The intellectual habits of a good leader for the United States are hard to describe. What are the similarities between successful chief executives such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan?
It is important to remember that the United States is not a business. The skills needed in a good chief executive officer are not always those of a good President of the United States. The divided nature of American government means that while the president has many powers, he cannot always get his way. A successful president works well with Congress and can persuade the American people his course is the right one. Sometimes “deciders” act too quickly and history ends up judging their decisions harshly.
George W. Bush failed to keep a majority of Americans on board with his program and this hurt his presidency. He could decide, but failed to persuade.
Of course the presidency is also not a university professorship. Smart guys like Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter turned out to be ill-suited for the White House. There is often not time in a presidency to study and restudy a problem. There is nothing wrong with having a nuanced view on an issue, but that nuance often does not translate into the real world.
In a republic, being “right” is no protection from being on the wrong side of popular opinion. Refusing to take what one can get out of high-mindedness can utterly destroy a cause. Woodrow Wilson would not compromise of the peace treaty to end World War I, but his opinions (whatever their merits) were out of touch with the mood of the public. As a result, he lost more than he needed to lose and this total defeat hurt his presidency and the peace.
Sometimes nuance just sounds like weakness. As a product of the system designed to build university professors, President Obama risks dithering when he should be deciding. In a war being there “firstest with the mostest” is often more important than making exactly the right decision.
A good president is not obsessed with detail at the expense of the big picture. A president cannot master all the details needed to make rational decisions about the issues that cross his desk. He will need a well thought out political philosophy and experts he trusts in order to make good calls. As a result, he need not be a philosopher, Reagan certainly was not, but the president needs a carefully worked out governing philosophy that can guide his decision making. A good president also needs the ability to attract the loyalty of details people, the famed policy wonks, to help frame the issue.
A good president does not ignore detail and can change his mind in changing conditions. Lincoln and Reagan both had to jettison advisers and generals under changing circumstances. If Lincoln had not been political sensitive to his conduct, he would not have won reelection and the Union would have been lost. He was able to see when a strategy had failed and change.
Lincoln knew the “big picture” philosophically was to save the Union. He let nothing distract him from this mission, including his own pet methods of achieving this goal. Reagan would raise taxes if he had to do so, but it was always with the goal of defeating global statism in the form of aggressive communism or to make the political compromises needed to be in a position to fight for smaller government later.
He did what he had to do.
A good president can make decisions in a crisis. A James Buchanan tries to wait out his time and does nothing. A Harry Truman acts and saves Greece from a communist revolution.
A good president understands the complex, but can explain it to the rest of us. We no more want our president to be “like we are” intellectually than we want our heart surgeon to be like we are medically. We hope he has deep and sophisticated knowledge of the political system and of a philosophy of governance. As voters we are picking our representative in Washington and our hope is that he will represent our views better than we could.
We want someone better at the job than we would be, but who can explain to us what he is doing.
There are two kinds of bad leader: a bad leader who wonks out on everything and a bad leader who cannot wonk out on anything. The first is a tragic failure of the virtue of prudence and the second of either intellect or diligence.
Given this, a sound conservative has reasons to worry about Sarah Palin. The role of a vice-presidential candidate is a weird one and so it was hard to get a read on her actual style and philosophy. However, the campaign raised legitimate concerns amongst her friends and supporters about whether she had the intellectual habits needed in a successful chief executive.
It is true that she lacks the intellectual vices of a Jimmy Carter (or a Barack Obama), but she appears to lack many of the corresponding intellectual virtues. Those of us who see her as promising, who agree with her views, and want to support her have had increasing cause for concern.
We don’t want a philosopher-queen, but we do want an intellectually curious, disciplined, and stable person. Her well-wishers, and I am certainly a well wisher, cannot delude themselves or allow extremism amongst her detractors to hide the truth. There is an accumulating case from her abilities in interviews to her debate performance that Palin is not as intellectually nimble as she needs to be.
During the campaign, I believed her performance as chief executive in Wasilla and Alaska put the burden of proof on her critics. I also believed that the role of surrogate for McCain hid much of her personality (as it does for all vice-presidential candidates) and forced her into the weird intellectual position of defending someone else’s views.
One job of any conservative candidate is to neutralize hostile media, as Reagan did, and she failed at this job. This could be put down to inexperience or to the strain of supporting John McCain’s ideas and not her own, but it is still a cause for reasonable concern.
Of course, the reason to think hard about Palin are her obvious political and executive gifts. She is so charismatic and so gifted in many ways that many of us long to see in her the necessary intellectual skills. We are not looking for a professor, pundit, or sage, but we do want to know that our candidate has mastered the necessary detail (Shiite or Sunni?) to govern well.
Joe Biden is a perfect example of person who almost certainly does not pass the test of intellectual temperament for the presidency. He is frequently clownish in his answers and though endurance in the Senate has given him a good working knowledge of many issue (how could it not?) nobody is going to confuse Biden with a thinker.
Biden was a horrible vice-presidential choice who added nothing to the ticket. If you are conservative, then I am sure you agree or are tempted to do so!
This should illustrate the Palin problem perfectly.
Was any conservative confident before the Palin-Biden debate? Reasonable conservatives were worried about her performance and this was against Joe Biden. I thought she did well in the debate as a surrogate for McCain . . . but it was by design not the kind of strategy that would allay concerns about intellectual temperament.
She repeated talking points and worked hard to come across as folksy. This was a fine strategy, I get that, but it left any reasonable person still wondering. Is that all there is? Is there more?
We hoped so, but since the election the biggest piece of evidence we have been given is the Palin book. She worked hard on it (one assumes) and was paid a great deal to write it. She had help, a lot of help, writing it.
But she did not even carefully fact check it . . .
Imagine being in her position. You know your foes will make hay out of the slightest error. You know people think you are dumb (and Palin is not dumb) and this book is your chance to change your minds. You care enough to include Plato and Aristotle quotations to try to persuade minds, but then you don’t go beyond Google in researching your own book.
The reason I harp on these error is that they are unarguably errors and have nothing to do with anybody’s political agenda. They are also the kind of error that Governor Palin must know play into the negative stereotypes about her.
This carelessness adds to any reasonable persons fears. At some point defending Palin against the evidence is irrational and comes close to “fandom.” Now I am a Sarah fan, what pro-life person is not? I am a fan of Billy Graham, but I don’t think even the young Billy should ever have been president.
Being president requires more than just being right and being a swell person. Let me sum up what I think we should be looking for intellectually in any candidate. I will limit myself to five qualities, because these are the five that seem unarguably important in the leader of the free world.
I am sure there are more.
First, a good leader can learn from experience and text.
Palin reads books, but I have yet to see evidence that books do more than reinforce her views. At the presidential level, decisions are too complex to rely only on personal experience.
Second, a good leader will have intellectual curiosity.
Where is the evidence of this vital trait in Sarah Palin? Her hobbies are all non-intellectual so far as I can tell. What ideas motivate her to read and re-read? What books has she read more than once?
I still don’t know and I like Palin!
Third, a good leader will change her mind and adapt to circumstances.
I see strong evidence of this trait, but absent other intellectual characteristics one wonders if this is merely self-serving.
We are all tempted to do what pleases us or to get attention. Intellectual change must be against the grain and difficult. What issue has been like that for Palin?
Fourth, a good leader will have a strong base of relevant general knowledge.
I thought this attack on Palin unfair during the campaign given the limits imposed on a vice-presidential candidate. But when in a free-wheeling and unstructured environment containing hostile or unfriendly questions, I have seen too little evidence that Palin has the discipline or the background knowledge needed.
By now any good candidate for president should have, for example, a working knowledge of Islam. He or she should have read the Koran (in translation). You might not do this, but don’t you hope your presidential candidate has? It would keep him or her from making important mistakes!
Finally, a good leader attracts smarter people to her cause.
The biggest worry I have with Palin is that I don’t see a brain trust coming around her. Reagan had some intellectual weaknesses, but he was the master of surrounding himself with brilliant people and getting good service from them. Some, like Judge Clark, served him for a lifetime.
Shouldn’t we worry about a candidate who cannot attract the loyalty of those better at certain things than she is? Are they all RINO’s?
Conservatives of all people should be wary of the cult of personality or of figures who do not work with or hire those who can hold them intellectually accountable. Whatever you want to say about Ronald Reagan, he easily passed this test.
Since I earnestly desire to see good in Sarah Palin, can any of her fans of this blog tell me one intellectual who has been attracted to and worked for this middle-aged woman over the last four to five years? Surely, there should be one.
Perhaps Palin possess these qualities, but there is too little evidence of it at present to support her candidacy for the highest political office in the United States at this time. Her book was a failure as an attempt to answer these legitimate concerns. Of course, she has many other chances to show these skills, but I don’t think we can go on ignoring these worries.
Much as a voters might like Palin on the issues and her obvious political skills, a reasonable voter will have to pass on her candidacy until he gets further evidence that she does posses the intellectual skills need to be president.
Addition:
I was asked by another Palin fan: “what could the Governor do to satisfy you?” (Not a direct quotation!) I think the implication was that I am such a pointy-headed intellectual, that there would be no meeting my demands if Governor Palin did not take two year off and graduate from Torrey Honors.
Well, the Governor certainly need not go that far!
Just for my own sake, here is a five step plan for Governor Palin:
1. write a weekly column (one thousand words) without a ghost on her new media site wrestling with a political idea over the course of a month. That would give us 4,000 words of straight Palin without a filter. Done well this would be enough verbiage to show us she her philosophy/worldview on a particular topic.
2. Get a brain trust of academics who work with Governor Palin and can “tell her where to get off.” Find people like J.P. Moreland to suggest books and challenge bad ideas. Listen to those people. Bounce columns off a Frank Beckwith or a Robbie George. Listen, listen, listen. Don’t get new people if you can avoid it. Make relationships that will stand tough times. Find people who respect the Governor, but that she will respect.
3. Start work on a sequel that will be all vision and policy proposals. A ghost is fine by modern standards by only for “smoothing” and “editing.” Give a series of speeches in key states as each chapter develops. Listen to criticism and modify the chapter.
4. Find two or three places to go beyond (not abandon) 1980′s Republican orthodoxy. There is no Soviet Union and times have changed.
5. Go on a reading bender and don’t tell us about it. It will come out in speeches. Read a book (not the web or blogs) for as long as the Governor spends running. Make sure this time is quiet and not interrupted.
Governor Palin certainly has no reason to know I exist! This is just what I would do advise a former student to do in her position. Let me repeat: Palin is a rare talent and can command the best of conservative scholars (certainly not me!) to aid her. This would not detract from her as leader, but like David show that she can command the support of intellectually mighty men and women.
I hope the Governor can find her “men of Issachar.”
These are my concluding thoughts for this Holiday on Governor Palin!
December 1st, 2009 | 6:31 pm | #1
Mr. Reynolds, I am an Alaskan, too. I see that a fair number of us have found this site.
You’re missing the main point when it comes to Sarah (and please, it is a sore point for Alaskans when others refer to her as “Governor” She gave up the task of governing citing an ever changing list of reasons for having done so; none of which pass any muster. Please don’t call her Governor).
The main point isn’t about how smart Sarah is or isn’t or should or can be.
The point is that Sarah Palin is not an honest woman.
Sarah is dishonest in the extreme. A cursory review of her time as governor in Alaska, her time on the trail as the Republican party VP nominee, and now her book are each ample opportunities for honest, conscientious people (particularly those of faith) to judge her dishonest on multiple fronts – from policy matters to personal matters.
There is apparently nothing Sarah will not blatantly lie about.
This makes those who keep referring to her as a textbook NPDer seem potentially correct.
And yet people of intellectual background and a background rooted in the basic tenants of our faith (truthfulness being high on the list) continue their fantasy fascination with her.
Let me pose a question – if Sarah was a man – let’s call him Sam, and if Sam’s performance had been anywhere near Sarah’s in interviews and in her (his) writing, would you still be so conflicted in your views – toward our supposed Sam?
Of course you wouldn’t be.
Please come in off the ledge, Mr. Reynolds. We need your ilk working hard to discover and promote actual conservatives, grounded believers and those who care enough about the Republic to do the hard work of preparing themselves for higher office.
I am curious, however. You site Sarah’s “obvious political and executive gifts” as reasons to “think hard about her.” Then you list her charisma – and her other giftedness “in many ways.”
Please enumerate what her other giftedness, besides her charisma, might include. Also, having known Sarah personally for years, and having known many of those she appointed to work with her in her position as governor, I can attest to the fact that she is deemed unpredictable, unreliable, and – again – extremely dishonest. Alaskans know Sarah was a poor executive. That is why there were parties galore across the State in late July when she handed the reigns of governance she had implored us to “trust her with” over to Sean Parnell – a man who happens to be a very committed Christian, an actual conservative and a consensus builder. But bummer, not very charismatic.
December 1st, 2009 | 7:02 pm | #2
Dawn:
I am doing the best I can to determine record and experience based on the information I have. You obviously have more information and different experiences.
If Palin is a liar, then (of course) nobody should support her. However, the last poll I saw of Alaska showed that she still had majority support in the state when she resigned. Second, she helped John McCain carry Alaska. He was doing o.k. there, but she really added to his margin from what I can see. So it is hard for me to see that all of Alaska knew about Sarah what you claim.
You can be sure, however, that I will follow arguments where they lead . . . but that means I will follow them if they lead in Palin’s direction too.
As for calling her “Governor,” I do that with Romney and Huckabee as an honorific.
Finally, I would list her political “virtues:”
1. ability to give a “set” speech
2. the gas pipeline deal (in progress I know)
3. her cleaning up corruption in Alaska in a bi-partisan manner
4. her ability to stir a crowd and the GOP base.
There is nobody in the GOP who can do 1 and 4 as well.
I realize that 2 and 3 are disputed by her critics as her accomplishments.
I am not “on the fence” about Palin. She will not get my vote in the primaries given what I know now. I am, however, open to changing my mind.
Always looking for better information,
John Mark
December 1st, 2009 | 7:16 pm | #3
Dawn,
I should add that I too am looking for conservative leaders who are thoughtful and chock full of new ideas.
We shall see.
John Mark
December 3rd, 2009 | 12:38 am | #4
Not to be contentious, but is “not being dumb” enough? You suggest that Joe Biden is not intelligent, but this is not correct. Joe Biden is gaffe-prone and sometimes speaks what’s impulsively or without regard to its political impact, but sometimes what the media refers to as “gaffes” are actually correct statements. Biden has deep knowledge about other countries’ political and social structure, and if–as you suggest–intelligent people usually have a circle of intelligent people around them, that might explain why he is married to a college professor with a PhD, was picked to be vice president by someone with a law degree from Harvard, and was well regarded in the US Senate.
Sarah Palin’s supporters go on about her sexist media treatment; if Sarah Palin were a man, we would no longer be talking about her. She is worse than Dan Quayle (who, like Biden, was gaffe-prone but not as dumb as he was depicted), who was unable to run for senate or president after his term as vice president because no one would ever have taken him seriously.
Consider some of the things that Sarah Palin said during her Couric interview. When asked if she thought global warming was man-made, Palin replied:
Palin: You know there are – there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.
That does not even make sense grammatically. You say she reads books; I guess you say that because she said she reads books (and then listed the typical books on every college level reading list). Yet, people who read a lot generally have a larger vocabularly and know how words go together.
Consider this response to this question from Couric:
COURIC: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?
PALIN: That’s something that John McCain and I have both been discussing whether that is part of the solution or not … you know, it’s going to be a multifaceted that has to be found here.
________________
Doesn’t she realize that multifaceted is an adjective and not a noun?
You praise her for her accomplishments as governor, but your knowledge of those accomplishments comes from what Palin said during the campaign and not from her actual record.
These comments were from Alaska’s republican and democratic legislators after Palin “trimmed” the budget and before she became the VP candidate.
Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, said he was dismayed at Palin’s method of operation. “For a governor who believes in an open and transparent process, we didn’t have one,” he said.
Elton questioned Palin’s criteria in making cuts, eliminating projects in Juneau while approving similar projects in her hometown of Wasilla. “I’m upset,” he said. “I don’t understand it.” Raising Elton’s ire: Cutting $100,000 for improvement to Juneau’s Paul Emerson Park, while funding a $630,00 kitchen for a Wasilla sports complex. Cutting $100,000 for a new ball field in the Mendenhall Valley, while spending $100,000 for bleachers in Palmer.
Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, said he was disappointed with many of the cuts…especially those that seemed to fit Palin’s announced goals and met crucial needs. “The Legislature’s capital budget was reasonable, thoughtful and well within the state’s financial means to support.”
She also increased operating expenses for the government by 6%.
She had a habit of hiring her school friends for positions despite their lack of qualifications; she hired one high school classmate to head the agriculture department because the woman said she liked cows.
She spent thousands redecorating her office as Mayor of Wasilla and left the city in massive debt.
She charged the people of Alaska per diem fees for sleeping and eating in her own home. She charged the state for air travel and lavish accommodations to bring her family to events to which they were not invited and stayed with Bristol in one of New York City’s most expensive hotels for 3 nights after an event and billed it to taxpayers.
When she became VP candidate, she amended the per diem filings to document that they were state business.
And how about this recent comment:
“I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.”
I’ve talked to every Jewish person I know, and none of them are planning a move to Israel any time soon.
How can you not see how petty and spiteful a person Sarah Palin is? She calls a woman in her book “Falafel Lady” because the woman is of Lebanese descent. She tells Glenn Beck to keep on making “the idiots’ heads spin” (I assume by idiots, she means liberals). She says she was afraid of what the “Neanderthals” would think about her pregnancy.
Does this sound presidential or even mature to you?
What, exactly, about Sarah Palin strikes you as intelligent? You mentioned the gas pipeline. I assume you are talking about this one?
“Gov. Sarah Palin’s signature accomplishment — a contract to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48 — emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration, an Associated Press investigation shows…
Despite Palin’s boast of a smart and fair bidding process, the AP found that her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited the winner, TransCanada
Corp…
_Instead of creating a process that would attract many potential builders, Palin slanted the terms away from an important group — the global energy giants that own the rights to the gas.
_Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada.
_The leader of Palin’s pipeline team had been a partner at a lobbying firm where she worked on behalf of a TransCanada subsidiary. Also, that woman’s former business partner at the lobbying firm was TransCanada’s lead private lobbyist on the pipeline deal, interacting with legislators in the weeks before the vote to grant TransCanada the contract. Plus, a former TransCanada executive served as an outside consultant to Palin’s pipeline team.”
I don’t agree with some of your moral positions, but, overall, you seem like an interesting and thoughtful individual–much too smart to fall for someone like Sarah Palin.
Ask yourself, if she were a man, would you really feel the same way about her? I have my doubts. After all, Huckabee had more executive experience, held similar conservative positions, is certainly charismatic, and is a good speaker, yet here we are discussing Sarah Palin, the quote Googler.
Before I’m branded an elitist snob, let me say that neither my parents nor my grandparents went to college, I lived in and out of a foster home, and I attended a small undistinguished university. Yet, despite being younger than Sarah Palin and poorer, I have traveled more (at least prior to her China trip) and have read more (including Plato and Aristotle).
In fact, instead of wasting my time reading “Going Rogue,” I’m currently reading Douglas Brinkley’s biography of Theodore Roosevelt. I wonder what Sarah Palin is reading right now? World Net Daily, perhaps?
_Under a different set of rules four years earlier, TransCanada had offered to build the pipeline without a state subsidy; under Palin, the company could receive a maximum $500 million
December 3rd, 2009 | 12:41 am | #5
By the way, I am aware that I messed up this sentence:
Biden is gaffe-prone and sometimes speaks what’s impulsively or without regard to its political impact
I went back to reword it and forgot to omit the word “what’s” and provide an antecedent for the pronoun “its.”
It should read:
Biden is gaffe-prone and sometimes speaks impulsively or without regard to the political impact of his statements.
December 3rd, 2009 | 3:26 am | #6
Thank you, CM for your investigative work and thoughtful analysis.
I have wanted to continue giving Palin the benefit of the doubt; but her verbal gaffes unnerve me. Also, there is a shrill, petty, almost high school mean streak to how she portrays so many people in her book who she seems to think have offended her.
Strange that for being in the political arena she doesn’t have the “water off a duck’s back” approach yet, but more the Mean Girls Strike Back. At least that’s how her memoir sounded on too many pages to me, even though I kept hoping for meaty policy discussions or thoughtful remarks that would help me understand her views and her values.
I also continue to be tripped up with what I’ve seen some call the Wild Ride from Texas back to Alaska to give birth to her youngest child.
Am I missing something? Did she really leak amniotic fluid a month prior to her due date as a 43 year old mother knowing she was carrying a Down’s baby – and after already experiencing miscarriages earlier in life – wait to reach a hospital until 20 hours after starting to leak fluid? This can’t be right – it all seems so bizarre. Why isn’t there clear reporting on the facts surrounding this incident? It doesn’t seem like it would have to be that hard to piece together what happened.
Also, what are her ties to individuals like Rick Joyner (who I read somewhere she had spoken with – for advice? What?)
A certain strand of pentecostals seem to be over-the-moon enthralled with Palin; yet how do they feel about her treatment of those who disagree with her (again, from the book, she is very condescending and rude to opposing views/people) – and how do these pentecostals handle the wide array of individuals – from both elected democrats and republicans in Alaska, to some of McCain’s top brass and others who have rather clearly stated that Palin simply either makes things up, or is just deceptive and plays loose with truth and reality.
JM Reynolds, do you know anything about her ties to some of these more pentecostal leaders/movements? Or, does anyone else know?
December 7th, 2009 | 4:22 am | #7
Unfortunately, I don’t think #2 on your list can really be achieved. I get the feeling that Palin considers “going with her gut” to be one of her best and strongest traits; in fact, the more I hear from her, the more it sounds like she considers her personal impulses to be the actualization of God’s will in her life. I’m not a religious person, so I can’t gloss over these implications with any sort of confidence that she’s a sister in faith and therefore has my values underlying some of her weirder statements. There doesn’t seem to be much space between what Sarah wants to do, and what God wants Sarah to do.
So really, a brain trust who could limit or guide Palin is just impossible considering who Palin is. I’m not trying to sound snarky here at all, just recognizing that some people view their faith as manifested in very, very tangible ways. A team of advisors who dared to step between Palin and her perceived divine path probably would not fare well.
And in the past I think that’s exactly what’s happened — Palin wanted to do something, advisors told her it was a horrible political idea, Palin asserted she knew best and had prayed on it and that’s that. That’s how a middle-aged woman rises to her current position with no long-term allies, and a trail of disgruntled former supporters in her wake.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact