Does Intellectualism Matter in a Candidate?

From Rhodes Scholars and Ivy Leaguers to a graduate of little-known Eureka College, America’s presidents have spanned the spectrum of "smart." So too do the candidates in the '08 election.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) holds degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law, while former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) was educated at the considerably smaller and more obscure Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. While Obama has been perceived as something of an intellectual since the very beginning, Huckabee cannot say the same for himself.

Admittedly, these two men cannot stand for all the 2008 presidential candidates, but they still represent two sides of the spectrum of a characteristic that may stand to decide the election: “intellectualism.” And at least according to some political analysts, the tide seems to be turning against the idea of having an “amiable slacker” in office.

The potential importance of a candidate’s apparent mental abilities is nothing new. According to Larry Bartels, a professor of public and international affairs and politics at Princeton University, 40 percent of voters in 2004 said that the term “intelligent” either described President George W. Bush “not too well” or “not well at all.”

But in 2004, “about 15 percent of those 40 percent voted for him, which was more than enough to account for his margin of victory,” Bartels said. These statistics suggest that voters have more pressing concerns than their president’s brainpower.

“Perceptions of this sort are heavily influenced by how the media portray candidates,” Bartels continued. “Bush was portrayed as an amiable slacker and Kerry as an aloof intellectual.”

Bush sometimes did not do much to avoid the image, either. In a May 2004 commencement speech to Louisiana State University’s graduating class, he said, “I speak with some authority here … I've seen how things can work out pretty well for a C student.” This sentiment quickly validated what the growing numbers of Americans who had already begun to doubt his ability to lead believed.

Even Jon Stewart picked up on the sound bite on his influential show. While Bush was seen as a “regular guy” in 2000, who gave simple answers and didn’t feign “superiority,” this feeling soured for some when he failed to deliver over the next few years.

His frequent malapropisms, mispronunciations and awkward sentence construction became subject to political lampooning, extending beyond The Daily Show into the territory of the “Bushisms,” less-than-flattering quotes compiled in books and repeated over water coolers in offices across the nation.

Bush’s legacy may bring Americans to the polls in November 2008 with new priorities in mind.

The idea of having an “amiable slacker” in office has fallen out of favor, according to David Lewis, a colleague of Bartels’ and an assistant professor of public affairs and politics at Princeton. “Homespun, folksy and being a ‘regular guy’ is probably less attractive now to the average voter than it was in 2000,” he said.

John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, said this image has become less attractive to voters because it connotes a “hands-off approach [similar to the one] the current president has had.”

According to a Gallup poll, Bush’s approval rating was 31 percent this month. If this number is any indication of where voters are looking in 2008, they might now be poised to elect a candidate who embodies the opposite — someone as smart as possible.

But as smart as possible might not be the same as well-credentialed as possible.

“At this level, most of the candidates are pretty smart,” Lewis argued. “I don’t think people pay that much attention to pedigree unless there are other factors at work.”

And in the past two presidential elections, a candidate’s alma mater has not played a significant role. Bush and his 2004 challenger, John Kerry, both graduated from Yale University; in 2000, his opponent, Al Gore, attended Harvard. Even the third party candidates attended prestigious universities: Ralph Nader went to Princeton and Harvard, and Patrick Buchanan went to Columbia and Georgetown Universities.

The last president not to graduate from a well-known university was Ronald Reagan, who attended Eureka College, in Eureka, Ill., with fewer than 1000 students enrolled. In Reagan's case, running as a relative outsider, these atypical credentials may have given him a boost.

While Huckabee is not alone in this year’s race in not attending a prestigious school - Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Ca.) attended Western State University - he faces an uphill challenge; the legacy of intellectuals in office dates back to at least Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson is described in American history textbooks as the “scholar president.” He was the president of Princeton University before becoming the governor of New Jersey and president of the United States.

Beyond leading the country through World War I, Wilson was “a bold and forceful president” who had an “idealistic dream of a peace based on the principles of democracy and justice,” according to Alan Brinkley, provost and history professor at Columbia University. Wilson championed worker’s rights and advocated for “moral diplomacy,” but he is nearly always remembered as a scholar rather than a progressive.

Repeating Wilson’s performance may be easier said than done, however.

“It is hard to come across as an intellectual candidate at all because so many remarks are scripted and carefully controlled,” Lewis said. “Frankly, the nuanced, thoughtful remark does not translate well in sound bites.”

Brinkley voiced a similar opinion, saying that since the days of Wilson, who was not even “‘presented’ as an intellectual when he ran for public office,” almost no one has really been recognized as such; “[Adlai] Stevenson was much admired by intellectuals, but he was not really an intellectual himself.” The same went for John F. Kennedy, Brinkley said.

While the electoral landscape has certainly changed since Wilson’s time, according to Lewis, “not much” has changed since 2004 in terms of what voters want. But at the end of the day, “many voters are willing to give the Democrats a shot.” Having an intellectual in office, then, may be less important to many who are unhappy with Bush's performance than having a Democrat in office.

George Marcus, a professor of political science at Williams College, agreed that party politics may be the main motivating factor behind voters’ decisions in the '08 election. Americans will “look for anyone but Republicans,” he said. “It’s the first axiom of politics: if the incumbents are doing a fine job, you don’t need to make a change.”

Regardless of party, however, that change may be a return to an intellectual president.