[Art: Dime se quieres que traduzca este mensaje.]
I looked up "humble" in a dictionary because we may have a definitional problem.
Humble, used as an adjective, has several possible meanings:
1. a. (in relation to oneself) having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's importance: I felt very humble when meeting her.
. . b. (in relation to an action or thought) offered with or affected by a modest estimate of one's importance: my humble apologies.
2. of low social, administrative, or political rank: she came from a humble, unprivileged background.
3. (in relation to a thing) of modest pretensions or dimensions: he built the business empire from humble beginnings.
Only 1.a. and 2 could apply to a person, except that 1.b. could apply to the behavior of a person.
Informal alternative: As mentioned earlier, there is an informal usage that doesn't appear in that list: humble in the sense of "simple. But Is, I think, was suggesting we might use it in this case as code for "not very smart" or "simpleton". This is something an earnest person might not recognize immediately. (Do correct me if I'm wrong, Is.)
Okay, so let's compare GW Bush and Obama on these possible definitions.
1.a. Do either demonstrate a modest or low estimate of their importance?
At this point in history, the President of the United States is by definition a person of ultimate importance. (If they weren't, we wouldn't be talking about them!)
But at least occasionally there are opportunities to show humility, as when Obama said that there were others more qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize. That's quite accurate and a gracious thing to say. I'm sure Bush has said similarly humble things. It could be said that his not being outspoken thus far on the policies of the new President is an act of humility.
1.b. Do the actions or thoughts of either man indicate that they may be "offered with or affected by a modest estimate of their own importance"?
I suspect this is the definition that Raquel was using. It's the hardest to pin down because we can't really know thoughts and motivations of another person, we can only guess (or insinuate, as people on the extremes tend to do). It's also fairly easy to fake humility. So I'm not sure there is any way to judge another on this type of humbleness.
Nonetheless, many people will see what they want to see. The telltale sign of this, though, is that they can't back up what they believe with facts. At best we'll hear irrelevant or unsatisfying explanations. In short, there's a lack of critical thinking. (Here's a page with definitions of
critical thinking.)
2. Were either of these Presidents "of low social, administrative, or political rank" or an unprivileged background?
Yes, Obama had a very poor mother and grandparents and had little contact with his father. I see no political power, no wealth, no facilitative social connections, no privilege.
Bush, on the other hand, comes from a very wealthy and powerful family. Without his parent's and grandparent's social, political and economic status, without their connections, power, and wealth, GW Bush would never have had a chance to become President.
Okay, Bush went to his ranch for vacations. If I had a 1583 acre ranch with a 10,000 sq. ft. home, I'd go there for vacations, too. That's not what I'd call a humble home, although to be fair, he probably needed much more space than you or I would because he used the home to entertain visitors and to house his staff. Did you know that F-16 jets patrolled overhead when he was present? Going to the ranch certainly wasn't a discount vacation for taxpayers.
The Obamas have a home in Chicago. I don't know whether they have enough space for the necessary security features to spend time there, but if they did go there, they'd essentially be stuck in the house. I doubt that the Obamas would be allowed to work in their yard in Chicago. Visiting an urban house would not be not like going to a ranch with thousands of acres.
And lastly, the informal alternative: Could either person be described as "not very smart" or "simpleton"?
Certainly not Obama. Bush had that reputation, largely because he mangled the language and the facts when he spoke and because he was impatient and emotional when dealing with issues that required patience with complicated details and cool-headed thinking. But I don't think he was truly stupid. Did he have the smarts and personality to be a great President? I doubt it.
Some leadership roles, like mine here, are clearly humble. Being the President, it isn't possible to be humble and also be effective. They can be kind, generous and not lord their status over others, but the fact is that a President has great power and we elect them to wield just that.
