|
What is odd to me is that those who make these "such-and-such a Republican- or Conservative- is dumb" arguments apparently don't have the self-reflection to notice how such arguments feed the perception of liberals as elitists. Once, long ago, someone argued to me that since intellectuals (he was referring to academics, actually) tend to be leftists, then leftist ideas must be better than rightist ideas, and leftist politicians must be smarter than rightist politicians. I think this notion haunts these discussions. At least I hope it is not the mere psychological egotism of "she disagrees with me so she must be dumb."
C., P., and K. all sounded as if an IQ test should be required of anyone pursuing the presidency, perhaps with some cutoff score to be made a qualification by amendment to the Constitution. (I am aware, and you should be also, that none of these people think this is a sufficient condition.) P. offered that "I want a President who's smarter than I am. I'm smart enough to know that it's a job which requires more brains than I've got." My bet is that there are presidents that P. admires that didn't have her brains!
And, in fact, i don't think it is a matter of brains. Best estimates put Bush's "brains" slightly higher than Jack Kennedy's brains. The argument that is offensive here is not so much about brains, as about being "intellectual." As if the skills required to handle the presidency have to do with whether you regularly read books like Jacob Burckhardt's The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. (You've all read it, of course.)
P. offered that she had honed her intelectual skills "by working my ass off in college and law school." This may be true, but if I were need a lawyer, I wouldn't look for an intellectual, nor would I rule out an intellectual. What i would look for is a lawyer with technical legal skills, one who was likely to win my case or solve my legal problem. I might worry if a lawyer told me he or she spent his or her time in law school concentrating on honing intellectual skills; I'd be more interested in a lawyer who spent more time honing legal skills. I'd probably find "I was the top student in my class in moot court" more compelling than "while in law school, I studied all of Plutarch's Lives."
My brother had a SO who was a physician. When he passed his boards to be an internist, he told my brother, "Thank God. Now I'll never have to read another book." My brother eventually broke up with him because, as he put it, although the sex was clinically delicious, the Doc provided no intellectual stimulation for him. His technical skill as a doctor were good enough that he was admitted to a prestigious group practice and had plenty of patients. Apparently he had spent his time in medical school avoiding honing his intellectual skills, and instead honing his skills as a physician.
I repeat these cases to make a similar case about candidates for the presidency. Don't we want someone who has the skills necessary to carry out the functions of the presidency? What requisites are required?
I believe that the requisites are somewhat subjective, and, unlike the two cases cited, somewhat unknowable. The presidency being a sui generis position, it is hard to delineate any prior experience which would act as a job qualification. So the question really is "What do you think the requisites for a president are?" (Serious ones, of course, not adherence to a certain political belief system or membership of a certain party. We're looking for personal characteristics.) Certainly a level of intelligence is required, but is intelligence or intellectualism the most important requirement. Would we eliminate anyone with a recorded IQ score lower than, say, 120, like John Kennedy?
P. adds this:
...I also don't believe that an Ivy League degree is a necessary or sufficient qualification for the job of President. Not all people with Ivy League educations are brilliant (and yes, I think Bush was a legacy student, who by his own admission didn't work hard at school), and I know many brilliant people with degrees from lesser schools, or without any formal higher education.
This adds nuance and complexity to the other quote of hers I provided. We should follow her here.
But there is the "legacy admission" language, so popular in 2004. Oddly, that year, those using this language always seemed to fail to note that John Kerry was also a legacy admission, at least on the same evidence as that for Bush. We don't know if either was admitted only because they had an in.
But let me make the same argument another way:
"...and yes, I think that [so-and-so] was an affirmative action student..."
Basically the same argument. Perhaps Hillary was an affirmative action student, or maybe even Barack. Would anyone care?
One thing for sure, when Bush was admitted to the highly-regarded Harvard Business School for graduate work, he was not admitted as a legacy student.
K. offers, referring to Bush and Palin:
They are certainly not intellectuals and I do not see that either are particularly well educated, despite Bush's degrees and where they came from.
I think that they're both intellectually lazy and relatively uneducated compared to most other politicians.
I'm tempted to say something fairly nasty, like "are you sure that looking down your nose hasn't perturbed your view?" Please lay out the education you think is requisite for the presidency. How does Kerry figure into this?
The question arises: are there any Republican or Conservative candidates smart enough to be president? Intellectual enough? Who would garner our defense against attacks on his intelligence or intellectualism? Can one be a Republican or Conservative and be an intellectual? Would William F. Buckley, another Yale graduate, and one who published a best-selling book right after graduation, be intellectual enough to be president?
Should we allow anyone to be president who is not thoroughly familiar with the films of Sergei Eisenstein?
Eisenstein? That's almost like 'Einstein!'
So what about Einstein? AS some of you know, in 1952, Albert was offered the presidency of Israel. I first heard of this in an article which argued that far from the half-crazed genius teetering on the brink of mental illness he was often portrayed, he was in fact, the picture of mental health. He had a clear picture of himself and his abilities. He turned down the offer.
Here is part of a Time article from 1952, describing the event:
Forgotten in the enthusiasm was the fact that Einstein, though sympathetic to Israel, had never been an ardent Zionist; he believed in a bi-nationalism that meant "friendly and fruitful coexistence with the Arabs." He does not even know Hebrew, official language of the new state.
Able, chubby Envoy Abba Eban got on the phone to Albert Einstein in Princeton, N.J. Einstein, 73 years old, a naturalized U.S. citizen, listened, paused, and then gave his regretful no. The next day he wrote to Eban that he was deeply touched by the Israeli offer, but never undertook functions he could not fill to his satisfaction. He liked studying the physical world, he added, but, "I have neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings."
Is Einstein right? Could it be that it is more important that a candidate be someone we could share a beer with than that he be very intelligent or intellectual? (And, yes, that's beer, not that sissified wine.) Think about it. Beer with:
Kennedy? Absolutely! Nixon? Not so much.
LBJ? Absolutely. He might ask you what fuckin' beer you wanted. Goldwater? Maybe not so much.
Nixon? Not really. Humphrey? Maybe a little more. But this one may have gone counter, and we see what happened.
Nixon? Not so much. McGovern? One doesn't need moral lectures over a beer.
Carter? I don't think he drank. Ford? Yes, but i don't think he was perceived that way, despite the best efforts of SNL.
Reagan? Absolutely. It's the Irish blarney. Anyone who could broadcast "live" football games using the wire reports would make a great beer companion. (Heck, once, when the wire went down, the fog in his "stadium" became so thick that he couldn't see the field!) Carter? Don't think so.
Reagan? Yep. Mondale? Don't think so.
Bush the elder. Iffy, but he would have great war stories, always good over beer. Dukakis? Does he even know what a beer is?
Clinton. He'd be absolutely great. Anyone who could say, "It depends on what the meaning of is, is" would get a beer on me any time. Bush the elder can't stand up to Clinton on this score.
Clinton? Absolutely. Dole? Very good, but no Clinton.
Bush? He was certainly percieved that way, no matter what those prejudiced against him think. Those who travelled with him, like the press corps and Pelosi's daughter, loved being with him. Gore? You've got to be kidding me. Like having a beer with a wooden Indian.
Bush? Yes. Kerry? Just think of Jon Stewert's snoring whenever they show a clip of Kerry speaking. "Who is it that doesn't love a finely crafted ale, fully hopped, malted to perfection..........."
Obama? Yes, yes, yes. Heck, we've even seen him drinking a beer as president. He might take you out back for a game of horse. McCain? He's no Obama.
Finally, Palin? Absolutely! And that is what her critics don't get, and what Einstein would. in fact, I'd love to spend a night down at the local dive with Sarah and Hillary, knocking back a few.
How many presidents have been only children? The answer is "none." Three, FDR, Ford, and Clinton had only half siblings. Does this tie into Einstein's insight?
So, growing up with other children in the family may be the truest requisite.
But being as smart as Einstein (or Eisenstein) is not, IMO.
What's your "O."
|
Bumper Stickers & MORE
