# How smart should a president be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2002, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207 "2002-11-27T21:35:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/21 "2002-11-28T02:46:46Z")
Jimmy Carter, who has shown himself to be one heck of a guy, would have also done pretty well on the Wonderlic. So, what was it that was missing from his presidency that cost him a second term? Ronald Reagan served two terms and is concerned to have been a successful president, politics aside. I would wager that Reagan’s Wonderlic couldn’t match Carters. I wonder if “smarts” is even all that necessary to the “presidency.” I’m sure it’s on the list somewhere but, like a lot of jobs, leadership skills and projecting an image may matter more in bringing about a ‘successful’ Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/22 "2002-11-28T03:40:04Z")
**december:** _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._ How would he know whether or not it’s effective if he isn’t sufficiently familiar with it even to recognize its freakin’ **name**? You are painting a rather frightening picture of somebody who would confidently stick to an ideological position on an issue even in the absence of the most basic information about the facts of it. That’s a worse indictment of Bush than anything I ever said about him, and I’m no fan of his. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/23 "2002-11-28T04:31:58Z")
Tejota: > [@](#): > > 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. “He” who? I thought we were talking in the general sense, not specifically about the current President. Funny, I guess there’s only one US President in history whose intelligence you think is questionable. In any case, I disagree completely with what you imply about Bush. After his overwhelming re-election as Governor of Texas in 1998, which included endorsements by Democrats all over the state and a decent percentage of the Hispanic vote, he represented what Republicans, battered by criticism of Newt Gingrich’s confrontationalism, wanted in a candidate: someone who is strong on Republican principles, but who can get along with Democrats just fine, and who can belie the image of the GOP as a white man’s party. Yes, I’ll admit that Texas Democrats are more conservative than your average Democrat, but they’re still not Republicans - and “bipartisanship” was the big buzzword back then. > [@](#): > > 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 Yes, they wanted someone like Reagan. Calling either Reagan or Bush an idiot is a bit of a stretch…and probably beyond the scope of the OP as well. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/24 "2002-11-28T14:41:52Z")
> [@](#): > > _orignally posted by December_ > 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. Yeah, real exemplary. Except that he shares a lot of qualities with that evil Saddam hussein guy that Bush hates. Not to mention that this is a country that isn’t doing much to trouble the al-Qaida nasties within its midst. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by mephisto_ > 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. Australia’s widest circulating broadsheet, comparable to the New York Times or the Washington Post in terms of credibility. It’s political philosophy will be slightly left compared to the average US media, because Australia tends to be slightly left of the US on most issues. If it has any stance on Bush, it would be “he’s pretty stupid, and he’s a bit of a cowboy,” but that’s because that’s what the rest of the world thinks. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2002, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/25 "2002-11-28T15:10:03Z")
What if he wasn’t stupid? What if eorge Dubbya was a sociopath as the subjuect of[this article](http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=3cf7b7882ea89af3&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774887712&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154) seems to be saying. How’s that for a new spin? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2002, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/26 "2002-11-29T16:02:13Z")
The problem isn’t intelligence or even worldview, it’s level of interest in the job and its responsibilities. A leader who simply isn’t engaged in the work will let it be done by countless others who have their own agendas and ambitions, but without the glare of publicity to restrain them. Reagan and Iran-Contra are an example. Dubya seems to have the basic intelligence, and [teacher voice] he could achieve _so_ much if he’d only _apply_ himself [/teacher voice]. Plenty of men with less education and perhaps even less intelligence have been good, effective national leaders because they’ve had the other necessary characteristics; and vice-versa. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2002, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/27 "2002-11-29T18:20:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mephisto \* > 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. Note that at the time, President Carter’s National Security advisor (Zbigniew Brzezinski) said that [he knew only two.](http://www.reporternews.com/1999/opinion/bush1108.html) George Will and Chris Matthews both said they only knew one (the same one that Bush got right). That’s documented in Ann Coulter’s _Slander_–though she doesn’t give footnotes for Will and Matthews, and I haven’t found any direct quotes. So, are George Will or Chris Matthews smart enough, even though they couldn’t answer that particular question better than Bush? Was Gore any smarter when he claimed he knew all four answers (although, being vice president for 8 years, with briefings from teams who do the research, I would be surprised if he **didn’t** know all about the current “hot spots”)? ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2002, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/28 "2002-11-29T18:44:25Z")
Since the question seems to focus on George W. Bush, I have to ask, is Al Gore smart enough to be president? After all, it was he who asked when walking through Monticell asked, “Who are those guys?” pointing to Ben Franklin and George Washington. Also, a president should be able to repeat this: “Can a tiger change its stripes?” Instead of: “A zebra does not change its spots,” as Al Gore did. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2002, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/29 "2002-11-29T19:17:51Z")
I’ll see your zebra and raise you [The Complete Bushism](http://www.bushisms.com). Haven’t you ever seen artwork so bad that even you couldn’t tell who/what it was supposed to represent? [The text of Andy Hiller’s interview](http://www.whdh.com/features/articles_p/hiller/22/). It was pretty plainly intended, not as a test of intelligence per se, but of job preparation. No, a President doesn’t have to know all the details, but he does need to know enough to direct the work. Since Bush’s approach to governing is based on personality rather than policy (the old backslap and frat-house nickname method), it matters that he know the right name. Or maybe not, if the nickname comes first. Will and Matthews are on shaky ground on claiming that their own ignorance about something tangential to their own work excuses someone else’s about something central to theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/30 "2002-11-29T21:48:28Z")
**emarkp** - It’s not whether Al Gore has the intelligence to be a successful president. The question is whether he has the ‘in public social skills.’ Gore reminds me a lot of Alexander Putin when it comes to social likability. And I think Putin would have a very hard time with politics here in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/31 "2002-11-30T02:46:00Z")
In regards to the OP I think the fact that Bush admitted that he needed information to answer the question is, by itself, proof that he is smart enough to do the job. I grew up around a large number of _really_ smart people. (When I say _really_ smart people I am refering to people who received PHD’s in math, physics, astrophysics, music, english and education with very high gpa’s) I learned from these people that knowing what you do not know is the first step you need to take to be smart. The second step is to find the information that you need. So asking a question about something is not a sign of stupidity. Next, when I read the actual article the OP linked to, I found it very interesting that the topic of the meeting was the ‘Homeland Security’ bill and not wellfare. Barkley brought up TANFJGOHD, or whatever the correct acronym is, and I am not suprised that he caught Bush off guard. Bush was working on and thinking about the ‘Homeland Security’ bill. Barkley talked about that and then brought up a totally different topic. The TANF thing Barkley was talking about is actually a minor issue within the wellfare debate. Also, there is no way that a singal person can keep track of all the bills that go through Congress. It is just not possible. Last, the OP fails to meantion the outcome of the whole thing. The article states that the whole issue was resolved in less than 24 hours. So Bush, who was probably blindsided by the question, found the information he needed, talked to his people and got the issue solved within a day. While you may disagree with the outcome, though I doubt the OPster does, you have to admit that the problem was dealt with very quickly and in a decent way. Being smart is a requirement to be the President. At the same time the ability to focus on the issue before you, the resources to find the information you need and a team of experts to discuss the issues are just as important. Slee ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/32 "2002-11-30T05:11:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sleestak \* > Also, there is no way that a singal person can keep track of all the bills that go through Congress. It is just not possible. **Slee** , I hope you realize that the Prez has to _sign_ (or reject) all those bills that go through Congress? He darned well better keep track of them. Or perhaps you meant, “All the bills which have ever gone through Congress,” in which case I’d agree. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/33 "2002-11-30T06:14:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by squeegee \* > \*\ ***Slee** , I hope you realize that the Prez has to _sign_ (or reject) all those bills that go through Congress? He darned well better keep track of them. > > Or perhaps you meant, “All the bills which have ever gone through Congress,” in which case I’d agree. \*\* Well, your second statement is what I meant for the most part. The TRASDFDSAAA, or what ever it was act, that Barkley brought up was passed in '96. It was up for re-instatement next year. Was the TRAF act on Bush’s mind, probably not. At the same time I have a challenge for you **squeegee** , tell me _every_ law that Congressed passed last year without help. And then tell me every rider that got through Congress that Bush signed. Once again, without help. I bet you cannot do it Slee ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/34 "2002-11-30T06:53:24Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by cmkeller_ > > 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 70% of Americans believe in angels. Americans are morons. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/35 "2002-11-30T07:17:03Z")
**sleestak** , TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – cash payments to families with children and inadequate income, formerly called AFDC) **is** what most people think of when they hear the term “welfare” (although it is not the largest cash expenditure – that honor goes to Medicaid – or the program with the largest number of beneficiaries – that would be the food stamp program). For the President to not **know what it is** is a sign of abject ignorance of his job. Claiming that TANF is a “minor part of welfare” is plainly false and leads one to question your motives for offering such a bald-faced lie in defense of the President’s competency. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/36 "2002-11-30T08:03:26Z")
The president should be smart enough that canadian politicos etc. don’t have to constantly remind themselves that it’s un-pc to call the guy a moron. The resultant squabbling increases friction with our allies, and inevitably detracts from the realization of America’s foreign policy goals. The president _must_ be smart enough to appear credible. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/37 "2002-11-30T08:46:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sleestak \* > At the same time I have a challenge for you **squeegee** , tell me _every_ law that Congressed passed last year without help. And then tell me every rider that got through Congress that Bush signed. Once again, without help. I bet you cannot do it If they all came to my desk and it was my job to read them, I’d damned well do my job, read them, and sign them (or not). Are you saying this isn’t the way it should be done? A year’s worth of bills don’t plop on Bush’s desk all at once, they show up serially over many weeks. And there is a reasonable period when the Prez can sign them or not. Do you maintain that it is an _impossible_ job to keep up with this pace? If not, what exactly is your point? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/38 "2002-12-03T01:57:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by squink_ > > The president should be smart enough that canadian politicos etc. don’t have to constantly remind themselves that it’s un-pc to call the guy a moron. The resultant squabbling increases friction with our allies, and inevitably detracts from the realization of America’s foreign policy goals. The president must be smart enough to appear credible. There is nothing un-pc about calling someone a moron. This is a complete misunderstanding about what the PC movement was all about before it became twisted and distorted by the conservative media. Political correctness was about eliminating offensive language as it pertains to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, physical disabilities and other human conditions which have nothing to do with the intelligence or moral character of the individual. It was about eliminating bigotry, it did not imply that any and all viewpoints should be given the same bland tolerance or that all offensive language should be removed. Not one liberal has ever said that you can’t call a moron a moron. Morons do not fall under the category of groups who have suffered discrimination or bigotry. Mr. Bush, in fact, has had the exact opposite treatment all his life. He has been handed everything he’s ever gotten. He has never actually had to earn anything on his own. He has never been an employee. He has never punched a timeclock. He has never been exhausted from doing physical labor. He has never had to buy a used car. He has never had to scramble to pay the rent. He has never done laundry, swept a floor or made toast. He is the most undiscriminated-against human being on the planet. He does not fall under the rubrick of PC protection. And he IS an effing moron. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/39 "2002-12-03T02:52:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\ ***sleestak** , TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – cash payments to families with children and inadequate income, formerly called AFDC) **is** what most people think of when they hear the term “welfare” (although it is not the largest cash expenditure – that honor goes to Medicaid – or the program with the largest number of beneficiaries – that would be the food stamp program). For the President to not **know what it is** is a sign of abject ignorance of his job. Claiming that TANF is a “minor part of welfare” is plainly false and leads one to question your motives for offering such a bald-faced lie in defense of the President’s competency. \*\* Well, **KellyM** , I guess you missed my point. The TANF point was about exemptions due to certain states. It had nothing to do with the major goals of TANF. The fool from Minnisota wanted his state to be exempt from the TANF laws. He wanted a waiver. He brought up this issue at the end of a meeting about the ‘Homeland’ security bill. Bush was focused on one thing and this asshat brought up something else. Bush asked some questions and resolved the issue within 24 hours. But I guess giving Bush credit would never work for you. Also, I never claimed that TANF was a minor part of welfare. I said that the issue, whether or not some states should get exemptions, was trivial. Get your stuff straight Slee ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207/40 "2002-12-03T03:00:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **He has never been an employee. He has never punched a timeclock. He has never been exhausted from doing physical labor. He has never had to buy a used car. He has never had to scramble to pay the rent. He has never done laundry, swept a floor or made toast. He is the most undiscriminated-against human being on the planet.** False, dunno, patently false, true, true, false, false, false. And I suppose Millionaire Democrat politicians all started as stockboys at the A & P? And it’s “rubric” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-smart-should-a-president-be/139207.md?page=3)