In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Richard Epstein's otherwise superb reflection on Ronald Reagan, which you'll find below, includes the following observation:
The determined simplicity of his vision made him the butt of many a joke by liberal pundits who had him beat cold on IQ points.
Richard, Richard, Richard. What makes you so sure they had him beat?
I'm not aware that the Gipper ever took an IQ test, but I can tell you this much from personal observation of the man during the six years I worked for him: He proved a quick study, capable of absorbing large amounts of information from briefing books overnight; he could grasp politically complicated situations, seeing them whole, almost at a glance; he proved a fine writer and a superb editor--the best line-by-line editor, for that matter, that I've ever encountered; and he possessed a really remarkable capacity for summarizing complicated arguments in a line or a story. And here's what we all know: He proved immensely successful as a radio sports announcer; as an actor; as president of the Screen Actors Guild; as a writer (until becoming president, he wrote a great deal of his own material himself, including most of his speeches, most of his weekly radio talks, and many of his newspaper columns); as governor of California; and, of course, as president.
For the demonstrated ability to work with words and ideas and to grasp and master complex tasks--that is, for sheer native intelligence--the Gipper would have compared well with the faculty of any major university. He understood that courage and judgment matter more than intelligence--but that, too, come to think of it, only proved the man had brains.
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Really? Ronald Reagan was a great line editor? That I absolutely never knew. I'd love to hear about specific examples, do you remember any off the top of your head?
Oct '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
IE; He understood that courage and judgment matter more than intelligence--but that, too, come to think of it, only proved the man had brains.
An IQ test a small contrived (forgive that) measurment of any person.
Provides no insight into the whole....
Nov '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Let's not make the man out to have been something he (thankfully) wasn't. Reagan was extremely bright, but he was not a genius. He would have made a pretty middling academic, and that suits me just fine. You only have to take one look at what actual geniuses like the folks at the Union of Concerned Scientists publish to know that you'd rather have someone like Reagan handling matters of state.
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
I was going to keep my powder dry and wow you all with a 4 part essay on why Ronald Reagan was a 20th century American rhetorician who wrote and spoke his way to becoming the man that he was, but I guess I'll go all furry here instead.
Few people know, but CS Lewis's book Mere Christianity (and even his harshest critics acknowledged he was a superb rhetorician) was not as good as it could be until Lewis made with a BBC radio producer to go over the manuscript, which made it even more fluid. In other words, radio broadcast requirements are what made the manuscript what it was.
Reagan, a prolific letter writer, honed his skill further by the constant exposure to radio addresses, moving amongst the people and further polishing his words much in the manner of the turn of the century Catholic apologist, Frank Sheed did for a different audience.
My 2 principal sources were going to be James C Humes (who covered many of Reagan's best secrets in Speak Like Churchill; Stand Like Lincoln) and then Jacques Barzun's Lincoln As Literary Artist.
Now, the surprise is ruined.
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Is there a Yosemite Sam emoticon somewhere?
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Probably the best place to see the Gipper at work as an editor, Claire, is in early drafts of his 1982 Westminster address. ("The march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history.") I don't know whether the Reagan Library has made any of this available online, but Reagan re-wrote about a third of the speech himself, crossing out paragraphs, adding sentences in the margins, and changing words here and there to adjust the diction. (The speechwriter who drafted these remarks, Tony Dolan, was a visionary in his own right. Tony not only gave the president brilliant material with which to work but staged a brilliant bureaucratic campaign to get the speech past much of the senior staff, which opposed it. But that's another story.)
Hm. I might even have a few photocopies of RR's edits in my old files. I'm rummage around and see what I can find.
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Peter,
I hesitated long and hard before i wrote the sentence about the IQ points. And Peter managed to go right after the jugular. The issue here is really much more profound because of the complex web of skills that it takes to be a success involves so much more than IQ. The image that I had in mind was of the fellow who did wonderfully well on the SATs but had an acute problem of thinking his or her way through a political problem that took real judgment in order to solve. I know many such people who have too much confidence in their puzzle like skills and thus tend to look down on people who are more folksy than they are.
I can still recall being gently chided by one of my most successful alums when I was interim dean at the University of Chicago who told me that on any realistic scale of successful people raw intelligence (which he was mistakenly willing to attribute to me, as I am in fact not a particularly good tester) was about tenth of his list of attributes for success beyond such items as persistence, vision, trust, empathy, presence, charisma, curiosity, flexibility and the like. Peter in effect adopts this narrative when he manages to explain why Reagan was so successful at the things that he sought to do precisely because he had all these attributes. They wear well in the long run.
But that said, I perhaps should have put back in these words in that sentence, which would have conveyed a different type of truth. "who thought they had him beat cold on IQ points." I went both ways in the drafts. Mea culpa.
Edited on Feb 7, 2011 at 11:28amRe: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Claire: Wasn't a book released of Reagan's own writings where it shows his meticulous editing of his own work and his re-edits of speech writers' edits and of speech writers' original words. I don't know if that's what Peter has in mind, but I've talked with several readers of that book who were blown away by his writing skills, as revealed therein.
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Richard,
You make the essential point. Sweetly. As is your wont.
I couldn't prove this, of course--again, as far as I know, Reagan never took an IQ test. But I've known a lot of smart people. Although I'd never argue that Reagan proved some sort of secret genius, I would insist that he had a lot of sheer raw intelligence. Given the right kind of training, he'd have gotten into a fancy school--as did his son Ron, who attended Yale. But then, of course, the Cold War might still be going on.
Jun '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
I jumped on that line yesterday, and actually thought a few words had been left out. Indeed, they thought they had him beat. I think that was part of the reason Reagan so often had a twinkle in his eye, as if he was trying to surpress a smile. Knowing he was underestimated by pundits and political opponents and thus, had a great advantage in outfoxing them, was the ace up his sleeve.
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
David Limbaugh
Claire: Wasn't a book released of Reagan's own writings where it shows his meticulous editing of his own work and his re-edits of speech writers' edits and of speech writers' original words. I don't know if that's what Peter has in mind, but I've talked with several readers of that book who were blown away by his writing skills, as revealed therein. · Feb 7 at 11:35am
Lincoln, Churchill and Reagan were likely the finest 3 examples of statesmen who were the leading rhetoricians of their day. And, if I'm not mistaken, Reagan was the last President to keep a full diary and journal, providing even more evidence of this thoughts and development. And I believe Reagan wrote something like -- what -- 5,000 letters published as the Letters of Ronald Reagan?
Jun '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
"Given the right kind of training, he'd have gotten into a fancy school--as did his son Ron, who attended Yale. But then, of course, the Cold War might still be going on."
Ha Ha!!!!
Do you think a young Reagan, given the opportunity to attend an elite school, would have gone so far awy? Wasn't he protective of his mom, given his dad's drinking problem? I always thought he helped out financially at home, as well.
Jun '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
The book is Reagan in His Own Hand and I completely turned a Reagan-doubter around by showing her that book. Even a quick glance through will convince you that he was quite intelligent.
Sep '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Yes, if memory serves even Time Magazine was forced to admit that Clark Clifford's quip "amiable dunce" was a self referential comment after they reviewed Reagan in His Own Hand.
Dec '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Gee, I wonder what other political figures widely derided as "nincompoops" will have retrospectives written about her -- excuse me, them -- pointing out that they weren't the dummies "everyone knew" they were?
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
This calls for a ReTweet.
Dec '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
At the center of this conversation is the fact that there simply is not a good, universallyrecognized or even generally recognized definition of intelligence. Richard bypassed this by using an IQ test as a stand-in.
Standardized tests are all fine and good, but people are simply not standard. Any comparison of the intelligence of two people is necessarily comparing apples to oranges.
Intellectuals choosing to characterize Reagan as a buffoon simply didn't understand his apples.
Oct '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
The character and quality of office holders has been in decline for decades. And just who is reponsible for this ? Answer that first....
With all due respect to the search for a hero, which seems to be clearly on the minds of commenters here..
Picture, if you were in a lifeboat, who gets to command the tiller ? And with what consequences should you take when the island in the distance is the only option for survival.
Given the option what would you do ?
Edited on Feb 7, 2011 at 1:42pmJun '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Jerry, I think the statement was jarring because Reagan was so obviously intelligent, whether you measured it with a formal IQ test or witnessed the quickness of his mind or his ability to present complicated ideas very simply and succinctly. The biggest windbags are usually the biggest dopes. There is also the question of having respect for different kinds of intellegence, like mechanical inclination or musical gifts. The pundits must be used to getting paid by the word, because they often don't respect those who boil down a problem to its essence and get to their point without lots of self-absorbed prose.
Did you see the video posted here the other day with Allen West addressing Islam? He has the same kind of mental agility & ability to capture the big picture and communicate it with a laser like focus. Reagan had a folksy quality and West has a southern drawl. If you don't ramble on like Noam Chomsky, the elite pundits write you off as a dim bulb or a rube. They like pontificating, but I prefer punch.
Oct '10
Re: In Which I Differ From Brother Richard
Well, it sounds to me as if Reagan lived outside any groupthinks (which is rare). His conservative principles may have guided him, but in the end I he liked and believed in people--that once they saw their self-interest wasn't threatened, most would do the right thing (I think most conflict comes from that. And crazy people).
Reagan seemed to love all Americans equally, even lefty ones. Obama seems to see himself as "the Far-Left's President," and everyone else--from centrist Democrats to Independents to Republicans--as "the other side." I never realized how painful it is, when your president seems to only respect 15% or so of the population (I doubt the far left is much bigger then that).