Los Angeles Times
October 7, 2004
Although neither group likes to say so, some Americans who support President
Bush and many who don't support him have concluded over four years that he may
not be very bright. This suspicion was not allayed by Bush's answers in the
first presidential debate a week ago.
Even Bush's most engaged
critics shy away from publicly challenging his intelligence for many reasons,
most of them good. To raise the issue seems snooty and elitist. This is an
image no American wants because seeming snooty is even worse than seeming
stupid. Just ask Bush's opponent, Sen. John Kerry. Furthermore, the concept
of brainpower or IQ as a single, measurable trait is generally, though not
universally, rejected by scientists. And the obsession with IQ has been
responsible for all sorts of political mischief.
Then there is Ronald
Reagan. We know now that he had incipient Alzheimer's for at least part of his
presidency. Many of his supporters at the time and even more of his
retrospective admirers acknowledge t hat he was a few jelly beans short of a
jar. But he was a spectacularly successful politician anyway, and many believe
he was more than that: one of America's greatest leaders.
The smartest
candidate is not necessarily the best candidate. The candidate's belief system
and character matter more. Similarly, the smartest surgeon is not necessarily
the best surgeon. But if all you knew about two surgeons was that one was
smarter than the other, there's not much question which one you'd pick for your
operation.
Actually, we would not frame the question as one of
abstract brainpower, a dubious concept. You don't go through America's top
schools, serve as governor of a major state and occupy the presidency with even
mixed results if you're not reasonably smart, no matter how thoroughly your way
is eased by others.
The issue might better be described as one of
mental laziness.
Does this man think through his beliefs before they
harden into unwavering principles? Is he open to counter vailing evidence?
Does he test his beliefs against new evidence and outside argument? Does his
understanding of a subject go any deeper than the minimum amount needed for
public display? Is he intellectually curious? Does he try to reconcile his
beliefs on one subject with his beliefs on another?
It's bad if a
president is incapable of the abstract thought necessary for these mental
exercises. If he is capable and isn't even trying, that's worse. It becomes a
question of character. When a president sends thousands of young Americans to
kill and die halfway around the world, thinking about it as hard and as honestly
as possible is the least he can do.
Bush's Iraq policy is full of
contradictions, often rehearsed on this page and elsewhere. But so is Kerry's.
It isn't routine political mendacity that makes many people — many more
than will admit it — wonder about Bush's mental engagement. It is a
combination of things: his stumbling inarticulateness, the efforts his advisors
make to protect him from unscripted exposure, his extreme reluctance to rethink
anything.
Does it matter? Yes, it matters. There are those who say
that Reagan's mental laziness was actually a plus. It prevented a lot of
competing signals from causing static on the lines, and kept his principles
clear. We do not buy that. We state boldly that thinking hard is a good thing,
not a bad thing, even in a president. If that sounds snooty, so be it. And
maybe George W. Bush will reassure us by his performance Friday night that he
is thinking as hard as he should about the issues the president will face in the
next four years. Especially the issues resulting from his own failure to think
hard during the last four.