[lit-ideas] Re: Newt take the Pledge
- From: "Eric Yost" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:15:53 -0500
On what basis do I judge Gore and Kerry? Gore is a mediocre
intellect; Kerry is a war hero of no substantial intellectual
attainments. Clinton -- as Hitchens said best -- had Nobody Left to
Lie To.
That Dubya was a doofus is canonical, but we must consider that
Obama is probably the most intelligent (though not intellectual)
Democrat President for a long time, and little good it has done him.
For Republican intellectuals one may have to go back to Teddy
Roosevelt, certainly one of the best Presidents ever, an innovator,
naturalist, author, and champion of both equality and worker's
rights. (First President to get involved in a labor dispute, forcing
the coal barons to make concessions.)
David Ritchie's reply to my post posits a most substantial and
thorough consideration of leadership.
______
On what basis do you make your judgments on these public figures?
Evidence please. For being a dullard, no one even comes close to G.
Bush.
Christopher Hitchens said it best. As he said everything best.
Veronica Caley
Milford, MI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Yost" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:20 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Newt take the Pledge
>>> For most people, schooling is something they have to endure
> before they are granted adult status. The majority of voters are
not
> comfortable with candidates who come across as the smart-ass
> teacher's pet who got praise and As, while they were being
hammered
> with negative feedback. This was a major problem for both Al Gore
> and John Kerry.
>
> Probably the last intelligent aspiring politician was Adlai
> Stevenson, and while JFK surrounded himself with "the best and the
> brightest," the results were not necessarily stellar. Gore, spawn
of
> an old Democrat elite family, is clearly a dullard on par with
> Dubya, and Kerry's excellence seems to consist of marrying Heinz
> money. The GOP are fielding knuckleheads and no "men of gold" or
> "men of silver" are in sight.
>
> My post is not written to contest ideology per se, but to raise
the
> question of the value of academic education in politics. Clearly
> it's something one would hope a candidate possesses, a good
general
> education, but is it the quality that makes a great leader?
>
> If we detest leaders because they are wealthy by their own
efforts,
> does that mean we want candidates who are "failures" in real life
to
> lead us?
>
> Clearly the defining characteristic of good leadership is not mere
> rhetorical excellence. One can hire any number of good
> scriptwriters.
>
> Yet is it charisma? Is it peasant cunning such as LBJ had? If
not,
> what?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
