This item from The Hill, one of the newspapers in these parts (italics added):
Now, I don’t think it’s essential that a president be familiar with the complete works of Plato, be an expert in this or that, or even get straight A’s in college.
But shouldn’t the president of the United States be fully aware of the law that forms the backbone of our welfare policy today? Not knowing philosophy is one thing. But is not knowing a key policy acceptable for someone who is in charge of enforcing our nation’s laws, especially at a time when TANF needs to be reauthorized (and possibly rewritten)?
I don’t think “smart” is the issue here, “well-informed” is. I definitely agree that the President ought to know the name of the central federal welfare program—especially since as recently as last February he gave an entire freakin’ speech about welfare reform.
smart enough to know what they don’t know and to have good people around to advise them,
smart enough to know where to turn to to get the right answers.
The issue with Bush isn’t if he’s smart enough. He isn’t smart enough alone, no one is and he is farther than most, but does he have the right support staff, and is he able to use them well.
I’d rather have a fool who is wise enough to know he’s a fool and ask for help, than a genius who thinks he’s smarter than he is.
Before the “election” of '00, W could not identify Afghanistan on a map. A year later, W was leading an invasion of said country. As Kimstu alludes to, I think he became better informed but not necessarily any smarter. I think he needs to spend more time with his mom (or Carl) after school studying while Jeb plays out front. Then, and only then, will this compassionate conservative be able to tackle welfare reform and not look like a complete moron in doing so.
DSeid:The issue with Bush isn’t if he’s smart enough. He isn’t smart enough alone, no one is and he is farther than most, but does he have the right support staff, and is he able to use them well.
I don’t think anybody’s suggesting that the President ought to know everything that could possibly have relevance to federal government; as you say, some things he needs to be able to delegate to the knowledge of others. But not being familiar with even the name of the tens-of-billions-of-dollars federal welfare program, to which he’s devoted whole speeches?!? If Barkley’s account is correct, that certainly does bother me, and I think it ought to bother Bush too.
No, we don’t need a micro-managing control-freak political science PhD as our Chief Exec, but IMHO we do need someone with reasonable familiarity with the basic major issues. The image of Bush reading a speech about his plans for welfare reform off the TelePrompTer without even being aware what his welfare program is called is not a reassuring one.
Well I suppose you can’t really have a smart president. Because if they were really smart they would stay out of politics and do some computer job.
Seriously though, knowledge is IMO more important than IQ. If you can’t do math you can get a calculator. If you can’t find the country your fighting on a map then you have a problem. As long as a president is well read knowledgeable and a good PR guy I’m fine with it.
As indicated in some of the posts above, the issue isn’t whether he is “smart” enough. “Smart” people can have their attention focused and as a result, gaps can form in their knowledge. If those sort of domestic issues have been the focus of his administration up to this point than I would understand the concern. The real issue here is whether that person is willing to admit his or her gap in education and willing to learn from others as they go.
As smart as possible. I never understand the argument (made by Republicans usually) that intelligence can be a handicap in being President.
What is true that intelligence alone doesn’t cut it. You need good speaking skills, management skills especially the ability to delegate, a capacity for work among other things. But within the constraint of these other good qualities the President should be as intelligent as possible.
Now sometimes highly intelligent people may not have the above the skills but this is not necessarily the case. For instance a more intelligent person might be quicker at learning to do things well including management or public speaking. It all depends on the person.
And speaking of Bush I haven’t seen anything to convince me that he is particularly superior in other areas. He doesn’t seem to be very hard-working. His speaking skills are middling at best. The only thing he may be good at is delegating and that is only one of the necessary skills.
Incidentally I wouldn’t say that Bush is particularly stupid. He may even be above average for the general population though he is probably below average for senior politicians. I think his bigger problem is a lack of application and an unwillingness to work hard at mastering the issues. The TANF is a good example.
Smart enough to convince more than half the voters in states equalling more than half the votes in the electoral college that he’s not too dumb to be president.
World Eater: No cite, and I know some frown on that in this forum, but here goes anyway . . .
I remember during the fight for the current presidency that Bush was asked if he could name the leaders of five countries. Afghanistan I think–but I am not positive–was one of those countries. Bush couldn’t do it and his failure was used against him by some. “What a moron . . . how can he deal with these foreign countries if he doens’t even know who their leaders are?”
It’s not difficult to see how “couldn’t name its leader” might become “couldn’t find it on a map.”
Of course, maybe he really did fail to find Afghanistan on a map.
But he wasn’t the one that did that. He had others do that for him. What he did manage to do is convince the kingmakers of the Republican party to give him tons of money and stature.
Now you may think that requires intelligence. But I figure what they really wanted in a president is another charismatic idiot like Reagan. Someone who could be lead
Bush is just smart enough to get by, just dumb enough to
be managed, and just lazy enough not to care so long as
people show him respect while use him.
Last month, a cagey television reporter cornered Bush in Boston and asked him if he could name the leaders of four hotspots: Pakistan, India, Taiwan and Chechnya, a breakaway republic in Russia. Bush answered “Lee” for Taiwan — last names get full credit — but failed to identify any of the others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------**
It’s worth noting that even though W couldn’t name the leader of Pakistan during the campaign, he nevertheless did an exemplary job of making Musharif an ally. Similarly, Bush need not know the particular name for the welfare program in order to resist watering down welfare reform, now that it has proved to be so effective.
E72521, I remember that. I’m pretty sure it was true. I know it was remarked upon on this very message board.
A smarter president is definitely a good thing, but there are other, more important criteria. I’d rather vote for a candiate who agreed with me on policy issues than whoever scores better on the Wonderlich.
Okay. Google hates me today, so I turned to Lexis-Nexis and found parts of an exchange between George W. Bush and TV reporter Andy Hiller. A number of periodicals quoted parts of Bush and Hiller’s Q&A. Here’s the part about Bush not knowing the names of various foreign leaders:
Hiller: Can you name the president of Chechnya? Bush: No. Can you? Hiller: Can you name the president of Taiwan? Bush: Yeah, Lee. Hiller: Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan? Bush: Wait, wait, is this 50 questions? Hiller: No, it’s four questions of four leaders in four hot spots. Bush: The new Pakistani general, he’s just been elected not elected, this guy took over office . . . Hiller: Can you name him? Bush: General. I can’t name the general. General. Hiller: And the prime minister of India? Bush: The new prime minister of India is . . . No.
Not that I need to remind anybody, but the above is just part of a conversation taken out of context–I didn’t post it to make the Prez look stupid or anything. The article taken in its entirety actually had a sort of pro-Bush tone to it. I wish I could post the entire article but it is too long and too copyrighted.
As for what I said earlier: looks like I was wrong. I thought I recalled Bush screwing up on five world leaders, but it looks like only three–he was only asked four and I think he was correct about President Lee. I could swear, though, that I originally heard five and even heard somebody on television list them while counting them off on his fingers. Aw well. I guess that neither TV nor my memory is always correct.
The specific paper I copied this from is the Sydney Herald– page 43 of the “News and Features” section of the October 20, 2001 edition to be precise. I have no idea how accurate that paper usually is, what kind of political philosophy it has, or anything like that. Nonetheless, I believe it to be an accurate source in this case because so many other papers have used this same material as well.
