# Should your highest-ranking elected leader be "brilliant?" **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 25, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918 "2012-04-25T16:52:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/21 "2012-04-25T18:37:09Z")
Good managers need to be generalists. Informed on a wide variety of topics but not necessarily a master of any. The leader of a country is just a General Manager who needs to surround themselves with better informed people and guide the process, not make ultimate decisions. This is what governing is, regulating and guiding. If you are looking for a dictator, then yes, you want the smartest one you can get and hope he also has compassion. But for a leader in a democracy or republic you want a people coordinator. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_With_The_Golden_Gun)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/22 "2012-04-25T18:50:11Z")
The thing to remember is, brilliant is not the same thing as good. Hitler was brilliant, but certainly not what I’d call good. There just as many smart but evil people as there are dumb but good. In fact, I’d say smart and evil is actually a lot more dangerous than dumb and evil. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/23 "2012-04-25T18:54:25Z")
They have to be Brilliant! That means sloshed on Guinness all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/24 "2012-04-25T19:06:51Z")
All things being equal, I know I’d want to pick the stupider of two candidates. :dubious: I want my leader to be smart, but not _too_ smart, ya know? :dubious: I mean, yes, “brilliance” is not the end-all and be-all of qualifications for the job of President, but it is in no way a negative. To suggest so is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/25 "2012-04-25T19:17:07Z")
> [@The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](#): > > Hitler was brilliant No he wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/26 "2012-04-25T19:20:06Z")
Hitler couldn’t have gotten where he did if he weren’t brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_With_The_Golden_Gun)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/27 "2012-04-25T21:42:28Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > No he wasn’t. He was brilliant at giving speeches and getting the people to do what he wanted. His idiocy was mostly in how he fought wars and the reasons he had in fighting them in the first place. Personally, I think had Hitler not tried to invade half of Europe’s other countries, he’d probably be remembered as just another asshole dictator and not the gold standard of evil itself. As for the Holocaust, had it been confined to only Germany’s borders without all the expansion before and during World War II, there still would have been no shortage of dead Jews, but it wouldn’t have been on the level of the Holocaust as we currently know it, and it would have been seen as a genocide of a “typical” scale. Feels weird to describe a genocide as “typical” but there you go. ---
**Author:** ![Al\_Bundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e79b87/32.png) [@Al\_Bundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Al_Bundy)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/28 "2012-04-25T22:07:34Z")
Many brilliant people are unable to tie their own shoes so to speak. I don’t want a dullard, but someone who thinks straight and has common sense. My view is somewhat like Napoleon’s wanting to find “lucky” generals rather than experienced ones. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/29 "2012-04-25T23:14:02Z")
The answer to the question is “yes”, he should be brilliant. But he should be brilliant at the things that make a good President. Stephen Hawking and Mark Zuckerman are, by all accounts, brilliant in their respective fields. That doesn’t necessarily mean they would be good Presidents of the US. My former manager is brilliant at certain things. Being a manager of people is not one of them. Being able memorize a shit-ton of facts or perform amazing feats of math are not enough. You also need to be able to inspire other people to greatness. You have to be able to influence people to carry out your will. Most nerds can’t even inspire an average woman to go out with them. They can’t influence a half-wit to not stuff them in a gym locker. ---
**Author:** ![Yumblie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/76d3ee/32.png) [@Yumblie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yumblie)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/30 "2012-04-26T03:37:28Z")
I think the quote and the thread are discussing two different things. Is a great leader _required_ to be brilliant? No, not necessarily, if you define brilliant to be in terms of academic intelligence. But the quote doesn’t say if brilliance should be a requirement, the quote suggests that brilliance is a detrimental attribute. It’s that idea I find baffling. Brilliance is a nice bonus, but not required. I certainly don’t see how it could be a disadvantage, all other things being equal. ---
**Author:** ![littlespeedysuperbike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/53a042/32.png) [@littlespeedysuperbike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/littlespeedysuperbike)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/31 "2012-04-26T04:08:59Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > The classic example of this is the 1952 and 1956 Eisenhower-Stevenson campaigns. > > Adlai Stevenson was by all accounts a brilliant, thoughtful man, with a great sense of humor to boot. He was also known, during his time as the governor of Illinois, to be one of the most indecisive people ever to hold office. There was never an issue on which Stevenson couldn’t see both sides, as well as a few sides that no one was advocating. > > By contrast, Eisenhower wasn’t known for his intellectual skills, but he had just finished commanding the army that liberated Europe. > > Adlai never had a chance. This might not be the best example. Eisenhower’s talents extended to planning of large operations, exceptional judgment and foresight, and quite a bit of political acumen (How few Southerners would’ve supported sending troops to Arkansas in 1957? Did anyone have the guts to stand in his way after he did it?). There are good reasons the Cold War stayed cold - and he deserves credit for it. Stevenson might’ve been just as good, but if the Republicans hadn’t nominated Eisenhower the Democrats would’ve. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/32 "2012-04-26T07:32:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Assuming he’s at least as smart as the public, all he has to do is have brilliant advisors, or access to brilliant people in other areas (think tanks, columnists, scholars etc.), and then rally broad support to enact their ideas. You can get “brilliant” advice arguing any side of a question. Hiring brilliant advisers is no panacea. :dubious: What we need from our President (in addition to rational political philosophy) is [ul][li] Smart sincere ideals[/li][li] Clarity of thought[/li][li] Ability to make decisions[/li][/ul] My impression is that Harry Truman is regarded as a good example of a President of relatively low intellect who nevertheless had the important qualities. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/33 "2012-04-26T08:53:44Z")
A lot of people who don’t like the previous President would suggest that GWB was “stupid.” I don’t know if that was a problem, I doubt he is a complete moron. His biggest problem was choosing advisers and cabinet members who would tell him exactly what he wanted to hear, and if they told him the hard facts, they were out or marginalized. It led to some poor decision making, it is clear. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/34 "2012-04-26T13:21:31Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > A lot of people who don’t like the previous President would suggest that GWB was “stupid.” I don’t know if that was a problem, I doubt he is a complete moron. His biggest problem was choosing advisers and cabinet members who would tell him exactly what he wanted to hear, and if they told him the hard facts, they were out or marginalized. It led to some poor decision making, it is clear. Uh, yeah. That’s sort of the definition of “stupid”. You see, brilliant people look at all the facts and figures and relevant information they can. Then they make a decision using logic and reason. Stupid people are incapable of doing that. So they make decisions on “gut feeling” or “instinct” or “common sense”. You can’t argue with someone who “just knows they are right” because they will ignore any information to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/35 "2012-04-26T14:26:30Z")
The problem with brilliance in a politician is that it can lead to hubris. Wilson was one of our smartest presidents, he had a Phd and was the president of Princeton before entering politics. He saw WW1 as an opportunity to remake the world and persuaded the congress to declare war on Germany so he could get a seat at the peace conference and use his brilliance to shape a new world. 116,000 americans paid for that seat with their lives and over 200,000 were wounded, many crippled for life. When he got to Versailles he found allied leaders who were not interested in his brilliance and the only thing he achieved there was the League of Nations which accomplished jack squat. Similarly Herbert Hoover was perhaps the smartest man to ever become president. He was an mining engineer who worked on some of the most important breakthroughs in mining for various metals. His lectures on mining at Columbia and Stanford were turned into a textbook. His brilliant management of food relief in the aftermath of WW1 saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Likewise his overseeing of relief efforts of the Great Flood of 1927 saved many thousands of lives. However when he was president and the great depression hit, he thought he knew what to do. He increased federal spending by 50%, went around the country on a campaign to keep wages high, and he bragged about keeping the money strong. This was the exact wrong thing to do and the deflation caused massive unemployment and bank failures. Our two worst presidents were also among the smartest presidents. It may be a coincidence but it does show that smarter is not always better. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/36 "2012-04-26T15:18:06Z")
I do want those in charge to be intellectually top drawer. But the brightest of the bright? No thanks: they need to maintain touch with the commons. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/37 "2012-04-26T15:39:54Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The problem with brilliance in a politician is that it can lead to hubris. So does “stupid”. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/38 "2012-04-26T15:49:09Z")
It occurs to me that there actually are two candidates in the current cycle who are known for brilliant, out-of-the-box thinking and have a societal vision that extends beyond the typical “I want to be President” mindset. One is Ron Paul. The other is Newt Gingrich. Take what you will from that. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/39 "2012-04-26T18:10:10Z")
> [@Yumblie](#): > > Brilliance is a nice bonus, but not required. I certainly don’t see how it could be a disadvantage, all other things being equal. As noted in my first post to this thread, all else is not necessarily equal. There are some negative attributes associated with brilliance, IME. > [@septimus](#): > > You can get “brilliant” advice arguing any side of a question. Hiring brilliant advisers is no panacea. :dubious: Very true. As I said in my first post to this thread: > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > From the chief executive, you need final determination of which idea is best, along with the administrative ability to carry it out. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918/40 "2012-04-26T20:23:57Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > The classic example of this is the 1952 and 1956 Eisenhower-Stevenson campaigns. > > Adlai Stevenson was by all accounts a brilliant, thoughtful man, with a great sense of humor to boot. He was also known, during his time as the governor of Illinois, to be one of the most indecisive people ever to hold office. There was never an issue on which Stevenson couldn’t see both sides, as well as a few sides that no one was advocating. > > By contrast, Eisenhower wasn’t known for his intellectual skills, but he had just finished commanding the army that liberated Europe. > > Adlai never had a chance. That’s certainly the liberal conventional wisdom. But where’s the proof that Adlai Stevenson was brilliant or that Eisenhower was stupid? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-your-highest-ranking-elected-leader-be-brilliant/619918.md?page=3)