Intelligence/knowledge do matter... GW Bush said:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105139/
Clear speech, or clear writing, are direct indicators of clear thinking. Where concepts are grasped and terms are well understood, that is reflected in one's speech. Even as children in elementary school, all, or at least most of us, have had the experience of being able to easily differentiate the knowledgeable teacher from the confused teacher precisely because of their speech.
The quote above, like so many other statements from this man, where he is speaking unrehearsed or off the cuff, reflect such degrees of confusion and lack of an appropriate knowledge-base that we would find such quotes, if they came from a teacher or a newscaster or a friend in conversation, inarguable evidence that the person simply did not know what they were talking about, that they were 'in way over their head'. We'd forgive that in a friend, but likely not in a teacher or a newscaster or a civil engineer where competence
matters...where we rely upon competence for the general good.
Where intellectual grasp and ability are so quickly and easily visible even to elementary school children, matters of 'character' are something quite different, and not necessarily obvious at all. We might worry that our children will be charmed by another who though bright, is of low moral character. We worry our children won't be able to identify proper or improper moral positions whereas we don't much worry about them identifying brightness or stupidity and incompetence.
However, where we will all pretty much agree upon which children in an elementary classroom are the bright ones, we'll probably agree much less readily on whom among them are of 'proper character'. Some of us might point to the kids who keep their promises, some of us might point to kids who stand up for other weaker kids, or some might point to those who dress a certain way, or some might point to the kid who hits the books and really tries to understand, or some might point to the child who brings notions of God into a science discussion. The attributes of 'character' are much more definitionally malleable than are the attributes of intellect.
Two of the key problems that so many of us have with GW Bush sit right in the middle of this intellect/character discussion. And they are big problems.
First, intellect and knowledge and competence ARE important. As PD suggests, it is nearly inconvievable that we might demand these attributes in a physician or a teacher but not for the head of a modern state. The common defence of Bush from his supporters is that he has other bright and competent people around him to advise. Yet if he is the final intellect to make a decision from the varying viewpoints and advices advanced to him, what then? Perhaps it is so, as Colin Powell stated to Woodward, that decisions seemed to get made only after Bush met privately with Cheney. That begs the question as to who really is making that final decision...who really is the functioning president.
Second, for many of us, 'character' is evidenced not in unbending ideas or unrelenting denial of errors or mistaken policy directions, what his supporters refer to as 'firmness'. For many of us, these are indictments of character.
