INTRODUCTION

In order for an American president to succeed, he/she must present an appropriate image of leadership to the American people, an image that meets the needs of the time when the president governs and also fits the personality of that president. The ultimate goal is to convince the public that he/she is actually providing leadership, even if, in reality, the ability to affect outcomes is limited. Reality, thus, becomes secondary and image becomes everything (Walterman, Wright & St. Clair, 1999).

Having the credentials to support the image is, no doubt, helpful. The best presidents, by common consent, have been men who did things, as the commanders-in-chief in time of war, civil or foreign, and as statesmen in the face of a variety of other serious challenges. The worst presidents have been corrupt, indolent or incompetent. A president should be great in the estimate of most Americans, and if he is not, he is criticized insofar as his accomplishments fail to meet the high standards of anticipation that come with the high office itself (Burton, 1988).

As with all great national institutions, American society holds a set of norms that dictate what is desirable for the presidency. At the very least, Americans expect that their president should be intelligent and have specific knowledge, including but not limited to history, geography, diplomacy, foreign policy and a working knowledge of government programs and laws. Oratory skills are also helpful.

When George W. Bush, a man of limited governing experience and of even more limited intellectual background, failed to live up to the most basic expectations of the American people, an image of a "dunce" who is not qualified to assume the role of President of the United States began to solidify. At times Bush’s gaffes were seemingly minor (such as with his mangled syntax, "It’s not the way America is all about."), products of what Miller’s The Bush Dyslexicon dubs Bush’s "West Texas version of Ebonics," but at other times the blunders were of colossal proportion, pointing to Bush’s real ignorance of governmental affairs ("Social Security is not a federal program") (Gitlin, 2000). (For a collection of "Bushisms," see Appendix D.)

Collectively, though, George W. Bush’s glaring faux pas–made in full view during the era of 24-hour news–have worked to foster an image that, in the minds of the American public, could answer Al Franken’s Rolling Stone article "Irrational Affairs: Is Bush Dumb?" with a resounding "Yes." This, however, is not as simple in its functions and effects as it may, at first, seem.

George W. Bush came visibly to the forefront of mainstream America for the first time with his announcement of intent to run for presidential office in 2000. Dismissed as a lightweight by other Republican party hopefuls such as Senator John McCain, Bush was nevertheless able to secure the party nomination.

Son of the last Republican president, George H. W. Bush, Bush’s only prior political experience was as governor of Texas for less than a decade. This Texas gubernatorial victory was one that was also won against a seasoned, favored candidate. Incumbent governor of Texas, Ann Richards, took Bush’s opposition as a personal affront, contemptuously calling him "clueless" and "Shrub" (Emery, 2001).

Richards’ remarks may have been brought about, in part, by Bush’s lack of prior governing experience and past poor academic performance. Bush’s mediocre marks from Yale are now common knowledge, since they were published by the New Yorker (August, Castronovo, Dan & Gray, 1999). What is less commonly recognized is that Bush was admitted to Yale not for his prior meritorious performance, but due to a legacy affirmative action policy that allowed admittance because he had important Yale alumni in his family (Franken, 2000).

Bush did, however, make good use of his collegiate experience. His charm, along with his family name, aided him in making good political connections, as well as kept him out of trouble when he broke the rules.

This privileged background, combined with minimal experience in government, perpetual errors in grammar, syntax ("Is our children learning?") and, at times, statements that are nonsensical or simply incorrect ("Families is where our nation finds hope...where wings take dream." or "The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.") has only served to make Bush appear not only ignorant, but also as if he has an apparent lack of intellectual curiosity (Franken, 2000). Bush himself admits that he doesn’t read very much. This, combined with a Vanity Fair article (Sheehy, 2000) that charged Bush with having dyslexia, has aided the perpetuation of his image of being mentally-challenged. The article’s allegations became widespread among the media, appearing as a topic of discussion in The New York Times, USA Today and The Chicago Tribune and on, among others, "Larry King Live" and "Good Morning America" (Foer, 2000).

From his tongue-twisted explanation of his tax plan to his reluctance to accept invitations to the bipartisan commission’s roster of debates and even to his vulgar comments about a reporter, George W. Bush has seemingly damaged his own image time and time again (Berke, 2000). Of his life, Bush says, "I think if you look at my full life...I haven’t had a game plan" (Sheehy, 2000).

As president even in the midst of national crisis after the September 11, 2001, terrorist tragedies, Bush managed a flub of considerable proportion when he referred to America’s plan to retaliate against the Islamic, Middle Eastern terrorists as a "crusade." Clearly, this conjures up thoughts of medieval European religious wars waged against Muslims by Christians. This is hardly the type of message that was needed to handle a burgeoning group of religious fanatics or to win much-needed support from sympathetic Islamic nations. What makes this even worse is that, while at Yale, Bush majored in history; thus, he should have been acutely aware of the word’s connotative meanings.

Even the Republican party was somewhat slow to back George W. Bush as their candidate for the 2000 presidential election. Conservatives have long distrusted the Bushes, who are in reality rich Easterners, considering the senior Bush a liberal sellout and "Shrub" a tagalong "doofus" (Ridgeway, 2000). Bush officials privately admitted their biggest fear was that people would question whether their candidate was sufficiently smart and substantial enough to lead a nation (Berke, 2000).

In a detailed analysis of Bush and his (in)abilities, Miller declares that Bush "[I]s the most ignorant president in U.S. history, probably the most illiterate and easily among the least concerned about the content of his mind." Many others have published books chronicling the "short but happy" (Ivins, 2000) political life of George W. Bush. The overwhelming majority of these, if not penned by someone in or affiliated with the Bush administration, are, to say the least, unflattering (For examples, see Appendix B.)

Ironically enough, the primary propagandist in this particular case is George W. Bush himself. Simply because he is president of the United States, every remark made by him is subject to scrutiny. When he continues to produce public faux pas, he is unwittingly helping to reinforce his less-than-genius image.

However powerful Bush may be due to his status as president, he could not publicize his blunders to a mass audience with such efficacy without the help of modern media. Both print and electronic press have been more than willing to report and analyze Bush’s blunders.

It might be tempting to name the democratic party as the propagandist who is "against" Bush. To some extent, this may be true, especially during campaign months. The democrats may have had a hand in digging up dirt on Bush, but this is an integral component of the campaign process–one in which both political parties participated. While the democrats may have had much to gain by belittling Bush pre-election, the media have more to gain post-election–namely, ratings and profits.

The structure of the modern media is one with which most people are familiar. A ubiquitous force in our society, it is nearly impossible not to have a daily interface with some facet of it. From newspapers to radio, Internet to television, media are an inherent part of our world, shaping and defining our existence.

Perhaps the most powerful media force in the formation of George W. Bush’s image has been television–closely followed by Internet. Combining easily-digestible audio and video in a convenient form–along with instantaneous political analyses–television provides ready-made opinions and outlooks.

Heavy reliance on television has special significance in political coverage. In general terms, however, faith in television news reflects a relatively recent phenomenon that has occurred during the past three decades as the television set has become a standard item in virtually every American household.

Television news has weaknesses as well as strengths. The brevity of television newscasts demonstrates both of these. Because the news is available in concise, easily understandable forms, more people avail themselves of this information. But too many of these people then think that they know all they need to know about complex subjects, when instead they have been exposed principally to headlines.

Walter Cronkite has said that he had wanted to end his newscasts by saying, "For more information, consult your local newspaper." But this extra effort of delving into print reports about the news items covered on television is beyond the ambition or ability of many people (Seib, 1987). Thus, this surface-skimming, sound-bite coverage can result in amplified stereotypes and the creation of media caricatures.

The major target audience during pre-election was, of course, American voters. This is still true to some extent during post-election, but the scope of the target audience has widened considerably.

As U.S. president, the eyes of the U.S.–as well as the rest of the world–are upon George W. Bush. Knowing this, the press can capitalize upon his ability to draw attention. Once an audience is watching, it becomes necessary to keep viewers enthralled or entertained. The combination of news and entertainment that Bush’s mistakes and mishaps provide is an almost unbeatable formula for engaging an audience.

The ongoing saga that is George W. Bush’s presidency has been covered by every type of media since (and even before) its inception. Perhaps the most outstanding techniques of media utilization were the televised debates, political advertisements and the dissemination of negative information from Bush’s past, such as drunk driving incidents and an alleged former 15-year-old girlfriend whom Bush encouraged, successfully, to abort their unwanted baby.

The election of 2000 was, however, the first to have the Internet working as a powerful media force. Bush was both touted and trashed on the World Wide Web. Many people turned to this source as a means of gleaning the politicians’ stances on issues in order to help determine voting behavior.

In any campaign to win hearts and minds (not to mention votes), there are publicity-drawing special events, gimmicks and tactics. The two most effective special techniques in this case, however, deviate from the model of staged display; one was Bush-created, the other a mere byproduct of his actions.

The first occurred when George W. Bush fell prey to an anti-Bush Web site. He publicly whined that was touting his name and slamming everything else about him. The "net" effect of this action was that he called more attention to the site. Bush then backpedaled, and in a moment of desperation, issued an intemperate quote about how there should be limits on freedom. "Bush’s whimpering underscores how instrumental the Internet has become in helping to shape public persona," says PR News writer William Hom (1999). This err in judgment cost Bush’s image in a three-pronged manner: he publicized the Web sites in a way of which their administrators could have never dreamed, affording them thousands more hits; he drew attention to his apparent lack of knowledge about the Internet; and, worst of all, he showed an intolerance toward one of Americans’ most treasured rights–freedom of speech.

The other special technique that has effectively reinforced Bush’s "dunce model" image is the late night comedy scene. Thanks to videotape and a media hungry for simple charges and sound bites, "Dubya," as he is often referred to, seemed to have stridden right out of central casting, a veritable personification of the politician as clown. The former Texas governor proved an inadvertent target for the comedy routines that have become an increasingly visible showcase for the spectacle of national politics (Gitlin, 2000). Bush’s gaffes were such comic fodder, in fact, that the network Comedy Central even created a parody show called "That’s My Bush." (For a sample of political satire comics, see Appendix A.)

Eerily enough, late night comedy shows such as "The Tonight Show," "Late Night with Conan O’Brien" and "Late Show with David Letterman" are the only source of news–or a reasonable facsimile thereof–to which some Americans expose themselves. Research has shown that at least 47 percent of Americans ages 18-29 often obtain information about the presidential campaign from late night comedy shows (Sella, 2000).

Realizing this, both Bush and Gore appeared on some of these programs to reach the otherwise unreachable demographic, as well as to help personify their images. It is a terrific way to "humanize the product" (Sella, 2000).

Unfortunately, Bush chose to appear on "Late Show with David Letterman" via satellite. This added a split-second delay to the flow of conversation. The effect was that Bush seemed to need extra time to comprehend questions and form answers (Sella, 2000).

Through their voting behaviors, Americans proved that at least half were undeterred by Bush’s image as a lightweight. Some constituents even viewed Bush’s blunders as a positive thing, an indication that the president is a "common man."

One analyst surmises that because voters seem to be in a mood to prize personal authenticity over ideas, there is some advantage for candidates who present themselves as, if not flat-out stupid, at least aggressively nonintellectual (August et. al, 1999).

Since the September 11^th tragedies, Americans watched their president move from the quiet language of grief to the rowdy colloquialisms of the old frontier. At the World Trade Center wreckage site, Bush’s declaration, "I can hear you! And the rest of the world can hear you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" was met with a resounding cheer.

Bush’s advisers have resisted reigning him in, saying that the ordinary language has worked. Bush has succeeded"[in these situations] where his natural rhetoric, which is very much regular-guy, fits and is very appealing," says a Republican who advises the administration. Former Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta says of Bush’s "plain folks" language, "I think it has worked for him because it’s projected an honesty that the American people want to see" (Bumiller and Bruni, 2001).

The counterpropaganda for this case is nearly as vast and varied as the propaganda itself. Given the funding and deemed newsworthiness of anything related to the presidency, the Bush administration has taken full advantage of opportunities to counteract media portrayals of Bush as a dunce.

In the presidential campaign, Bush’s opponent, Al Gore, proved to be a tough rival. Gore’s awareness of policy and years of experience as a professional politician gave him an edge. But Bush’s ability to come across as a "common man"–in stark contrast with Gore’s stiff, "smarty-pants" persona–gave him, too, an advantage. While Bush had to persuade voters that he had a sufficient grasp of policy, Gore’s command of it–and willingness to display it–actually acted as a political liability, rather than an asset (Berke, 2000). Al Gore’s strengths were spun as weaknesses by contrast with Bush’s "naturalness" and "likeability" (Miller, 2001).

Any opportunity for Bush to come across, in contrast with Gore, as more human was welcomed. Even when Bush referred to a New York Times reporter as a "major league asshole," some analysts are clearly delighted. "I think it will be the turning point in the campaign," says Jim Ferguson, advertising specialist. "It made Bush look like a real guy" (Melillo, 2000).

Trying to debunk so-called myths that Bush is a lightweight, a Washington insider, a frat boy and a low-road campaigner, his camp used many tactics (Barnes, 2000).

After failing a "pop quiz" of foreign leaders, Bush articulated a roll call list of Middle Eastern countries, as if proving he knew something of vast importance (Bruni, 2000).

Another favorite tactic of Bush supporters was ad hominem attacks on critics. Gail Sheehy’s journalistic abilities were brought into question (Foer, 2000) after her story dealt with Bush’s alleged dyslexia. These attacks never mention anything else that the article charged. A mere fraction of the piece dealt with Bush’s supposed learning ability; the rest was a hard-hitting expose of Bush’s past indiscretions and unethical business practices. (See Appendix E for article).

Ad hominem attacks were also leveled at J. H. Hatfield, citing a 1988 felony conviction. Hatfield’s biography of George W. Bush, Fortunate Son, was withdrawn, slandered, sued and suppressed. The original publisher received threats from Bush campaign lawyers, and saw their author discredited in public in October, 1999. After undue pressure from Bush’s camp, 88,000 copies were withdrawn from stores and the publisher promised to "burn" them. The book was later republished by a different company.

Finally, one technique of counterpropaganda that pulls out all stops is the likening of Bush to another president pegged as an "amiable dunce," the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. " Bush battles allegations that he is a lightweight by cloaking himself in the affection for Ronald Reagan, who also suffered from a lightweight reputation," says an editorial from USA Today (Bush, 2000).

To simplify the counterpropaganda: Bush’s gaffes are followed by attempts to counteract their effects on his image. These attempts often end up backfiring, making the situation worse by drawing additional attention to the gaffe as well as the botched cover-up. Ultimately, this results in a denigrated image for which the only sure recourse is to enact the "amiable idiot" routine.

Bush often chooses not to answer his critics, counting on their stridency to be counterproductive. As he turns his cheek to enemies, their blows sometimes land on themselves. Humility so far has done very well by this president, giving him a rise in record time to the heights of power, giving new meaning to what the meek will inherit. Less is not only more; it can sometimes be everything (Emery, 2001). Particularly since the September 11^th tragedies, as many have found comfort in his unpretentious style, Bush’s image and approval have greatly benefited and some of the old Bushisms have been written off as quaint.

As Shribman’s pre-electoral analysis proclaimed, "For George W. Bush, no change is necessary. He’s a blank slate. And thus, he may be the perfect candidate."

August, M., Castronovo, V., Dan, C. & Gray, T. (1999). He ain’t dumb, he’s my president. Time, 154 (25): 34.

Barnes, F. (2000). The case for Bush. The New Republic, 222 (10): 20-23.

Berke, R. (2000). Tested and occasionally tripped, Bush may yet rue a mirror crack’d. New York Times, Sept. 18: A16.

Berke, R. (2000). What a mind! In politics, that’s not what matters. The New York Times, June 25: 4.

Bruni, F. (2000). Rivals massage their images in conversational exchange.

Bumiller, E. & Bruni, F. (2001). In this crisis, Bush is writing his own script. The New York Times, Sept. 19: B11.

Burton, D. H. (1988). The learned presidency. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Press.

Bush, Gore hone images as pivotal debate nears. (2000), USA Today, Oct. 3: A26.

Emery, N. (2001). The M factor. National review, 53 (6): 34-36.

Franken, A. (2000). Irrational affairs: Is Bush dumb? Rolling Stone, 852: 41-42.

Foer, F. (2000). Analyze this. The New Republic, 223 (15): 12-14.

Gitlin, T. (2000). The renaissance of anti-intellectualism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (15): B7.