[A commentary on the Yale grades of Messrs. Bush and Kerry]
It should be considered the eighth deadly sin, right after sloth. Gossip. Gossiping. Bearing, not false witness, but unsubstantiated witness, or careless witness, with the intent to harm, sully, impugn. Most if not all people are either victims or perpetrators, or both, in the deadly rumor-mongering which fills each day at work, on the radio and TV; in the papers, and in bedrooms. It is an insidious evil, prejudicing people against one another.
I recall a friend in college who was singularly good at it. Once, he said of a particular woman, "X and Y and Z. Did you know?" and for the life of me, I could not separate her from his statements, even when there was utterly no way of determining the truth, even for him, of what he said. My friend had this way of reducing people to a stain, to a small blight. It was like he was able to point to a zit on the face, the hidden face of the soul. His remarks incontrovertibly prevented you from NOT staring at the blemish, even if it was a blemish merely suggested, intimated, even invented; spoken with casual facility.
"Did you know I heard she had ...?" Fill in the blank with a pencil, and you'll discover that you'll never be able to erase what you've written.
It was amazing what control gossip gave my friend.
Politics, political news, and much political analysis is rife with the power of gossip. It is a destructive force. And now, if I can manage it, I would like to address one bit of gossip that has haunted us for the past several years: "Did you know that George Bush was a mediocre student at Yale?"
Now I pick this one gossipy tidbit largely because of this week's equally prurient and gossipy revelation that Sir John Kerry's Yale grades were slightly less impressive than President Bush's. It is current news. And there is viable news in the revelation; as there is viable news in the fact that GW Bush was not a high-performer at Yale.
But it is the gossip that is really the news, or more accurately, it is the false impression and damage to character that the gossip-mongers generated around President Bush, about his alleged idiocy, that is newsworthy. For Bush's malapropisms and tongue-stumblings were used repeatedly as indications of his intellectual inferiority. Swirling around this were discussions that Bush was a Yale-legacy child, you know, Ivy-League merely because daddy went to Yale, too. How else to explain how such a nitwit made it into Yale in the first place?
Attached to all this was dizzying hypocrisy. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were often presented as men of the people. But if it was suggested that maybe America needed leadership that came from something less common than "men of the people", the same supporters of Clinton and Gore's commonality were always quick to point out that both men attended elite colleges and graduate schools (Georgetown, Yale, Harvard), where only uncommon people studied. But when a Bush supporter, for example, pointed out his training at Yale and Harvard, it was dismissed as privileged elitism, and proof that Bush was a silver-spoon aristocrat with a rather slow-wit. Bush could never be a man of the people.
In the 2004 election cycle, it was Kerry that was considered "thoughtful", "engaged", "nuanced." But Bush was detached and over his head, repetitious; unable to collect a thought without Cheney and Rove whispering in his ear (allegedly with a secret device, as reported after the second debate. Remember? Of course, it was Bush's bullet-proof vest bulging from the middle of his back, but to many, it was a secret-decoder ring thing-a-ma-jig.) Kerry showed mastery over subject matter, while Bush, in keeping with his Yale mediocrity, was a boorish parrot.
Of course, that Democrats opposed a "mediocrity" as President proved that they preferred exceptional people; that only the uncommonly good should sit in the Oval Office; that only the gifted and "nuanced" should be in high places. The message from Democrats to all graduating high school seniors in America: When it comes to the White House, mediocrity need not apply.
(As I long suspected, the countless graduation speakers to which I have listened have been lying when they urged me to believe in myself; to work hard and aim high; to prove to the world that nothing is impossible. To deep-thinking Democrats, Bush could not be President on the merits, for mediocrity can only succeed by stealing elections. George Bush could only dream about stealing the impossible; not earning it.)
And now, tucked away in his recently released military records, come John Kerry's grades from his days at Yale. Sundry critics insist that had Kerry opened these files prior to Election Day 2004; had he done battle with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; he'd be President now.
Perhaps. But to some critics it is clear that Kerry was reluctant to release said files precisely because the mystique of his towering intellect would have dissipated in the blandness of being average, in the tepidity of mediocrity. Odd that the supporters of Kerry think that Bush's average grades preclude him from office; and yet Kerry's average transcripts would have catapulted him to victory.
I think that had Kerry's transcripts hit the streets in October of '04, he would have lost the election on a far larger scale.
But I am not really about to weigh in on President Bush's or John Kerry's grades. They were mere boys at the time. But the gossip should be rebuked with the truth, and the truth is that Bush was a better student than Mr. Kerry. Marginally better, but better nonetheless. (Kerry had four Ds his freshman year, whereas Bush had only one during his four years at Yale.)
Finally, this excerpt from the Boston Globe (June 7, 2005):
"Gaddis Smith, a retired Yale history professor who taught both Kerry and Bush, said in a telephone interview that he vividly remembers Kerry as a student during the 1964-1965 school year, when Kerry would have been a junior. However, Smith said he doesn't have a specific memory about Bush.
Based on what Smith recalls teaching that year, Kerry scored a 71 and 79 in two of Smith's courses. When Smith was told those scores, he responded: ''Uh, oh. I thought he was good student. Those aren't very good grades." To put the grades in perspective, Smith said that he had a well-earned reputation for being tough, and noted that such grades would probably be about 10 points higher in a similar class today because of the impact of what he called ''grade inflation."
Bush went to Yale from 1964 to 1968; his highest grades were 88s in anthropology, history, and philosophy, according to The New Yorker article. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy. Bush has said he was a C student."
According to the same article, Kerry's highest grade was earned his senior year, an 89 in poli-sci.
Not that grades matter, though they do if you are bashing a person running as a Republican candidate for President. Bush's grades were used against him, and there was no way in hell many Democrats could permit that the man could indeed be smarter than his grades. Unless that man was John Kerry.
But the truth is that everyone knew Bush's grades years ago, and no one knew Kerry's. Hence, the only logical conclusion that can be deduced is this: It was mere gossip that placed Kerry above Bush in academic prowess. In other words, it was gossip and not fact that gave Kerry the edge over Bush in perception.
Hopefully, reality always trumps fiction, and truth silences gossip.
"Hey, did you hear that so-and-so went to this party and ...?"
Gossip: Kill it if you can.
PS. So, if grades have been inflated by 10 points, then Kerry scored a 99 in poli-sci, once, and Bush thrice scored 98 (in anthropology, history and philosophy). Hmm. Got to tell you that poli-sci was for me easier (and duller) than philosophy. Of course, I was a philosophy major: I have a prejudice toward the love of wisdom.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment