What's Smarts Got To Do With It?

America's favorite hockey mom, Sarah Palin, re-emerged onto the national political scene this week. She'll be out and about flogging her book "Going Rogue" in which she straightens the world out on what really happened during her run for vice president. Her plans include visiting as many Fox News interviewers as possible while otherwise staying out of big cities that may have actual high school and college graduates lurking about. You can bet she'll also steer clear of Katie Couric this time around.

There's speculation that all this PR may be a prelude to a run for president. This leads me to question just what attributes are important for a successful presidency. It isn't obvious that sheer intelligence ranks very high on the list.

In Palin's case, good looks and a snappy demeanor seem to be her chief positives. She also appeals to the far right wing with her social stances. No one is pushing her to run based upon her demonstrated intelligence. But is high intelligence really needed for the job?

Reflecting on some recent presidents, George W. Bush seemed to flaunt his lack of intellectual curiosity; yet he got re-elected. Ronald Reagan was a nice enough old guy who didn't exhibit much depth intellectually, but he's regarded as one of the most effective presidents.

Bill Clinton was a very smart guy who couldn't control his personal life. His presidency will forever be remembered more for his peccadilloes than his administration's accomplishments. Jimmy Carter was also thought of as a deep thinker, but his is generally regarded as a failed presidency.

It's obvious that Barack Obama has the intelligence and depth to impress, but it's way too early to say how his term in office will be evaluated.

While it's not clear that smarts are the most important facet of being a good president, you must have other talents to get elected. Most important are political skills. This includes: (1) being able to raise lots of money, (2) answer questions with well-rehearsed sound bites which appear to be spontaneous and (3), most importantly, make people on opposite sides of tough issues think you agree with each of them when, in fact, this is an absolute impossibility.

Learning Can Be Fun

I'm taking a course at Harvard. It's called "Justice: what's the right thing to do?"

Thanks to the wonders of the Net and some generous sponsors, you can take it too by clicking here.

Suddenly, after decades away from formal schooling, I'm rethinking whether cannibalism is kosher. How about the idea that taxation is the same as slavery? These and other weighty topics are part of the course presented by one heck of a fantastic lecturer: Michael Sandel.

But rather than get into the specifics of this particular course, which is worth doing at length, what I wanted to talk about is how important the teacher is in the learning experience. This course reminded me of those occasions in college when I actually learned something that stayed with me longer than the time to the next exam. These experiences happened very, very infrequently, but universally they occurred in courses where I had an inspiring professor. In fact, I remember choosing courses strictly on the basis of who was teaching it (although sometimes the time and day of week entered into the decision as well; clearly, it couldn't be scheduled before 10am or after 3 PM, or on Friday...but I digress).

This reinforces my opinion that if we are serious about improving the U.S. education system, we need to attract the best and brightest to the profession. Right now, we're doing a lousy job of that. People like Chancellor of Schools Michelle Rhee in Washington, D.C. are leading the charge to shake up the system. She's offered the teachers' union a reasonable deal: give up tenure and receive a salary and bonus based upon student performance. The teachers can get triple digit salaries if they meet specified goals.

Well, as you might expect, she's meeting a lot of resistance. If she succeeds, things could really change for the better. In those cases where new (typically young and enthusiastic) teachers have this plan, the student achievements are impressive.

The bottom line for me is that incentives work. They work in the private sector and there's no inherent reason they can't succeed in the public sector as well. The tricky part is getting the goals and the measurement of those goals right.

By the way, returning to the subject of re-experiencing college, it would be really neat if there was a way to have Friday night beer parties on-line.

Palin's Victory Tour

I was all set to write about the wretched economic situation and Detroit's plea for a bailout. Then, out of the blue (or is it red?), up pops Sarah Palin and suddenly I'm right back in Palinmania.

 

Did you catch any of her "victory tour" this week? It seems to have started in her kitchen in beautiful Wasilla. There she was, being  televised to the world, orating in her peculiar vernacular, while simultaneously whipping up a batch of moose stew ( do you "whip up" moose stew?). I bet you thought it would be hard for her to walk and chew gum. Not for our hockey mom. She was as smooth as a fresh sheet of ice. 

Her week continued with interviews on CNN, NBC and Fox, among others. The tour culminated with a rousing speech to the gathered Republican governors in Miami, eager to learn from Palin just how the party would be reassembled into anything that might have any chance of winning a national election again in their lifetimes.

 

Wait a minute! Did I just say that the Republican party didn't win the last election? Oops, yes, that's what happened all right. Obama did win both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That means McCain and, I assume, Palin, must have lost.

 

Well, then how do you explain Palin taking a victory tour?

 

You can't. Unless your logic flows like Sarah's syntax.

 

Just to remind you, here's an example of "Sarah Speech", as reported by Maureen Dowd last week in the New York Times:

 

"My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars."

 

I guess that's clear enough. Even George W. would be proud to have uttered that particular string of words.

 

Re-reading that little ditty, it's easy to see why she has garnered a 98% name recognition among the great unwashed masses. Yes, of course, they like the fact that she's a hard working super-mom; and her looks, ideas and logic are simply captivating. But, most of all, they can't get enough of her folksy way of speaking. Her fans say that they would feel comfortable with her in the White House because she's just like them.

 

As Sarah herself would say, "this should result in a loud shout-out to the country's educators that they'd better get on the ball and plow through those glass doors that may be open just a crack". 

So therein lies the lesson for today:  there's a new day dawning, and it's all about teaching our children to speak with a clarity that every "Real American" (not those wussy Northeastern and West Coast elitists) can understand.

 

Oh, and one more thing. The government would be crazy to throw any money into the coffers of the big three automakers unless it's part of a pre-packaged bankruptcy proceeding in which: the management is replaced; the labor contracts are renegotiated; critical suppliers are paid so they don't go bankrupt; the common shareholders are wiped out; outstanding bonds are converted to common equity; and the government money is injected as preferred stock or senior bonds.

Eloquent Confusion

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a great example of eloquent confusion. The Amendment reads, in its entirety: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It sure sounds impressive, but what the heck does it mean? The Amendment was written by some pretty smart guys who undoubtedly spent a lot of time hashing out the wording. Even given that it was written a long time ago, and the language has evolved, it still is undecipherable.

People have argued for decades whether they're talking about individual rights or collective rights of a militia to bear arms. The Supreme Court decided today that it means that individuals do indeed have the right to arm themselves. It's a narrowly constructed decision and there are lots of caveats that will encourage a steady stream of lawsuits to further flesh out what was meant.

One simple reminder I've taken away from this case is that the legal profession thrives on resolving the meaning of poorly drafted documents. I wish that I had spent a little bit more effort paying attention in my English composition classes.