Slate: Why Obama Should Fill His Cabinet With Geniuses

Here's a radical suggestion: Barack Obama should pick the smartest people he can find for his Cabinet.

Brilliance has sometimes been a criterion in presidential appointments, of course, but seldom the major one. It usually takes a back seat to rewarding friends and backers, playing congressional politics, seeking diversity, and appeasing industry and interest groups. Presidents also feel obliged to avoid too many retreads and place a high premium on personal loyalty.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[sheine]

P.S. I agree with all the suggestions of Paul Krugman. But it wont happen.

[sheine]

Good idea but it wont happen. So far Obama has surrounded himself with Clinton and Carter retreads. I am unenthused about his start but not surprised. I voted against Palin not for Obama.

[Texas4Obama]

DemConWatch this morning has posted a tracking list of Cabinet Appointments, etc. and will be adding a White House list shortly. This will be a great site/list to keep an eye on...

http://www.demconwatchblog.com/2008/11/demconwatch-presidential-appointment.html

[Texas4Obama]

Spread the word.

[steamboat]

The last time we had a cabinet of geniuses was JFK/LBJ's cabinet which historians called "the best and the brightest". And they got us 58,000 Americans and 2 million Vietnamese killed in VietNam.

[Agnim]

A not so well rounded 'genius' is as bad as an incompetent wild bush!
People need to be picked on the basis of multiple criteria. Being 'smartest' is fine, providing that the prospect is 'smart' in all the vital areas of leadership.

One overriding requirement for top political positions having a political constituency. That is, the prospect should have held elected office; because that is one certain way to ensure that the political leader is in tuned with the people they intend to lead.

[myke3000]

In Krugman we trust!

[ailbhe]

Geniuses can often be the dumbest people you will ever meet in real life situations. Obama needs people who have an excellent sense of how people work. They need to have enough common sense to understand how people will react to the conditions that they create by their policies.

A few geniuses should be welcome but the last thing needed right now is professors with little real life experience implementing well meaning theories with the obvious disastrous consequences.

Paul Wolfowitz springs to mind, he genuinely believed in his theory about how invading Iraq would democratise the Middle East, which was supported by many special interests whose goals were more sinister.

Common sense needs to be the devils advocate in any policy formulation. Social intelligence a necessity.

[vandegrasse]

We don't need geniuses. We need people with good common sense. Not nitwits like Bush but people with a sense of balance and reality.

[Indie2008]

I think President Kennedy strived for that in his appointments I would prefer people of good judgement and character. If they are also geniuses, so much the better.

[peacegurl48]

Paul Krugman....YES!!!!

Brilliant minds, can-do attitudes and minds who will challenge and question the prevailing wisdom in order to turn the country around. Minds like this would have a context for their world views and the actions they take. (i.e. the anithesis of a Sarah Palin). Not all geniuses but thoughtful, insightful, compassionate minds.

I think he will do this, it would be great to see brilliant, open minds in charge.

[Gib]

Krugman!

[vinny]

disagree... you need smart folks, but you don't need id.iot sevants... typically, you call these brains up and ask them for their opinions...

[zeezan]

Uh, Vinny, the word is savants.....

[canucklivinginUSA]

I do not disagree with the premise of this article but to include Bill Gates is quite laughable. The man hasn't been innovative for a long time and his idea of foreign aid is remarkably inept.

[Liberal2]

Gates never was innovative. From DOS which he bought from someone else to Windows he copied from Apple (who fixed what Xerox couldn't).

His concept of "foreign aid" is sending your job overseas.

[msoverall]

When did being smart become a bad thing? Are we so dumb that we need an article to point out the need for smart people to be in the administration? Hello, we've had 8 long years of DUMB AS A SACK OF ROCKS, I think I'd like to try smart for a change.

[Liberal2]

"....When did being smart become a bad thing?..."

When smart people won't listen. Example: I had a supervisor who decided he'd solve a problem rather than let me. After four hours he dumped the problem on me. I figured out what happened in just five minutes. Why? Because I knew something he didn't. His forty IQ points were no help figuring out what was wrong.

[sumsense]

Oh supermen, where are you to save us?

That we can know who the geniuses are and then assume their genius can somehow translate into competent social policy is one of the oldest and most demonstrably bad ideas in the history of democracy. Robert McNamara was chosen Secretary of Defense for his obvious genius and millions of dead Southeast Asians paid the price. Not since Plato has this idea even vaguely worked out.