Maybe it is time to say only the brightest should lead. We elect our politicians on how much support they get from business and parties but do they really have an intellect that would make them a good leader or do they just have clout? The mafia has clout, maybe they should lead?
2006-11-30 11:21:14 · 12 answers · asked by Mr. PDQ 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Our leaders should be able to think far ahead of the pact. What would happen if so and so happened, then this, then that, so that we don't repeat problems from the passed, ie Viet Nam. Is Iraq worse than Viet Nam?
2006-11-30 11:24:16 · update #1
This really isnt meant as a anti anything remark, But Clinton did have the highest IQ I believe and Bush Jr did have the Lowest.
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)
2006-11-30 11:30:59 · answer #1 · answered by Jon J 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The closest thing to a meritocratic government is China's. It doesn't work nearly as well as you'd think it would.
No matter how smart someone is, they can't make good decisions without access to the right information. As a result, the best governments have lots of extremely intelligent advisers and analysts, but the actual leaders are people who are good at getting people to tell them the truth instead of what they want to hear. There's a minimum intelligence required to understand complex political processes, but it's lower than the de facto minimum intelligence it takes to get yourself elected president, so it's not really an issue.
Some highly intelligent people (like Thomas Jefferson) are good at leading, some (like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton) are good at some aspects but bad at others, and some (like Robert Mugabe) are notoriously awful.
George W. Bush's IQ is about 125, the same as John F. Kennedy's. Kennedy was more successful because he encouraged people to tell him when he was wrong.
2006-11-30 19:31:06 · answer #2 · answered by Jeff S. 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid that would exclude democracy. The smart ones are rarely the popular ones. In Canada we've had a few smart leaders, but they ahve been considered the exceptions.
And if they are too smart, but no good, they'll be clever enough to know how to hold on to power. No, I think I'd rather leave things as they are in that sense.
On the other hand, I think stricter laws should be made in regards to financing of political parties and campaigns.
2006-11-30 19:29:00 · answer #3 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whenever I see something like this, I remember something from many years ago. In the early days of the running boom, Runners World published an annual shoe survey in which shoes were ranked best, 2nd best etc. After a few years they changed the format, saying that sneakers were much too complex to be reduced to a single number.
This is 1 of the most hairbrained ideas around.
2006-11-30 20:28:55 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Regrettably, no, for two reasons. Firstly, IQ tests are not consistent in their results, and do not measure all kinds of intelligence. Secondly, IQ measurements are not a reliable guide to a leader's performance in office. Ronald Reagan was far superior in his leadership to Jimmy Carter, even though Carter was more intelligent (and probably the most intelligent president of the century).
2006-11-30 19:27:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think an IQ test would have excluded a number of US elected officials over the past thirty years, including the current president, and vice president quayle.
I certainly don't disagree with the concept - but I would also add a psychiatric exam... just thinking of rumsfield and cheney...
Just my .01
-dh
2006-11-30 19:24:31 · answer #6 · answered by delicateharmony 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
oh yeah for sure we should have had that a long time ago we dont need any more morons in office i think we should have more than that i mean we're putting these people up to run the country thats not exactly somthing to mess around with we need a real compitent leader if we keep letting idiots run this country the we're screwed
2006-11-30 20:31:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because chances are if you did that, you'd wind up with presidents who are intelligent but have no sense at all, intelligent and has sense, not intelligent yet has sense, and then there's unintelligent with no sense at all. That pretty much smacks of meritocracy, and the last time that I checked, we LIVED IN A DEMOCRACY! We vote, much to your dismay.
2006-11-30 19:42:46 · answer #8 · answered by iwannarevolt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IQ and common sense have nothing in common.
Look for a President that has built a successful business and is of good moral character.
2006-11-30 19:33:29 · answer #9 · answered by rjf 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Alternatively, we should test the knowledge of voters and weight their votes accordingly.
Misinformed voters are irresponsible and deserve to have their votes diminished.
2006-11-30 23:28:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋