They have an Eiffel Tower in Tokyo?
Well, the Tokyo Tower is described as “Eiffel Tower-like” in the linked article.
Paul in Saudi: Hoover was elected in 1928 (just in time for the 1929 Crash), and lost his bid for reelection to FDR in 1932.
In John Adams David McCollough compares Adams and Jefferson. Basically saying that Adams had none of Jefferson’s Inquisitiveness or inventiveness about the world around him, weather, inventions, Geography etc. While Jefferson was aloof and almost unwilling to “politic” & he had nothing like Adams ability to read people, understand them or get them on board with his way of seeing things.
I think that goes to “smarts” as the OP & others have said, it depends on how we define it.
So I would define Presidential Smart = an ability in a President to see political events ahead of time and react to them bringing the Country along so you aren’t destroyed. I would nominate FDR. I think Bush I and LBJ are examples of being half-wits (:)) in this type of smarts, often seeing things correctly in a visionary way but not being able to find a way to balance it politically
If we want to say Smart = all Presidents are placed in a room in heaven given Harvard education, & they all have the same basic knowledge starting point - I think the rank in class will be the usual suspects : Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe in some order
The correct answer is obviously Jefferson.
I’m suprised my #2 hasn’t been mentioned, though. When it comes to wise, big-picture, strategic thinking, you just can’t beat James Madison. The guy’s intellect was bigger than his ego, too, which just phenomenally rare among people in his intellectual, financial, and political class.
Why, because they were unsuccessful presidents? I don’t think that’s a fair assessment criterion, as being a successful President requires a specific skill set that it is not necessary in order to be elected President, ironically.
Grant is an excellent example of the multiple intelligences theory. He did not have the kind of mind that could deal with the political intrigues and social subtleties required to be President, nor the head for running a business, for that matter, considering his bankruptcy. That was not his forte. I think Shelby Foote said of him in Ken Burns’ *Civil War * (paraphrased): “Grant was a genius at two things in life-- war and marriage.” Many people consider him to be a military genius, and he certainly had a high degree of mental clarity and fortitude that was sorely lacking in Federal generalship at that time.
So, if you mean, was he an intellectual? Was he gifted in matters of social intricacies? No. But did he possess military knowledge, intuition, and gifts that were extremely rare and valuable? Yes. Thus, I feel safe in saying he was not intellectually lacking; in fact, he was well above average in his area of strength.
No, if that were the criterion, I’d have put Jimmy Carter and the incumbent president on the list.
Those three men — A. Johnson, Grant, and Harding — had a narrow set of intellectual skills. Within those skills, they were good, especially, as you point out, Grant as a general. But the set of intellectual skills was just not that big overall.
I think you’d be safe in saying that A. Johnson, Grant, and Harding were far more unsuccessful than Carter, since Johnson was impeached, and Grant and Harding’s administrations were riddled with serious corruption. I think they’re at a totally different level of Presidential suckitude than Carter.
I can see why you’d say that about Grant, because it’s true that he had a very specific area of giftedness and a clear lack of skill in other areas; that, to me, is the hazard of being a specialist. However, saying he lacked intelligence or was one of our least intelligent presidents seems false to me because of his remarkable achievements in the Civil War, which cannot be lightly dismissed nor attributed to an unintelligent person.
I don’t know enough about Johnson and Harding to defend them. Can you offer some reasoning for your choice of them?
Andrew Johnson just from perusing his collected letters and speeches — a very mundane mind that knew the politics of survival, little more. Not a memorable sentence among them. He seemed to distrust just about everyone, too.
Warren Harding from his own statements of how overwhelmed and incapable he felt once in office. The Peter Principle in action.
There’s at least one historians’ survey that lists Harding as the worst president. If I can find it later, I’ll link to it.
Ah yes, see here. This Wikipedia article says: “Ranking at the bottom of most polls are Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan.”
I know The Washington Post has also played it up big that Harding has been touted as the worst president. I know “worst” may not equal “stupidest,” but there may be some correlation.
There are so many different kinds of intelligence. Jimmy Carter was clearly “book learning” smart, but lacked leadership and tactical ability. On the other hand, Reagan seems to have been lacking in both reasoning ability and general knowledge, but he had outstanding people skills, which is also a kind of intelligence. Bill Clinton is evidently quite smart in terms of general knowledge, reasoning ability, memory, and people skills, but had, shall we say, poor impulse control. It may be a stretch to say that “impulse control” is part of intelligence, but surely it is part of the “executive function” that specialists like to talk about, and surely well-rounded intellect and excellent executive function go together.