For obvious reasons, there is considerable discussion going on about how much a candidate should know in order to be a credible candidate for the presidency. The Constitution imposes no I.Q. test. But it was written at a time when many Founders read and sometimes even spoke classical Greek and Latin, were products of the Enlightenment, and knew history and, in the case of Jefferson and others, science and a whole range of things. There was an unwritten and unspoken assumption of intelligence.
Holding national office these days is way more complicated. Economics, including fiscal and monetary policies, is global and interwoven. Unlike the simpler, black and white Cold War days, foreign policy is multi-layered and gray and plaid. Security is about a lot more than counting missiles, planes, and tanks and increasing military spending.
No individual can know all these things, the argument goes, so let's look for a leader who has good judgment and picks the right people to listen to. There is much to be said for this. But we all know it takes a pretty keen mind, honed by study, travel, experience, and exposure to competing ideas, to form good judgment and to know whom to trust on complex substantive issues. Neither Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, nor John Kennedy were intellectual giants. But the keenness of their respective minds was revealed every day. And they were not threatened by smart people around them.
A leader must be able to see farther ahead than most others, must generate creative new ideas and policies for new challenges and times, and must be able to convince the rest of us to try those ideas. A leader must have an inquisitive and inquiring mind. National leaders are rarely those who force a complex world into a simple orthodox box and refuse to look outside it.
Most of all it is the combination of commitment to historic principles and ideals, those at the core of Western civilization and our Constitution and Bill or Rights, and openness to consideration of innovative solutions to emerging new challenges and realities within the framework of those principles that marks the great leader. It is for each of us to decide which of the candidates comes closest to meeting this standard.
Follow Gary Hart on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gary__hart
In a democracy, the voters need to be as well. It's a basic requirement of citizenship.
But - your right. If we are being serious in asking a question such as - should the President be intelligent - we have a more serious problem then I realized.
I long for a leader (anywhere in the world) who is smart enough to surround himself with the best and brightest and intelligent enough to understand what they're telling him. Smart enough to cut through the BS and intelligent enough to see it.
As a Canadian, I have often viewed the US situation through different lenses than most Americans. By my very vague definition above, the US has had many intelligent leaders who weren't too smart, smart leaders who weren't too intelligent, some who were both and some who were neither, as have we north of the border.
Ideally, you have a leader with the charisma of Kennedy, the brains of FDR, the vision of both FDR and Kennedy and the ability to deliver a message like Reagan.
One can only hope that Bush II and his ilk will be passed over in the future. Good old boys are great for going fishing or hunting and having a beer around the campfire, but they can leave you with a hell of a hangover.
Do you think it's a symptom of ignorance to point out the shortcomings of the federal government or to note that, under its management, the quality of K - 12 education has declined dramatically?
Well,for example, I do not think that you could have had a beer with people like FDR or Churchill, but I sure would not have wanted someone like Bush during WWII.
That's the problem now Obama is smart, but not wise. Bush was wise, but not smart.
Among the GOP candidates, Romeny and Gingrich are smart but not wise. Cain is.. hard to define. Paul is smart, sometimes wise (but has big gaps there). Bachmann, neither. Huntsman, smart, hard to decide on the wise.
Here's the only truth I know: I live in a completely different world than you do.
What could be expect from such a revolutionary change? Maybe a Congress and Executive branch that would use the pragmatic lens of reality and focus on a future that rewards the true American Spirit that founded this country.
We sure can't do worse that we are now!
Although it is basically a good thing that nearly everybody is allowed to vote (that's right, nearly everybody - foreigners and minors do not have that privilege), the extension of this privilege to non-gentry classes and women should have come with the same education that the gentrified founding fathers enjoyed.
The decline in education standards leads to uninformed voters choosing the wrong people. This explains phenomena like Tricky Dicky, ray gun and Dubya.
Not everyone can be as productive as everyone else; not as educated, not as smart, not as well informed regarding business, economics, and politics, but they should try!
They should take what Pastors and Politicians, Community leaders and Con men say with true skepticism. "Show me! Prove it!" should be the rallying cry. It is becoming that of Independents.
JFK had it right, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
Learn, work, be a Citizen and Vote!
What great words of wisdom, spoken by such a wise, famous man.
Who said these words? Take a short quiz.
1) Mahatma Gandhi
2) George Washington
3) Thomas Jefferson
4) Jesus Christ
5) Abraham Lincoln
6) Benjamin Franklin
7) Albert Einstein
8) All of the above
9) None of the above
The answer if (9), none of the above. One would have guessed that one of these great
historical figures was the originator of such a great quote. But no, it was only
recently famously proclaimed.
Yes, it was the great Herman Cain.
"I am a leader, not a reader."
Think of the example he has set for American school children, who now have the correct
answer to tell the teacher, when s/he gives them a homework assignment that involves
reading.
Think of what Herman is saying: To be a great leader, one does not need to read. What a
profound observation.
If only Sarah Palin had known this, when Katie Couric asked her what newspapers and
magazines she read on a regular basis.
And all this time we thought "Reading is fundamental."
Abraham Lincoln famously said that man's greatest invention is the written word, because
it enables one to communicate with those long dead, and with those who are yet to be
born, as well as with our contemporaries.
But Lincoln did not have the inspirational insight of the great genius, Herman Cain.
"I am a leader, not a reader." That distinction is held by a character from The Simpsons: a 'politician' who spoke with a certain type of Austrian accent.
IQ isn't, by itself, demonstrative of anything, exept the ability to learn. Like other "skill sets" it means little if not applied.
Joking (?) aside, yes, intelligence should be a requirement. So should empathy for other people, and the realization that laws and policies have an effect on real people and the planet we call home.