F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about intelligent people

[driveby]

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, he doesn't look at lying to the American people about Obamacare, using the IRS to target people that disagree with him and lying about the death of our ambassador as faults. He also made it clear about how much he values the opinions of others when he said republicans "have to sit in the back seat" or " I won, get over it"......

Look at what?

Lying about Obamacare? What lie?

The whole "you can keep your doctor" thing was blown way out of proportion without looking at the real culprits. HMOs tried to pull a fast one. None of you folks cared about that..at all.

Same with IRS. The "Citizen's United" case opened up a flood gate of PACs that stampeded the IRS. They had no effective way to deal with it. By the way? NONE of those PACs should have gotten the 501 (c) 4 status. They ALL broke the FEDERAL law regarding that.

And there was no lie about Benghazi. Turns out the very terrorist that ORGANIZED ONE of the attacks? Was pissed about the video.

There..all dealt with.

Feel better?

If you like your PLAN you can keep your PLAN, flat out lie and he knew it.......

Conservative groups were targeted and this administration is hiding the evidence, period.

The attack on Benghazi was not a spontaneous attack because a youtube video, period.


Your boys are crooked as hell, deal with it.....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We can see many examples of (1,2,3,4) on this forum.
One is right here in this thread. Sallow.
Sallow is intelligent enough, that is not difficult to see in his vocabulary and the formulation/structure of his arguments/thought patterns.
However anyone with an ounce of critical thinking can clearly see an overwhelming tendency to almost always argue one side. Why is that? What makes someone dismiss and have an instant supercilious view of anything that opposes a certain line of thinking? And of course therefore views agreeable positions void of critical approach?
Sallow, IMO is about 80% #1, and 20% #2. Therefore there is little chance of ever changing his mind.
He honestly believes in what he is saying. And this is very unfortunate, because this kind of thing plagues our society. America is deeply divided, with "Sallows" in large ranks on both sides. Refusing to find fault on their side, and always blaming the other.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Being a Devil's advocate is more akin to taking the opposing side just to bring out details of the issue that most wouldn't think about.

I like to look at both sides of the issue. Problem is, when discussing politics these days, most of the time there is a side that is lying and a side that is being honest. It's the same thing when you're discussing Football with someone. You like to talk about the positives of your team and not look at what their weaknesses are. Talking about players like Tim Tebow; I watched him play in college and watched him beat my team year after year. Watched him take his team to two National Championships. I remember the player that he was and I feel that the primary reason the left hates him so much is because he openly professes his faith. I feel that he would be an asset to any team, but it seems politics and bigotry has drummed him out of the NFL.

That's the way I feel. Sure, he doesn't throw the best ball, but I know he's a winner. Quite a change from the days when I hated his guts because he kept beating my team.

I know that's out in the weeds, but when it comes to most topics I can look at the big picture and not just dismiss someone or something just because of my inherent prejudices. I defended Obama against Hillary's attacks years ago. Then I discovered what he was like, looked into his history, and figured out he wasn't going to be a good president. He didn't have the experience, nor the right state of mind for the job. Everything he's done since he took the oath only reenforces everything I knew about him.

 

[mudwhistle]

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, he doesn't look at lying to the American people about Obamacare, using the IRS to target people that disagree with him and lying about the death of our ambassador as faults. He also made it clear about how much he values the opinions of others when he said republicans "have to sit in the back seat" or " I won, get over it"......

Look at what?

Lying about Obamacare? What lie?

The whole "you can keep your doctor" thing was blown way out of proportion without looking at the real culprits. HMOs tried to pull a fast one. None of you folks cared about that..at all.

Same with IRS. The "Citizen's United" case opened up a flood gate of PACs that stampeded the IRS. They had no effective way to deal with it. By the way? NONE of those PACs should have gotten the 501 (c) 4 status. They ALL broke the FEDERAL law regarding that.

And there was no lie about Benghazi. Turns out the very terrorist that ORGANIZED ONE of the attacks? Was pissed about the video.

There..all dealt with.

Feel better?

I noticed how you totally confused the facts of every example, like you're just repeating lies you've accepted as fact. You can't even take into account all of the details because some are more important to you than others. All of the facts, and all of the details of the issue have relevance, but you choose simply to dismiss and discard what you don't like.

I could point out the flaws in your rationale in detail, but would you even listen?

I seriously doubt it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

I seriously doubt your honesty or sincerity about this.

And anyone who's followed O'Donnell, knows while he has an agenda, he is hardly unfair.

As with a vast majority of my posts, I'm absolutely serious.

But I do realize that partisan ideologues often assume that others are as intellectually dishonest as they are.

And O'Donnell is a standard partisan ideologue - as a rule, he maximizes the information that corresponds with his agenda, and minimizes that which is contrary.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

You're referring to the RWnuts around here who will deny irrefutable facts to their dying breath, I assume.

 

[Mac1958]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

You're referring to the RWnuts around here who will deny irrefutable facts to their dying breath, I assume.

I absolutely believe that you assume that.

I have no doubt that your post reflects your thoughts.

Another lovely illustration of my point.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

You're referring to the RWnuts around here who will deny irrefutable facts to their dying breath, I assume.

I absolutely believe that you assume that.

I have no doubt that your post reflects your thoughts.

Another lovely illustration of my point.

.

So you deny the existence of rightwingers on this board who deny irrefutable facts?

That ironically makes you someone who denies an irrefutable fact.

 

[Mac1958]

You're referring to the RWnuts around here who will deny irrefutable facts to their dying breath, I assume.

I absolutely believe that you assume that.

I have no doubt that your post reflects your thoughts.

Another lovely illustration of my point.

.

So you deny the existence of rightwingers on this board who deny irrefutable facts?

That ironically makes you someone who denies an irrefutable fact.

I'm not going to burn a great deal of effort on this, because I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.

You'll notice that I did not refer to "left" or "right" in my OP.

And I wonder if you even realize that you're proving my point, so vividly.

Go through life with only one eye open, and you're half blind.

I just wonder which of my six options (or some combination therein) describes you.

I suspect I'll never know.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't assume that liberals are evil people. Whenever I speak of the evils of liberals I speak only of those who are in elected office, and those who abuse their power.

Those who have been tricked into supporting them are simply being used. They have closed their minds to the truth and refuse to see everything.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's difficult for an honest man to win an argument.

It takes a strong grasp of the facts, and it also takes knowing everything a liar will throw at him and having an answer for it.

That's why some lawyers are great trial lawyers and some are not.

Just having a degree doesn't mean you'll be a great or even a good trial lawyer.

A liar has advantages, because he knows that all he needs is to make an accusation that the honest person didn't think of ahead of time and didn't find out the truth about it.

It doesn't matter if the accusation is a total fabrication, because if the honest man can't answer the accusation, the liar feels he won.

On the other hand, the liar always has an answer, and if he doesn't know the truth, he can just make one up.

 

[aris2chat]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

“An artist is someone who can hold two opposing viewpoints and still remain fully functional.”

― F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

[HelenaHandbag]

We can see many examples of (1,2,3,4) on this forum.
One is right here in this thread. Sallow.
Sallow is intelligent enough, that is not difficult to see in his vocabulary and the formulation/structure of his arguments/thought patterns.
However anyone with an ounce of critical thinking can clearly see an overwhelming tendency to almost always argue one side. Why is that? What makes someone dismiss and have an instant supercilious view of anything that opposes a certain line of thinking? And of course therefore views agreeable positions void of critical approach?
Sallow, IMO is about 80% #1, and 20% #2. Therefore there is little chance of ever changing his mind.
He honestly believes in what he is saying. And this is very unfortunate, because this kind of thing plagues our society. America is deeply divided, with "Sallows" in large ranks on both sides. Refusing to find fault on their side, and always blaming the other.

More to my point, he does the same thing over and over again, gets the same crappy results, which he then blames on republicans and the right, giving him the excuse he needs to keep doing the same things over and over again, to get the same crappy results...

Lather, rinse, repeat.

And, yes, he really seems to believe himself. Poor deluded soul.

 

[Pennywise]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Barrack Obama may or may not have a high IQ. I personally have seen zero evidence that his intelligence is in the higher bracket; to the contrary from his stammering off prompter, to his lack of understanding of basic economics, he exhibits a man made of ether. I consider him to be an educated idiot, of such profound ego (masking the abandoned boy he once was) that he cannot see any way other than his own. He shows literally zero introspection, no consideration at all for reaching out to bridge gaps, and frankly a constitution of total laziness. It's those who cannot see this who are the partisans, because he exhibits his ineptitude on a daily basis.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Barrack Obama may or may not have a high IQ. I personally have seen zero evidence that his intelligence is in the higher bracket; to the contrary from his stammering off prompter, to his lack of understanding of basic economics, he exhibits a man made of ether. I consider him to be an educated idiot, of such profound ego (masking the abandoned boy he once was) that he cannot see any way other than his own. He shows literally zero introspection, no consideration at all for reaching out to bridge gaps, and frankly a constitution of total laziness. It's those who cannot see this who are the partisans, because he exhibits his ineptitude on a daily basis.

Bill Clinton is brilliant. Obama is no genius.

I think Obama has destroyed so many brain cells that he doesn't have the memory capacity that he used to have. Listening to him explain away the IRS destroying their hard drives was pretty pathetic.......like listening to a teenager explain how the dog ate his homework.

 

[Mac1958]

It's difficult for an honest man to win an argument.

It takes a strong grasp of the facts, and it also takes knowing everything a liar will throw at him and having an answer for it.

That's why some lawyers are great trial lawyers and some are not.

Just having a degree doesn't mean you'll be a great or even a good trial lawyer.

A liar has advantages, because he knows that all he needs is to make an accusation that the honest person didn't think of ahead of time and didn't find out the truth about it.

It doesn't matter if the accusation is a total fabrication, because if the honest man can't answer the accusation, the liar feels he won.

On the other hand, the liar always has an answer, and if he doesn't know the truth, he can just make one up.

Yep. It's just a shame to see so many liars with so much influence.

The end justifies the means to zealots.

The decay continues.

.

 

[SmedlyButler]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

I think we can have several semi-autonomous neural pathways stimulated by a given topic. Pick a topic, say abortion. I can approach it in shades of grey and agonize over moral implications and worry about the definition of personhood and on and on. Usually though, especially in an intellectual environment like USMB, we have a "short-circuit" algorithm that delivers the "partisan" conclusion and avoids the possible murkiness and incoherence of subtle thought. It's a natural defence mechanism in social situations and defines automatically "who we are". Normalcy is saving the internal contradictions for more intimate or private moments. And of course we all think that our personal "short-circuit" advisor arrives at the right answer 99% of the time anyway and are willing to defend it vociferously, instantly and without self-doubt.

I could be wrong though, I have no idea how the brain works, I've agonized over that a lot.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

As fascinated as I am about the behavior of partisan ideologues, it was interesting to see F Scott Fitzgerald's quote about how an intelligent person can hold two opposing views and still function (at about 1:08 here: MSNBC Host’s Attitude Toward ‘Evil’ Billionaires Makes a 180-Degree Turn After Near-Death Experience).

So, just for giggles, let's assume Fitzgerald was right. Let's assume that any intelligent person can argue either side of an issue. What does that say about partisan ideologues, who can only be seen arguing their side of an issue while ignoring/avoiding/minimizing/distorting any argument from the other "side"? Does it mean that:

1. Their adherence to their ideology has seeped into their subconscious and denied them the ability to clearly see both sides? (my guess has always been that there is some of this at play...)

2. They know what they're doing, being intellectually dishonest, and choosing to win any given argument or issue at the expense of honesty?

3. They're just terribly intellectually lazy and don't want to be bothered to put forth the effort to understand the other "side" of an issue, even at the expense of better solving the problem at hand? (I think some of this might be at play too...)

4. A lack of self-esteem and a strong need to fit in with a group renders them unable to be honest and say something that someone on their "side" doesn't like? (yeah, I can see that)

5. Or, as Fitzgerald infers, are they simply not as intelligent as they think they are?

Personally, I've always assumed to partisan ideologues are intelligent but are intellectually paralyzed by #1 through #4. But the quote is interesting.

Any civil, mature, thoughtful input on this?

.

I have no serious issues with one through four, but five is the key. The higher up the chain you are the easier it is to see the forest for the trees.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Come to think of it, here's a sixth option:

6. Political rhetoric and debate represent a game for them, and being honest really isn't required in a game. Just play it, have fun with it, like watching professional wrestling.

Politics is both a game and the art of compromise. You gain as much ground as possible first, and then give back what you can stand to lose before you abandon the battle as lost. People have a lot of trouble understanding that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's akin to playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion. I do it all the time when discussing business issues; I always look at the problem form the perspective of the antagonist, whether I agree with them or not.

It's also important to define the concept of an issue versus a belief or general principle. In cases where an ideologue has turned his position to the opposite, I think what he has discovered is that his idea about this or that is not as simple as he once thought. This does not account for people with no principles to stand on, or who are flat out stupid, or otherwise incapable of taking a firm stand, but instead use "nuance" as a crutch to do nothing.

I think Obama falls squarely into Fitzgerald's inference of someone who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. I mean that sincerely, I'm not playing politics.

Sure you are.

President Obama is probably one of the most self effacing people in quite a while. He admits mistakes, faults and makes it known that he values the opinions of other people. He appointed many folks in the opposition party to his cabinet (So much so, it drew criticism from the left) and has had political adversaries (Namely Hillary Clinton) filling out top roles in his administration.

That's quite unlike either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Bush was much that way but not Reagan, not in the slightest. The people around him tended to be that way but he was far less ideological than people believe today. Reagan wouldn't have allowed someone like Palin to clean the stall of his horse, for fear of screwing up the horse.