Here's today's Bushism of the Day, "the president's accidental wit and wisdom," from Slate:
"So we'll bring our ideas, they'll bring theirs, let's clarify the differences, let's don't say bad things about our opponents."
Whoops, sorry, wrong President -- that's actually from President Clinton. The Bushism of the Day today is really this:
"Let's don't just talk about it. Let's actually do it, by passing the legislation."
Rats! Screwed up again -- that's actually from Vice President Gore. Here, and this time I'm serious, is today's actual Bushism of the Day:
"I tell people, let's don't fear the future, let's shape it." -- Omaha, Neb., June 7, 2006
As best I can tell, the only supposed flub -- the only supposed humor -- here is "let's don't." (Without that, the phrase isn't terribly rich in content, but neither are "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," or a wide range of other perfectly normal exhortations from political leaders.)
Yet it's a flub only in the sense that departure from the standard Northeastern/West Coast elite spoken English is a flub. If you search for "let's don't," you'll find it used routinely in spoken English, chiefly (as best I can tell from my searches) by people from flyover country.
The only usage guide I could find that discusses "let's don't" is "The Columbia Guide to Standard American English", which reports, "There are three negative idioms: Let’s not stay, Don’t let’s stay, and Let’s don’t stay. [I infer that 'stay' is just an example here, and the idiom equally works with other verbs.] All are Standard, although Let’s don’t is more typically American than Don’t let’s, which is more typically British." Sounds right to me.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Whom Are You Going To Believe -- The Transcript or Your Lying Ears?
- Bushism of the Day:
- My Three Suggestions for Improving Slate:...
- Bushism of the Day:
- Spinsanity criticizes Slate's Bushisms and Kerryisms.
- Latest Bushism:
I wonder, have you taken advantage of your recent Slate contributer status to e-mail this critique to Jacob Weisberg for his direct attention? I would.
Also, is the phrasing really rightly described as "cornpone," a term that's generally seen as derogatory, as opposed to simply "regional" (and common in a large region at that)?
The "nothing to fear but fear ..." remark had real content in the context in which it was stated, namely a terrible depression. The point (I believe) was that the economy will do well if we all believe it will do well. This has content (and I think it is at partially true) even if I don't completely agree with it.
A better example of content-free blather is "Ask not what your country can do for you ..."
Thus, if you criticize the item, it should (logically) be because you believe there is an item that better qualifies as a "Bushism of the Day." So, what item do you think would have made a better "Bushism of the Day"?
Heh. Only yesterday I was reading a G.K. Chesterton essay (one of his old Illustrated London News columns from, I think, 1930) comparing the idea of thinking optimistic things about the economy so that it will improve to Christian Science (still pretty big then), and linking them both to Hamlet's "There's nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
I think Clinton earned his right to talk like a hick now and again by offering some intelligent commentary in between. I'm not sure Bush has really offered the same balance.
In any case, it's a real stretch of a Bushism.
Or perhaps I just can so vividly picture Jon Stewart saying this, with squint, crouch, grasping handgesture, and "heh-heh" included.
That said, it's not a standard American idiom or off-limits simply because Clinton or Gore previously said the same thing. If Clinton or Gore had said something dumb that Bush later echoed, Slate would still be justified in mocking Bush for saying it, since Slate is a news site. Bush is President now, so it's his turn to take any fair criticism.
This "Bushism" fails because it's not really an error of any kind. It displays the ignorance of the writer, rather than the President.
Now we have a conservative president using colloquial English (and lots of good southern conservatives use a lot worse). Where's the outrage?
You were right the first time. It's a contraction of "Do not let us," thus "Don't let's." :)
I must say, as a resident of the Midwest, that both "Don't let's" and "let's don't" sound wrong to me, and I don't think I've ever used either of them.
Except when singing a TMBG song. "Don't, don't, don't let's start. This is the worst part..."
You're absolutely right. I have no idea what I was thinking.
As a native of the Midwest (and soon, I hope, to be a resident once again), neither usage sounds right to me, either.
That's interesting. There are some differences though. Here, I don't think the Bushism concept is really trying to dishonestly undermine Bush. I think it's become excedingly clear that Bush is immune to criticism regarding his style of speech. If anything, that's one of his more redeming features. So really, I think the Bushism concept is intended for a laugh, or for Jon Stewart types to roll their eyes, but not really to have a political impact.
If Slate really started something like a flip-flop of the day for Kerry, though, my feeling is that it would be pretty different. Particularly if the examples were all or predominantly disingenuous.
If the Kerry-ism were just Kerry talking like a Senator, that might be similar (particularly if Kerry had been elected twice in spite of this). If it were a flip-flop thing, though, then I think that would be more like a "Bush lie of the day," which would strike me as much less appropriate.
Not that I'm a big fan of Bushisms. I think they're intended as more light-hearted, though, than the Professor seems to take them. I also think that while many of the Bushisms can be defended, they do represent a pattern of incoherent or ineloquent comments, which is the main point. E.g., I don't think the whole idea of Bush being a bad speaker was manufactured; the pattern is real, and is probably generally exhibited by Slate's examples.
Doc Volokh: "I don't understand why anyone would think this week's Bushism is funny".
rfgs
As a bushism, maybe it's in the stunning-irony category, not in the larger what-does-that-mean category.
You say errors are routine in transcripts.
So what? Most people are fairly stupid. To be President of the United States, one should have a keen intelligence, seasoned usually by age well beyond the median, and sufficient experience of public life to develop outstanding fluency. Most Presidents have enjoyed the benefit of elite educations. I believe all of them have been native speakers of the English language. The job of President and election to it require persuasive ability and public speaking.
It's not absurd, then, to expect that the President should speak very fine English. One might reasonably expect him to be such an elite public speaker that he would perform better than all but, say, one in 100 of the people whose transcripts you read.
If you looked only at the one percent of transcripts containing the fewest errors, would you still find the quantity of errors common in Bush's public statements?
Public speaking is part of the job of the President. Poor public speaking skills are fair game for critics. That the President (and his people) have been able to turn his "plain-speaking ways" into an electoral asset is a credit to them. Who woulda thunk it possible?
The connection between Christian Science and that line from Hamlet is closer than I think Chesterton realized, as Mary Baker Eddy used the line as one of the epigraphs at the beginning of the "textbook of Christian Science," Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.
But let me take a stab at why he would want to paraphrase FDR: Bush thinks that he is as important a president as FDR and has set America on a course that is as profound as the course FDR took. I think that Bush only thinks that he "ain't oratorical enough" for such historical greatness (since it's those damn intellectual elitist historians who get to make that decision), so now he strays from his comfort zone and comes up with these empty phrases that have the patina of significance, but merely sound comical coming from him.
Fear is not the problem with the globalization of the economy. Fear is not accelerating or making the effects of globalization greater or worse.
Can you not feel the dissonance between the constant need for secrecy, for the erosion of our liberties, for the bankrupting of our economy, as a fearful response to a single attack and the President, like some member of a local business association, saying "Don't worry, be happy. What's good for business is good for you."
[Here's the rant]
And when all the evildoers (i.e. terrorists) have been killed and buried (including, all of their relatives and relatives of their relatives) and all competition has been subsumed under one gigantic global conglomerate, will we recognize the US as a beacon of freedom when there's only one choice? And won't all fear have been vanquished?
You know what I'm less afraid already. My problem was the fear of choosing. Boy am I glad somebody in charge took care of that.
This is the sort of criticism ("Bushism") that tells us little about Bush and much about Weisberg. Only someone with little knowledge of the variety of English usage would find this phrase strange. It's sort of like a Parisian being surprised that French is spoken differently in Tours or Picardy; or a Londoner being surprised that English sounds different in Edinburgh, or Manchester -- or New York.
And y'all out there who got the notion a Texas accent and a tendency to malapropisms is a sign of low intellect just plain don't know much.
Aha! Found it again, the article for 10/18/1930, titled "Wall Street and Christian Science." An excerpt:
Now, for an atmosphere so atmospheric as that [he means the whole idea of people buying things merely because they're told the things are popular] the obvious religion was Christian Science, with its general suggestion of men creating their own atmosphere. To say that there was no such thing as a sick headache was part of the same mentality as saying that there would be no such thing as a slump; it was of the very essence of that mythology and genealogy that the wish was father to the thought.
But on second thought I'm not sure Chesterton didn't know Eddy took Hamlet for an epigraph:
It is an ironic jest that the motto of Will and Personality, and the hard-headed man who gets what he wants, is really a motto taken (of all people in the world) from Hamlet. It was Hamlet who said: "There's nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." From which we may deduce that Hamlet was a Strong Man and a Go-Getter and the biggest force in Big Business.
Since GKC had moved on from Christian Science to Wall St. here in the article, I don't know whether he'd actually seen Eddy quote Shakespeare; but the above does read as though he had.
GWB is smarter, cleverer, sharper than anyone of you.
You are so self absorbed in your "intelligence' and intellect that you can't see the forest for the trees (to coin a phrase).
for instance:
"Can you not feel the dissonance between the constant need for secrecy,..
THE SECRECY IS NOT FROM YOU, YOU SELF CENTERED KNOW NOTHING -- IT'S FROM OUR VERY REAL ENEMIES.
"...for the erosion of our liberties,..."
NAME ONE.
"...for the bankrupting of our economy,..."
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF A BANKRUPT ECONOMY--
LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN 20 TO 30 YEARS?
HUGE INCREASES IN PRODUCTIVITY?
MANUFACTURING INCREASING?
BUDGET DEFICIT REDUCED YET AGAIN?
LOWER TAXES?
"...as a fearful response to a single attack..."
I BET YOU WERE WIPING UP AFTER YOURSELF ON THE DAY OF THAT "SINGLE" ATTACK.
"...and the President, like some member of a local business association, saying "Don't worry, be happy. What's good for business is good for you."
HE HAS NEVER SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT.
BTW how can you say that he has bankrupted the economy and yet at the same time be good to business?
You all seem to be living on a planet similar to the "Bizarro" planet from the Superman comics, where everything was the mirror opposite of what it was on Earth.
P.S. I don't mean to pick on only the guy who posted the above quotes, I mean to pick on anyone who thinks in that way -- in your self delusions you are all dangerous to yourselves and to our country.
thedaddy
No, not just humor. But still short, I think, of something like a "Kerry flip-flop of the day" or "Bush lie of the day" if carried out in the same imprecise manner.
True, though, I suppose it is intended to undermine Bush in a way. I guess the reason it strikes me as less than offensive is that I don't see the pretense that every statement represents a truly stupid comment, but at the same time, the fact that you can come up with so many dumb-sounding statements from Bush says something. Something which I happen to believe is true: The way Bush talks all the time makes him sound not very smart.
For me to really object to the Bushisms of the day, I think I'd have to disagree with that premise.
L. Frank Baum, "The Emerald City of Oz"
"'Oh, well,' says Ogden, 'let's don't borrow any of Black Bill's troubles. We've a few of our own. Get the Bourbon out of the cupboard and we'll drink to ...
O. Henry, "Options"
"Now let's don't have any heroics about it. You have the proposition. Now I am going to sleep. In the meantime you may think it over. ...
The Mad King, by Edgar Rice Burroughs
"Let's don't be serious, George," she begged him hopefully. "Let's talk of something pleasant." He was a little offended.
The Magnificent Ambersons, by Booth Tarkington
"Let's don't fall out about this again. I'll pay back the sheep. Work it out --" "Milt Dale, you'll come down here an' work out that fifty head of sheep! ..."
Man of the Forest, by Zane Grey
It seems to me that if an expression is used in fiction by Baum, Burroughs, Henry, Tarkington, and Grey, it's pretty hard to deny that it's legitimately standard American prose.
(All quotations found and snipped from a Google search of Project Gutenberg.)
The future is what it is, and quite beyond our meager shapings.
(opinions expressed herein may or may not be my own)
"You say errors are routine in transcripts.
So what? Most people are fairly stupid.
***
One might reasonably expect him to be such an elite public speaker that he would perform better than all but, say, one in 100 of the people whose transcripts you read.
If you looked only at the one percent of transcripts containing the fewest errors, would you still find the quantity of errors common in Bush's public statements?"
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about errors by the lawyers (many of whom graduated from the top law schools)
I'm with Mark Kleiman, though: "Churchill, after all, said that he had 'nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.' Roosevelt said that the nation had 'nothing to fear but fear itself.' Mr. Bush, masterfully combining their thinking, has nothing to offer but fear itself."