I believe a recent episode of the Simpsons got it all right.
The Council of Learned Citizens was given power, but they were found to be just as corrupt as regular politicians.
quote:
Why doesn’t the smartest person in the country get to be President?
Because they say I’m too young.
Fun facts to know and tell:
Nearly 5% of all presidents of the United States had fathers who were also president.
Far as I can tell, from the quick research I did, nearly a quarter of all presidents of the United States had relatives (distant or otherwise) who were also presidents.
I refuse to comment on how to interpret the above statistics. Just thought I’d do some number crunching.
Carry on.
I agree with sailor- it’s because we’re smart enough as voters to recognize that brains aren’t the only thing a President needs.
It’d be hard to argue that Woodrow Wilson wasn’t the most intelligent President of the 20th Century: he was certainly the most educated, being the only Ph.d. every so elected.
He was also a virulent racist who worked hard to shut down what few advances had been made in civil rights since Reconstruction. He was also an overbearing moralist who helped turn the Versailles Peace into a punishment peace- riding high on his own sense of superior principles, he came to Versailles with decrees like Moses down from Mt. Sinai, and so offended all around him that the more important points of his ideals- the League of Nations, for example- were ignored by those most necessary to keep them working. And need I remind everyone that it was by his decision that the United States sent thousands off to die in World War One, quite possibly the stupidest war the United States has every been involved in?
Now, compare that to Harry Truman, who was certainly the least-educated President of the 20th Cenutry (the only one not to graduate from college), and was constantly believed to be a stupid rube. Yet, nearly every politican and historian today sings the praise of Truman, holding him up as the true example of what a good President should be: modest, straight-forward, and sensible.
The list of 20th Century President who were considered “incredibly intelligent” is not the list of those who were competent- far from it. Wilson, Hoover, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter- except for nostalgic baby boomers who believe that Kennedy was really this close to bringing Civil Rights, ending the War in Vietnam, and curing cancer, it reads like a laundry list of mediocres and failures.
That isn’t to say that stupid is better- Harding, for example. (Choose one of [Clinton/Reagan/W] depending upon personal party bias) for another.
But what makes a good president is an ability to manage. To manage public opinion, either be leading it or following it very well; to manage a White House staff filled with backbiting and personal politics and differing agendas; to manage a Congress without ever letting on that you’re actually trying to manage a Congress… and being a good manager requires all sorts of different skills.
Because smart people realize the incredible frustrations that would come with the job and are, in essence, to smart to take on what surely must be the most thankless role in the universe.
Because we all know how poorly it worked on Krypton. 
Interesting thread you got going here. Here’s my contribution to the discussion:
I think that a lot of incredibly smart people would probably make poorer presidents because of their intelligence. Why? Okay, entering gross generalization mode. Speaking purely anecdotally here, I notice that the group of the smartest people I have met and the group of the most arrogant people I have met overlap quite a bit. Extremely smart people tend to think they always know best. They get cocky. They overestimate their own intellect. Now, take someone like that, and stick them in something like the presidency. A position where, no matter how much you know, you can’t be an expert in everything. Try explaining to this person, who think he’s got it all figured out, that his idea isn’t the best. That it may, in fact, be patently stupid. (Note: It’s possible that this characterization isn’t representative of the population at large, but it’s certainly true of those I’ve known. Mensa members, in particular, tend to be obnoxious as all hell.)
I think that the best presidents are going to be those who are smart enough to recognize good ideas when they hear them, but realize that the key to being a good leader isn’t be a genius, but rather surrounding yourself with it. Get a bunch of really smart people in the room together, get their ideas, and then decide who presents the best case. Certainly intelligence is required, but I don’t think the Smartest Person in the World is going to be willing to do this as effectively as the Best Listener in the World.
Jeff
How will we determine the “smartest” guy?
I know! We could have everyone in America take a trivia quiz every 4 years, and the winner gets to be President!
Of course, when I’m on TV taking the oath of office, Rilchiam may start to wonder if maybe the old system was better!
astorian: 
ElJeffe:
Very astute analysis. Glad to have you on board!
I disagree with this perspective on the basis that you correlate intelligence with arrogance. It seems quite obvious that intelligent people know enough about reality in general to not be arrogant, but rather use it as a tool to achieve a means.
I would equally point out that even higher levels of intelligence will aknowledge that it is not particularly consistant to use arrogance as a tool towards achieving a means; as the tool itself necessitates non-transparent action; and thus corrupt ascension; leading logically to the inherent unworthyness of holding such an office in a Republic.
Your hypothetical ‘truth detector’ can only work as well as the truths presented them, if they are not creatively carving out truths themselves with genius. This makes them easily manipulated through conscientous or unintentional ommision and/or misdirection.
I believe that it can be asserted that the people whom you have judged as intelligent, whom you also judge as arrogant, are not very forthcoming or particularly insightful individuals; that you would walk away with such a perspective in the first place. I think that sheer intelligence comes down to the person who can convert everyone to a single ideal; the one who emerges, is the one who makes the loudest exclamation that they indeed started all of those ideas and moved them into being; being vouched for by many ‘distinguished’ representatives; and shooting the others before they get a chance to speak (regardless of who actually did it). Intelligent people just don’t do the things necessary to become president; just like ‘nice’ guys don’t do the things necessary to get laid. This has zero bearing on what their ability is.
Again, welcome to the debate P
-Justhink
it’s a constitutional thing…no one voted for me.
Just to address ont thing that has been brought up: in EVERY aspect of the socioeconomic power structure as it exists today, be it politics, business or academia, people with an inside connection to the “old-boy” network – family links, going to the “right” schools, being mentored by CEO Mostsuccesful back when in middle management, doing your dissertation with Professor Wrotethebookonit, even celebrity in a different field – will in general have a great opportunity advantage over those of us who start at buck private. That could apply to both GW and Al Gore, who is also from an “insider” family. But it still is up to what they each DO with that advantage: see the current crop of Kennedys – all over the chart in level of achievement, and not exactly setting the public stage on fire.
As to why the “smartest” person doesn’t get to be President, I say sailor and Enderw24 have put it forward quite well.
Also, Narile brings up an important observation: the opportunities to hold a major position of true power in electiveAmerican national politics are few and far between, and will go to someone who years before decided to make a career to do what it takes to get there – entry-level politics is hard, unglamorous, thankless labor (been there). Many with drive, talent and a will to power will seek to make a difference climbing other career ladders. (Of 535 Congressmen and Senators, how many really get to be deterninant in pushing anything more momentous than whether the district will get a new VA Hospital? And each one of them means at least one other interested person did not make the cut). And who knows, being succesful in those other careers may get you heard and listened to by the elected powerful, which is almost as good.
Rilchiam and Justhink, thank you for the welcome!
And to Justhink specifically:
First of all, like I said, this is just based on personal observation, and may be completely unrepresentative (is that a word? I’ll pretend it is) of the population at large.
Second, a lot of this has to do with your definition of “intelligent”. These people are mostly college educated, and capable of holding intelligent-sounding conversations. They received high grades, they worked on prominent research projects… they were intelligent by most people’s standards. And they weren’t completely ignorant on all subjects, or anything - 9 times out of 10, they knew what they were talking about. But they suffered from an acute case of arrogance.
I know that arrogance can come in many forms, though, so I’ll give some examples. They would typically assume those who didn’t possess their degree of education was inferior and suitable for mocking, and that their opinions could be safely disregarded without even hearing said opinions. They would, in certain areas, refuse to even discuss subjects in which someone disagreed with them, based on the premise that they must be right. They would take their expertise in one field to imply expertise in fields they were far removed from (I once got into a debate with an environmental science major about something pertaining to Newtonian physics, which I knew much more about than them, and in fact have two degrees in, and they wouldn’t even entertain the notion that they may be wrong). They basically held certain truths, and these truths were inviolable, and not subject to debate (and these aren’t truths like “2+2=4”, these are truths like “We should give more money to the poor” sorta things - the type of things where perfectly reasonable people can have arguments).
They weren’t especially bad people, they were just people with whom discussion on a non-superficial level could be maddening. But like I said, this is just my experience, so YMMV.
Jeff
““Second, a lot of this has to do with your definition of “intelligent”. These people are mostly college educated, and capable of holding intelligent-sounding conversations.””"
Memory recall and memory retention are much different qualities than consistancy. The larger the aspect of reality a person can float in short term memory; and still remain logically consistant/ behaviorally consistant is IMO, the only tangible qualifier of intelligence. It’s pretty worthless IMO, if you have memorized a trillion words of un-self-created trivia, and can’t even harmonize it in a logically consistant means in accordance with the recognition of how thought and behavior simultaneously proves or disproves the entire point of speaking it or thinking it.
-Justhink
i think Truman and Kennedy count as possibly our two smartest presidents.
Truman may not have been formally educated. he pronounced words wrong because he had only read them not heard them. but i think he was quite well self educated. i think he was smarter than FDR. Truman said he wanted a one handed economist.
True men live long and prosper.
Kennedy used Galbraith as an unofficial economic adviser and there were plans for getting out of vietnam. maybe Kennedy was too smart for his own good.
regardless of how “smart” the person wanting to be president is he still has to negotiate the political minefield to get there. many factors besides smarts affect the outcome. maybe we need smarter american voters.
Dal Timgar