baltimoresun.com

« Rydex being sold to Security Benefit | Main | Mission Impossible: SEC seeks clear financial reports »

June 28, 2007

Do dumb people make good presidents?

Here are two very smart people (an economist and legal/economic theorist), discussing the thesis. Gary Becker won the economics Nobel and Richard Posner is perhaps the most distinguished U.S. appeals judge in the country.

Posner:

Here is a puzzle: effectiveness in senior leadership positions in government does not seem to be well correlated with intelligence. Washington was a better President than Jefferson, though less able intellectually. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan were not as bright as Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton. Lincoln, a brilliant lawyer, is an exception; Theodore Roosevelt perhaps another exception; and doubtless there are others. But overall the correlation between intelligence and effectiveness in the Presidency may actually be negative...

What is required at the top levels of government is not brilliance, but managerial skill, which is a different thing, and includes knowing when to defer to the superior knowledge of a more experienced but less mentally agile subordinate.


Becker:

Economists have been emphasizing in recent years that that while cognitive abilities of individuals certainly raise their education and earnings, many non-cognitive skills are often more significant. These skills include simple factors like finishing one's work on time, to more complicated ones like good judgments in making decision, or effectiveness at using talents of subordinates. Posner argues convincingly that non-cognitive talents may be of greater importance in determining success at top-level government leadership positions than analytical brilliance and other cognitive skills...

The limited role of top analytical skills might explain why voters, as opposed to intellectuals, typically do not weight heavily the "IQ" of presidential candidates in choosing whom to vote for. The modest value of exceptional analytical skills should also imply that presidents would not place major emphasis on these skills when choosing their top cabinet officers and other high level appointees.

Read the whole thing here. (You have to scroll down. Out of ignorance or pride, the brilliant scholars do not provide permalinks.)

Posted by Jay Hancock at 10:43 AM | | Comments (2)
        

Comments

And then there's "President" Bush. Who is not smart and a horrible president. Seems to me that this analysis assumes a baseline level of intelligence that Bush fails to reach.

Frankly, I'm tired of the political analysts, the media experts, the Hollywood/Celebrity experts and the Bush-bashers. I challenge them, and you, to run for office and if they win (and they might) they will most likely find themselves hated and reviled as he has been. Remember, he has inherited many of his problems and challenges from previous presidents.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Please enter the letter "k" in the field below:
About Jay Hancock
Jay Hancock has been a financial columnist for The Baltimore Sun since 2001. He has also been The Baltimore Sun's diplomatic correspondent in Washington and its chief economics writer. Before moving to Baltimore in 1994 he worked for The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk and The Daily Press of Newport News.

His columns appear Wednesdays and Fridays.
-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Most Recent Comments
Resources and Sun coverage
Stay connected