As you, dear reader, probably know, I've been mulling over the roots of the whole George W. Bush debacle lately. Part of my ire is directed at the Republican party for choosing him in the first place. Hardly a responsible choice, in my view. How did so many people fall for a silly Prince Hal fairy tale - to the point that they would entrust their country to such an incompetent? Well, part of the thinking, I guess, was that intelligence is over-rated when it comes to political leadership.
Too many years of grad school have convinced this blogger that intelligence is indeed overrated. (More on this later.) But, obviously, that's not the same as saying that it's irrelevant. Here, as far as I can reconstruct it, is the thinking that leads us down this mine-laden road:
1. Intelligent leaders have failed to govern well (favourites here include Wilson and Clinton).
2. Therefore intelligence is not a sufficient condition for leadership.
3. Therefore intelligence is not a necessary condition for leadership.
Run the appropriate substitutions for other traits like "intellectual curiosity" and so on, throw in a smattering of loose talk about "delegating" and "management skills" and you're ready to commit political suicide.
My reconstruction may seem unfair, because it attributes completely incoherent assumptions to my political opponents. I admit that it is always risky business to psychoanalyze one's political opponents. Next thing you know, I'll be allegedly pining for Gore because he's an alpha male or something. But, honestly, it's the best I can do here. I will add this qualification: I don't mean to attribute this pattern of thinking to all of Bush's supporters. It's just my best guess about what's behind a common reaction to Bush, and one which I have actually encountered myself. I strongly suspect that it's a decent diagnosis, for example, of my father's reaction to Bush. But if I say any more on this I really will be ready for some hostile blogger's couch.
The error, once it's set out, should be clear. The step from 1 to 2 is irreproachable. It is the step from 2 to 3 that is madness. A necessary condition is very different from a sufficient condition; confuse them at your peril.
And your nation's.
Posted by Chris at April 8, 2004 08:27 PM