I attended the post-debate fraternity event last night where Texas governor Rick Perry mistakenly placed the American Revolution in the 16th century:
"Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the fount of all wisdom. As a matter of fact they were very much afraid if that because they’d just had this experience with this far-away government that had centralized thought process and planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away from that kind of onerous crown if you will."
The incident has been widely reported, but I haven't seen any audio or video, so here is an MP3 audio clip from my recording of the event. It's low-quality but hopefully intelligible.
While I think the whole issue is pretty trivial, it does threaten to solidify the conventional wisdom that Perry is dumb. Yesterday, for instance, Wall Street Journal editorial writer Joseph Rago said at a pre-debate panel at Dartmouth (where I am on the faculty) that Perry seemed like he "had some sort of mental disability" during the previous debate. A few more incidents like this and Perry will be covered more like Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle than Mitt Romney. And as Palin and Quayle can tell you, once the narrative forms, reporters start looking for anecdotes to reinforce the story they want to tell. It's a cycle that is very difficult to break.
Update 10/12 11:59 AM: NBC News has video:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Well, Quayle and Palin have both continued to actively feed this cycle, will Perry?
Posted by: Andrew Boniface | October 15, 2011 at 02:10 AM
What about Bush? There was also a narrative that he was dumb, but unlike Quayle and Palin, he didn't seem to be damaged by it. I think Palin's main setback wasn't the idea that she was dumb per se but the idea (an accurate idea, I should add) that she was not prepared for the vice presidency. As for Quayle, I would argue that the perception of him as thin-skinned (as in his hurt response to Bentsen's "You're no Jack Kennedy" line) did more actual damage to his image than the (unfair) perception of him as stupid. Bush projected a light-hearted sense of humor about his verbal gaffes, and it helped him come off as a stronger candidate.
Posted by: Kylopod | October 16, 2011 at 03:05 PM
There was additionally an account that he was doltish, but unlike Quayle and Palin, he didn't appear to be harmed by it.
Posted by: blackjack | October 17, 2011 at 09:23 AM