From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Intelligence issue
Keywords: brain power
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:10:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.123348.6260@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>We seem to hear a lot about "character issues" in elections.  Why is it that
>so few people seem to talk about intelligence issues?  
>I know that brain-power (specifically lack thereof) is mentioned in reference
>to Quayle at times, but let's think about this.
>After 11 years, I would guess that Arkansas would have found out if Clinton is
>an anti-Christ.  And I'm even going to assume that Bush is a good man.

In Arkansas it is a 'customary' rather than 'internal' goal of people
to be Christians.  He may go to church, and thus the people will
elect him, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is Christian.

>They both strive to do what they feel is right.  Can we be civil on that point?
>My younger brother is a man of excellent character, kind, loyal, loving...yet
>in no way do I want him to be President!
>
>One candidate went to Yale on family connections (and somehow forgot in 1988
>that Yale is in the Ivy League).  He shows some symptoms of apahasia, and
>cannot name a single book (not even the Bible for this Christian president)
>that has ever influenced him.
>One candidate went to Georgetown on an academic scholarship.  He went to Oxford
>as a Rhoades scholar.  He graduated from Yale Law.
>One VP was an indifferent student at Ball State who would rather golf than do
>anything else.
>The other VP went to Harvard (yes, possibly family connections helped), and
>studied both law and divinities.
>If Americans didn't err and elect evil men, then we look at who has the
>greater capacity to make intelligent decisions?
>Clearly, it is not the GOP ticket.

You seem to be assuming that academics correlates to political competency.
At Yale, Harvard, and Chicago you will find many very competent and
qualified academics who greatly disagree, and come from completely
different political standings.  Obviously someone is wrong.  Who
is wrong is debatable, but I can assure you that merely because
the students or academics come from Yale, Harvard, etc. does not
mean that they are either correct or that they will correctly
lead hundreds of millions of people.
	I would say that political policy oriented academics are the
last people who should run a government.  By their studies they
assume that there is some mechanism which can benefit or improve
the world.  Many economists, however, would argue that no government
intervention is good government intervention.  Thus, by electing
these people you are putting millions of lives at gunpoint into
an experiment controlled by one man.  Unless that man is omnipotent,
I cannot see how you justify the risk.(Gunpoint=police, courts,jail;law)

			J. Wagner
>
>P.S.  Lest you think I am some Ivy League snob, I went to a state school as an
>undergrad and teach at one now.  I do have a Masters from an I.L school, but
>this is not simply a "credentialist" argument.

	I would say you are more carried away with the whole notion
and overestimate it more than anything.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3464 alt.politics.bush:3441