Donald Pittenger writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Conventional wisdom holds that, for real-world dealings, it's better for a leader/manager to be pretty smart, but not a genius. Geniuses belonging in Physics departments at universities, presumably.

Coming to this practical point of view can take a while for many folks up there in the top two or three percent of the IQ curve. After all, smart school age kids often receive praise from parents, kin and teachers for being bright. Although my IQ is south of 140 (based on Army testing), I was bright enough to get some of that kind of praise. It was almost as if intelligence was an accomplishment rather than an attribute. And it took some life-experience for me to fully appreciate the difference.

Unfortunately, there are people who, regardless of their own life-experience, seem to think that raw intelligence somehow is a great thing for leaders to possess -- something transcending other characteristics. I suppose you have encountered news articles, opinion columns, remarks on TV show, etc. where President X is dismissed as a dummy and President Y shines by the light of his own genius.

I recently came across this post on the Commentary web site by John Steele Gordon in which he muses about presidential smarts. A long-ish excerpt is below. (For his take on the current president, Read The Whole Thing.)

But being “supersmart” is not only no help; it is, I think, often a hindrance. Six future presidents were elected to Phi Beta Kappa as college undergraduates: John Quincy Adams, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Of those six, only Roosevelt could be considered a great president. Three of them, Adams, Taft, and Bush, were defeated for re-election, and Arthur couldn’t even get nominated for a second term. (His presidential reputation has been improving of late, however.)

And intellectuals, of course, are all too capable of thinking themselves into disaster. Remember George Orwell’s famous crack about “an idea so stupid only an intellectual could have conceived it.”

One might think that engineers, trained to deal with real-world forces, might make better presidents. But the only two engineers to reach the White House were Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, both terrible presidents.

So what makes for successful presidencies? It might be fruitful to compare what the two greatest presidents of the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, had in common. Neither were intellectuals (Roosevelt hardly ever read a book as an adult), but both were very “savvy,” not the same thing as smart. Both were master politicians, able to assemble and maintain coalitions. Both had immense charm. Both were first-class orators. Both had a great sense of humor and loved to tell jokes. Both were comfortable in their own skins and not given to introspection. Both had an abundance of self-confidence but no trace of arrogance. In both, the inner man was inaccessible, and no one felt he really knew what made either man tick. And both had that indispensable handmaiden of greatness — luck.

Later,

Donald

In what mindset was Reagan a great president?

Posted by: Mike on November 20, 2009 2:46 PM

I'd say the last paragraph quoted pretty much sums up the characteristics needed to be a great leader. For my money, that combination is indeed intelligence, but of a different sort than the type needed for, say, physics.

I don't remember the subject of intelligence in a President being brought up much before George W. Bush. The reason is was raised I think is obvious; mostly due to GW's astounding inarticulateness. I'm not saying he was dumb (although I don't think he was all that smart, in any sense of the word), but the ability to speak well in public is a HUGE factor in making a good leader.

Posted by: JV on November 20, 2009 2:55 PM

Mike -- In what mindset was Reagan not a great president?

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on November 20, 2009 3:23 PM

@ Mike and Donald:

Reagan wasn't a great President in the mindset that past US presidents are more or less evaluated based on how Progressive they were. This is called "Whig History" and it's not a new or minor phenomenon.

Take a look at any mainstream ranking of US presidents, and you'll notice the main criteria of greatness seem to be: 1) Their success in expanding the size and scope of the federal government, and 2) Starting wars that slaughter millions. For Libertarians looking for a decent ranking of past presidents, taking the inverse of a mainstream ranking is usually a safe bet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

George W. was actually a fair bit more intelligent than Kerry, if USAF and Yale GPAs are good indicators. Both men simply knew their target audiences, and spoke in their languages. Anyone who writes of GWB as a fool is (wait for it...) misunderestimating him.

In any case, being the President today is little different from being an actor in a 24/7 TV show, so all qualities less public speaking are not of great significance.

Cheers,

Zdeno

Posted by: Zdeno on November 20, 2009 3:48 PM

But Hoover had every qualification to be an excellent President, until tried and found wanting. The Romans knew the phenomenon.

For what it's worth, my impression is that almost all Americans grotesquely overrate FDR. Apart from anything else, the man was a sh1t.

Posted by: dearieme on November 20, 2009 5:49 PM

I'd say rallying the US to complete the Cold War and bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union would qualify Reagan as a great president. Most fair minded individuals, whether they voted for him or not, will concede this.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on November 20, 2009 5:57 PM

The conservative mythic narrative. Reagan blew on the Berlin Wall, it fell down, the Soviets folded their tents and went home to drink vodka and tend their gardens.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on November 20, 2009 6:07 PM

Wow, Winkler. That's unusually thoughtless even from you. Reagan "blew on the Berlin Wall", blah blah blah fishcakes.

No, Reagan did things like build up the US military at great expense and in the face of sustained criticism and political opposition, placed cruise missiles in Europe in the face of massive anti-American sentiment and very large scale demonstrations...

Gack! Never mind! What's the point? Somebody who feels comfortable caricaturing conservative opinion your way is never going to let the soft soil of his brain be disturbed by anything like, oh, argument.

Mindset indeed. Jeebus Kwist.

Posted by: PatrickH on November 20, 2009 7:23 PM

Rankings of presidental performance have everything to do with the subjective biases of the evaluator and little to do with historical fact, as evidenced by Patrick H's response to my comment.

I've finally become wise enough to bow out of these internet versions of sandbox-level debating. If you want a (f)lame war, I recommend self-immolation. Go for it, dim wits.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on November 20, 2009 8:32 PM

My sense of it is that FDR had no core beliefs. The New Deal amounted to throwing things against the wall and seeing if they'd stick. Oh, that approach doesn't work? let's try this approach. Rinse and repeat. He "succeeded" in turning a severe downturn into a severe and lengthy downturn -- The Great Depression. But he was a helluva father figure for millions in a very frightening time.

Reagan, on the other hand, having fought the Screen Actors Guild (a commie outfit if there ever was one) in the trenches, came to the presidency with a firm conviction that fighting the collectivists at home and abroad was job #1. Was he successful? Partially. He fought the statists to a draw.

Now they're in the driver's seat. How's their hope and change workin' for ya?

Posted by: ricpic on November 20, 2009 9:04 PM

Many fair-minded people think that much of the Reagan myth is indeed a myth. The credit for the breakup of the Soviet Union should go far more to Gorby than Ronnie. Not to mention Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, the repercussions of their ill fated occupation of Afghanistan, forty years of distorted Soviet economics, and any number of other factors. As an aside, it is interesting to note that, with the twentieth anniversary of the reunification of Germany, as previously secret documents are released, we now know Reagan's great ally, Margaret Thatcher, urged Gorbachev NOT to allow the reunification.

It is similarly forgotten that the national debt nearly tripled under Reagan while the size and scope of government grew. In short, the reality of the Reagan years runs counter in many ways to the rhetoric of the myth.

One might have a view of politics that prefers a strong leader able to operate with few constraints, in which case the efforts Reagan made toward distorting the balance of power between the three branches more toward a strong "unitary Presidency" and claiming powers not given to the executive branch by the Constitution might be applauded. Many progressives, not to mention libertarians and even conservatives who honestly judge actions and results rather than rhetoric, might reasonably question Reagan's "greatness" on all these grounds.

To use Zdeno's simplistic equation, Reagan succeeded by at least one of the supposedly Progressive attributes for presidential greatness ... expanding the size and scope of the federal government. He had somewhat less success starting wars that slaughtered millions, and had to make do with Panama, Grenada, and various proxy wars, especially in Central America.

When he was elected my take was that the trans-national corporate elite had grown tired of backing politicians who appeared most malleable and decided instead to simply hire an actor to play the role of President. Admittedly a cynical and sarcastic take on the situation, but it hints at the truth.

Posted by: Chris White on November 20, 2009 9:13 PM

It doesn't seem to affect his conclusions, but it's amusing to note that Gordon failed to consider two university presidents -- Woodrow Wilson was at Priceton some while; Dwight Eisenhower was at Columbia, or was almost at Columbia, for several moments. Memory suggests Eisenhower had some experience running large scale real-world enterprises before he got to Columbia, however....

One other thing a good President needs -- very good subordinates. Both Washington and Lincoln found very able men to serve in their cabinets. FDR had some very good ones (Marshall, for instance). Reagan's lot doesn't seem that impressive in retrospect (Cheney? Rumsfeld? Colin Powell? Paul Volker? Ollie North?).

Now that he's out of office, can anyone name any of George W. Bush's cabinet officers? And other than Hilary Clinton, how many of Obama's cabinet will be worthy of rememberance in five or ten years?

Posted by: mike shupp on November 20, 2009 9:42 PM

It doesn't seem to affect his conclusions, but it's amusing to note that Gordon failed to consider two university presidents -- Woodrow Wilson was at Priceton some while; Dwight Eisenhower was at Columbia, or was almost at Columbia, for several moments. Memory suggests Eisenhower had some experience running large scale real-world enterprises before he got to Columbia, however....

One other thing a good President needs -- very good subordinates. Both Washington and Lincoln found very able men to serve in their cabinets. FDR had some very good ones (Marshall, for instance). Reagan's lot doesn't seem that impressive in retrospect (Cheney? Rumsfeld? Colin Powell? Paul Volker? Ollie North?).

Now that he's out of office, can anyone name any of George W. Bush's cabinet officers? And other than Hilary Clinton, how many of Obama's cabinet will be worthy of rememberance in five or ten years?

Posted by: mike shupp on November 20, 2009 9:52 PM

I once saw an allusion to a time in British politics when the principal advisors to the two party leaders were Burke and Hume. Then again, there was a time when the party leaders were Gladstone and Dizzy. Your presidency has been in (erratic) decline since Washington. Reflecting on such things is just depressing.

Posted by: dearieme on November 21, 2009 12:11 PM

> Reagan succeeded by at least one of the supposedly Progressive attributes for presidential greatness ... expanding the size and scope of the federal government

The difference is that he used that money to actually accomplish something, not advance the ineffective therapeutic-managerial state.

Posted by: Eric Johnson on November 21, 2009 12:39 PM

He probably also saved money in the long run. Military spending was cut and it could be cut much more. That wouldnt be the case if we were still facing an internationalist USSR.

Posted by: Eric Johnson on November 21, 2009 12:41 PM

One can certainly argue that supporting the mujahidin in Afghanistan or the contras in Central America "accomplished something", although exactly what it accomplished and what the unintended negative consequences have been is subject to debate. By the end of his time in office Reagan had expanded the U.S. military budget to nearly double the expenditure during the height of the Vietnam war; so, only in an alternate reality can one say "military spending was cut." And so it goes.

Posted by: Chris White on November 21, 2009 4:33 PM

I'm glad that this conversation seems to be centered on Ronald Reagan, the GREATEST president of the 20th century. Come on, admit it, you feel it's true, you KNOW it's true. He was surely the last great president. I mean, who compares at all?

When I read Donald's entry, I thought that there would be much Bush bashing, but it's obvious that the Reagan mystique endures. It endures even when the petulant children scream at the top of their lungs that he was not great...Come on, you KNOW he was.

Hey, here's a Regan victory for those of the liberal persuasion. Before Reagan they were bums...Now they're homeless people. Homeless people who magically disappear when a Democrat is in office.

Magic.

Posted by: Tim Price on November 22, 2009 1:48 PM

ricpic: FDR came to power at a time when the U.S. economy was in a state of near total collapse. It's probable that his policies extended the Depression, but it's also very likely they abated the worst effects at the most critical time. In 1932-33, there was a distinct possibility that civil order could break down. By "throwing a lot of stuff against the wall", he averted that collapse.

Reagan did not fight SAG, which was not Communist-controlled. He was the President of SAG, and fought to keep the Communists out. Incidentally, he was elected President of SAG by his fellow actors, many of whom knew him. They trusted him to look after their professional interests - and he did it so well they re-elected him. Reagan led SAG through negotiations over dividing the revenue from television rights to movies. Some of the participants in that process have described him as a brilliant negotiator: well-informed on the facts, a good listener and personable talker, with a solid grasp of the details.

Chris White: Reagan came into office with the understanding that Communism was evil and needed to be destroyed, and he said so. For that he was excoriated by bien-pensant western intellectuals and establishment diplomats - and hailed by milliions of people in the Soviet bloc for saying publicly what they knew to be obvious truth. Gorbachev came into office intending to preserve Communism. Reagan's policies put heavy economic, military, and cultural pressure on the Soviet system. Gorbachev in desperation "opened" the Soviet system, and it collapsed under him. The only credit he should get is for giving up peacefully, rather than resorting to mass murder, like his predecessors. That's why Reagan is a hero in places like Estonia and Slovakia, while Gorbachev is reviled,

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on November 23, 2009 3:07 AM

"I don't remember the subject of intelligence in a President being brought up much before George W. Bush."

You must be a youngster, JV. I was around when Adlai ran against Ike, and the press was relentless in telling us how much more intelligent Adlai Stevenson was, versus Ike, who was only smart on the battlefield.

The press also told us at the time that Jimmy Carter had the highest IQ of any presidential candidate ever, that Gerald Ford was a virtual moron, as was Ronald Reagan, and that Bill Clinton was a genius. George W. Bush was, of course, certifiably stupid, while his adversaries, Al Gore and Kerry, were obviously brilliant.

The only presidential election in my lifetime where the Republican wasn't deemed slow minded by the press was when Nixon ran. But he was EVIL, natch, so that trumped stupidity as a flaw and our media did not have to look further.

Posted by: Barbara Duran on November 23, 2009 11:53 AM

Barbara, I'm 41, so that's either young or old, depending on your perspective. So yeah, I don't remember Ike and was too young to notice the debate around Nixon, Ford and even Carter. So probably I'm wrong that intelligence wasn't discussed, historically, before GW. However, I do remember Reagan onward, and Bush Sr.'s intelligence was never in question. Reagan was thought of more as aloof and later, senile, than unintelligent; both charges probably not quite accurate. And as I stated, GW was more painfully inarticulate than unintelligent.

Posted by: JV on November 23, 2009 1:54 PM

I can definitively state that I am smarter than anyone wishing to run for President, because I don't want to be President.

In all seriousness, though, I can understand the issues with genius vs. intelligent. Genius is nothing without application, and any D&D geek can tell you than intelligence != wisdom. The problem I see with a lot of policy makers is that they deal in theory rather than in reality. In theory, communism is a nice concept; in reality, too many people freeload when they can and have to be "brought into line." In theory, it's a good idea to give people assistance to purchase a house. In practice, this drives the housing prices up, making them as hard or harder to afford.

(Side note: I'm the "smart one" of the family, but it's my brother who is the rocket scientist. And he'd make a better President than me, too. He's ALSO too smart to want that.)

Posted by: B. Durbin on November 24, 2009 12:19 AM

I don't think Carter was a true "engineer" but a submarine engineering officer, akin to a railroad engineer.

Posted by: Fargusberg on November 24, 2009 3:26 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?