An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Is Smart Enough?

At her confirmation yesterday, Hillary Clinton invoked the concept of “smart power” as a guide to American diplomacy.

In his hearings, Education Secretary Arne Duncan cited Barack Obama as a role model for America’s school children. “Never before,” he said “has being smart been so cool.”

And in another hearing room, Senators were mooning over Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu, the nominee for Energy Secretary. Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman enthused over Chu’s “insight and vision” to carry out Obama’s energy policies.

But is brilliance alone the panacea for all of America’s problems? With the possible exception of the Defense Department’s Douglas Feith, characterized as the “dumbest effing guy on the planet’ by Gen.Tommy Franks, Bush’s Neo-Cons were not stupid but blinkered in their perception of how the world works and too arrogant to learn from their mistakes.

The test for all that Obama brainpower will be to avoid replicating the record of JFK’s “The Best and the Brightest” whose tunnel vision led to quagmire in Vietnam as surely as the Neo-Cons confidently took us into Iraq disaster and, back home, free-market ruin.

“It doesn’t help,” Nicholas Kristof wrote recently, “that intellectuals are often as full of themselves as of ideas.”

Read the rest of this entry.

  • It's not enough to be smart, you also have to have to the proper ideological bent and moral grounding to serve effectively.
  • DLS
    Yep -- "smart" is misappropriated by the politically correct as their latest warped and conceited euphemism -- "smart power" polls better than "soft power" and of course we have dippy "smart growth" advocacy, and sooner or later, "smart energy" is coming to the American people, acceptably or not.

    As for the conceit over misusing "smart" in a more general sense, and in regard to Obama, what a laugh. Obama was elected not because he is smart -- we all know that, and his speaking, even with contemporary affectations (unvoiced letter S when it should be voiced like a Z, overly long "S" sound, over-emphasis on later syllables), is a relief in contrast to Bush. He was elected mainly because he's young, because he's attractive, and because he's black (many Clinton fans wanted her because she's female -- same "identity politics" at work). It has nothing to do with being smart and smart being cool.

    Recall the nerds as kings on campus after Sputnik. You know, often posing not only with their ties but puffing on pipes. _That_ was when smart was cool -- for a short time.
  • DLS
    "It's not enough to be smart"

    It's not merely a matter of what you have, but what you do with it and how well.

    The interesting (not really remarkable -- historically, it's not that remarkable) thing is that with Obama have come not only a lot of Clinton retreads and other establishment types ("fixtures") but a good number of younger people that to date really haven't been in the news that much, if at all. And even some Clinton people are being put in new (different) positions. They're Democratic; they're committed at least somewhat to activism; it's logical for them not to repeat the 1993-4 mistakes by lurching leftward but to take it easy at first (and to work on the economy, since they wish to intervene to improve it); they'll attempt to do more to appeal to liberals than Bush and the GOP, even if it's overreach as well as conceit to mislabel so much of it as smart. We have yet to see what smart _actions_, _deeds_ will be done by them.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC