What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder
"A particularly astute analysis of the television coverage of the campaign, the election, and the political aftermath."― Newsday The Bush Dyslexicon is a raucously funny ride―whether it's Bush envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy" or Miller skewering vociferous cultural conservatives like William Bennett and Lynne Cheney for their silence on Bush's particular "West Texas version of Ebonics." But there is also a strong undercurrent of outrage. Only because our elections have become so dependent on television and its emphatic emptiness, says Miller, could a man of such sublime and complacent ignorance assume the highest office in the land.
370 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
6 people are currently reading
140 people want to read
About the author
Mark Crispin Miller
53 books52 followersMark Crispin Miller graduated from Northwestern University with a BA in 1971, Johns Hopkins University with an MA in 1973, and a PhD in 1977. He is currently Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. He is known for his writing on American media and for his activism on behalf of democratic media reform.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
July 1, 2025
Ah, remember the time when we thought George W. Bush was the worst president ever? Remember when we thought his use of the word "nucular" and other hilarious malapropisms were indicative of an ignoramus who somehow got elected to the most powerful position in the land? Remember when we didn't have a narcissistic sociopath sitting in the Oval Office that made W. look like a saint and a genius? Those were the days. Innocent days.
August 2, 2010
If ever you want to feel as like the President of the free world was dumber than you, this books for you. Bush admits to having dyslexia, as he says in an interview “That woman who knew I had dyslexia- I never interviewed her.”
Book is also chalked full of Bushisms; my favorites
“Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness.”
“Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
“My opponent won't tell you where he stands on this issue. He is afraid to offend somebody, but that's not what a leadership is about. You got to stand strong. If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything. If you don't stand for something, you don't stand for anything.”
“Discussing terrorism and other foreign threats, Bush vowed to 'use our technology to enhance uncertainties abroad.”
Book is also chalked full of Bushisms; my favorites
“Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness.”
“Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
“My opponent won't tell you where he stands on this issue. He is afraid to offend somebody, but that's not what a leadership is about. You got to stand strong. If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything. If you don't stand for something, you don't stand for anything.”
“Discussing terrorism and other foreign threats, Bush vowed to 'use our technology to enhance uncertainties abroad.”
March 7, 2007
Thinking back on this book, Crispin Miller is a genius- and really got Bush spot on at a time that everyone thought he was just a bumbling idiot- not a ruthless astute man who pretends to be an idiot for just appeal.
The book is just a really interesting read.
The book is just a really interesting read.
July 1, 2008
Mark Crispin Miller breaks a lot of the semantics and speaking patterns of George W. Bush from his initial presidential campaign and his first few months in office.
Aside from the introduction and the afterwards, this book was written before September 11.
Miller notes that Bush is most at ease when talking about punishment and war which further explains his enormous rise in popularity following the terrorist attacks.
It's when Bush talks about anything else, such as health care, the working poor or any sort of problems that someone other the richest of the rich might suffer from does he get flustered, speak in vague terms or just generally makes an ass of himself.
This book is worth perusing just to see the sort of predictions Miller makes in how Bush would handle certain situations such as war and a bad economy. (Miller's fairly dead on)
Aside from the introduction and the afterwards, this book was written before September 11.
Miller notes that Bush is most at ease when talking about punishment and war which further explains his enormous rise in popularity following the terrorist attacks.
It's when Bush talks about anything else, such as health care, the working poor or any sort of problems that someone other the richest of the rich might suffer from does he get flustered, speak in vague terms or just generally makes an ass of himself.
This book is worth perusing just to see the sort of predictions Miller makes in how Bush would handle certain situations such as war and a bad economy. (Miller's fairly dead on)
July 13, 2007
As somebody else mentioned, the author was right on in his assessment. Bush is no idiot--he just shares the complete disdain and disinterest of the poor and middle class of other absolutely spoiled, rich brats. So when he has to speak on things he cares nothing about, he flubs up big time.
I wanted to dock this book another star just because I can't stand looking at this man's face on the cover!
I wanted to dock this book another star just because I can't stand looking at this man's face on the cover!
January 23, 2008
Thinking back, this is a strange book I don't think I fully appreciated when I read it. Maybe it's worth a re-read at the end of W's term.
August 19, 2019
If only something as benign as dyslexia were the problem!
This is a polemic of course and will give comfort and merriment to Democrats and others who are opposed to the Bush dynasty. Curiously, as a middle of the road kind of guy, I found myself reading this almost in sympathy with George W.'s many misstatements, unconscious self-revelations, and inadvertent personality projections. Certainly he seems no different than other politicians, who are, by the very nature of their calling, forced to disdain the concrete and to avoid at all costs any sort of public candor. I learned from this book, however, that for George II, because of his natural inclination to be a comedian and to speak vividly and colorfully and to express (for laughs) the kind of gut feelings people have, which he did as an undergraduate at Yale, political speak can be difficult. When he has to think on his feet the conflict within him is greater than it is for most politicians who are just naturally as vacuous as possible. George W. wants to say what he really feels and has to continually suppress the urge.
Needless to say, Bush supporters and Republicans in general will find this book humorless and not very interesting. There is however a certain underlying idea presented by Professor Miller that bares scrutiny, namely that President Bush's true feelings can be discerned by a close, analytic look at what he says and what he doesn't say. Miller gives us Freudian slips aplenty by the heir apparent to Dan Quayle, and furthers the idea put forth by journalist Gail Sheehy that George W. really is dyslexic. Bush has denied that he's dyslexic. However, he is quoted on page 102 as saying, revealingly, "That woman who knew I had dyslexia--I never interviewed her." (Meaning, I presume, she never interviewed him.) Miller characterizes this double slip of the tongue as "a dyslexic denial of dyslexia." Miller also quotes Bush as saying things like, "I don't care what the polls say. I don't. I'm doing what I think what's wrong," or, "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." (p. 134) These are misstatements that may suggest a troubled conscious and/or a deep-seeded desire to tell the truth perhaps like his fabled namesake, the Father of Our Country.
But I think these are relatively minor matters. Politicians, whether of the right or left, Republican or Democratic, cannot tell the truth except in so far as the truth furthers their candidacy or political agenda. The idea that George W. gives himself away when he has to speak extemporaneously is more alarming. I have noticed his failure to mention certain things, like the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, a failure that may hint at what he knows. He is no longer worried about where bin Laden is perhaps because he knows where bin Laden is, but finds it politically convenient not to reveal that just yet. Furthermore, I have been troubled by Bush's failure to say much about the anthrax mailings. One suspects he knows more than he is willing to share with the public. If I can discern this much (we will see if I am right some years down the road), how much might a more sophisticated analytical team discern?
One also senses the phenomenon of psychological "projection" at work in some of Bush's utterances. The persona that used to come out when he was drunk, a persona that was sometimes very ugly, is now suppressed. However sometimes this persona sneaks out when the teetotaling Bush is caught off guard. For example, after touring the Auschwitz death camp, Bush is quoted as saying (p. 82): "Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they?" Presumably he was still drinking in 1987 when he spotted the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt with his family at a restaurant in Dallas and came over and said, "You no f-ing good sonofab-, I will never f-ing forget what you wrote." (pp. 107-108)
Perhaps what Bush needs to do--and is trying to do, I believe--is to follow the Reagan formula of saying nothing of substance ever, and to just read the cue cards and pronounce homilies--or if cornered, speak in vacuous tautologies. For example, on whether he'll run for president (p. 133), Bush said, "There is a lot of speculation and I guess there is going to continue to be a lot of speculation until the speculation ends." Now THAT is more like it!
The book consists of a rather long opening essay critiquing not only Bush-speak, but that of former presidents, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Bush Sr., Clinton, etc., that may amuse, followed by shorter chapters focusing on various aspects of Bush's "dyslexicon," his attitude toward religion, education, the economy, etc. Miller seems earnestly concerned about the state of rhetorical candor from our leaders. He wonders if they are sufficiently educated, etc. But what I think Professor Miller needs to understand is that he needn't worry. The power barons of corporate America carefully cull all possible candidates so that by the time the presidential election rolls around, the candidates of the major parties have passed scrutiny. Naturally the things scrutinized have nothing at all to do with verbal expression. What counts is some sort of guarantee in the form of obligation to the power structure that the candidate will continue to support our system of democracy by capitalism and do nothing radical that might rock the ship of state. The Bushes and the Clintons, the Gores and the Reagans were all preselected by a largely unconscious conspiracy led by those in positions of power throughout the nation. This is the way the system works. Bush knows this. That is why his statements tend to be vague and meaningless, even dyslexic, because he knows they are not important as long as he doesn’t say anything of substance.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
This is a polemic of course and will give comfort and merriment to Democrats and others who are opposed to the Bush dynasty. Curiously, as a middle of the road kind of guy, I found myself reading this almost in sympathy with George W.'s many misstatements, unconscious self-revelations, and inadvertent personality projections. Certainly he seems no different than other politicians, who are, by the very nature of their calling, forced to disdain the concrete and to avoid at all costs any sort of public candor. I learned from this book, however, that for George II, because of his natural inclination to be a comedian and to speak vividly and colorfully and to express (for laughs) the kind of gut feelings people have, which he did as an undergraduate at Yale, political speak can be difficult. When he has to think on his feet the conflict within him is greater than it is for most politicians who are just naturally as vacuous as possible. George W. wants to say what he really feels and has to continually suppress the urge.
Needless to say, Bush supporters and Republicans in general will find this book humorless and not very interesting. There is however a certain underlying idea presented by Professor Miller that bares scrutiny, namely that President Bush's true feelings can be discerned by a close, analytic look at what he says and what he doesn't say. Miller gives us Freudian slips aplenty by the heir apparent to Dan Quayle, and furthers the idea put forth by journalist Gail Sheehy that George W. really is dyslexic. Bush has denied that he's dyslexic. However, he is quoted on page 102 as saying, revealingly, "That woman who knew I had dyslexia--I never interviewed her." (Meaning, I presume, she never interviewed him.) Miller characterizes this double slip of the tongue as "a dyslexic denial of dyslexia." Miller also quotes Bush as saying things like, "I don't care what the polls say. I don't. I'm doing what I think what's wrong," or, "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." (p. 134) These are misstatements that may suggest a troubled conscious and/or a deep-seeded desire to tell the truth perhaps like his fabled namesake, the Father of Our Country.
But I think these are relatively minor matters. Politicians, whether of the right or left, Republican or Democratic, cannot tell the truth except in so far as the truth furthers their candidacy or political agenda. The idea that George W. gives himself away when he has to speak extemporaneously is more alarming. I have noticed his failure to mention certain things, like the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, a failure that may hint at what he knows. He is no longer worried about where bin Laden is perhaps because he knows where bin Laden is, but finds it politically convenient not to reveal that just yet. Furthermore, I have been troubled by Bush's failure to say much about the anthrax mailings. One suspects he knows more than he is willing to share with the public. If I can discern this much (we will see if I am right some years down the road), how much might a more sophisticated analytical team discern?
One also senses the phenomenon of psychological "projection" at work in some of Bush's utterances. The persona that used to come out when he was drunk, a persona that was sometimes very ugly, is now suppressed. However sometimes this persona sneaks out when the teetotaling Bush is caught off guard. For example, after touring the Auschwitz death camp, Bush is quoted as saying (p. 82): "Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they?" Presumably he was still drinking in 1987 when he spotted the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt with his family at a restaurant in Dallas and came over and said, "You no f-ing good sonofab-, I will never f-ing forget what you wrote." (pp. 107-108)
Perhaps what Bush needs to do--and is trying to do, I believe--is to follow the Reagan formula of saying nothing of substance ever, and to just read the cue cards and pronounce homilies--or if cornered, speak in vacuous tautologies. For example, on whether he'll run for president (p. 133), Bush said, "There is a lot of speculation and I guess there is going to continue to be a lot of speculation until the speculation ends." Now THAT is more like it!
The book consists of a rather long opening essay critiquing not only Bush-speak, but that of former presidents, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Bush Sr., Clinton, etc., that may amuse, followed by shorter chapters focusing on various aspects of Bush's "dyslexicon," his attitude toward religion, education, the economy, etc. Miller seems earnestly concerned about the state of rhetorical candor from our leaders. He wonders if they are sufficiently educated, etc. But what I think Professor Miller needs to understand is that he needn't worry. The power barons of corporate America carefully cull all possible candidates so that by the time the presidential election rolls around, the candidates of the major parties have passed scrutiny. Naturally the things scrutinized have nothing at all to do with verbal expression. What counts is some sort of guarantee in the form of obligation to the power structure that the candidate will continue to support our system of democracy by capitalism and do nothing radical that might rock the ship of state. The Bushes and the Clintons, the Gores and the Reagans were all preselected by a largely unconscious conspiracy led by those in positions of power throughout the nation. This is the way the system works. Bush knows this. That is why his statements tend to be vague and meaningless, even dyslexic, because he knows they are not important as long as he doesn’t say anything of substance.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
July 26, 2016
First third of this book was garbage (100 pages or so) - I almost gave the book up due to it being highly complex, lacking cohesion, lacking in consistent theme, and simple things such as an introduction. I found myself trying to figure out the point of long paragraphs of text. It did not help that author was not consistent in the use of Bush Senior, Elder Bush, Bush, etc. I think that the first third was somewhat a background into Bush's is important but a systematic introduction would have been an easier and better way of getting across the points.
The rest of the book was good, I could see clearly the points made. The comments by the author on Bush's dialog was especially useful, particularly when Bush's slip was only subtle or hard to understand since I am not familiar with US politics.
The rest of the book was good, I could see clearly the points made. The comments by the author on Bush's dialog was especially useful, particularly when Bush's slip was only subtle or hard to understand since I am not familiar with US politics.
December 13, 2008
This is a somewhat amusing outdated book that mainly quotes various statements to spew from the mouth of one G.W Bush during the first year of his presidency.
It goes without saying for me that Bush has absolutely no input as to what decisions are made but the real question in my mind is if he has brain damage from the years of drug and alcohol abuse, is he drunk or high on acid while giving interviews and speeches, is he just that dumb or is he a great actor that is intentionally playing the role of inept moron in order to create a scapegoat to divert attention away from the real controllers?
It goes without saying for me that Bush has absolutely no input as to what decisions are made but the real question in my mind is if he has brain damage from the years of drug and alcohol abuse, is he drunk or high on acid while giving interviews and speeches, is he just that dumb or is he a great actor that is intentionally playing the role of inept moron in order to create a scapegoat to divert attention away from the real controllers?
October 13, 2011
The author is a professor of media studies at NYU and makes a serious point that "only because our elections have become so dependent on televion and its emphatic emptiness could a man of such sublime and complacent ignorance assume the highest office in the land." He spends a lot of time analyzing television and the media in general and skewers them completely. The quotes of Bush (and his father) are stupifying, and I am left shaking my head that such a person could twice become president of the US -- once anointed by the Supreme Court and once actually elected.
July 1, 2011
A very strong argument against Bush and the people and powers that got him into power. The intro section was a bit verbose and some of the author's points are more fully developed in more recent works. I would classify this a the forerunner in anti-Bush writing, however. Hopefully, Miller will write a follow-up now that Bush is out of office.
August 20, 2011
You have to read this book. You will be left speechless and gobsmacked and really perturbed that this man was president. It's unbelievable. I don't think anyone will learn not to vote for someone like him again but you will be entertained.
March 8, 2007
Crispin Miller was a professor of mine at NYU. He's an asshole. He's also conspiratorial, slightly paranoid, and spot on. An interesting book by an utter narcissist.
Want to read
January 29, 2008Read other Mark Miller books
February 11, 2008
I am currently reading this book. What I have read, its astounding! It is entertaining and scary at the same time.
Read
November 6, 2008Bought and read before hating Bush was popular.
May 28, 2009
An exploration of what Bush's mangled speech says about his mangled mind.
December 16, 2012
Hilarious. A cautionary tale of what traits to avoid when electing a president.
December 20, 2012
An outstanding book on the misuse of language and media on the political right. It's disturbing.
March 14, 2021
An interesting trip to a past place, where I was a kid and didn't realize politically what was going on. it is informative to read more contextually about this time given that it was written immediately following the 2000 election. Reading this is also is a perfect rebuttal of the argument that Trump was simply an aberration of our presidents, not just a logical succession to our presidency. W and Trump both had mannerisms and patterns of speech that are disarming and caused severe underestimation of their nefarious intentions and power. In that way, Biden fits the mould too in that he has been rehabilitated as a fumbling, smiling old man who likes ice cream and just wants everyone to get along, despite a career full of serving big business, championing mass incarceration, and being a vocal leader for war in Iraq.
November 13, 2017
This book actually too early in 2001 to be an ACTUAL critique of the Bush presidency. Being too early for either 9011 or the Invasion of Iraq, the two defining moments of the Bush presidency, Miller seeks to defang and bubble-bust Georgie boy with a lot of (accurate) notings of his constitutional and presidential illiteracy, but as the book came out too early to deal with either of those crises, it's actually more a museum piece full of premature prejudice. If George W Bush could do all this to a writer like M.C. Miller, then just IMAGINE what apoplexies he is enduring under Donald J Trump!
Ha ha, ha ha ha.
Ha ha, ha ha ha.
November 21, 2024
My full (and wordy) thoughts are on my blog. However, I lived through Trump's presidency while reading this book. It gave me a more empathetic view toward George W. Bush and showed how his presidency led to a situation where Trump's candidacy didn't seem insane.
July 26, 2021
Read this as a precocious kid and had a real bad time with it.
Read
April 7, 2022You won't want to put this book down.
April 20, 2022
A really funny, insightful look at our stupid president. The only negative was that it is awfully intelligent therefore requiring much concentration when reading.
September 2, 2022
Best free (huh?) book.
November 30, 2025
Couldn’t finish it. Crispin Miller is angry at Bush and wants to use all the big words to let us know.
October 8, 2008
I arrr smart!!!
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews