Everyone who rags on Dubya includes an estimation of his IQ and mastery of basic skills. Now, I’m not here to discuss him, but this is not the first time a politician’s intelligence has drawn fire. Dan Quayle, who I will discuss because I don’t think it will lead to anything, may not be sub-par in intelligence so much as a poor public speaker. (May not.) He was an easy target, but it happens to Senators, Representatives, governors, mayors: every elected official. Every time someone makes a mistake: “He’s a moron! She’s a bimbo! How many grades did he repeat in school?”
If it’s so crucial for an elected official to be intelligent, does that factor into the weeding-out process of delegation?
One might say (I might say, anyway) that Bill Bradley is more intelligent than GWB, but the Democrats didn’t choose Bradley to oppose Bush in 2000, maybe because they thought his acumen did not make up for his abrasiveness. Al Gore constantly trumps himself as an academic and technological wizard, which he may think offsets the fact that he’s made few sensible decisions besides accept Clinton’s offer in '92. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. Now, I’ve heard that dismissed as being a sop for “smart jocks”, but it’s for smart somebodies. But was it his discerning mind that got him the nomination, or his sparkling enthusiasm and oozing charm?
On another tack, how many of the top one percent (not top ten; politicians usually were in the top ten, already exhibiting drive and conformity) choose politics as a career? Why, do you suppose, or why not?
Might be true in Dubai and most of the Arab world.
>> Why doesn’t the smartest person in the country get to be President?
There is no such thing as smartest person as there are many ways of being smart. At any rate, being elected president requires the ability to get people to vote for you. If you are smart but people will not vote for you then you will not be president. If people vote for you then you will be president even if you are stupid or crooked. The system is not designed to get the smart guy in office but to get the person who has broader support. Otherwise the President would be the winner of a round of Jeopardy. (I’ll take Iraq for $100 Alex)
If you’re being serious, can you explain a bit more about this pattern? I’m really curious as to why the truly gifted are so rarely drawn to politics while, if my own experience is any gauge, have no qualms about criticizing and deconstructing the government. They claim to understand it, but want no part of it. I’d like to see someone outstandingly astute and discerning in Congress or the House, where they could hopefully do some good.
sailor, your post brings up a couple of tangents that I almost created a new thread for. (I still may.) I know that “smart” is a very oblique term. I also know that Jeopardy proficiency is not a true measure of intelligence; for one thing, the contestants are not required to work problems, but merely to answer questions. And that there are people whose intellectual tunnel vision would make them entirely unsuitable for politics, as well as the fact that some people, though well-rounded, simply belong in science or medicine or engineering. And that scholarships and awards are achieved through work and conformity in addition to intrinsic intelligence, and might represent the peak of someone’s intellectual growth, rather than the halfway mark.
But one of the things that puzzles me is, if “smart” is so crucial in an elected official, why don’t voters gauge this beforehand? Shouldn’t that be a basis for their support? I’m not talking about candidates going head to head in a long division challenge, but only being judged on their ability to reason and analyze. Dubya got tripped up a couple times during his campaign, but somebody voted for him, and not just in Florida. Why did anyone choose him if they thought he was so dumb?
*“A lot of smart people have come out of Indiana. And the smarter they were, the faster they came out.” (Hey, does that upgrade Dan Quayle?)
>> But one of the things that puzzles me is, if “smart” is so crucial in an elected official, why don’t voters gauge this beforehand?
You are assuming the conclusion in your premise. Who said smart is crucial? Consider the following points
Smart is one aspect but so is being capable of leading, being capable of dealing with other people, negotiating, etc.
People do not vote who they think is smartest, they vote who they like and who they feel has similar ideas. Would you vote for a candidate of the opposing party just because you thought he was brighter than your party’s candidate? You want a really bright guy of the opposing party in office?
Who said voters are the best judges of who’s the brightest? have you seen the people around you? Some of them are pretty dumb themselves and yet they vote.
The same people who laugh at a politician who makes a mistake cannot themselves tell the difference between except and accept, between principal and principle, between capital and capitol, between your and you’re.
How do we measure smart? Ability to write and speak correctly?
And why is smart so important? If I want my yard done i don’t need the brightest guy, I need the guy who will do the best job even if he is not the brightest.
Smarts are only one of the requirements to do a job. I would say general overall ability is more important. Mike Tyson is better suited for some jobs than some genius.
Smart?
Have You ever seen anyone winning, in any country, without that his/her posters are glued everywhere?
I have never understood this thing with posters with a smiling guy and a slogan.
Are people really so “emotional” that they need posters to tell them what guy should be supported?
Naturally this is not the whole thing, but I do not think that the politicians wuold not use the money for posters, if they would not be relevant.
Go and figure…
Well, if ‘smart’ is only one aspect, why do people always complain that this official or that is ‘dumb’? That’s really what I was getting at, but the question in the thread title is one that’s been nibbling at me for years.
<<One might say (I might say, anyway) that Bill Bradley is more intelligent than GWB>>
I have tremendous admiration for Bradley, but there’s no reason to believe the above statement. Just as Bush’s lineage got him into Yale, Bradley’s enormous athletic ability got him into Princeton. Bradley was a terrible student there – graduating near the bottom of his class.
I have heard Bradley speak in person. He was sincere and appealing, but he sure didn’t sound smart. Actually, it was hard to even understand what points he was trying to make. Look at how much trouble Bradley had when debating Gore, while Bush was better able to cope with Gore’s style.
Getting back to the OP, this example shows that to a considerable degree, “smart” is in the eyes of the beholder.
>> why do people always complain that this official or that is ‘dumb’?
They also accuse politicians of being crooked, corrupt, etc. It is the people who voted for the losing guy and feel the need to put down the guy who won. I guess we can also ask why the most honest person in the country doesn’t get to be president. The fact is people do not vote or want the most honest or the most smart, they want someone they like and who promises to do what they like. Then, when the other guy wins they accuse him of being stupid, corrupt, etc.
One could say that a politician is the smartest in how to get him or herself elected.
Take Al Gore, for instance. He lost Tennessee. He lost his home state! The one state you can pretty much take for granted is going to vote for you…well, he took for granted that they were going to vote for him and they didn’t. It cost him the election. There would have been no need for counts and recounts and Supreme Court decisions if he had just won his home state. Pretty damn stupid, eh?
There are a variety of ways to be considered smart, but that is never enough. First, people need to believe that you’re smart. Because without the support of others you’re finished.
Second, you need to have the dedication to run for office. Often times I’ve wondered what it would be like if I ran for Congress. I like to think I’m smart. I like to think I’m smarter than most everyone else running. But I know I’d be eaten alive. Politics would chew me up and spit me out. You not only need to be smart, you need to be persuasive. People don’t bow down to you because you know best. They have their own agenda and what’s smart for you is unthinkable for them.
Finally, the public just might not accept smart people as a politician. Look at it this way. Let’s say that, hypothetically, a 10% tax increase for the next 10 years would be the absolute BEST thing for the economy. You know this for a fact because you’re so darn smart. But that’s 10 years down the line before everyone else realizes it. Meanwhile, they’re paying 10% more in taxes and, guess what? You won’t be in office in 10 years. Even the best long term plans from you, the smart person, won’t work when the “stupid” people want instant gratification.
Because smartness IS an important aspect. That’s why people complain about dumb officials. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, even remotely suggest that it is the only important aspect.
Look at Jimmy Carter. He was probably one of the most intelligent people who made it to the White House during the 20th century - certainly more so than LBJ, Reagan, or Truman. But he was also naive, inexperienced, and unwilling to delegate. As a President, he was an abysmal failure.
Compare him with FDR, who was described as “a first rate personality and a second rate mind”. Who would you describe as the more effective leader?
Good Presidents all have excellent people skills, and a vision. The failure of the Clinton presidency can be ascribed to the fact that he had the first, but not the second. He wanted to be President because it would prove to himself that he was likable. Imagine what he could have achieved if he were really committed to the centrist Democrat principles he claimed!
Adlai Stevenson summed it up rather well. A supporter called out to him once, “Don’t worry - all the thinking people are on your side.” Instantly he shot back, “That isn’t enough - I need a majority.”
People need leaders. This isn’t a bad thing, it is a fundamental fact of human nature. Good Presidents use that to achieve good things.
It really depends Rilcham, to succeed in politics takes more than just intelligence, it takes drive. Not just ambition, but the will to put that ambition on a path. Problem there is, the people with the drive and intelligence to run things don’t go into politics as much as they do business because of several reasons.
A) These people want power, and while some would say that politics is power, low end politics is far less power rewarding than business. That equation changes a bit as you reach the senatorial/gubernatorial levels, but by the time a business man reaches the point in business that he would consider that kind of transition possible, he already has as much power in the business world, and to shift to politics is to give up a lot of that power. (Not money, but for these people, money is just one of the ways you keep track of power.)
B) Also relates a bit to power, in business you are far more able to effect changes, especially as you reach the top. You always hear about how company A’s culture was just like the CEO’s mentality, this is because the CEO will cause the company to act that way, deliberately or not. They make things comfortable for themselves. This is not possible in government because their is both too much inertia and because so much of the power is shared.
Add to this that few real geniuses are people persons; everyone else seems so slow minded, they have a host of personality quirks developed to keep those intellects occupied (The sterotype of the singleminded genius is almost never near the truth, the most brilliant minds have a huge host of interests), and generally very closeminded egos (I’m always right!) and you can see why few consider government as worth the trouble or succeed there if they do try.
[aside]
As much as it galls me to admit, Clinton was probably the most academically intelligent president we have had in a long time. Totally amoral and selfcentric, but intellectually brilliant.
[/aside]
<<[aside]
As much as it galls me to admit, Clinton was probably the most academically intelligent president we have had in a long time. Totally amoral and selfcentric, but intellectually brilliant.
[/aside]>>
And the other candidate for smartest modern President was Nixon. :eek:
