Who Is The Smartest?

[PoliticalChic]

Assuming that one subscribes to the theory of 7 forms if intelligence (I happen to think there's probably hundreds of unique types of intel, but that's another thread) then it is very easy to understand why someone of very high IQ measured intelligence might be an utter failure in life or why someone who has a bearly functional IQ can do so well in society.

The OTHER five types of intell count too.

In fact in the case of how one does generally in life, and relationships, interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences are, I believe, FAR MORE IMPORTANT in outcomes than just one's reading and math intelligence.

While it is clear that you are superior in all seven forms, I believe that this thread is specific to our political leaders...

could it be that your avatar hides a banner elected position?

Actually when it comes to interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence I doubt I'm even of normal intelligence. Based on outcomes in the real world, I suspect I'm fairly stupid when it comes to those intelligences.

My point here is that one cannot really tell how smart our POTUS's were.

They each faced unique problems, so evaluating how well they did in comparison to the others is mostly an exercise in partisanship.

If I told you that if another POTUS had been in office when Carter or Regan was in office, and I thought that the other person would have done about as well or poorly as those two did, would you believe me?

You might if you are not a partisan.

AFter all, every POTUS has only a limited amount of power, and really given that, each must deal with the problems, and enjoy the benefits that comes with the time.

If a REpublican had been in office during the Carter years, we'd have still had STAGFLATION.

If DEM POTUS had been in office when Bush I was in office, the Soviet Union would still have fallen apart.

Some things just happen on people's watch. They don't make these things happen, they just get blamed for them.

Praising them OR faulting them for things which are so obviously beyond their control is just silly.

That WHY I don't entirely blame BUSH II for the depression, or Obama for failing to solve all the problems stemming from it.

Not that I admire either of them much, (I really don't) but because I realize that much of what they faced they had absolutely no control over.

Intelligence had nothing to do with it.

1. I note that you have dodged the question: are you now, or have you ever been, President of the United States? 'fess up!

2. "My point here is that one cannot really tell how smart our POTUS's were."
Now, now...this does not speak to the thread....the idea is to do exactly that: judge the Presidents. I gave my basis, to explain why I picked Ronaldus Maximus.

3. "They each faced unique problems, so evaluating how well they did in comparison to the others is mostly an exercise in partisanship."
The basis of that statement is false...no observer of the political scene would believe that Carter would have confronted the Soviets as Reagan did...and there must be dozens of other comparisons that are equally applicable.

Further, that judgement is the basis of our votes, isn't it?

4. "...other person would have done about as well or poorly as those two did[/I], would you believe me?"
No...not in most cases.

Did you miss the post re: Reaganomics?
Did I miss a discussion of Carteronomics?

5. "Praising them OR faulting them for things which are so obviously beyond their control is just silly."
Why, the next thing you might say is that arguing on the message board is 'just silly'!
Just watch it, Mister!

6. "Intelligence had nothing to do with it."
See, that's the point...I named vision, and an understanding of our place in history.

And, since we are discussing Turkeys, have the best Turkey Day!

 

[Bfgrn]

So...saving the world, the whole world, from the yoke of totalitarian oppression counts for naught?

It has been my experience that the left is neither able to prioritize nor see the results of its policies....

You certainly haven't disabused me of that conclusion.

The 'yoke' of totalitarian oppression is conservatism. It always has been and it always will be. Reagan brought that yoke to bear on the people of this nation. And it's really ironic, you bring up the Soviet Union PC, because we saw that totalitarian oppression of conservatism manifest itself in that same Soviet Union in the late '80's. When Mikhail Gorbachev tried to create a more democratic government, it was Soviet conservatives; the Stalinists, who vehemently opposed him and yearned for a return to more authoritarian ways. They formed their own 'tea party'...speakers called out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and campaign leaflets decried ''liberal yellow journalists''. The conservatives were an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups like Pamyat, who viewed Gorbachev's efforts as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

"...totalitarian oppression is conservatism..."

As usual, the ignorance that you evince is jaw dropping...but I have the capacity to see the bright side. You open the door to education of any passing readers who might erroneously believe that the left has an iota of intelligence.

The Red Banner Youth Brigade

The Kwan family met the Youth Brigade in their living room, which had shrunk to the size of a prison cell due to the number of shouting youth surrounding the family. They gazed at the youth in bewilderment unable to understand the evil that they had done.
“Do you repent? Do you confess to clinging to the old values?”
“Confess and seek reeducation and we will spare you!”
“You are guilty of old thought, old culture, old values…”
“You have built a lackey’s empire on the backs of the people!”
Kwan and his wife, along with their twelve-year-old son were bound and defenseless.
“You are part of the old…”
The tall leader of the cadre engages in a furious dialectic, spittle flying from his mouth.
“You are part of the old! Do you repent?”
With every line he spoke, he swung the black baton, heavy as a cricket bat.
“You will reform your decadent ways!”
“The old ways are a threat to the collective good of the people!”
“You will die if you retain your old beliefs!”
“Repent! Reject the old! Admit you have been seduced by unbeneficial and decadent thought!”
It continued for endless minutes- until the blows the student rained down stole the life from the family. The iron-tipped baton left bloody forms at his feet as he recited the catechism the students thirstily sought to hear.

From “The Stone Monkey,” by Jeffery Deaver

Now, Deaver writes novels, but lest one believe that the above is not based on fact:


Through 1966, secondary schools and colleges closed in China. Students -- many from the age of nine through eighteen -- followed Maoist directives to destroy things of the past that they believed should be no part of the new China: old customs, old habits, old culture and old thinking -- the "four olds." In a state of euphoria and with support from the government and army, the students went about China's cities and villages, wrecking old buildings, old temples and old art objects. To make a new and wonderful China, the Red Guards attacked as insufficiently revolutionary their parents, teachers, school administrators and everyone they could find as targets, including "intellectuals" and "capitalist roaders" within the Communist Party.
Filled with righteousness, the power of their numbers, and support from Mao, the campaigns for revolutionary change became violent. People seen as evil were beaten to death. Thousands of people died, including many who had committed suicide.
Mao's China

So, we have a glimpse into the 'new world of the Progressives'!


And, the above verifies the following:
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

1) PC, if I want to brush up on Russell Kirk - social critic, literary critic, and fiction author, I can do so without your help.

Yes, there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The very first moral truth is human beings are fragile mortal creatures that can be damaged, crushed and extinguished. If that first truth is violated atrocities and social disasters do occur. But conservatives measure 'atrocities and social disaster' in mammon, never in human capital. Human beings are not even part of conservative lexicon except when conservatives demonize, dehumanize or dismiss 'others'. Conservative solutions require some group of 'others' to evaporate. Conservatives don't considering human toll, unless it affects one of their 3 priorities; me, myself or I.

Privatization has become the buzz word and domain of conservatism PC. It could even serve as a 21st century definition of conservatism. It has led to immoral conduct being made 'lawful' by teams of corporate lawyers who have been given the pen to author bills that lead to laws to privatize results for their personal gain and profit. It has led to immorality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. We now see lending practices deemed 'lawful' that even mafia bosses considered loan sharking and sent their persuaders to address. These beliefs are aimed at the sheer gratification of greed. We see it in the dismantling and subversion of environmental laws now being rewritten by utility industry lobbyists to privatize the commons (the publicly owned resources, the things that cannot be reduced to private property; the air, the water, the public land, the wildlife, the fisheries. The things that from the beginning of time have always been part of the public trust). When the commons are violated it is stealing the commonwealth from We, the People, it is liquidating public assets for corporate only profit, and it is stealing from all of us. Nobody has a right to use the commons in a way that will injure others or diminish their use and enjoyment by all.

2) Conservatives now believe even Ronald Reagan was too far 'left' on how to live in peace when he said: "no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology". Today conservatives subscribe to an ideology of preemption; wars are morally justified as a means of prevention. Our 34th President and Five Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower said of that ideology: "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing".

Ronald Reagan and the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives were the 'destroyers of custom and convention'. They deemed the ideas and experience of our ancestors as invalid, wrong-headed and they spit in the face of convention, custom and precedent. You ultimately respect the lives and toil of our ancestors not by paying lip service or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing their lessons learned and make them your own lessons by respecting the policies, regulations and programs they crafted, liberals and conservatives together through debate and compromise as one nation and one people. Laws and regulations that worked. Laws and regulations that increased the benefits and lessened the losses in our communities and in our society for us, their successors to reap the benefits of. But Ronald Reagan and the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives systematically dismantled all convention, custom and precedent because they believed no man that ever walked the earth was as wise as they were. They created a new society inferior to the old. So they ignored the wisdom of Burke: The species is wiser than the individual.

3) Impulsive and imprudent is a very apt description of Reagan, the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives and today's Fox/Limbaugh minions. Today's conservatives offer simple remedies to complex problems. They don't even acknowledge or identify the root causes, they choose instead to attack the laws and regulations that corporations and the elite want eviscerated so they can lay claim to the pennies on the eyes of the dead. The only thing they haven't gotten their greedy hands on...YET.

The 'yoke' of totalitarian oppression is conservatism, and conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. I know you believe the whole world revolves around you and your beliefs, that all orthodoxy and tradition on this planet is based on your parochial indoctrination. And every 'conservative' on the planet holds capitalism and free enterprise dear...but the rest of the world in not a drain that swirls in the opposite direction when you leave our borders PC...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 'yoke' of totalitarian oppression is conservatism. It always has been and it always will be. Reagan brought that yoke to bear on the people of this nation. And it's really ironic, you bring up the Soviet Union PC, because we saw that totalitarian oppression of conservatism manifest itself in that same Soviet Union in the late '80's. When Mikhail Gorbachev tried to create a more democratic government, it was Soviet conservatives; the Stalinists, who vehemently opposed him and yearned for a return to more authoritarian ways. They formed their own 'tea party'...speakers called out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and campaign leaflets decried ''liberal yellow journalists''. The conservatives were an alliance including xenophobic fringe groups like Pamyat, who viewed Gorbachev's efforts as a conspiracy by Jews, Masons and Westernizers, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearned for what they saw as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies

"...totalitarian oppression is conservatism..."

As usual, the ignorance that you evince is jaw dropping...but I have the capacity to see the bright side. You open the door to education of any passing readers who might erroneously believe that the left has an iota of intelligence.

The Red Banner Youth Brigade

The Kwan family met the Youth Brigade in their living room, which had shrunk to the size of a prison cell due to the number of shouting youth surrounding the family. They gazed at the youth in bewilderment unable to understand the evil that they had done.
“Do you repent? Do you confess to clinging to the old values?”
“Confess and seek reeducation and we will spare you!”
“You are guilty of old thought, old culture, old values…”
“You have built a lackey’s empire on the backs of the people!”
Kwan and his wife, along with their twelve-year-old son were bound and defenseless.
“You are part of the old…”
The tall leader of the cadre engages in a furious dialectic, spittle flying from his mouth.
“You are part of the old! Do you repent?”
With every line he spoke, he swung the black baton, heavy as a cricket bat.
“You will reform your decadent ways!”
“The old ways are a threat to the collective good of the people!”
“You will die if you retain your old beliefs!”
“Repent! Reject the old! Admit you have been seduced by unbeneficial and decadent thought!”
It continued for endless minutes- until the blows the student rained down stole the life from the family. The iron-tipped baton left bloody forms at his feet as he recited the catechism the students thirstily sought to hear.

From “The Stone Monkey,” by Jeffery Deaver

Now, Deaver writes novels, but lest one believe that the above is not based on fact:


Through 1966, secondary schools and colleges closed in China. Students -- many from the age of nine through eighteen -- followed Maoist directives to destroy things of the past that they believed should be no part of the new China: old customs, old habits, old culture and old thinking -- the "four olds." In a state of euphoria and with support from the government and army, the students went about China's cities and villages, wrecking old buildings, old temples and old art objects. To make a new and wonderful China, the Red Guards attacked as insufficiently revolutionary their parents, teachers, school administrators and everyone they could find as targets, including "intellectuals" and "capitalist roaders" within the Communist Party.
Filled with righteousness, the power of their numbers, and support from Mao, the campaigns for revolutionary change became violent. People seen as evil were beaten to death. Thousands of people died, including many who had committed suicide.
Mao's China

So, we have a glimpse into the 'new world of the Progressives'!


And, the above verifies the following:
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

1) PC, if I want to brush up on Russell Kirk - social critic, literary critic, and fiction author, I can do so without your help.

Yes, there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The very first moral truth is human beings are fragile mortal creatures that can be damaged, crushed and extinguished. If that first truth is violated atrocities and social disasters do occur. But conservatives measure 'atrocities and social disaster' in mammon, never in human capital. Human beings are not even part of conservative lexicon except when conservatives demonize, dehumanize or dismiss 'others'. Conservative solutions require some group of 'others' to evaporate. Conservatives don't considering human toll, unless it affects one of their 3 priorities; me, myself or I.

Privatization has become the buzz word and domain of conservatism PC. It could even serve as a 21st century definition of conservatism. It has led to immoral conduct being made 'lawful' by teams of corporate lawyers who have been given the pen to author bills that lead to laws to privatize results for their personal gain and profit. It has led to immorality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. We now see lending practices deemed 'lawful' that even mafia bosses considered loan sharking and sent their persuaders to address. These beliefs are aimed at the sheer gratification of greed. We see it in the dismantling and subversion of environmental laws now being rewritten by utility industry lobbyists to privatize the commons (the publicly owned resources, the things that cannot be reduced to private property; the air, the water, the public land, the wildlife, the fisheries. The things that from the beginning of time have always been part of the public trust). When the commons are violated it is stealing the commonwealth from We, the People, it is liquidating public assets for corporate only profit, and it is stealing from all of us. Nobody has a right to use the commons in a way that will injure others or diminish their use and enjoyment by all.

2) Conservatives now believe even Ronald Reagan was too far 'left' on how to live in peace when he said: "no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology". Today conservatives subscribe to an ideology of preemption; wars are morally justified as a means of prevention. Our 34th President and Five Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower said of that ideology: "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing".

Ronald Reagan and the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives were the 'destroyers of custom and convention'. They deemed the ideas and experience of our ancestors as invalid, wrong-headed and they spit in the face of convention, custom and precedent. You ultimately respect the lives and toil of our ancestors not by paying lip service or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing their lessons learned and make them your own lessons by respecting the policies, regulations and programs they crafted, liberals and conservatives together through debate and compromise as one nation and one people. Laws and regulations that worked. Laws and regulations that increased the benefits and lessened the losses in our communities and in our society for us, their successors to reap the benefits of. But Ronald Reagan and the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives systematically dismantled all convention, custom and precedent because they believed no man that ever walked the earth was as wise as they were. They created a new society inferior to the old. So they ignored the wisdom of Burke: The species is wiser than the individual.

3) Impulsive and imprudent is a very apt description of Reagan, the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives and today's Fox/Limbaugh minions. Today's conservatives offer simple remedies to complex problems. They don't even acknowledge or identify the root causes, they choose instead to attack the laws and regulations that corporations and the elite want eviscerated so they can lay claim to the pennies on the eyes of the dead. The only thing they haven't gotten their greedy hands on...YET.

The 'yoke' of totalitarian oppression is conservatism, and conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. I know you believe the whole world revolves around you and your beliefs, that all orthodoxy and tradition on this planet is based on your parochial indoctrination. And every 'conservative' on the planet holds capitalism and free enterprise dear...but the rest of the world in not a drain that swirls in the opposite direction when you leave our borders PC...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

Hey, Friendless...you didn't comment on the beauty of the Progressive vision, Mao's China...
Why is that?

Didn't you like the fruits of your fondest endeavor??
No?

It is soooooo very amusing that you lefties are warned about the results of your thesis, your policies, and if that isn't good enough---cause there are folks like you who don't believe the 'wet paint' signs until they touch, when we can point to actual result in China, and in the gulags...

you still perseverate.

Utopia is always within your grasp....

Tell me, is that a sign of intelligence?

It would be funny if it didn't always result in so much human misery.

 

[The T]

I will not pick whom I think is smart in the context of this thread, but will aptly state as to the conditions of context and the cast of characters presented...

..Anyone who knew history of the founding of this nation and tried to stay within the construct of the Constitution, and addressed these things directly to the American people on the level?

Gets my vote.

 

[Bfgrn]

"...totalitarian oppression is conservatism..."

As usual, the ignorance that you evince is jaw dropping...but I have the capacity to see the bright side. You open the door to education of any passing readers who might erroneously believe that the left has an iota of intelligence.

The Red Banner Youth Brigade

The Kwan family met the Youth Brigade in their living room, which had shrunk to the size of a prison cell due to the number of shouting youth surrounding the family. They gazed at the youth in bewilderment unable to understand the evil that they had done.
“Do you repent? Do you confess to clinging to the old values?”
“Confess and seek reeducation and we will spare you!”
“You are guilty of old thought, old culture, old values…”
“You have built a lackey’s empire on the backs of the people!”
Kwan and his wife, along with their twelve-year-old son were bound and defenseless.
“You are part of the old…”
The tall leader of the cadre engages in a furious dialectic, spittle flying from his mouth.
“You are part of the old! Do you repent?”
With every line he spoke, he swung the black baton, heavy as a cricket bat.
“You will reform your decadent ways!”
“The old ways are a threat to the collective good of the people!”
“You will die if you retain your old beliefs!”
“Repent! Reject the old! Admit you have been seduced by unbeneficial and decadent thought!”
It continued for endless minutes- until the blows the student rained down stole the life from the family. The iron-tipped baton left bloody forms at his feet as he recited the catechism the students thirstily sought to hear.

From “The Stone Monkey,” by Jeffery Deaver

Now, Deaver writes novels, but lest one believe that the above is not based on fact:


Through 1966, secondary schools and colleges closed in China. Students -- many from the age of nine through eighteen -- followed Maoist directives to destroy things of the past that they believed should be no part of the new China: old customs, old habits, old culture and old thinking -- the "four olds." In a state of euphoria and with support from the government and army, the students went about China's cities and villages, wrecking old buildings, old temples and old art objects. To make a new and wonderful China, the Red Guards attacked as insufficiently revolutionary their parents, teachers, school administrators and everyone they could find as targets, including "intellectuals" and "capitalist roaders" within the Communist Party.
Filled with righteousness, the power of their numbers, and support from Mao, the campaigns for revolutionary change became violent. People seen as evil were beaten to death. Thousands of people died, including many who had committed suicide.
Mao's China

So, we have a glimpse into the 'new world of the Progressives'!


And, the above verifies the following:
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

1) PC, if I want to brush up on Russell Kirk - social critic, literary critic, and fiction author, I can do so without your help.

Yes, there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The very first moral truth is human beings are fragile mortal creatures that can be damaged, crushed and extinguished. If that first truth is violated atrocities and social disasters do occur. But conservatives measure 'atrocities and social disaster' in mammon, never in human capital. Human beings are not even part of conservative lexicon except when conservatives demonize, dehumanize or dismiss 'others'. Conservative solutions require some group of 'others' to evaporate. Conservatives don't considering human toll, unless it affects one of their 3 priorities; me, myself or I.

Privatization has become the buzz word and domain of conservatism PC. It could even serve as a 21st century definition of conservatism. It has led to immoral conduct being made 'lawful' by teams of corporate lawyers who have been given the pen to author bills that lead to laws to privatize results for their personal gain and profit. It has led to immorality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. We now see lending practices deemed 'lawful' that even mafia bosses considered loan sharking and sent their persuaders to address. These beliefs are aimed at the sheer gratification of greed. We see it in the dismantling and subversion of environmental laws now being rewritten by utility industry lobbyists to privatize the commons (the publicly owned resources, the things that cannot be reduced to private property; the air, the water, the public land, the wildlife, the fisheries. The things that from the beginning of time have always been part of the public trust). When the commons are violated it is stealing the commonwealth from We, the People, it is liquidating public assets for corporate only profit, and it is stealing from all of us. Nobody has a right to use the commons in a way that will injure others or diminish their use and enjoyment by all.

2) Conservatives now believe even Ronald Reagan was too far 'left' on how to live in peace when he said: "no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology". Today conservatives subscribe to an ideology of preemption; wars are morally justified as a means of prevention. Our 34th President and Five Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower said of that ideology: "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing".

Ronald Reagan and the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives were the 'destroyers of custom and convention'. They deemed the ideas and experience of our ancestors as invalid, wrong-headed and they spit in the face of convention, custom and precedent. You ultimately respect the lives and toil of our ancestors not by paying lip service or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing their lessons learned and make them your own lessons by respecting the policies, regulations and programs they crafted, liberals and conservatives together through debate and compromise as one nation and one people. Laws and regulations that worked. Laws and regulations that increased the benefits and lessened the losses in our communities and in our society for us, their successors to reap the benefits of. But Ronald Reagan and the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives systematically dismantled all convention, custom and precedent because they believed no man that ever walked the earth was as wise as they were. They created a new society inferior to the old. So they ignored the wisdom of Burke: The species is wiser than the individual.

3) Impulsive and imprudent is a very apt description of Reagan, the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives and today's Fox/Limbaugh minions. Today's conservatives offer simple remedies to complex problems. They don't even acknowledge or identify the root causes, they choose instead to attack the laws and regulations that corporations and the elite want eviscerated so they can lay claim to the pennies on the eyes of the dead. The only thing they haven't gotten their greedy hands on...YET.

The 'yoke' of totalitarian oppression is conservatism, and conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. I know you believe the whole world revolves around you and your beliefs, that all orthodoxy and tradition on this planet is based on your parochial indoctrination. And every 'conservative' on the planet holds capitalism and free enterprise dear...but the rest of the world in not a drain that swirls in the opposite direction when you leave our borders PC...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

Hey, Friendless...you didn't comment on the beauty of the Progressive vision, Mao's China...
Why is that?

Didn't you like the fruits of your fondest endeavor??
No?

It is soooooo very amusing that you lefties are warned about the results of your thesis, your policies, and if that isn't good enough---cause there are folks like you who don't believe the 'wet paint' signs until they touch, when we can point to actual result in China, and in the gulags...

you still perseverate.

Utopia is always within your grasp....

Tell me, is that a sign of intelligence?

It would be funny if it didn't always result in so much human misery.

Well PC, one thing we know from 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries..."While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."

What's amusing is you totally ignored everything I said. Why am I not surprised? I'll make some comments on China, but it may not be what you want to hear. First and foremost, we don't live in China. We did not live through or experience what really happened to know the whole story. When a country experiences a civil war, there is usually good cause and the victor most often has the backing of the people. It's not like Mao overthrew Mr Rogers and his neighborhood. Chiang Kai-shek allegedly ruled with an iron fist and there was rampant corruption in the Kuomintang. Logic dictates that there was a great deal of human misery that already existed for the masses to revolt.

I know you don't believe this, but much of the 'history' we are taught is mere propaganda. And America's history is not that 'exceptional'. What we are taught about other nations always seems to cast a positive light on the regimes we support and a very negative one on those we oppose. But the truth is never that simple. We know for example that British and American imperialism has led to many atrocities for the indigenous peoples of other countries. Iraq is a great example. In the late '50's Abd al-Karim Qasim had the support of the people. In 1958, an Interim Constitution was adopted that proclaimed the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting them freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government freed political prisoners and granted amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the 1943 to 1945 Kurdish uprisings. The exiled Kurds returned home and were welcomed by the republican regime. Qasim even rewrote the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society. But he made the fatal mistake of nationalizing Iraq's resources and he passed law No. 80 which seized 99% of Iraqi land from the British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company. Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup with the backing of the British government and the American CIA. BTW, Saddam Hussein was a Ba'athist.

We don't even know the absolute truths about our own country, much less a nation as old as and as complicated as China.

President Kennedy made his famous 'Peace' speech at American University in 1963. It was very provocative simply because he hailed the Russian people for their courage and sacrifice during WWII. He called for the two nations to work together and make the world safe for diversity. That speech may have sealed Kennedy's fate.

In his Commencement Address at American University, he said:

"Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

What we know now is the Russian propagandists were right. Hawks like General Curtis LeMay, firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. ref

You know PC, there is a more logical conclusion if we are to buy into your dogma and propaganda...I am the conservative and you are the liberal...

 

[The T]

1) PC, if I want to brush up on Russell Kirk - social critic, literary critic, and fiction author, I can do so without your help.

Yes, there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The very first moral truth is human beings are fragile mortal creatures that can be damaged, crushed and extinguished. If that first truth is violated atrocities and social disasters do occur. But conservatives measure 'atrocities and social disaster' in mammon, never in human capital. Human beings are not even part of conservative lexicon except when conservatives demonize, dehumanize or dismiss 'others'. Conservative solutions require some group of 'others' to evaporate. Conservatives don't considering human toll, unless it affects one of their 3 priorities; me, myself or I.

Privatization has become the buzz word and domain of conservatism PC. It could even serve as a 21st century definition of conservatism. It has led to immoral conduct being made 'lawful' by teams of corporate lawyers who have been given the pen to author bills that lead to laws to privatize results for their personal gain and profit. It has led to immorality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. We now see lending practices deemed 'lawful' that even mafia bosses considered loan sharking and sent their persuaders to address. These beliefs are aimed at the sheer gratification of greed. We see it in the dismantling and subversion of environmental laws now being rewritten by utility industry lobbyists to privatize the commons (the publicly owned resources, the things that cannot be reduced to private property; the air, the water, the public land, the wildlife, the fisheries. The things that from the beginning of time have always been part of the public trust). When the commons are violated it is stealing the commonwealth from We, the People, it is liquidating public assets for corporate only profit, and it is stealing from all of us. Nobody has a right to use the commons in a way that will injure others or diminish their use and enjoyment by all.

2) Conservatives now believe even Ronald Reagan was too far 'left' on how to live in peace when he said: "no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology". Today conservatives subscribe to an ideology of preemption; wars are morally justified as a means of prevention. Our 34th President and Five Star General Dwight D. Eisenhower said of that ideology: "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing".

Ronald Reagan and the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives were the 'destroyers of custom and convention'. They deemed the ideas and experience of our ancestors as invalid, wrong-headed and they spit in the face of convention, custom and precedent. You ultimately respect the lives and toil of our ancestors not by paying lip service or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing their lessons learned and make them your own lessons by respecting the policies, regulations and programs they crafted, liberals and conservatives together through debate and compromise as one nation and one people. Laws and regulations that worked. Laws and regulations that increased the benefits and lessened the losses in our communities and in our society for us, their successors to reap the benefits of. But Ronald Reagan and the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives systematically dismantled all convention, custom and precedent because they believed no man that ever walked the earth was as wise as they were. They created a new society inferior to the old. So they ignored the wisdom of Burke: The species is wiser than the individual.

3) Impulsive and imprudent is a very apt description of Reagan, the 'Contract for (on) America' conservatives and today's Fox/Limbaugh minions. Today's conservatives offer simple remedies to complex problems. They don't even acknowledge or identify the root causes, they choose instead to attack the laws and regulations that corporations and the elite want eviscerated so they can lay claim to the pennies on the eyes of the dead. The only thing they haven't gotten their greedy hands on...YET.

The 'yoke' of totalitarian oppression is conservatism, and conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth. I know you believe the whole world revolves around you and your beliefs, that all orthodoxy and tradition on this planet is based on your parochial indoctrination. And every 'conservative' on the planet holds capitalism and free enterprise dear...but the rest of the world in not a drain that swirls in the opposite direction when you leave our borders PC...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

Hey, Friendless...you didn't comment on the beauty of the Progressive vision, Mao's China...
Why is that?

Didn't you like the fruits of your fondest endeavor??
No?

It is soooooo very amusing that you lefties are warned about the results of your thesis, your policies, and if that isn't good enough---cause there are folks like you who don't believe the 'wet paint' signs until they touch, when we can point to actual result in China, and in the gulags...

you still perseverate.

Utopia is always within your grasp....

Tell me, is that a sign of intelligence?

It would be funny if it didn't always result in so much human misery.

Well PC, one thing we know from 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries..."While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."

What's amusing is you totally ignored everything I said. Why am I not surprised? I'll make some comments on China, but it may not be what you want to hear. First and foremost, we don't live in China. We did not live through or experience what really happened to know the whole story. When a country experiences a civil war, there is usually good cause and the victor most often has the backing of the people. It's not like Mao overthrew Mr Rogers and his neighborhood. Chiang Kai-shek allegedly ruled with an iron fist and there was rampant corruption in the Kuomintang. Logic dictates that there was a great deal of human misery that already existed for the masses to revolt.

I know you don't believe this, but much of the 'history' we are taught is mere propaganda. And America's history is not that 'exceptional'. What we are taught about other nations always seems to cast a positive light on the regimes we support and a very negative one on those we oppose. But the truth is never that simple. We know for example that British and American imperialism has led to many atrocities for the indigenous peoples of other countries. Iraq is a great example. In the late '50's Abd al-Karim Qasim had the support of the people. In 1958, an Interim Constitution was adopted that proclaimed the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting them freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government freed political prisoners and granted amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the 1943 to 1945 Kurdish uprisings. The exiled Kurds returned home and were welcomed by the republican regime. Qasim even rewrote the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society. But he made the fatal mistake of nationalizing Iraq's resources and he passed law No. 80 which seized 99% of Iraqi land from the British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company. Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup with the backing of the British government and the American CIA. BTW, Saddam Hussein was a Ba'athist.

We don't even know the absolute truths about our own country, much less a nation as old as and as complicated as China.

President Kennedy made his famous 'Peace' speech at American University in 1963. It was very provocative simply because he hailed the Russian people for their courage and sacrifice during WWII. He called for the two nations to work together and make the world safe for diversity. That speech may have sealed Kennedy's fate.

In his Commencement Address at American University, he said:

"Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

What we know now is the Russian propagandists were right. Hawks like General Curtis LeMay, firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. ref

You know PC, there is a more logical conclusion if we are to buy into your dogma and propaganda...I am the conservative and you are the liberal...

Riiiight....

 

[zzzz]

The country is like a ship at sea.
The President is the Captain who tells the steersman which direction to go.
Congress makes up the engines and the rudder which provide the power (laws and money) and direction.
The sea represents the events that neither have control over and the storms can push the ship in another direction or sink it.

The presidency has limited power because the founding fathers were appalled at one person holding total power, namely the King of England. That is why Congress and the Judiciary have powers. But it is the President who provides direction and that is why the people who are elected President need to be communicators. To lead you need to be able to communicate, persuade and compromise. Reagan did all of this and that was why his programs were instituted.

But the world has a way of intruding on a Presidents agenda and usually how a President respnds to these events are what defines a presidency. Bush II had Katrina, Carter had Iran, Reagan had the USSR, Bush I had Iraq, FDR had WWII, Lincoln had the war between the states, and LBJ had the Vietnam conflict. Sure there were other big issues involving these Presidents like Bush II warmongering, FDR and the Depression, Carter and the ecomony.

Z, I think I could find pretty huge disagreement with you in the sense that you seem to be implying that the folks in the presidency are interchangeable, and events would continue to determine the course of history...

But let me limit this post to your statement "...The presidency has limited power because the founding fathers were appalled at one person holding total power,..."

This has not been true since the start of the Progressive Era...

1. "The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice. " Ronald Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me - WSJ.com

2. "Nevertheless, in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same." Ibid.

3. "Theodore Roosevelt also recoiled from the socialist movement. But in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, he said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community." Ibid.

4. "To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation (in this case a law limiting the number of hours a baker could work). It is also why Wilson consistently advocated the adoption of a more English-style government, where there is no written fundamental law to serve as a check on the authority of the national legislature." Ibid.

5. "Other leading progressives such as Frank J. Goodnow, the president of Johns Hopkins University, noted approvingly (in a 1916 lecture) that in Europe, unlike in America, the rights an individual possesses "are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. " Ibid.

6. "Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era." Ibid.

In summary, Z, I would only wish that the Constitution was still the instruction manual for our government.

The US style of government is not a set in stone operation. All three parts of the government are constantly pulling and pushing against the other two changing the parameters of authority. Some would say the Supreme Court has the final say, yet Congress can amend the constitution (with the approval of the states) and trump the Supreme Court. Yet these issues take time and for that time the issue is in dispute the Court rules. Yet there have been times in the past where the executive has ignored Supreme Court rulings (Lincoln in Ex parte Merryman) thereby making the Supreme Court powerless. This is what they mean by a living constitution, something that is always changing. But today I cannot see any President (especially with a divided Congress) even thinking of ignoring the Supreme Court because of the quick draw impeachers in Congress.

Yes some Presidents wielded more power than others, more than would be allowed today. Of the three parts today, I would put the Presidency at third most powerful but the personality in that office determines its power. If the President has the power to communicate and lead and to get the American people behind him, Congress is at his mercy. Yet if he is weak and non communicative he is like a rudderless ship and at the mercy of Congress.

The Supreme Courts power is also variable depending upon whether the court is an activist court or not. Once again it is determined by its members and the Chief Justice. In one stroke in the upcoming year they can remove the President from office if they decide he is not a natural born citizen by definition. This would be unprecedented and could call into question whether the health care bill is valid because it was signed into law by an illegal president. And that is just one bill.

Now the President is defined by how he responds to incidents. Put different people in there and they may have responded differently or they may have come to the same conclusions. We will never know but you only have so many options in a crisis. Reagan made good decisions (Except for Iran/Contra, yes he knew about it) while Carter did not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Smart is a silly standard, most of our presidents are 'smart' which suggests an intellignce level higher than normal and most had a well developed emotional intelligence. According to theories of brain function, a high emotional quotient means someone is self-confident, self-aware, and able to navigate through trying emotional times. EQ is often tied directly to the degree of success one may have in the workplace and in personal relationships.
I'd argue both Reagan and Clinton rated high in EQ, though Clinton was clearly the superior thinker. Of course Clinton was his own worst enemy, for his abilites gave him a sense of entitlement. I believe Obama too is highly intelligent and has superior emotional intelligence.
The better question is who was the best president. And to answer that one must first decide this:
"Does a man make history, or does history make the man?"

 

[PoliticalChic]

The country is like a ship at sea.
The President is the Captain who tells the steersman which direction to go.
Congress makes up the engines and the rudder which provide the power (laws and money) and direction.
The sea represents the events that neither have control over and the storms can push the ship in another direction or sink it.

The presidency has limited power because the founding fathers were appalled at one person holding total power, namely the King of England. That is why Congress and the Judiciary have powers. But it is the President who provides direction and that is why the people who are elected President need to be communicators. To lead you need to be able to communicate, persuade and compromise. Reagan did all of this and that was why his programs were instituted.

But the world has a way of intruding on a Presidents agenda and usually how a President respnds to these events are what defines a presidency. Bush II had Katrina, Carter had Iran, Reagan had the USSR, Bush I had Iraq, FDR had WWII, Lincoln had the war between the states, and LBJ had the Vietnam conflict. Sure there were other big issues involving these Presidents like Bush II warmongering, FDR and the Depression, Carter and the ecomony.

Z, I think I could find pretty huge disagreement with you in the sense that you seem to be implying that the folks in the presidency are interchangeable, and events would continue to determine the course of history...

But let me limit this post to your statement "...The presidency has limited power because the founding fathers were appalled at one person holding total power,..."

This has not been true since the start of the Progressive Era...

1. "The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice. " Ronald Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me - WSJ.com

2. "Nevertheless, in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same." Ibid.

3. "Theodore Roosevelt also recoiled from the socialist movement. But in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, he said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community." Ibid.

4. "To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation (in this case a law limiting the number of hours a baker could work). It is also why Wilson consistently advocated the adoption of a more English-style government, where there is no written fundamental law to serve as a check on the authority of the national legislature." Ibid.

5. "Other leading progressives such as Frank J. Goodnow, the president of Johns Hopkins University, noted approvingly (in a 1916 lecture) that in Europe, unlike in America, the rights an individual possesses "are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. " Ibid.

6. "Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era." Ibid.

In summary, Z, I would only wish that the Constitution was still the instruction manual for our government.

The US style of government is not a set in stone operation. All three parts of the government are constantly pulling and pushing against the other two changing the parameters of authority. Some would say the Supreme Court has the final say, yet Congress can amend the constitution (with the approval of the states) and trump the Supreme Court. Yet these issues take time and for that time the issue is in dispute the Court rules. Yet there have been times in the past where the executive has ignored Supreme Court rulings (Lincoln in Ex parte Merryman) thereby making the Supreme Court powerless. This is what they mean by a living constitution, something that is always changing. But today I cannot see any President (especially with a divided Congress) even thinking of ignoring the Supreme Court because of the quick draw impeachers in Congress.

Yes some Presidents wielded more power than others, more than would be allowed today. Of the three parts today, I would put the Presidency at third most powerful but the personality in that office determines its power. If the President has the power to communicate and lead and to get the American people behind him, Congress is at his mercy. Yet if he is weak and non communicative he is like a rudderless ship and at the mercy of Congress.

The Supreme Courts power is also variable depending upon whether the court is an activist court or not. Once again it is determined by its members and the Chief Justice. In one stroke in the upcoming year they can remove the President from office if they decide he is not a natural born citizen by definition. This would be unprecedented and could call into question whether the health care bill is valid because it was signed into law by an illegal president. And that is just one bill.

Now the President is defined by how he responds to incidents. Put different people in there and they may have responded differently or they may have come to the same conclusions. We will never know but you only have so many options in a crisis. Reagan made good decisions (Except for Iran/Contra, yes he knew about it) while Carter did not.

1. " This is what they mean by a living constitution..."
No, what they meant was to obviate the Constitution. This is the very basis of Progressive ideology, as Wilson stated: "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. … " Woodrow Wilson

2. "Of the three parts today, I would put the Presidency at third most powerful ..."
Clearly this is not the case, as the current Presidnet forced at least 60-odd members of the House to charge over the cliff, like little lemmings.

Good discusson.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Smart is a silly standard, most of our presidents are 'smart' which suggests an intellignce level higher than normal and most had a well developed emotional intelligence. According to theories of brain function, a high emotional quotient means someone is self-confident, self-aware, and able to navigate through trying emotional times. EQ is often tied directly to the degree of success one may have in the workplace and in personal relationships.
I'd argue both Reagan and Clinton rated high in EQ, though Clinton was clearly the superior thinker. Of course Clinton was his own worst enemy, for his abilites gave him a sense of entitlement. I believe Obama too is highly intelligent and has superior emotional intelligence.
The better question is who was the best president. And to answer that one must first decide this:
"Does a man make history, or does history make the man?"

It seems to me that this post is a restatement of the OP...and that is the point I was making.
Picking the best President should be based on more than his Stanford-Binet Score.

 

[zzzz]

2. "Of the three parts today, I would put the Presidency at third most powerful ..."
Clearly this is not the case, as the current Presidnet forced at least 60-odd members of the House to charge over the cliff, like little lemmings.

How very true about the blind leading the blind. But now he has to deal with a hostile Congress so his power is diminishing. Of course if a war would erupt with Korea or China the CIC is suddenly the most powerful branch.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Smart is a silly standard, most of our presidents are 'smart' which suggests an intellignce level higher than normal and most had a well developed emotional intelligence. According to theories of brain function, a high emotional quotient means someone is self-confident, self-aware, and able to navigate through trying emotional times. EQ is often tied directly to the degree of success one may have in the workplace and in personal relationships.
I'd argue both Reagan and Clinton rated high in EQ, though Clinton was clearly the superior thinker. Of course Clinton was his own worst enemy, for his abilites gave him a sense of entitlement. I believe Obama too is highly intelligent and has superior emotional intelligence.
The better question is who was the best president. And to answer that one must first decide this:
"Does a man make history, or does history make the man?"

It seems to me that this post is a restatement of the OP...and that is the point I was making.
Picking the best President should be based on more than his Stanford-Binet Score.

Don't get so defensive, my post was not meant to criticize, I simply elaborated on an idea which explains how some with an average IQ are many times more successful than those with high IQ's. I have to disagree on Reagan, I believe he was likely bright normal and had an amazing talent to put others at ease and trust him, sadly his economic theory has harmed our nation and its effects are still apparent.

 

[The T]

2. "Of the three parts today, I would put the Presidency at third most powerful ..."
Clearly this is not the case, as the current Presidnet forced at least 60-odd members of the House to charge over the cliff, like little lemmings.

How very true about the blind leading the blind. But now he has to deal with a hostile Congress so his power is diminishing. Of course if a war would erupt with Korea or China the CIC is suddenly the most powerful branch.

That is if the Senate concurs outside the War Powers Act...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Smart is a silly standard, most of our presidents are 'smart' which suggests an intellignce level higher than normal and most had a well developed emotional intelligence. According to theories of brain function, a high emotional quotient means someone is self-confident, self-aware, and able to navigate through trying emotional times. EQ is often tied directly to the degree of success one may have in the workplace and in personal relationships.
I'd argue both Reagan and Clinton rated high in EQ, though Clinton was clearly the superior thinker. Of course Clinton was his own worst enemy, for his abilites gave him a sense of entitlement. I believe Obama too is highly intelligent and has superior emotional intelligence.
The better question is who was the best president. And to answer that one must first decide this:
"Does a man make history, or does history make the man?"

It seems to me that this post is a restatement of the OP...and that is the point I was making.
Picking the best President should be based on more than his Stanford-Binet Score.

Don't get so defensive, my post was not meant to criticize, I simply elaborated on an idea which explains how some with an average IQ are many times more successful than those with high IQ's. I have to disagree on Reagan, I believe he was likely bright normal and had an amazing talent to put others at ease and trust him, sadly his economic theory has harmed our nation and its effects are still apparent.

"...sadly his economic theory has harmed our nation and its effects are still apparent."

Reagan instituted across-the-board reductions in tax rates, while Bush and Clinton both pushed massive tax increases. The most disturbing conclusion is that the 1990 and 1993 tax increases have cost Americans far more than the extra earnings collected by the IRS; they have cost the economy at least two years of growth. Comparing the two recoveries:
• Real GDP grew more in five years under Reagan (23 percent cumulative growth) than it is projected to grow in seven years under Bush/Clinton (21 percent cumulative growth).
• After four years, 4 million more jobs were created under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton.
• Federal revenues, adjusted for inflation, grew much faster under Reagan (33 percent cumulative growth) than projected under Bush/Clinton (20 percent cumulative growth).
• Real per capita disposable income grew more in two years under Reagan than in all four years combined thus far in the Bush/Clinton recovery (8.2 percent versus 7.8 percent).
• Median family income grew in all of the first three recovery years under Reagan, compared to three consecutive declines under Bush/Clinton.
In other words, during the economic expansion following Reagan's tax cuts, the economy grew faster, experienced stronger revenue growth, created more jobs, and saw more rapid income growth than the current expansion under the high tax policies of Presidents Bush and Clinton.
Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families