't jive with "number of good working years". And surely your mid 30s is when you start climbing the greasy pole enough to wield significant power?
    - Arbalest 7y ago
      Maybe a better way of stating it is, no longer busy with children, where millenials are busy with that as a distraction.
      - benj111 7y ago
        Maybe. I agree with the general thrust of you argument, and I don't think that really detracts from the argument either. I think it just comes down to differing interpretations of significant influence. Gen Xers have reached peak power. World leaders and CEOs are probably overwhelmingly Gen Xers. Up and coming politician and Managers and CEOs of new industries are probably Millenials, they are currently gaining significant influence. But as I said, I agree with you, so don't really want to argue semantics :)

Apocryphon 7y ago

It's been said that George W. Bush already did that decades ago, shedding his New Englander blue-blood upbringing for Texan rustic.

doesnt_know 7y ago
I dunno, I don't think it's very healthy that when presented with a bumbling idiot in a position of power you start to think it's a big ruse and they are actually a genius. It's best to just assume they are in fact, a bumbling idiot.
- zaptheimpaler 7y ago
  In general sure, but when that person happens to be leading a nation, I would not be so quick to jump to that conclusion.
  - jancsika 7y ago
    We're talking about a former leader of a nation for which the body of evidence is in. What is the evidence that he was feigning ignorance on foreign policy, national security, etc.?
- eschaton 7y ago
  When there are actually samples of his speech before and after moving to Texas, and when he was Governor of Texas versus President of the United States, it kind of lends more credence to the claim.
  - jancsika 7y ago
    There are two essential options: 1. W "knew stuff" and chose to present himself as a Texan 2. W "didn't know stuff" and chose to present himself as a Texan The second option is by far more likely. For one of many examples take the following clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o Is there any evidence at all that W actually knew what tribal sovereignty meant yet chose to completely bumble the answer here?
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    He isn’t an idiot, but he was a extraordinarily weak president. He essentially allowed Cheney, who is in turn puppeteered by his wife, to act as a second president. IMO he is someone who could have developed into a good Senator, but unfortunately was the president at critical point in history.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Would you have links to share?
- omeid2 7y ago
  > It's best to just assume they are in fact, a bumbling idiot. That is intellectual laziness. Climbing the political ladder is no mean feat. Sure, serendipity plays a big role, you need to be in the right place at the right time but don't dismiss people's intelligence based on public speaking.
  - monodeldiablo 7y ago
    He didn't "climb the political ladder". He was born on the top rung. His whole family are politicians, and his dad was president.
    - omeid2 7y ago
      No doubt that was a massive influence, but we all know every presidents' son is also a president, specially in USA.
- m-i-l 7y ago
  That's Occam's Razor. There are all these complex theories that people in positions of power who come across as idiots must in actual fact be master manipulative geniuses given they can so convincingly fake blithering idiocy and they can't possibly have got to where they are by being so clueless. But the simpler solution is that they are just idiots. Remember also that Eton has a reputation for drumming into boys on a daily basis that they are born to be future leaders and have to be confident of their superiority irrespective of competence or abilities. BTW, has anyone seen Being There? Edit: Maybe we need a corollary to Hanlon's razor - "Never attribute to genius that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
probably_wrong 7y ago
Here's a first hand account from a former member of his staff, in an article aptly titled "George W. Bush is smarter than you": https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/ https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
- hardlianotion 7y ago
  Tony Blair claimed that George Bush was a very smart guy
  - pcrh 7y ago
    People call their dogs or horses smart as well. It's a view that often reflects congeniality and agreement rather an objective assessment of intelligence.

mc32 7y ago

I think there is truth to that. Author mentions the break from what became spin and polish from the Blair years —where people became jaded and distrusting of that kind of politics. In the US in prior years it became such a farce (this edifice of careful behavior) that candidates would do handwringing over what color tie to wear and how tall their shoes would make them look and how preened their hair should be. In doing that they all but forgot to speak directly to voters. That’s what Johnson, Sanders and Trump, (among others), like them or not have brought. People believed too much in the five o’clock shadow myth of Nixon’s initial defeat. That drove politicians away from the realm of realism to polish and spin.

olivermarks 7y ago
https://youtu.be/b5wfPlgKFh8 https://youtu.be/b5wfPlgKFh8 'President Reagan (Phil Hartman) acts hopeless and clueless in public, but in private he's an evil mastermind who knows every detail about everything happening in his administration. [Season 12, 1986]'

neonate 7y ago

> He must have recognised the seachange of populism In 2006? That seems far fetched. Your point about cynicism and politicians of his generation being the first to ironically cater to it seems more solid to me.

dTal 7y ago
I don't think it's that far-fetched. The creeping beginnings of populism were detectable in the unusually emotionally-charged election of Obama (Change posters and the like), and that was in 2008.

tobr 7y ago

> Reminds me of the BDG video on Polygon on how to create the perfect E3 presentation. Particularly the part about Gaffes. Perhaps I’m the only one who hasn’t seen or knows exactly which video this refers to, and what it has to say about gaffes, but next time I would appreciate a link to go with a comment like this.

Arbalest 7y ago
Sorry, I wasn't in a position to look up stuff on youtube at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP091FeB-3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP091FeB-3o

benj111 7y ago

Do you mean Generation X, or Generation Y (Millenials)?

Arbalest 7y ago
I do mean Generation X, 1960s to early 80s
- benj111 7y ago
  Fair enough, its just Gen Xers are starting to retire, which doesn't jive with "number of good working years". And surely your mid 30s is when you start climbing the greasy pole enough to wield significant power?
  - Arbalest 7y ago
    Maybe a better way of stating it is, no longer busy with children, where millenials are busy with that as a distraction.
    - benj111 7y ago
      Maybe. I agree with the general thrust of you argument, and I don't think that really detracts from the argument either. I think it just comes down to differing interpretations of significant influence. Gen Xers have reached peak power. World leaders and CEOs are probably overwhelmingly Gen Xers. Up and coming politician and Managers and CEOs of new industries are probably Millenials, they are currently gaining significant influence. But as I said, I agree with you, so don't really want to argue semantics :)