Howard Dean is wrong. More to the point, all indications are that his college education (he’s a medical doctor) put him on the road to becoming the blithering idiot he is now.
As we mentioned here, the best President in the past 60 years — the vast majority now agree — was the most humbly educated: Ronald Reagan.
So, why’s that?
It’s pretty simple. A President has no need of a vast accumulation of stuff in his head. We call that stuff “knowledge” and it makes us interesting in trivia games at parties, but really it just gets in the way of being an effective leader of a country. For that a President needs vision.
However, even vision alone is not enough. Vision can make you an effective leader. To be a good leader, a leader whose efforts result in an actual improvement in things around you, you need wisdom as well.
Still, however, the perfectly qualified President has to have more than just vision and wisdom. He also needs character — good character — and last, but not least: humility.
Character and humility allow the future President to recognize one extremely important thing: the job is more important than he is, not the other way around. It’s what made Reagan the greatest President in living memory, and it’s what makes Obama by far the worst. Obama has vision — but is severely deficient in the last three vital characteristics of life: wisdom, character and humility.
Vision, wisdom, character and humility come only from living one’s life consciously. Meaning: living life, and also paying attention as you live your life.
Reagan, once a registered Democrat, famously said that he had not left the Democrat Party, but the party had left him. That realization could come into being only if someone were paying attention to who, how and what he was, as well as what the Democrat Party was … and had become.
Reagan also once said: “You can get a lot done if you don’t care who gets the credit.” That’s the proper level of humility of a great President.
Barack Obama, though, is legendary for being impervious to input from others. He has said that he’s always the smartest one in the room; that he knows more than his own advisers; that he’s a better speech writer than his own speech writers.
Okay. Let’s take him at his word. What does that mean? It means that he’s so insecure that he surrounds himself with mediocrities whose very dullness makes him look good by comparison.
Read this well: it’s entirely possible that at any time Obama is the smartest in the room, that he does know more than all his own advisers and his cabinet, that he is a better speech writer than his speech writers.
That’s because, as President, Obama surrounds himself only with his Cabinet — whom he chose — with highly-screened, friendly audiences at universities and rallies around the country, and with the media.
Look at the man who’s a heartbeat away from the Presidency, Vice-President Biden. Look at Obama’s current and former Secretaries of State. Obama is a mediocrity himself, who knows that the adoration and admiration directed his way are undeserved. Further feeding his insecurity, he understands that the starstruck praise heaped upon him comes from other mediocrities whose assessment he’d never respect on any other topic.
Furthermore, Obama knows that people actually in the know have long since seen through him. He knows that his defenders in these ranks are doing nothing more than circling the wagons, in hope that Obama won’t do too badly, won’t be too much of a nitwit, won’t make things so bad that the next Democrat has no prayer of being elected President.
When everything you do fails miserably, you know that those who praise you are idiots, and their praise gives you no comfort or ego boost.
I’ve been rough on Obama, and I’ve wrestled with this. There is, however, a simple fact: Obama has the power to influence the lives of more than 300 million people directly, and — directly or indirectly — of 7.5 billion people worldwide. If ever there were a time for plainspokenness, it’s now.
The plainspoken truth is that Obama’s just not all that bright.
It is uncharitable, but Obama signed up for the job as the most powerful man in the world. He practically begged for it. It’s a job with vast, unimaginable perks and privileges. However, each of those privileges is accompanied by an equally vast, equally weighty responsibility.
We don’t begrudge a President the vast security details, the long, hyper-expensive, luxurious vacations, the plush compound (Camp David) that serves as home away from the equally plush White House home … because we’re aware that his job is weighed down with unimaginably important responsibilities.
However, Obama has availed himself promiscuously, lavishly, ostentatiously, gluttonishly of the perks, while also aggressively pushing away the sole reason he’s there in the first place: to take on, to deliver on … the responsibilities. Obama’s there to make things better. That’s why he was elected.
Now, it’s important to acknowledge that what Obama views as “making things better” is just a whole lot different from how the people who elected him view it. That comes from having presented himself, when a candidate, as some kind of moderate Republican, interested first and foremost in jobs, jobs, jobs and a smoothly clicking economy, then, as President, reverting to what he truly is: a collectivist (we demonstrated that convincingly here) who long ago bought the long-discredited silliness that a country works better if controlled centrally by some highly–educated élite.
Trivia question: what’s the difference between Obama’s vision and a monarchy? Elections. That’s it. The only difference. If you were to administer truth serum to him, Obama would show himself to be an eager advocate of disposing of those inconvenient elections, that have brought about so many checks on his power. Many of his supporters have already said as much.
Another point: if Obama had, as seems more and more clear, an agenda to lie to the voters in order to get elected, then to govern according to an entirely different, and contrary, agenda — and not expect to get called on that — then he’s at the very, very best hyper-naïve; at the worst … a complete idiot.
Remember, he’s apparently a successful student of an educational system — Columbia, Harvard — that teaches long-discredited, obvious jackassery as deep thinking and wisdom.
We have no problem suggesting that today’s “flat-earthers” are (1) weird, or (2) kinda stupid, or (3) more than a bit off-their-rockers. Why? Because there are mountains of evidence that the earth is a globe. There are, likewise, mountains of evidence that central control of anything in a country simply always makes that thing worse. Today’s collectivists and socialists — the Barack Obama’s of the world — are today’s flat-earthers.
Now, all the way back to the top: Scott Walker’s lack of a college degree is a perfectly unimportant fact of his life. His vision, character, wisdom and humility are the only things that count.
I have a friend who, not counting a number of honorary degrees, has only a humble Bachelor of Arts degree in French with a double minor in Russian and Political Science, from a non-descript, mid-level state University. He’s the most educated, knowledgeable, wise and humble man I know. He’d never tell you about his honorary degrees, but if you were to ask him about his education, would speak with immense satisfaction about his degree in French … despite the fact that he’s never for a minute used it for his very distinguished career in sports, broadcasting and politics.
Remember: back in 1491, one year before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the ones keeping alive the belief that the earth was flat were … the universities.