March 6, 2008 - Issue 267
The Needed Mental Attributes of a President;
The Presidential Campaign
and Forthcoming Appointments to the Supreme Court;
A Bail Out for Homeowners;
And Bloomberg’s Game
By Lawrence R. Velvel, JD
Yesterday, at our faculty lunch table, I was
marveling at the fact that a person as stupid and incompetent as George
Bush has regularly shown himself to be, could appear so personable, charming
and even intelligent as he was when speaking about (and to) the Boston
Red Sox before the White House news media. (Even discounting for
the possible aid of speech writers, Bush really wasn’t half bad.) A
colleague responded with a remark that triggered a thought: what
we were seeing is an example of Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. There
is not just one form of intelligence, as psychologists have long claimed. There
are many kinds, says
Upon reflection, it is obvious that this is the story of Bush. His amiable, good old boy persona reflects a certain kind of interpersonal intelligence, sometimes in high degree. But he is totally lacking in the kind of analytical, logical, thoughtful intelligence needed by a leader, much less a President. Americans, often being fools who vote for the more personally attractive guy, elected Bush twice. They have learned to rue the day they did so, since he lacks the kind of intelligence that is more needed for a presidency.
This is relevant in the 2008 campaign. I shall concede biases in what I am about to write, biases in some ways inconsistent with my generally highly anti-elitist views (a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds, I think Emerson said). Obama seems to have shown tremendous interpersonal and organizational intelligence in this campaign. Not yet fully plumbed, many pundits say, is his analytical intelligence in the form of substantive ideas, plans, programs, etc. I find it hard, however, to doubt his analytical intelligence. Here is why (and here comes a bias that in a way is inconsistent with my generally anti-elitist views): Obama was President of - was the top guy on - the Harvard Law Review. In my day, anyone who was President of the Harvard Law Review inevitably was hugely bright as an analytical, verbal/logical matter, possibly (or probably) was even a genius. Until somebody tells me it was different in Obama’s day (about 20 or 25 years later), I have to believe that the same still held true then (and now too I would imagine). So I don’t have any doubts about Obama’s analytical intelligence, the kind a President needs.
Hillary Clinton presents an interesting contrast. Her interpersonal
intelligence, at least in her public persona, does not seem all
that high, shall we say? One hears that people she works closely
with adore her, but publicly she is far less appealing. What about
her analytical, verbal/logical ability? Well, I once interviewed
a tremendously bright Harvard law professor who had met her and was deeply
impressed with her brightness (albeit very put off by her inconsistency,
which perhaps even amounted to dishonesty). And an enormously accomplished
and intelligent former student of mine who was a high official in Bill
Clinton’s administration said he is the smartest guy this person ever
met. But, you know, I nonetheless doubt that the
Now, I can think of lots of answers to the question I just asked, especially
the following three answers. Everyone admitted to the
Yet, despite these good reasons in opposition, the nagging partly elitist
doubt still won’t down, and still less will it down when one considers
how competitive Bill and Hillary are said to be. Of course, in
Hillary’s case, there also are other reasons to doubt her logical intelligence,
although one could also say that there were other factors at play too. The
other reasons for doubt include: The mess she made of health care
circa 1994. Her vote for an
And when all is said and done, it remains true that the one time Bill
and Hillary were in an environment where everybody might be thought pretty
smart, at the
So, there you have it. I think the Democratic candidates’ performance in law school and on the bar says something about abilities one needs to be President. We have seen, after all, the disasters wrought by a President who lacks those abilities. My view is partly elitist and contrary to my general anti-elitist feelings, but I fear it is right nonetheless.
I keep saying the view is only partly elitist. For, to bring up
a thought triggered by a lunch table conversation today, it is also true
that my view can be thought to posit that, despite their high LSAT scores
and college grades, not everyone at the
All of this stuff about what might be shown by an experience in higher
education brings up John McCain. I am told - again, is it true?
- that he was pretty close to anchor man in his class. (I believe
- correct me if I’m wrong - that anchor man is the term for last in the
You know, Bill Maher made a hugely perceptive comment about McCain the other night. Pointing out that McCain’s grandfather and father were each famous admirals (and McCain started out in the Navy), Maher said that a problem with McCain is that he regards war as the natural state of affairs. I was delighted to hear that said by someone with a public voice which is heard widely. For I myself have been saying for some time that one of the major problems with our generation, McCain’s and mine, is that we grew up with nearly continuous war, and many of our generation came to believe that war is inevitable and to be expected. Such a view is disastrous; and it is unintelligent because it will make disastrous war more likely and wreck the country in the process. Yet it is the view held by McCain, so it is hard to think him intelligent or fit to be President.
Let me turn briefly to a different subject, one the Presidential candidates have not been discussing, but which is highly important: the selection of federal Justices and judges. Without getting deeply into it, I’ve noticed that sometimes I say I’ll write in more depth about something later, but never get around to it. Well I do plan to write more on this later, and hope I do get to it, perhaps as near term as within a week or two.
In the meanwhile, let me say this: as extensively discussed by Jan Greenburg in her recent book and at a full day conference at the Massachusetts School of Law (MSL), the reactionary right has succeeded in creating, or is no more than a whisker away from creating, the Supreme Court that it wants. There are four hard line conservatives, and one middleman who is often conservative. Another conservative appointment or two and it’s all over for the next 20 to 40 years. As said about abortion by one of Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court clerks (quoted in a recent biography of Blackmun), decisions will be made “‘once and for all by some right wing minority’” of the electorate.
The candidates, however, aren’t talking about the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts, but they damn well should be and the public ought to insist on it. There is no question that the right to abortion (er, choice) is at stake. Of crucial importance to the country, also at stake is the question of Presidential power, i.e., the question whether the President will have the authority to be - and will indeed be - the kind of all powerful, monarchical official the farmers feared, while Congress continues to be a mere cipher and the courts do zip. And, finally, also at stake will be the rights of the small man, whom the current screw-the-small-guy-five don’t care about, and questions of the power of willing states to protect the environment against degradation by big companies who buy off Washington (and lots of state capitals too).
Screwing the small guy brings up another brief point. Bush and the Republicans are against a bailout for the small people who have been hurt badly by the subprime mess fostered, for awhile to their enormous profit, by huge commercial banks, huge investment banks, mortgage brokers, and other big business types. The Bushies think that helping the small guy will represent moral hazard, will encourage people in future to buy what they can’t afford, to live beyond their means. Well, let’s accept what these paragons of mendacity say; let’s forget that big businesses defrauded small guys, defrauded investors, cooperated in illegality, repeatedly urged small people to take out mortgages the banks knew were unaffordable and, in the case of ARMs, just plain crazy. Let’s forget all that devastating culpability - which the Administration, Congress and the Supreme Court will doubtlessly find ways to ignore or protect - -and just focus on the moral hazard of giving the small guy a break despite his unfortunate behavior. Tell me, how is this moral hazard different from the moral hazard of bailing out Chrysler, which was bailed out only to fall flat on its face again later? How is it different from bailing out the savings and loan industry? How is it different from bailing out the railroads in the 1960s? For that matter, how is it different from helping out - by giving them scores of billions over the years - some of the worst governments in the world, like Pakistan’s, or Egypt’s, or Saudi Arabia’s, or Indonesia’s?
These questions answer themselves, of course. There is no difference. Except one. These bailouts and help outs were for the benefit of the rich and powerful. The homeowners’ debacle deals with the small guy, who is neither rich nor powerful. To steal from Karl Marx, but to do so with regard to the top dogs, not the bottom ones, “Wealthy and powerful of the world unite. You have nothing to lose, and scores of millions of people to screw over with your hypocrisy.”
A last point - a question really. What is Michael Bloomberg’s game? He says he will not run for President (which is very likely wise in view of Obama’s popularity), but thinks an independent candidate could win and will support someone who says and does what he considers the right things. Is he setting the stage to support the candidate, if there is one, of Gerald Rafshoon’s independent group? Is he hoping this group will run an independent candidate who is bound to lose but who will set the stage for a winning Bloomberg candidacy in 2012 (like the Republicans with Fremont in 1856 and then Lincoln in 1860)? Is he possibly even aiming for a vice presidential nomination on a major ticket now, and then a run for the presidency in four years, when he is 64, or eight years, when he is 73? Will he support some non-Rafshoon-group independent candidate if a highly worthwhile one throws his or her hat into the ring (which is unlikely)? Is he aiming for a cabinet position? Should he simply be taken at his word? (Take a pol at his word? - even one with the good qualities that Bloomberg has?)
Well, I have no idea. Does anyone?