When did the public stop wanting government leaders who were smart?

[Brucey]

And capable, and knowledgeable, and experienced, and witty, and clever, and creative? Most people seem to want their leaders to be like them... to have their ideas, their way of speaking and thinking, their biases and prejudices, an average IQ, etc. It seems in the past people wanted a leader who was better than them, not just like them. Am I wrong? If a politician was so brilliant that he/she could convince you that you are wrong about something, would you support him/her?

[Padraig18]

1. Yes

"...If a politician was so brilliant that he/she could convince you that you are wrong about something, would you support him/her?"

A few have, and yes, I have. :)

[pippin]

2. A representative democracy

When did the public stop wanting government leaders who were smart? When the public too became less smart, less informed, less able engage in to open, critical discourse.
Theoretically, in a representative democracy we choose people who are like ourselves, who reflect who we are and what we want. From this we can draw the inference that if we select the likes of Bush or Arnold, then some part of us must align themselves with them. :-(

[Abe Linkman]

3. Public has not changed.

H.L. Mencken said; "The public always prefers nonsense to sense."

That hasn't changed one bit. Maybe you've read about how so many people pilloried, insulted and made fun of A. Lincoln ("Honor's Voice") - one of the finest human beings ever to walk the face of Mother Earth. A man who loved all children and all pets. A President who left the world a better place than it was when he began his rise from very humble beginnings.

Sadly, the values of most people traveling the dark journey with us, have not changed for the better. Look at how Carter was reviled, and though he was too much of a status quo politician for my taste (he started the big military build-up which Reagan continued); whenever the GOP stole the 1980 election (by the treasonous act of cutting a deal with our enemy, Iran) - the public couldn't have been happier to have the adulterous amiable dunce Ronnie.

[greyl]

4. I think Reagan lowered the expectations

or maybe Ford...

[SingSong]

7. Ford was presented as physically inept

but he wasn't. In his younger days, he was an athlete. He also was intelligent enough to bring this country together after Watergate. He's the only republican I can think of that I have admired in my lifetime.

[Bandit]

13. I agree with you except for Pardoning Nixon and his role in JFK coverup

I still thought him to be best Republican President since Ike.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi SingSong!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[PurityOfEssence]

5. This country has never wanted that.

It's an unbroken continuum from the birth of the Republic. Socially, the United States demands commonness from its leaders and representatives, as well as its heroes and celebrities. You can't listen to any DJ or Anchorperson or Reporter for more than a few minutes without a moment of "love me because I'm unthreatening" horseshit expressed with a "well, of course, I don't understand that" or a slightly barbed "what are you saying?" to the expert. It's pervasive and consistent and has always been there. Clever politicians know this and use it.

All you need to know about politics in this country is that Reagan handily was elected twice and "Forrest Gump" won best picture.

[Brucey]

8. Great post, thanks.

[Fovea]

6. Ronald The Raygun

and his Raygoons. We loved our senile figurehead gipper.

[RichM]

9. It's misleading to frame the question like that -- because the process is

NOT really one of "the public choosing its leaders." The process is that a small group of wealthy businessmen decide which Democrat and which Republican will most reliably protect their interests. These 2 people become "the nominees." Then the businessmen decide which of these 2 will most reliably protect their interests, and they donate a gazillion dollars to him. The media is paid off to slander & defame the guy less trusted, & the more reliable guy becomes "the president." When there is some hitch in the actual voting, they take care of that (see Florida, 2000).

Thus, the main thing is the reliability of the candidate from the point of view of big business. It's not a question of "smart," and the public is largely external to the process.

[lostnfound]

12. Took the words out of my mouth!

but better than I would have said it.

[Brucey]

14. Agreed, mostly... good points. But I was wondering not so much

about how one gets elected. It is disturbing to me that well educated people excuse Chimpy's mistakes and flaws by saying, "Oh, I do that too." And living in Minnesota, I had to hear even my friends and relatives say they voted for Jesse because he was like them. I want someone running the government who is NOT at all like me. I want someone I look to for answers.

[Robin Hood]

10. about 20 years ago,

when they started reporting on the dumbing down of America.

[TacticalPeek]

11. Check out the July 2003 Harpers article:

The Romance of Empire
and the politics of self-love
by Thomas de Zengotita

Very interesting analysis, and deals much with your question.

A lot I haven't digested yet, but one of his thoughts that struck me is that the media create most Americans' simplistic world view, and the pols just play it as it lays.

A lot of good thought in the article, but I can't find it online, so maybe the library.

[Brucey]

15. Thanks, I love Harpers.

Both my daughters have subscriptions... presents from me!

[Resistance Is Futile]

16. Antiintellectualism

A good discussion of Rethug antiintellectualism here:

http://www.janehaddam.com/chd/widvrepublican/thestupidthing.html

[Brucey]

17. thanks for the link.

I read it, and it was nice. I especially like that fricking phrase: If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? Another insult to scholars and academics, and a clever way of saying that those who inherited or stole lots of money are smart. Also, a mangling of the definition of smart; as if it has something to do with acquiring wealth... the be all, and end all of life, of course.

[spooky3]

19. I can't believe no one's mentioned Clinton?

I know not everyone here thinks he was a good president, but I think he's extremely smart. He was fortunate, however, to have a gift for being "aw shucks" charming when he wanted to be, however, which is consistent with what some of you are saying. My point is that I think Murrikkans want their leaders to be likable white guys first (sorry, I don't think they will give even incredibly charming women or minorities a chance of being elected President for some time to come) and if they're smart too, well, that's nice.

[mlawson]

20. Adlai Stevenson was rejected twice, as an "egghead".

He came off as a nattering prof type, and the voters didn't want that. Also, it didn't help him to have to run against a war hero!!

[Monte Carlo]

21. Pardon me, but when did they start?

I mean, I've read more than one American history book, and I don't think this nation has ever been above electing a moron or two into an office of big authority. It's the good leaders we've had that get the lionshare of space in our history books; the bad ones - probably the majority - don't get as much attention.

[Tims]

22. When we stopped educating people ...

.. and attacking public schools became a national sport. When universities began being targeted as institutions run by radicals and to be despised. When any subject being taught did not appear to directly relate to getting a "good job" was seen as irrelevant and removed from curriculum after curriculum.