Despite the fact that the American landscape is replete with mammoth intellects, the reason we pick less than apt leaders is because intellectual prowess of the electorate is seldom utilized. Most turn off their minds once they leave the halls of academia or their place of employment. The President isn’t a person that is elected on the basis of his intellectual acuity, he is a person who is elected because he relates to the electorate’s visceral needs. That is why, almost without fail, the more personable and inspirational person wins the job over the person who is more qualified or who has the greatest mental acumen. We may employ our minds in other human endeavors, but unfortunately we think with the gut when we elect our leaders.
2006-09-20 12:51:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lawrence Louis 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
'Cause "filled" is a relative term.
Yes, there are lots of brilliant people in America, but they're not a majority by any means. Which leaves most of the voters as not-brilliant :)
It's also a fact that really brilliant people hardly ever go into politics -- the money's not so good, your life is always under a microscope, and there's little intellectual challenge in a political career. So the brilliant people aren't ever candidates -- instead, they're inventing cool new things, running companies, teaching at universities and doing research...things that actually contribute something to the world rather than the head games of politics.
Oh, and "bones" -- boy, are you naiive. Rich people whose parents attended an ivy league school get automatic acceptance. Teachers pass them along for political reasons, for donations to their research projects, or for personal favors. It happens all the time, don't insult us by pretending it doesn't!
2006-09-20 19:48:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
The problem is that America is NOT filled with brilliant men and women. Yes, there are brilliant men and women in America. Unfortunately, they are definitely not the majority. If you don't believe me, just read through a few of the various questions and answers on this website. The lack of intelligence is all too obvious.
2006-09-20 19:50:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Writer of Truth 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't Know Ask the People Who Voted For Bill Clinton Twice There The Ones Who Put in The Worse President In Twice
2006-09-20 19:52:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because we under educated retards don't realize that the "stupid" leader has attended 2 yes TWO Ivy League schools. Namely Yale and Harvard. Stupid people, even rich ones, don't graduate by luck.
2006-09-20 19:48:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It seems to me that America is not filled with such brilliant men and women after all. The politicians in office do not elect themselves.
They tell a lie and all the 'brilliant men and women' fall for it. How brilliant is that?
2006-09-20 19:53:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by helpme1 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
The brilliant men and women know to stay the F*** away from politics :P
2006-09-20 19:55:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by CherBear 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's the blind leading the blind. Smart people can't survive in public office because we feel that we have the right to know everything about our public officials. When we find out something that we don't like, we want them out of office even if they were doing the best job ever.
2006-09-21 20:29:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Merrick 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Our leaders aren't stupid, they just tend to serve special interests. And our voters aren't brilliant, but they do tend to vote according to their own special interests. As an example, one special interest is religion. In America we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. But perhaps as many as thirty-five percent of our voters are unwilling to accept that when they step into the voting booth because they are that religiously motivated. And so it goes.
2006-09-20 20:07:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Schroder 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because the brilliant ones are too smart to run for public office.
2006-09-20 19:46:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by mcmustang1992 4
·
3⤊
0⤋