I don't know how you are defining dumb, but emotional intelligence is more important than IQ. A lot of brilliant political leaders and writers are psychopaths like Hitler and Stalin, or boderline autistic like Chomsky. People who cannot accept the grit and chaos of ordinary life are extremely dangerous, and should never be voted into office or allowed to assume power through force.
To the man-in-the-street, who I'm sorry to say, Is a keen observer of life, The word 'Intellectual' suggests straight away A man who is untrue to his wife.
If Stephen Koch's book is but one-tenth true, we might add to Auden's lines that the word 'intellectual' should also suggest a curmudgeon, a traitor, a flaneur, and one with whom you'd never even examine used cars
Such seems to be the attitude of anyone associated with an institution of, risible as it is to write this, 'higher' learning. Intellectuals seem to think of themselves in this wise: whatever we've done to get us in this fix doesn't matter. You're too stupid to understand the 'dynamics' of the situation and therefore must be told how important this procedure is and why. Of course you'll never understand it; besides, we know better.
Such antics not only remind us of a certain political leader and his busybody wife, but they also underscore for us why conservative pundit Bill Buckley often said he'd rather be ruled by the first 500 names in the Cambridge phone book than the Harvard faculty. No, this was not just a Yalie talking. It was experience. Intellectuals are smarter than regular folk. They just aren't any wiser when it comes to politics, as Kock's book explains.
From the Willi Munzenberg link.
I disagree with the author - and you. Intelligence is always an advantage. The dumb are subject to all the faults you've listed. They just don't have the power to do much individually. But there are great numbers of them.
Nor do I think much of Bill Buckley's quip. He is himself an intellectual and has never seriously recommended any such policy.