The brightness of the president ...
Message 26591284
Excerpts:
Now, let me ask you a question: You've all read about the great men and women of history. Do you recall ever reading that a major historical figure was "bright"? Of course not. No one would even think of describing anyone of significance that way. The issue is not whether someone is "bright." The issue is whether that person is competent and wise.
And yet, brightness has become its own virtue. We're impressed by candidates who appear "bright." I think this reflects the fact that this is the age of the college graduate, the age where "brightness," or the suggestion of intellect, is considered a fundamental requirement for even getting up in the morning. In order to be taken seriously, one must show the kind of mental agility popular with college admissions officers.
In some measure, Barack Obama was oversold because he was considered "bright," brighter than George W. Bush, and bright enough to hold his own with other "bright" men and women in government and the academy. Instead of concentrating on the wisdom of his ideas, and the capacity of his leadership, we seemed mesmerized by this bright African-American seeking the presidency.
We've got to get over it. If the horrid administration of Barack Obama teaches us anything, it's that "brightness" is only a small measure of a man. Although Eisenhower wasn't considered the brightness equal of Stevenson, Eisenhower achieved greatness while Stevenson became a footnote. Reagan achieved greatness, while the man he defeated, Jimmy Carter, has become a bit of a laughingstock, although regarded by the gatekeepers as very bright. |
