Famed Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward is very popular on the speaking circuit, not just for his Watergate scalps but also for his stories of interviewing presidents and wannabe presidents.
One story in his arsenal is about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s reaction to former President George W. Bush telling Woodward that he doesn’t think about his legacy. “History, we won’t know. We’ll all be dead,” Bush said.
Woodward told a National Association of Realtors meeting that Clinton was irked by those words, suggesting she would be more in control of her biography.
“George Washington would never think and talk like that. Thomas Jefferson would never think and talk like that. Bill [Clinton] would never think and talk like that,” she told Woodward, smacking her fist into her palm.
Notice the difference. When everyone survives because resources are so plentiful that nobody will be denied, what determines reproductive success? Status. Reputation. Image. In the massive crowd, you need status to draw attention. That gets you mates. And here we see a human rabbit who cannot fathom being oblivious to one’s reputation.
When K-selection rules, succeeding at surviving gets you mates. Succeeding at the task at hand is essential. Nobody cares what people think – you need to win.
Bush, who did embody many K-traits outside of his establishment status, was focused on the task at hand, and didn’t bother caring how people thought of him. To him, caring about how people would view him was ridiculous. He had a job, and he didn’t want to fail at it.
To Hillary this is so foreign that she just assumes everyone else thinks like her, and Bush is the bizarre aberration. To her, everyone would lead with a constant eye on how people will view their decisions. To her, George Washington was more concerned with how people would view him, than he was with the task of leading the new American republic. To her, he didn’t care about the republic – he only cared what everyone else would think about him one day.
This is why understanding the liberal rabbit mind is so powerful. They have amygdala triggers which true conservatives can’t imagine. Those triggers so mold and control their behavior that if you can understand the triggers, and set them off in response to behaviors you want to discourage, you can force the rabbit to act less rabbity. You can control them, shut them up, make them do things, and even make them unable to do things.
None of that is possible if you assume the rabbit thinks like you. It is why everyone who treats rabbits with respect, debates them with reason and logic, and tries to act civilly ends up watching the rabbits rabbit, and then opining on how illogical and crazy they are. Understand their triggers, understand the logical reasons explaining why they evolved, and everything changes.
It is an enormous power, just sitting there, waiting to be exploited.
[…] By Anonymous Conservative […]
She’s wrong about Jefferson, of course.
In other words, as Sun Tzu said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Conservatives generally know themselves, but completely fail to know their enemy. And conservatives have lost far too often.
You say Bush focused on the task at hand; well, what do you mean? Was he focused in August of 2001 when the task at hand was a daily CIA briefing entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US”? Was he focused in August of 2005 when the task at hand was the natural disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? And during the final months of his presidency was he focused on the economy before every hard working American lost 33% of their retirement savings while the country slipped into a major recession?
Where and when did Bush ever embody these K-traits? Really, please, give me an example! Do you mean he shit on the grass? Is that how it works?
How does any of this nonsense Bob Woodward said at a realtors conference mean anything to anybody? Why is it you’re always depicting the right as “wolves” and the left as “rabbits”? The truth is wolves beget wolves and rabbits beget rabbits but conservatives and liberals produce offspring with opposing political affinity. So, effectively, your pseudo-science is ridiculous. You may as well replace K with cowboy and r with faggot. Then you can sell your book all over again!
Your post is actually funny to the readers here, because it speaks to you seeing these themes the way many do, without actually knowing r/K Theory.
Bush had lots of failures, I am hardly his cheerleader. But outside of his establishment servitude, he was quite K, as evidenced by liberal apoplexy at the mention of his name.
And, if you studied this material, you would see the natural conclusion is wolves beget rabbits, and rabbits beget wolves. K-strategists produce great productive societies, but the resource gluts they create produce a descent into the r-strategy. That produces collapse, which returns the society to K. Think Rome. Unless you understand the rat study on r/K and epigenetics, you really can’t debate this here.
I am pleased that my post amused you and thank you for your engagement. It’s true that I do not understand the r/K Theory. And I don’t believe I will ever study it; I’m sorry. I have difficulty reading more than three or four paragraphs. Anything more than that is just self-deception.
Your samsaric description of the K to r; back to K metamorphosis is succinct and concise. Where was Bush along this transition? What were the traits of productivity that he embodied and why did he fail?
And when did Rome beget rabbits that eventually begat wolves? What great productive society emerged once the empire collapsed? The long history of Rome looks nothing like your cycle.
I’m sorry that I don’t follow your theory. But I appreciate your time and am genuinely curious of what you find admirable. It seems to me that you’re just speaking in an abstract language about a bunch of cowboys picking on a bunch of faggots. You should make a movie out of it!
I was unaware Europe never rebounded from the fall of Rome.
A thousand years passed before Western Europe got back on its feet! How does this resemble your K to r; back to K paradigm? I suppose if you wait long enough and reference the right incidental variables you can draw a conclusion that conforms to your maniacal worldview.
What kind of intellectual pushover would subscribe to your ecological categorization of humanity? Your response to my post is pathetic. You should be embarrassed! Yes, Western Europe eventually recovered. Do you care to recall how it recovered? Do you know what Renaissance means?
“Think Rome”! That’s a good one! I’m through with you and your nonsense. Farewell.
Epigenetics has long been the foundational mechanism which I’ve said plays the greatest role, and I’ve made the point it takes generations to K-ify and r-ify the genome. After this came out, Biohistory came out with the same conclusion from another angle.
As for Renaissance, there is a whole chapter on it. Hint – Y. pestis. I’m sure you’ve heard of it off the top of your head.
But please feel free to debate and argue about stuff you never even looked at. I’m sure your massive intelligence means you are an expert – even on topics you never heard of.
The Renaissance was the RESULT of the recovery, not the cause. Claiming it as the recovery is as wrong as claiming that wet streets cause rain.
Great blog.
You are saying we need to change to a K kind of approach? In what ways?
I think we need to grasp that the way the rabbits fight when things are r, is both, what would terrify them into action, and the most cost effective method of fighting. Each rabbit attack is formulated in the rabbit mind by imagining what would most horrify them. Then it is turned around and adapted to try and horrify us. To that end, it is a window into how they think, and what would work best on them.
It is also the most cost effective way to fight when things are r, and when K-actions, like violence and aggression, are just too costly.
Dubya was as obsessed with his image as any of the stooges who’ve held the position in our lifetimes. Yes, including Ronaldus Maximus the professional (sic) actor.
Dubya was actually a little better at it, if you can see it and still restrain your stomach. More than Reagan, in fact. But now everybody knows what fakes they are.
Seriously, it is generally conservatives rather than liberals who are convinced by a politician’s personal ‘image’. Images of things, seemingly edgy, are more quickly swallowed by the left.