Brainy Candidates Need Not Apply: Is John Kerry too intelligent to be president of the U.S.?

The Los Angeles Times ^ | October 22, 2004 | Ariel Dorfman

[quidnunc]

It was what I felt instinctively the first and only time I met him, at a lunch at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in 1998. He was subtle, full of cultural and historical references, elaborating each fine argument at length, with perception and nuance. I commented to one of his aides afterward that I regrettably thought his brains could turn out to be the biggest impediment to a man like him ever occupying the White House.

All these years later, with most polls still showing George W. Bush ahead of his opponent after three debates in which Kerry proved himself more articulate and thoughtful and flexible and able to understand an increasingly dangerous world, I am afraid I may have been right. Yet it still seems inconceivable to me that someone as incompetent, incoherent and obtuse as Bush could possibly command almost half the votes of his fellow countrymen.

Is it that Americans actually like Bush's know-nothing effect? Or is it that Kerry strikes Americans as too highbrow? As pretentious? Do they see his complexity as excessive effeminate suppleness?

This anti-intellectualism has, unfortunately, a long history in the United States.

-snip-

[Fenris6]

"the problem is people reading MSM articles on the hard sciences, though, which are poorly written and make the scientists look like idiots."

The Kyoto Hoax on Global Warming has discredited the "intellectuals". Thankfully, there were still a few honest scientists around to debunk that fraud (ie. the hockey stick).

[Fiddlstix]

Subliminal Message for Democrats: STFU!
Subliminal Message for Democrats: STFU!

Click the Pic

[j. earl carter]

Who says that an IQ test truly measures intelligence. Even if it does, does intelligence equate to ability?

I used to score near genius level in school when they evaluated us for the "gifted program" and the like.

While I may have done well on the IQ test, I turned out to be a complete failure in real life. Being smart and sounding smart ain't necessarily the same thing.

[Monterrosa-24]

The 2000 election word was "gravitas" and the 2004 word is "nuance". Liberals are not intelligent enough to write articles that do not simply echo the current trendy words.

[Congressman Billybob]

The usual bullsh*t from the L.A. Times. Bush is smarter than Kerry. I am smarter than Kerry. Both of us had better grades at Yale at the time, and got into better graduate schools. And on information and belief, both Bush and I had higher standardized scores than Kerry -- SATs, LSATs, GREs, that sort of thing. (This is not to suggest that I am fit to be President, only that Kerry is not fit for the job.)

The problem with Kerry is not that he is "too intellectual." It is that he is perceived, accurately, as an arrogant twit. Or in a saying that is common in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Kerry is "too smart for his own good."

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Mein Fuhrer, I Can Valk!"

[Gucho]

Kerry can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. It's all monotone blah-blah-blah and no action = PHONY.

[rod1]

As an Ivy League Professor, I say let the evidence speak for itself. How smart is it to go to Ohio and in sterotyping gun owners, to try sham-speaking like an unsophisticated, completely uneducated 1920s-era hillbilly. The man is a complete dolt who clearly lack even enough knowledge to assess his audience (as in glorifying the Ohio State Buckeyes to his previously-sympathetic MI audience and in going to a foremost bastion of NFL team pride and loyalty, Green Bay WI, and misnamimng their beloved stadium for a Pittburg Steelers player).

I can't wait to hear this "brilliant" man give a technical treatise on the connection of stem cell research to neuronal regeneration--- using his new-found grammactically-incorrect hillbilly dialect.

[Rock N Jones]

Do they see his complexity as excessive effeminate suppleness?

Yep, that's how I see it!

[colorado tanker]

This is a good sign. I noticed about a week ago that leftie columnists were starting to write the people are too stupid to elect my guy pieces. They sense they are losing.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It is amazing that many reporters confuse substance with style. Kerry is all show and no go. Doesn't sound very intelligent to me. Howsoever, if the DNC and company continue to believe this, let them. It means that they aren't smart enough to understand what the problem is.

[Lunkhead_01]

Bull doody! We were told in the 1952 and 1956 elections that Adlai Stephenson was much more intelligent than Dwight Eisenhower who was only a military man. We later learned that Eisenhower was much more intelligent than Stephenson who was at best of average intelligence. We were told John F. Kennedy was much more intelligent than Richard Nixon in 1960. We have since learned that both were of about equal intelligence. In 1964 we were told Barry Goldwater was a cretin while LBJ was a genius. We have since learned that Goldwater was the man of vision while Johnson was a dipstick who belonged on the Dukes of Hazzard. In 1968 Hubert Humphrey was presented as much more intelligent than Richard Nixon. Again, history has proven that theory false. In 1972 we were told Nixon was stupid, while McGovern was the brilliant one. We still have McGovern tottering around sounding the same as he did in 1972 and people recognizing how out of touch with reality he must have been then because he is out of touch with reality now. In 1976 we were told Carter was a nuclear engineer (which Carter pronounced NEW-cue-lar by the way) and was therefore brilliant while Ford must be a buffoon because he was clumsy. Anyone who lived, no make that endured, the Carter years knows that if Carter was bright it was only in comparison to hundreds of dimbulbs in Washington at the time. In 1980 we were again treated to the fiction that Carter was brilliant while Reagan was an actor who never had an original thought in his life. History has shown the reverse to be closer to the truth. In 1984 we were told Walter Mondale was bright and honest because he understood the American people well enough to tell us he would raise our taxes and Reagan was still a buffoon. We now know Ronald Wilson Reagan was one of the great original thinkers of the last half of the Twentieth Century, that he was no one's fool. In 1988 we were told Michael Dukakis was a genius -- after all, he was from Boston! -- while George H.W. Bush was just some rich guy who never had an original thought. Where is Dukakis today? He's running Flim-Flam Track begging for more government subsidies. I think you get the general drift. I have met both George W. Bush and John Forbe sKerry. I can tell you that JFK is the empty suit. All he has is a polished delivery for old, tired, discredited ideas -- and calling them "ideas" (or is it "I-deers"?) is a stretch.

[pompelmous]

Kerry could not get into Harvard Law so how smart is he?
I have found that people who drone on like Kerry are usually not the sharpest tack on the wall. While he also has the ability to talk on any subject of interest to his listener(which is a handy skill when seducing rich women) his weird compulsion to please has left him with no permanent opinions other than "If Momma is not happy, then nobody is happy."

[ArGee]

All these years later, with most polls still showing George W. Bush ahead of his opponent after three debates in which Kerry proved himself more articulate and thoughtful and flexible and able to understand an increasingly dangerous world, I am afraid I may have been right. Yet it still seems inconceivable to me that someone as incompetent, incoherent and obtuse as Bush could possibly command almost half the votes of his fellow countrymen.

Keep repeating it to your self. Bush is stupid. Bush is stupid. Bush is stupid. Keep saying that until you wake up on November 3rd to 4 more years.

Why is it that liberals think that knowing good from evil demonstrates an inability to understand an incresingly complex world? Why do liberals equate waiting until the barbarians are holding a knife to your throat before you recognize a problem as "nuance?"

Kerry isn't nuanced. He's clueless.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

WHERE'S THE BARF ALERT?

I thought it was implicit in the title.

SHalom.

[JennysCool]

John Kerry is the biggest dullard the Dems have ever run.

And they know it.

[Argus]

Dorfman's preference for brainy, nuanced, sophisticated leaders like "Dr." Fidel Castro is well known.

[jpl]

When left-wingers start insulting the American people's intelligence before the election, it's usually a sure sign that they know they're probably going to lose.

[Condor51]

"Is John Kerry too intelligent"?
Well folks, in his own words he apparently does think he's too intelligent for 'us'.

If you read that long screed that was in the Sunday New York Times magazine (terrorists as nuisance), there was a little blurb by Kerry on why he hasn't explained his foreign policy plans to 'the public'. Kerry said,

"To explain his plan would be a waste of his time as his policies were soooooo complex that 'the people' would not be able to understand them."

Got that, 'we' are too stupid to grasp his great mental prowess, so talking to 'us' is a waste of HIS time! A waste of his time dammit. This explains his 'I have a plan' so trust me, because I'M smarter than all you peons!

That part of the article really, REALLY, got me ticked.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is John Kerry too intelligent to be president of the U.S.?

No.