I don’t think IQ is the key, and I agree that certain qualities of character and doggedness and judgment and boldness and also a certain kind of flexibility are probably more important (after a certain minimum of intelligence, of course). There is a kind of analytical intelligence, though, that allows a decision-maker to understand quickly the essential issues that are dividing his advisors and separate the clear bullshit from something that makes sense. I have the sense that Lincoln had that and FDR and Eisenhower and Kennedy and Nixon. I think Clinton has it, too (but in his case this asset is overwhelmed by his character deficiencies). I don’t think Reagan or Bush have this. They both are willing to be bold, and they both have a bull-headedness that can be a real strength if your instincts and intelligence are carrying you in the right direction. But both of them were capable of being led off into la-la land because they weren’t able to detect the bullshit spewed out by key advisors in their administrations. I breathed a tremendous sigh of relief when George Bush the Elder took over from Reagan. Reagan scared me; George reassured me. I will be very relieved when somebody takes over from George the Younger. I could live with a very hawkish guy like Giuliani, for example, because I think he is very smart in the ways that count and could be the master of his own staff in a way I don’t think George ever will be. I don’t think history will be all that kind to either Reagan or Bush.
As for you and me, I think our IQs are about even (I have this on good authority from Mom), and I think we would both be disastrous Presidents. You would get suckered into buying in whole hog to some crackpot ideology, and I would crumble and resign if a crisis ever required me to sustain my resolve for more than about six months. I think we would both make terrific advisors to a President, though, as long as we weren’t given any actual operational responsibilities for anything.