http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,437570,00.html



reading the above article i was intrigued by this peice. One of the derogatory complaints about Bush is that he is sub par on intelligence, while many would argue that he represents to average American in thinking style. Some say Kerry has a problem with overthought. Can't make a clear decison because he keeps weighing the alternatives and sometimes forgets real life doesn't always match the written form of the philosophies. sometimes you just have to choose.

Do you believe that your leaders should be smarter than you?

Should we expect More from and of our leaders than we ask of ordinary citizens?

I should like to keep this non-specific of candidates unless absolutely vital to illustrate a point. If you respond to such an illustrated point please do not allow this to become another Bush/Kerry flamewar--That has gotten quite annoying than you.

Yes I do believe a leader should be smarter (generally) than the people. He/she can't obviously be the smartest person in the country but he/she should exhibit a grasp of how to deal with complex problems which many people can't do well. Wouldn't you want people who face difficult decisions to be smart and able to weight both sides and ultimately arrive at the most viable decision? I know I would. Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar and I believe he led us quite well, which I know is always up for debate, but he point is the man is smart no matter how you look at it.



YES! This is a no brainer. I don't want joe schmoe who may not have gotten his bachelors making big time decisions. If he couldn't make a decision between drinking that Pabst and studying then I don't him telling people what's best for the country. I would think that leadership started with people picking out who, in their community, they thought was a smart, wise, and a trustworthy person that could make good decisions for the community; which is not the average citizen. If it was the average citizen then you'd have a rotation of everyone taking a turn in the decision making seat. But quickly people would realize that some made better decisions for the community and others didn't. Those who did better would serve more often, and eventually you'd end up with the smartest of the group running the group because they make better decisions (most of the time).

Do you believe that your leaders should be smarter than you?

Well, it would be a refreshing change to have a leader who was as smart as me. But, yeah - I think the ability to weigh evidence and make informed decisions should be prerequisite for a national leader. And any man or woman who does not have extensive knowledge of our system of government, the law, global politics, and history - and who does not have an inquisitive mind - is unfit for office in my opinion.

Should we expect more from and of our leaders than we ask of ordinary citizens?

Absolutely. That is what should make them "leaders".

Do you believe that your leaders should be smarter than you?

It's time to quibble on meanings
By smarter, I intend what Wertz alluded to. I want a leader who is well-rounded and educated. Civics, history, sociology, philosophy etc...
People tend toward a prejudice against hyper-educated, intellectual types in my experience. Likewise, hyper-educated types tend to ACT like others assume they will. I never could understand the other undergrad philosophy types in my college wandering around with armloads of Kant and Hegel and not "acting like college kids" with the rest of us.
Nonetheless, having a grasp of an issue from the macro, micro and metaphysical is critical if a world leader is to make decisions. The days when a leader's decisions affect only the citizens of that nation are long gone. One has only to observe the economy and the stock market to realize that there is not a simple formula at work here. I'd love to have a leader who, without being spoonfed the ideas (then who is really the president?), can come to their own conclusions and debate them intelligently with their advisors.

Plato realized that no republic could survive without an enlightened leader a the helm. He called this the "philosopher king". It's not a deep idea:
Philosophy = Phileo + sophos or, lover or wisdom.

In order to survive we need a leader who is intellectually curious and seeks a new understanding of things constantly.

Do you believe that your leaders should be smarter than you?

Good Lord I hope they are smarter then me. It would be nice to have elected officials that actually know something about the issues they address. Or at least have the skills and the dedication to research them.

Should we expect More from and of our leaders than we ask of ordinary citizens?

Absolutely. We elected them to take on all the issues, problems and pet projects that we are unwilling to take on ourselves (otherwise we would have run), so of course we expect more from them.

We expect them to take issues and people concerns about the seriously.
We expect them to research each issues to determine what is best for America as a whole.
We expect them to do what is right and to put personal politics aside in favor of the good of America.

We expect alot of things from them. Sadly, so few politicians on both sides of the aisle live up to our expectations.

Someone once used the phrase “or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch.” from Rudyard Kipling’s poem If to describe Franklin D. Roosevelt.



http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/Ru.../kipling_if.htm


Such is the dilemma of a modern president, especially in a world of electronic media. He must be smart enough to hold his own with world leaders, but common enough to appeal to an electorate.

It's much like a high wire act without a net.

In my responses I think I'll play safe and avoid thinking about actual politics, and instead just think about this in terms of leadership characteristics

Do you believe that your leaders should be smarter than you?
Well, I consider myself pretty smart, but yes, they probably should be. They certainly shouldn't be, or behave as if they are, obviously an order of magnitude dumber than me, I think. Here I'm thinking less of Bush and more of Dan Quayle.

Part of this means being quick-minded, able to follow a complex thought, rather than "book smarts". I think Bush isn't too bad on this score, actually. He pretends not to be in public, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly be where he is without some kind of street cunning.

Kerry seems to be useless on this score, more's the pity.

And my own view is that anyone who aspires to be leader should make it their business to be, and to be seen to be, more well informed than I am. (This does mean book smarts!) That may just mean well-briefed, but the end result should be that everyone recognises that they have a pretty good idea what is going on in any area they are challenged.

For me, this is where Bush falls down - instead of seeing his many areas of ignorance as a weakness and doing something about it, he prides himself on them.

I think Clinton had both by the shed load. It's such a shame he couldn't keep his urges under control, and felt the need to lie about the times he lost that control.

Blair, domestically, is somewhat better than average at both, which I think makes him a better all-round politician than anyone prominent in US (or, unfortunatley for some, UK) politics.

Should we expect More from and of our leaders than we ask of ordinary citizens?
Oh, of course we should! In terms of ability, at least. I don't think we should expect more moral behaviour than we would of our neighbours or ourselves - an affair is regrettable but acceptable. Lying about it is regrettable but (barely) acceptable. (Lying about it under oath, on the other hand...)

But if ability, education, intelligence and understanding are things where we want someone with man-in-the-street qualities rather than anything exceptional, then let's stop messing about with the complex, time consuming and expensive business of elections, and draw lots from the public. It works for juries, after all.

I prefer that they be more intelligent, and certainly they should have some sense of ethics, fairness, and a desire to work for the common good.
And yes, I expect more of a leader than I do from myself. He is dealing with the lives of many millions, I am dealing with my own, and in some part, that of my family.

Quibbling here, on the meaning of smart:

To me, a smart person learns quickly , a dumb person learns slowly, and a stupid person is capable of learning but refuses to.
An intelligent person is one who can take accumulated knowledge (his own and that of his advisors) and aptly apply it to current situations, and even take that knowledge, sift and sort it, and come up with some new ideas, or in some way make good use of knowledge.
Our current candidates are most definitely smart men.
But intelligent? Despite his many verbal slips and falls, I think GWB is more intelligent than John Kerry.
Having said that, excuse me while I go get on my knees and pray for the USA.

After reading all the above responses to the questions, I assume everyone desires their leaders to be intelligent.

I don't necessarily desire a leader of extreme intelligence. To me someone with average intelligence and some common sense mixed in is okay with me.

I have seen leaders with a high IQ but totally at lost of what to do in a time when action is required. I guess the best example of that would be a college graduate with high grades but lost when they are put out in the real world.

So how would we be able to tell if a leader will have these qualities before he or she is elected. I would assume we could look at their past to see how that person has responded in different circumstances.

One quality that I would put above all others is honesty and when making a decision consider how it will benefit the people of your country, not how you or your party can benefit from your actions.

To my dismay,I have seen very very few politicans who put the people and country first. If you didn't know better you would think that they are only thinking of their own welfare, first.

Imagine an occupation where, for four years, you have the power to wage wars, the power to push Congress for legislation of any kind, the power to commute anyone's death sentence, the power to speak to and persuade or intimidate leaders anywhere around the world, the power to appoint the highest judges, and that you know that every time you make a pronouncement people all over the world scurry around to publish the news, prepare for a trip, find the right clothes for you to wear, etc.

Now imagine yourself looking to be hired into a position one or two levels above your own in your own life. What do you worry about? How do you prepare? Do you research that position ahead of time? Do you wonder if you're smart enough or efficient enough to assume the additional responsibilities? What about the attitudes of your interviewers--they already have the type of person they want in mind. How would you feel if that position were filled with a likable jerk who manages to schmooze well but whose work ethic is only so-so and who is known for avoiding reading as much as he can. Would you feel cheated?

How much greater the expectations should be when it is the highest, most powerful and prestigious job in the land.

Intelligence matters, so does common sense. Devotion to country is high up there, too, but without intelligence, the President and the country are in for a tough row to hoe. Knowledge of the position and of diplomacy as well as what it feels like to be in a shooting war are all qualities that will help, for the Presidency will in some way involve this kind of knowledge and experience.

Knowing that our national leader won't look like some kind of a hick when meeting with foreign leaders and that he will actually know what he is talking about are plusses. The prestige of the office and of our country are on the line when the President speaks.

Why would anyone not want to have a highly intelligent person for the job?

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0375752188-0

Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the most brilliant president in our history—a Mensa type before there was a Mensa. Although Jefferson was a gifted writer, he was not as good as an orator. Hence, he broke with the tradition of his to predecessors, Washington and Adams and sent the State of the Union address up to Congress in written form. This was not changed until Woodrow Wilson decided to do an oral presentation.

I love Jefferson. I have read three of Dumas Malone’s six volume biography on Jefferson. The remaining three must be my top post election project. Nothing would please me more than having someone of Jefferson’s intellectual quality in the White House. I wonder, however, if Jefferson could be elected in contemporary America. He would likely be the superior candidate, but there would be problems. Here’s a partial list:

1. Jefferson lackluster speaking skills.

2. Jefferson was the father of “limited” government, yet made the Louisiana Purchase without any clear constitutional authority to do so. Although few if any would doubt the wisdom of the Louisiana Purchase, he may have been labeled a flip flopper.

3. Would Jefferson pass the likeability test? Would the media ask asinine questions like “would you rather go to a bar-be-cue or have a beer with Jefferson or his opponent?”

4. Would Jefferson pass the faith test? Like Adams, he thought religion was a private matter. He wished all young men would become Unitarians, though he himself never became one. Then again, there was that sacrilege about taking a little knife cutting out portions of the Bible he didn’t agree with. My, how his opponent would spin this one with the "religious right."

5. Finally, there’s the French connection. While Washington, Hamilton and Adams were pro British, Jefferson was inclined toward the French. In a day when French fries become freedom fries, one wonders.

In 1948 and 1962 Harvard history professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. conducted polls regarding presidential greatness. Jefferson was listed as the 5th greatest.

http://www.udayton.edu/~polsci/schles.htm

Infoplease did a compilation of surveys of professional historians.

In a survey done by C-Span, Jefferson ranked 7th.

In a Wall Street Journal poll Jefferson ranked 4th

Siena College Research Institute did a survey in which Jefferson ranked 5th.

The Roper and Zogby links deal with more current matters.

Although I definitely prefer a president, or any leader for that matter, be a person of intellect, I’m not sure a man ranked between 4th and 7th by professional historians could be elected in the present environment.

Here’s the Infoplease link. It has an abundance of interesting information.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html

I would love to see a politician of truly outstanding intelligence. In particular, it would be nice to see one that had a decent knowledge of science and technology, which are of vital importance. (The last President I can think of who had a good scientific mind was Jimmy Carter. Note that, contrary to what a small minority of people might think, this did not in any way prevent him from being a person of profound faith.)

Intelligence isn't everything, of course. It helps to have a little common decency. I lived through the Watergate years, and even the most rabid opponent of Richard Nixon never accused him of being a fool.

Intelligence in a politician also needs to be complete, without major holes in it. Take the case of Woodrow Wilson. Clearly an intellectual -- the only President with an earned PHD; President of Princeton University -- he was also a racist:

Dixiecrats Triumphant: The Secret History of Woodrow Wilson

My point is that even a brilliant man like Wilson -- nearly synonymous with the words "progressive" and "idealistic" -- could believe very, very stupid things.