As the American frontier was being settled, it was not uncommon for a man to be a jack of all trades and perhaps a master of none. Often a settler would have to clear his own land, build his house, hunt and grow his family’s food as well as provide protection of life and property. Frontiersmen (and their families) were, for the most part, self sufficient. That didn’t mean they were not part of a community that often provided support in times of need. Quite the contrary, but at the end of the day people understood that they were responsible for most of the things that needed to be done in their lives.
When the industrial revolution took hold and Cyrus McCormick freed the population from the yoke of the farm, the division of labor took off took off and with it the upward march of the American standard of living.
Today, division of labor is all around us. We have scientists, doctors, computer programmers, real estate agents, policemen, accountants, and hundreds if not thousands of other specialized occupations. And it’s not just occupations; it’s the basic parts of life: Someone else brings our food to the store or our order to our table, builds our cars, ensures we have clean water, generates our power, drycleans our suits, babysits our kids and invests our money.
Today we are the opposite of the frontiersmen, we are Jacks of few trades and (maybe) masters of one. Basically, Americans have outsourced much of their daily lives to others… and I don’t mean to China. They focus on what they do well, or at least what they do, and leave the rest to others. As a nation and as individuals, we are far more prosperous as a result.
The problem however, is that as Americans spend so much time focused on their siloed lives, they have outsourced their political fate to others. As a result the government has grown virtually unchecked for half a century and today the borg of government is the single most powerful player in the life of every American citizen. What’s worse, not only have they allowed the government to grow into a leviathan, but they have also outsourced the selection of that government to campaign managers who run slick campaigns showcasing vapid politicians who speak in platitudes and make empty promises. Or to a media that largely marches in lockstep as it challenges a hated conservative or deifies the candidate of its choice.
Today we have the logical conclusion of the American outsourcing of its political will. We have someone running the American government – and using it to try and micromanage the economy and the lives of every citizen – who is literally clueless on the most basic elements of economics. How is that possible?
Strangely, American voters have done in politics something they would never do in their own lives. Your uncle may be the best accountant in the world, but you’re unlikely to let him take out your child’s appendix. Your brother may be the best basketball coach on the planet, but you are not going to let him manage your 401K. Why then would Americans allow someone with few discernable skills beyond engaging an audience to run their government?
Barack Obama was a law professor, a rabble rousing community organizer and a 1/3 term US Senator. What in that CV indicates he is even remotely prepared to successfully navigate an organization that spends $3 trillion a year and impacts the life of every single American, every day? So he gets people excited at rallies and promises hope and change… Were Americans really that stupid? Yes. And it’s not just the average Joe. Most of Silicon Valley’s money goes to Democrats and went to Barack Obama. These guys, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergi Bren and the rest are pretty smart. What gives?
Because they mistake high IQ with smart, or in this case, a Harvard pedigree with someone equipped to run the country. While the two may overlap, they are not synonymous. Jimmy Carter may have had the highest IQ amongst modern presidents, and we all know how that turned out.
A voluntary division of labor is a compact. Everyone does what they do best and everyone wins. That compact only works if the civic framework that keeps it viable and voluntary survives. That framework is on its last legs. President Obama’s government wants to tell you who can provide your healthcare, where companies can locate their plants, how property owners can use their land and how much you can earn before the government confiscates most of your income. How far a stretch would it be for them to decide what job you are best qualified for and then streamline (or steamroll) you into it?
Americans need to step back from their televisions and for the first time in two generations remember the basic notion of what a presidential election is about. It’s about two things: Who will run the federal government and what should that government do.
A vote for a president is not like a vote for homecoming king. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s a vote for how much they want the federal government messing around in their lives.
At the end of the day a voter should concern themselves with a candidate’s philosophy – how he or she sees the role government in the lives of its citizens – and their track record of leading an organization. Throw in a candidate’s integrity and those two things will tell a voter everything they need to know about a presidential hopeful. They will tell a voter what a candidate wants to do and how likely they are to accomplish it.
If Americans want to continue enjoying the economic and social benefits provided by a division of labor, where they have the luxury of focusing on things they love or are skilled at, they had better figure out how to rein in government. In 2012 they will have that opportunity. Between Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich they have three candidates who are less than perfect, but who philosophically all share the goal of shrinking the government and promoting individual responsibility. That’s half the battle right there.
See author page
It’s a tremendous insult to the students and graduates of Harvard to suggest that they are not very smart and have not made significant contributions to our country and the success of our nation. Having said that though, the systemic problem in our college educational system is that we have areas of study that are totally useless and non-productive. America needs to review what areas of study are productive and which should not be offered until at the level of Masters or Doctorate. Time to get real in this area and produce students with education in productive areas.
There have been two examples of a book-smart, real world idiot- Bill Clinton, and the Idiot in the WH today. He is every bit as moronic as Joe Biden, he just hides it well, or as Joe himself said, “he’s a clean black man…”
None of the liberals I know could survive in the wild- they’d be bear scat in no time- nothing left except a Blackberry on the ground.
@Common Sense: You mean no more degrees in “Ethnic Indian Studies, or that old chestnut, “Liberal Arts”? You mean they should study something they could use in later life, instead of retreating to their mother’s basements to play “Call of Duty 3”? Heaven forbid!
@Common Sense:
I didn’t think he was saying they are stupid, simply that a Harvard degree doesn’t mean someone is smart.
I’ve also found that a high IQ tends to mean that they can be sound thinkers, but not automatically so. In more than a few I’ve met, common sense is lacking.
As I like to say, book smart and common sense retarded. (not retarded as in the handicap)
Vince, many placements in graduate schools are political or economic and some are legacy placements. The rule is, once you are in: you are in. Obama’s dubious intellect has made the public regard these prestige degrees with skepticism. Promoting the man as a genius has been a disaster for the person who places a great deal of faith in the Ivory Towers. If you disagree with me, please provide an example of Obama’s superior intellect or perhaps an instance that would preclude us to think he was an outstanding mediocrity. I am not concerned with him being a guest lecturer; especially, in a graduate school that is a rat’s nest of Leftist political intrigue. The world would like to see some shred of evidence that would indicate a man of even average intelligence. No honest person who has read the evidence or his personal notes, believes he has written his books. So please provide some evidence of Obama’s superior intellect, the same one the propaganda bureaus of the Democrat Party pawned off on the public for the 2008 election, but have made the bizarre decision to ignore this time around. LOL (Some lies lose their believability)
Unless you can provide evidence of this intellect, you are contributing to the hoax by assuming the intellect is real, yet incapable of performing presidential duties. After three years, we can only assume that Obama is as successful at hiding his intellect as he is at hiding his past.
I am on the road and cannot respond to outbursts of righteous indignation; however, I will stop for the night and look for evidence of the genius in the White House.
I agree with your premise regarding IQ, grades and what constitutes smart.
I also agree with Skookum – there is NO evidence that BHO was a great, good or even an average student. There is even less evidence that his IQ is any more than average.
Our current national difficulties were largely arranged by Ivy League alumni.
Even if some of them are smart, so what? They typically bring wealth and privilege to themselves by bringing disaster to the rest of us.
There is no evidence of Obama’s intellect. There is no evidence of his schooling. There is no evidence of his legal work. There is no evidence of his community organizing. There is no evidence of much of anything.
No evidence = no proof = snow job = propaganda.
There is no evidence of how he obtained a Connecticut SSN.
There is no evidence of how he recovered his citizenship after moving to Indonesia.
There is an old saying about “buying a pig in a poke.” A poke is an old word for a bag. The election got for us a blank slate, to be taken completely on faith.
Come on, Obama supporters for 2012. Produce your evidence.
Tick. Tick. Tick.
I am not holding my breath.
My own experience is that the higher the IQ the more likely they are to be loony tunes in some way.
VINCE hi,
I like your POST,
and that is a good subject,
the people who emigrate at the beginning of AMERICA, had to be smart, other wise they where dying,
and from those smart , a generation came of strong and curious people with a great creative mind, to improve the quality of life, be it on their mother with a washing machine or for their father with a car, or their love for music ecetera
and as time continue, many gadgets still today after going to the MOON,
SMART to me is not really coming from HARVARD OR ELSE WHERE,
BUT WITH THAT BAGAGE ALONG OR NOT, BEING ABLE TO MAKE A LIFE CREATIVELY,
with the pursue of happyness and the quest to make your country ,becoming the best in the WORLD,
while you lived and touch a part of that with the skill you have expanded through your will
for making it better and better, never cease to stop thinking of this could be even better,and it became that what you did
for yours was enjoyed by all AMERICAN
and here we have some real smart people, I garanty you and you and you, can make it better as a PRESIDENT
When it comes to great leaders, it’s far more about people skills than it is about book smarts and IQ. Great people skills come from a healthy self confidence, character, and true caring for others, which equates into trust. The even greater ingredient is humility, which starts with “fear of the Lord.” Consequently, that all equates to Wisdom, the real kind, as it’s based in real love, the kind of love that serves rather than takes.
Ronald Reagan was a great example, Herman Cain might be another.
I certainly don’t relegate the high IQ’d, or an Ivy League Education (providing it’s not the “politically correct, revisionist” worthless kind, that does far more harm than good). My point is, to also confirm that real leaders need more than high IQ’s and Ivy League Educations.
VINCE, you mention some coming with a pedigree,
It gave me a thought that the most PEDIGREE DOG, will freak out if he hear a noise,
and miserably collapse,
Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law review. They don’t give this to a C student.
LIBERALMANN,
WHERE YOU IMPRESS? where you the c student?
so what else did he learn?
anybody can edit.
@liberalmann, #13:
Some of the people who previously elected a C student are now thinking about turning the presidency over to a D student. It’s a sign of the times and a sign of decline, as is the worship of money.
@liberalmann:
Who knows?
By Obama’s own admission, they gave the editor’s position to an affirmative action student…..Obama.
😉
You will learn at least two things from this link:
1. Obama could NOT write well enough to keep his subject and his predicate in agreement.
and
2. Obama, an affirmative action choice as editor, was keen to browbeat those who would “even insinuate” that affirmative action rewards the undeserving, results in inappropriate job placements, or stigmatizes its presumed beneficiaries.
Vince,
Me thinks thou giveth this poseur too much credit, . . . “high IQ”? That might be considered an insult to IQs.
Gifted CEOs surround themselves with the most knowledgeable and talented people they can find, they give them clear heading, and clear authority. A President should be a gifted CEO. Doesn’t mean he should have been one, but he/she should have been a strong leader with lengthy experience, wisdom and knowledge. NOT someone who doesn’t even know or acknowledge what he doesn’t know.
I have most of my life had plenty of ‘room’ for those who might not have had gifts of intellect, because I believe that there is plenty of room for the more ‘sensitively’ or ‘intuitively’ gifted among us who might not possess superior IQs but who can contribute just as positively to society.
However, . . . . throughout my career, I have taken mind scissors to big and small poseurs, liars and hypocrites whenever my sense of smell detected excrement spewing from the mouth of a fraud.
This President lies. To himself, and to the country he should be grateful to – he lies. And now he proceeds to denigrate and separate the country he leads. There is no IQ worth a measure in there, and there’s no discernible intuitive gift.
Between Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich they have three candidates who are less than perfect, but who philosophically all share the goal of shrinking the government
Interesting framing. So… Bachmann doesn’t share the goal of shrinking the government? Santorum, also a bigger government guy? I’ll give you Romney (on the basis of his record) and Huntsman (because I have no idea what his positions are). And you don’t mention Paul, who has a rather concrete plan for shrinking the government and a voting record to match.
Also, I don’t agree that Gingrich is believably pro-small-government. His record is one of optimism that government would work well if only the right people were in charge: witness his recent claim that massive savings could be achieved by adopting six-sigma methodology in the federal government. That is not, philosophically, advocacy of small government – it’s advocacy for a government that does the same stuff, only more cheaply. You can also go back and find him shilling for all sorts of stuff: action on climate change (with Nancy Pelosi), mandatory flex-fuel vehicles, Medicare part D, the individual mandate (part of his 2008 health insurance plan), even cap and trade. He suffers from hubris as a result of being genuinely a pretty smart guy.
@Greg: Windex, Windex, Windex works the same as location, location, location in real estate.
James Raider
hi,
you mentioned they seek to surround themselves with the most
knowledgeable and talented,
I like that, because it tell me that you think IQ and smart is needed,
since their is always a different % on the 2 of them for each person,
am I right to think that
I would be led to believe that the CEO will favor the smart who has a best %
and maybe a less IQ, than other,
bye
@Marine72, #19:
I haven’t heard any recent comments around here about the direction Obama’s poll numbers seem to be headed in lately.
@ilovebeeswarzone: #20,
MsBees, the most influential factor whether it’s in choosing a CEO, or a CEO choosing those who will make up the senior staff, is Track Record. Did you manage successfully? Did you manage through a down-turn? How did you deal with adversity? Are you a motivator? It isn’t necessarily the highest IQs who deliver results and make good leaders, but those who can dig into themselves for creativity, and surround themselves with individuals whom they perceive as more capable than themselves, and who can provide them clear goals (vision), in my opinion.
. . . . kind of all the things currently missing in the Oval Office
The United States of America isn’t a corporate business enterprise that holds the turning of a profit as it’s highest value.
James Raider,
that is what I thought also,
thank you
GREG
tell that to the DEMOCRATS
bye
He’s awfully good at rabble-rousing, though.
Having a degree doesn’t make you intelligent, any more than owning a Ferrari makes you a race car driver. Some of the biggest idiots I’ve known have degrees.
@ Will
Eccentric. By the way, most members of special forces have above average IQs. They don’t like to be called loony tunes.
One test of whether or not an individual is smart is: Can he learn from his mistakes.
Obama egotistically took charge of the shoot and waved at the camera during a group photo shoot, blocking out the face of another world leader.
That took place in September 2011 at a U.N. meeting.
The President of Mongolia’s face was obscured by Obama’s hand.
Would Obama learn from that mistake?
No.
Today at the G-20 Summit Obama stood with other leaders for photos.
Obama again wanted to be in charge, I guess.
He waved his hand – again.
This time it was the Prime Minister of India that Obama’s hand blocked out.
No.
Obama proves over and over again that he is simply not a smart man.
W T Sherman,
that is the clue needed to be added to the CANDIDAT, looking to become A PRESIDENT,
or any other top jobs, and must never be overlook, but must instead be the first question and proven answer from those involved in hiring her or him,
that is would you dedicate your position which include the ultimate power
toward the best interest of this COUNTRY PRIOR TO YOUR OWN INTEREST,
and given some hypothesis questions to answer would determine to be true or mediocre or false.
meaning not worthy of the job, even if the person is high IQ, AND SMART,
HE CAN BE LEANING TOWARD NEGATIVE INSIGHT THOUGHTS WHICH WOULD GET HIM TO USE HIS OR HER GIFT TO COMPLETLY SLOWLY DESTROY THE COUNTRY,OR THE COMPANY,
Aqua
hi,
A loony, is not necessarly negative,
it take some loony to be braves enough to get in operations risking
their lives, for their love of AMERICA AND HER FREEDOM.
then looney is attach to bravest high IQS, SMART GUARDIANS OF THE COUNTRY,
READY TO GO BEYONG THE HUMAN CAPACITY TO SAVE WHICH THEY PROTECT THE MOST.
BYE
@Blake: Blake, I like how you think. Obviously you must work for a living. And of course, pay taxes.
@liberalmann: You may be correct but it doesn’t mean he has a clue how to be a leader.
James Raider, yes from your answer to me,
tell me that you also include WISDOM,, a must have,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: #33,
MsBees, yes, absolutely and as I noted in #17 above, “. . . . A President should be a gifted CEO. Doesn’t mean he should have been one, but he/she should have been a strong leader with lengthy experience, wisdom and knowledge”
Of course the term “wisdom” is a rather broad, all embracing term which includes not only superior insight and knowledge, but also action.
As such the designation becomes somewhat subjective, however, most of us know wisdom when we encounter it, whatever form it takes.
James Raider
forgive me, I should have gone back to 17 to read again another time.
that miss alone would disqualify me for the position,
bye
@liberalmann: Is it not true that he, as a titular editor of the HR, he edited diddley and wrote even less? I don’t think you can find anything that he wrote at Harvard, nor can you find anything about his grades. If he wasn’t a C student, then why will he not open his records, citizenship aside?
Most likely he became Editor because they thought it would be cute to have a person of color in that spot. That’s the way many Ivy Leaguers think. If the Russians lose their politburo over some catastrophic event, the Princeton English Department could fill in without missing a beat, and we all know that Barky’s mentor was a communist turd.