He’s Very Smart
What does it mean, “He’s smart” or “He’s very intelligent?” Largely on the left, we see citations of “that candidate” is very smart or the other one is not so much (typically oddly enough the “smart” ones lean left in the view of the left leaning commentators. Whether that is an attempt at validating their own left leaning predilections or explaining reasons why they admire that particular candidate I will not guess.) What I fail to understand is how they come up with their estimation that a given candidate is smart. I know how I figure that a programmer, physicist, or mathmetician is smart. By looking at their work and asking is it clean? Is it beautiful?
If one was to ask whether an artist was talented. One would ask another performer (or artist in the same field) or perhaps a critic (to be distinguished from a “reviewer”). However, talent at art is not exactly the same as smart.
Currently, Mr Obama is the politician most often touted as “smart” by the left. Some months ago, blog neighbor David Schraub declaimed that both Mr Obama and Ms Clinton were both “very smart.” What I fail to understand is on what basis he might make such a claim. For the two examples above, one has to look at some sort of body of work to estimate whether a person is smart. There is, of course, another time honored means of deciding if a person is smart, which is to interact personally with that person for an extended period of time. That method of determination by the average citizen with respect to a national candidate is unlikely or impossible so as to be discounted. That pretty much leaves, their corpus of work, which in the case of lawyers like Mr Obama and Ms Clinton would be their body of written opinions.
Rhetoric is of course another key people use to decide whether a person is intelligent. However, in this age of the teleprompter and speechwriters the facility at oration is a actors skill. However, it is a stretch to thing that those claiming these people are intelligent is based on facility at reading from a teleprompter and calling it oration.
Yet strangely it seems such offerings are absent in the case of these individuals. There are no publicly available opinions written by either of these candidates. Odd that, no? Mr Obama was, for a time, an academic lawyer. To be an academic in the publish or perish environment, yet not to publish seems more than a little strange. If this is a case of lawyers who have read his and her work, deciding that it is good, but that it is to “technical” or abstract or otherwise unfit for general consumption … that seems elitest and very likely to be concealing of a lie.
I would guess that the likeliest reason that these people think, in this case, that Mr Obama is highly intelligent is because they’ve heard it second hand. It is a “meme” if you will, spread by his supporters (and the press) that Mr Obama is very bright. But the question is, why is this to be given credence?
So, if you think, the candidate of the hour, Mr Obama is smart. Why do you think that? On what do you base your appraisal? How does that compare with how you decide or would decide if a candidate is smart?
(disclaimer: I should note, I have no opinion at all on the matter of whether Mr Obama is “smart” or not. I feel I’m not qualified (I’ve read nothing he’s written (or had ghost written)) nor do I have the contact with him. Furthermore, I’m a little disinclined to think “smartness” is a qualification for President. Of our the 19th century Presidents the smartest arguably was John Quincy Adams. Was he the “best” President? Obviously not. Woodrow Wilson was alleged to be very bright … consider the League of Nations and the stellar treaty of Versailles. Clearly intelligence is not what it is cracked up to be in the political arena)
Filed under: Democrats • Government • Liberal • Mark O. • Politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Well, whereas some presidents seem to pride themselves on not being even much of a reader, Obama did write (no ghostwriters, to my understanding) TWO impressive and intelligent books that have been, for the most part, highly regarded critically.
Additionally, he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, not a feat normally accomplished by an intellectual slouch.
Then, there is the intelligence with which he carries himself and makes his speeches. Which, as you note, could be accomplished if one had an actor’s skill and no doubt there’s some of that panache in Obama.
Still, some people – perhaps most? – who “sound” intelligent in how they converse and carry themselves sound intelligent not because they can act but because, in fact, they are intelligent.
So, there are some reasons for concluding that Obama has a modicum of intelligence about him. Perhaps even better, for many of us, is that we think that Obama reasons well. That his proposed solutions represent more intelligent reasoning than what we’ve been accustomed to these last too many years.
Clearly intelligence is not what it is cracked up to be in the political arena
Of course, intelligence is not the be-all, end-all in leadership skills. However, after eight years of decidely less-intelligent leadership, I think most of us are thinking that stupidity is not all it’s cracked up to be, either.
Dan,
So, basically you think Mr Obama is intelligent because he “sounds” intelligent.
Actually on the “intelligence is not the be-all/end-all”, I’m making a stronger claim. I’m claiming the very Presidents who were claimed to be very smart, “bookish”, and academically grounded where not just not the great Presidents, they were bad, e.g., Wilson and John Quincy.
In that light, Mr Obama’s academic qualifications and decided lack of real experience to leaven it, should be a decided warning sign.
basically you think Mr Obama is intelligent because he “sounds” intelligent.
No, I think Obama is intelligent because he advocates intelligent policy and does so in an intelligent way. In addition to that, he has shown himself an astute student and a decent author.
So, you don’t think highly intelligent, gifted scholastically, untested lawyers-cum-Senators from Illinois are a good thing? I suppose you would not like Lincoln, either, were he running today?
There are five passengers on board a crashing airplane, but unfortunately only 4 parachutes. The first passenger says “I’m Shaquille O’Neill, the best NBA basketball player. The Lakers need me, it would be unfair to them if I died”. So he takes the first parachute and jumps.
The second passenger, Barack Obama, says “I am a US Senator and nominee to be President of the United States. I will likely be the future President.” And so, he takes one of the parachutes and jumps.
The third passenger, George W. Bush, says “I am the President of the United States of America. I have a huge responsibility in world politics. And apart from that, I am the most intelligent President in the history of the country and I have a responsibility to my people not to die”. So he takes a parachute and jumps.
The fourth passenger, the Pope, says to the fifth passenger, a ten year old schoolboy “I am already old. I have already lived my life, I will give you the last parachute”.
The boy replies “No problem, there is also a parachute for you. America’s most intelligent President has taken my schoolbag …”
Looking around a bit, I found a few opinions about the “Most Intelligent President,” with a few pointing to Clinton’s IQ and Rhodes Scholarship, indicating he may have been the most intelligent president ever, but most commenters I read seemed to agree that it was Thomas Jefferson.
http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-jefferson
“Thomas Jefferson is considered by many to be the most intelligent man ever to occupy the White House. He was a scientist, architect, landscaper, lawyer, inventor, violinist, and philosopher (serving between 1797 and 1815 as president of the American Philosophical Society)… At a White House reception for Nobel Prize winners, John F. Kennedy said he was hosting “probably the greatest concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone.””
Of course, it is all speculation and opinion, but I certainly agree that Jefferson was likely one of the most intelligent men ever to be president. I don’t think he was a bad president. Do you?
Dan,
Lincoln was not seen as an “academically” gifted person. He was an auto-didact, not a Harvaaaard educated, U of Chicago lecturer kind of fellow, more the country lawyer (or at least that was his image).
Jefferson if you note, spend 7 years in Williamsburg at the the College of William and Mary ultimately getting a law degree. Compare to Quincy here.
No I don’t think Jefferson was a bad President. He as also not inexperienced when he took office. Again, John Quincy and W. Wilson were also as I repeat, our most academically qualified Presidents.
I also find it more than a little odd that you keep insulting the intelligence of Mr Bush. Clue in, he’s not running for any more public office. Get over your BDS! (Remember it was your highly intelligent Mr Obama who predicted that “the surge” (or change in tactics) would result in increased violence … he certainly miscalled that one).
Dan,
Hmm, I’d written a response to this, I guess I got distracted and didn’t push post.
No I don’t think Jefferson was a bad President. He was also not inexperienced when he took office.
Lincoln was not marked as “intelligent” because of his academic credentials (he was more the autodidact). Do you have any evidence his campaign and claims to his qualifications to office were his “high intelligence” or academic credentials?
John Quincy Adams and Woodrow Wilson were among the most Academically credentialed and thought to be among the most intelligent Presidents we’ve had. If you add Jefferson to the mix, then 2 out of 3 did not have distinguished careers in office. If you add Clinton that makes it 3 of 4 with somewhat dismal records. At what point to you note Jefferson’s intelligence coupled with his success as an exceptional case?
Actual, Clinton – whom I don’t care much for – didn’t have a bad administration as far as US presidents are concerned. I think most folk and by most measures think his was a decent presidency. He brought down our debt, slowed the growth of gov’t (as opposed to Reaganbushbush) and left the economy in pretty good shape.
He had many policies that I disagree with but all in all, I believe most historians will think he did at least a fairly good job.
So, that would be 2/4, by your measure.
Again, my point would be that being intelligent is not a bad thing for a president. I find it interesting that you appear to be arguing against this point of view.
Also, I’m not so sure that there is consensus that Adams was a “bad” president. Just not among the greater ones.
Dan,
Quincy Adams Presidency I’ll admit was not “bad”, it was just completely undistinguished unlike his tenure as Secretary of State. Clinton on the other hand … heh. Wow, you do view things with tinted glasses.
Well, I’ve not just looked at Presidents. I’ve also reviewed, in brief, English Kings and Roman rulers. Those marked as “intelligent” more often than not do not coincide with those marked as “successful.”
I’m not arguing this on principle. On principle it would make sense that the more intelligent executives should be more successful. It’s just that doesn’t match the actual real world, i.e., historical record.
Wow, you do view things with tinted glasses.
? I must ask how you form this opinion?
My opinion of Clinton is that I did not like him nor many of his policies. I thought he was a bad president.
So my “tinted glasses” of not liking Clinton has somehow made me view him positively? Is that what you’re suggesting?
Despite not liking Clinton, I can at least recognize some of his legitimate accomplishments (and compared to Bush, it makes Clinton look like a stellar president):
* Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History
* Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus
* Paying Off the National Debt
* More Than 22 Million New Jobs [reagan oversaw the creation of more than 17 million jobs]
* Unemployment is the Lowest in Over Three Decades [Clinton reduced it to 4.0 percent and Reagan to 5.3 percent]
* Lowest Poverty Rate Since 1979 [Reagan’s years saw the poverty rate go from 13.8 to 12.8, Clinton’s record was from 14 down to 11 percent]
* Lowering Child Poverty [“Clinton was the only recent President to preside over a substantial drop in child poverty — from nearly 23 percent to 16.2 percent… the proportion of children living in poverty was just about the same at the end of the Reagan years — 19.5 percent — as at the beginning — 20 percent. But it rose to more than 22 percent in the third of his eight years”]
* Tax cuts for working Families
* The Family and Medical Leave Act
* Welfare Reform (flawed as it was)
* Americorps
* Lowest Crime Rates in a Generation
* Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (VERY flawed, as it was, at least a step in a positive direction)
* Accelerating Toxic Cleanups and Brownfields Redevelopment
* Smallest Federal Civilian Workforce in 40 Years
More can be found here:
http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=305&contentid=250551
Now, again, I’m no fan of Clinton and I think he was more of politics as usual (with “usual” being a bad thing, in my mind), but still, I recognize – whether I like his policies or not – that by the way we measure presidential success (flawed, in my opinion), Clinton’s record stands up fairly well.
I’m not blinded by my distaste for Clinton and his policies. On what basis would you make the case as Clinton’s administration as a bad one?