The case for brains in politics
Many of my colleagues - you know who you are - are not among the leading brains of their age. I am certainly not.
But some of these not-so-bright journalists are nevertheless very able. They are creative and insightful and able to communicate effortlessly.
Others are enormously bright: again some of these folks are successful, some less so.
My point: there are fields of endeavour where being bright is plainly a sine qua non (the higher reaches of academia etc.) but journalism is not one, and nor is politics and government.
Bright people make awful mistakes because they are over-confident or unseeing or because they just do not inhabit the same planet.
The latest reminder of the brightness of the Obama lot came to me in
Reading through Peter Orszag's resume, there is no doubt that he is on top of things in the upstairs department.
He runs as well so we are led to believe he is rounded. (Incidentally for those monitoring British influence on the US, - particularly given Jed Bartlett's LSE doctorate)
Anyway, let's see what the new budget director can do. There is unquestionably a case for brains - made just after the election with great passion , but there is a case against as well .
Richard Nixon was the brightest of the recent American presidents wasn't he? With Clinton a close second. What does this tell us?
Hello, I'm 
Comments