How to nullify the anti-intelligence movement the GOP pushes

What would happen if we knew the IQ, past grades, class ranks, and courses studied of ANY politician who was up for an election?

What if that IQ score was posted next to their party affiliation, would the stigma associated help or hurt their campaigns?

Imagine seeing this on a ballot in Tennessee in 2010:

Robert Phillips "Bob" Corker, Jr -Republican (IQ: 98)
Harold Eugene Ford, Jr. -Democrat (IQ: 120)

Who wouldn't feel embarrassment by voting for someone who is intellectually deficient?

The brightest and best should be chosen to lead the country. We have seen what electing a President on the basis of "Who you would rather share a beer with" leads to and it isn't pretty.

There's such strong anti-intellectual prejudice in America that we'd probably see the person with the lowest IQ getting elected every time (because dumb=honest dontcha know).

It should be fairly apparent to the average person which political leaders are *intelligent*, which ones are Dan Quale / Sarah Palin types, and ones you'd just like to have a beer with. It doesn't take a measuring tape to determine the smart leaders from the not-so-smart.

being allowed to run. Perhaps making them all take an SAT-type exam would be a broader measure, but I don't believe many current politicians would be able to pass a standardized test.

but random IQ testing isn't going to be a very good measuring stick I don't think. If people voted based on intelligence Bush wouldn't even make local level dog catcher.

Case closed.

I think America knew in 2000 that Gore was the smart guy in class who knew the material and that Dubya was just there cause his Daddy could pay for him to be. And yet it was still close enough to steal.

The only time Americans clearly pick the smarter guy is after Republicans have trashed the economy for a few years. The rest of the time, intelligence is low on the list of criteria. Of course in physical contests, they all go for the star athlete and watch the NFL draft to see how the most athletic will sort out amongst the teams. They know how to pick for physical attributes (maybe that's why California elected the Governator), but in picking for intellectual fitness, they fall down flat. Perhaps it is because of resentment that they never were smart and never will be that smart that they want "someone they can have a beer with".

Maybe H. L. Mencken said it best: "We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Haven't taken one since.

I mention that just in case I need some kind of qualification to say the following:

IQ tests have nothing to do with inherent intelligence. They test one's acculturation to the bodies of knowledge considered important as measures on the tests, nothing more. Intelligence is a far more slippery and complex concept than you are allowing.

Meritocracy is no guarantee of justice for all. Smart people invented and justified the scams that just emptied the peoples' pockets. Smart people run banks and claim that Social Security is unsustainable, but the stock market and "free trade" are just dandy.

A lack of intelligence in the political management really isn't the main problem. Representation is far more important. If you want change, you need people in government who honestly represent the different interests of all groups in society, and whose representation of interests ideally breaks up along the same lines as the different interests in the population itself. That would be the beginning; one hopes these true representatives would then also be smart enough to meet complex challenges in a creative and surprising fashion.

The people need to stop falling for scam artists whom they identify with personally; whether politicians are smart or dumb is irrelevant compared to what they actually want to do when in office. The people need to start identifying with their own interests and those who represent their interests, rather than with personalities they think are like them.

In short, the key change won't be greater intelligence in the leadership, but more applied intelligence among the people in choosing their representatives.

Finally, as to meritocracy: A random selection of 535 people from the population as a whole would produce a Congress more representative of society's many classes, and probably more just than what we have now. Whereas a selection of the 535 "smartest" people (top IQ scorers, winners of Nobel prizes, whatever) is not only impossible; it will just put a new class on top in the class war.

The rich can already buy better diplomas. Why not better IQ scores?

If the GOP can do it, we sure as hell can.

things like "We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here."

Democrats, if they're to really live up to the name, need to help make people less stupid. This is one thing I give to Obama, class war though he may practice: he speaks to people as though they weren't stupid. Others should try it.