The Alien in the White House (WSJ)

[Danube]

I would say a detached president that is not a flamming patriot is a very good thing.

We are very very safe from having a patriotic president.

 

[flavio]

Of course it does and the UK knows it. Your a mental lock-out is the issue here

No, of course it's you're mental outlook that is the issue here.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think I ever said in this thread that I think Obama is smarter than myself! (Although he may well be. Odds are we're not that far apart on certain meaningless scales, although I suspect our strengths are in very different areas... )

My only point was that I find criticisms of style uncompelling (and often self defeating). Specifically I dislike the Republican penchant for propping up vapid "everyman" characters as compelling leaders for the supposed virtue of the fact that they don't inspire feelings of inferiority in the electorate. Obama certainly doesn't fit that mold. However the fact that a man has groomed an academic image is hardly proof of exceptional intelligence. I do give him significant deference in the intelligence department for having presided over the Harvard Law Review. That's not a position that can be filled by just any ol' dubya.

I guess I'm the opposite. I look first for good character in a leader, then a like mind, then high intelligence. A leader of poor character is likely to do whatever she perceives as being in her own best interest, a leader of good character but dislike mind is likely to do the opposite of what I prefer out of conflicting principle, but a person of good character and like mind but only average intelligence is likely to do what I consider to be the wrong thing only if there is an overriding factor of which I know nothing OR in the unlikely event that she AND all her advisers are fooled. And I would argue that being president of the Harvard Law Review is much more indicative of progressive politics than of high intelligence.

 

[nonlnear]

I guess I'm the opposite. I look first for good character in a leader, then a like mind, then high intelligence.

I wasn't describing my personal leader vetting process. I was zeroing in on the my personal beef with the rhetorical chicanery of style critics.

When it comes to leadership priorities we are probably pretty similar, although my take on evaluating character (or rather those aspects of character that I care about in an elected official) are not the same as those of the power brokers in the GOP. I don't know exactly what you mean when you say character, so we may or may not be speaking the same language. I personally don't give a rat's ass about how pretty a politician's family picture looks, or if their kid is president of the celibacy club - or even if they like a little downtown strange frankly. That part of GOP populism is so utterly inane to me that it sometimes makes me want to be a Democrat. The "character" I care about is whether their rhetoric matches their policy maneuvers, and if they are up front about the friendships they have forged to build their power base. On these points I look for honesty above all else. It's more about integrity than specific values.

The morality rhetoric is absolutely nauseating to me. For example Bill Clinton lost no points with me over the Monica thing. There weren't a lot to lose as I already had an inkling of some of the financial shenanigans. The Republicans' insistence on pursuing "the lie" about Monica rang so hollow that I almost gained respect for Bill out of it because it was not only hypocritical the way they were construing "character", but it was also so utterly meaningless to me that I felt obligated to despise anyone who tried to convince me that it mattered.

A leader of poor character is likely to do whatever she perceives as being in her own best interest, a leader of good character but dislike mind is likely to do the opposite of what I prefer out of conflicting principle, but a person of good character and like mind but only average intelligence is likely to do what I consider to be the wrong thing only if there is an overriding factor of which I know nothing OR in the unlikely event that she AND all her advisers are fooled.

That's all well and good but to me it's completely moot. The partisan nomination machine combined with the electoral clusterfuck in this country pretty much guarantees that I will never see a Presidential candidate of good character and like mind anyways! And when it comes to members of the houses it is much more game theoretic than all that - on top of the electoral and nomination issues.

To me laying out a system like you just did for American elections is like making a grocery list before going to the dump. Sure you can wish for steak and wine, but I consider it a good day in government if I get a slice of moldy bread and manage not to get food poisoning.

And I would argue that being president of the Harvard Law Review is much more indicative of progressive politics than of high intelligence.

I didn't mean that being president of the review necessarily indicated super[/i[] high intelligence. Let me clarify. Graduating magna from Harvard is respectable. For a motivated, focused individual who is diplomatic about his course choices and forges the "right" friendships, graduating magna is indicative of noticeably above average intelligence. To pull numbers out of my ass I'd say I think it's safe to assume such a person likely has an IQ of at least 120. There are plenty of smart people at Harvard. I understand - as you say - that being president of the laws review is not determined by intelligence; that's not what I meant to imply. However they aren't going to pick a dullard to preside over the review simply due to the fact that there are plenty of smart people to choose from. They aren't choosing based on intelligence per se, as the role of a president is to preside, not produce ground-breaking content. However simply by virtue of the fact that Harvard has a good number of smart people to draw from, I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who has served as president of the law review has an IQ of at least about 130 - and many have IQs much higher than that.

Now intelligence is hardly a determining factor for a politician. To be successful requires some to be sure, but the difference between a 130 and a 170 does not necessarily translate into political success. Often quite the opposite - especially for a profession as political as... politics! There aren't many super intelligent people who can be bothered with becoming leaders simply because leading means you have to deal with a lot of people who are quite boring to highly intelligent people. It is the moderately intelligent (say 120-145 IQ) people who happen to be blessed with great personal skills who tend to shine in high ranking leadership positions (that don't require specific expertise, that is). The folks over 150 would typically rather be left alone and let the everybody else scurry about outside the tower. Even inside academia intelligence is not necessarily the strongest predictor of professional success because so many aspects of the profession, such as grant approvals, are highly politicized.

I don't think of intelligence as the be all and end all in a leader. In fact above about 135 I don't think it matters all that much in a world leader. I was only discussing it because it was germane to the discussion at hand. I would LOVE to believe that Obama is stupid - but I don't. I don't think he's a super genius either.

 

[khon]

WSJ is really going down hill fast. Anyone else remember when it used to be a respected newspaper ?

 

[flavio]

WSJ is really going down hill fast. Anyone else remember what it used to be a respected newspaper ?

Wasn't that long ago, but it's still kinda crazy.

 

[Danube]

WSJ is really going down hill fast. Anyone else remember when it used to be a respected newspaper ?

It's still the best paper - and a reason it's the only top 25 paper in US that shows circulation increases most years.

From last 6 month period ending last June:

http://www.fitzandjen.com/2010/04/top-ten-dailes.html