|
On Being Smart and Lazy by Bob Wallace The
writer Jerry Pournelle HERE;
the article is halfway down the page) said conventional wisdom among
the military used to judge officers by two variables: by smart and stupid,
and by active or lazy. The
active and stupid were to be eliminated.
That combination is very dangerous, so obviously it doesn't really
need to be explained. Lazy and
stupid are the heart of the army, the kind who work their way up from the
bottom. Smart and active make
good staff officers, but aren't to be promoted, and they are never to be
given supreme command. To my
surprise, the highest command goes to the smart and lazy. I
was a bit surprised, since I'm smart and lazy.
My idea of a good time is to sit in the backyard in a lawnchair
after the sun goes down, smoke my pipe and watch my pug run in circles.
Or to spend an hour soaking in a bath.
My idea of sports is fishing. Yet I'd make it to the top in the
military? Hard to believe. I
operate on the assumption that the military, having been around for
thousands of years, knows what it's talking about.
Since human nature doesn't change, you can take those variables and
apply them to other fields. What about politics?
If you do, you'll encounter something pretty scary. George
Bush is not a stupid man, but he doesn't use his brains.
Even David Frum, himself close to an intellectual midget,
accurately described Bush as "incurious."
Since Bush doesn't use his brains, he is stupid. He's
also active, having been busy the past few years invading Bush
is stupid and active, as are some politicians.
That's why they cause so many problems.
An example of a man who is smart and lazy (lazy as a politician) is
Ron Paul, who is an exemplar of what every politician should be. I
would judge the average politician as smart and active.
Good staff officers, but never to be promoted.
Yet we have a President who is stupid and active, and a Congress
that's overwhelmingly smart and active.
People who have no business being in their positions are in their
positions, only because of politics. Hitler,
for example, was a consummate politician, one who was described as
half-genius, half-insane. He
was smart and active, yet when in the military, his commanding writers
wrote of him that they could not detect in him any qualities for being an
officer. Although people think
he never made it beyond corporal, he really never made it beyond private
first class. I
once wrote an article a few years ago about what I would do if I was the
King of America. I'd gamble,
chase women, drink wine, grow roses, and do several other things, none of
them political. I'd get rid of
most laws and let the free market take care of itself.
In other words, I'd actualize my smart and lazy self.
And I'd make a good king. Bush
reminds me of a cartoon, Pinky and the Brain.
He's not Brain; he's the always active, indeed hyperactive, and, of
course stupid, Pinky. He's an
amiable dunce. Behind
Pinky stands the smart and active Brain.
Who stands behind Bush? The
smart and active Cheney? Rumsfeld?
Rove? All these guys
are like Brain -- smart and active, in many ways the guiding force behind
Bush. Every
one of the neocons in the administration is smart and active -- the kind never
to be given top command. Yet
that's what they have. Hayek
was absolutely right -- the worst do get on top.
Politics is not our friend. The
problem with politics is that it always attracts the active, whether
they're smart or stupid. The public is the one that pays for their
activity. If we have to have
politicians, we need lazy ones. The
best, of course, would be lazy and smart.
Don't look at me, though. I'm not interested. I am, of course, much too smart, and too lazy, to fall for the con job known as politics. discuss this column in the forum Bob Wallace has a degree in Journalism, is a former reporter and editor, and has been published at LewRockwell.com, Sierra Times, and The Libertarian Enterprise. |