Not necessarily. I know a few very intelligent people who still have absolutely no coherent political beliefs.
Hell, my husband used to say he was either moderately apathetic or apathetically moderate, take your pick. Now he can't afford to be.
The problem is, many people don't take a look at the overall picture when voting for their candidate. Many of them look at it purely from a single issue, if they look at the issues at all. Either that, or they go for an ideology, without necessarily seeing what the results are.
I mean, how many people would have voted for Perot the first time around (had he not dropped out), just because he was different? He was new, he wasn't one of the two main parties... Who cares that he had no defense ideas worth speaking of, who cares if he only had a good business sense but had no idea what to do with the rest of the country on social issues? Who cares that he had diplomacy skills that were even worse than Bush's (and that's not saying much), he was a likable goofy-eared character who had enough money to take the country by storm, and he wasn't one of the two main parties. People are sick of having to take "one side or the other", when really, neither "side" is worth diddly/squat (can you tell I'm personally sick and tired of the political bullshit?).
I remember at the time that there was a poll at one point that had all three candidates (bush the daddy, clinton, and perot) tied neck and neck, and Perot was actually on top by three percentage points or something... (I think it was 31, 32, and 35%, bush, clinton, perot). And this was with a man who really had no agenda, just spunk. The only thing he ever talked about was his economic plan, but nothing else. And that many people headed straight for him without even being aware of what his political ideologies were, or knowing how he felt on social issues or foreign policy.
Charismatic the man was, diplomatic he wasn't. There's a difference.
But I knew a bunch of very well educated people who wanted to vote for him simply because he wasn't bush and he wasn't clinton.
These are people who very easily fall into categories ranging from "above average intelligence" to "mensa candidate".
High intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that the person USES the brains they've been blessed with.
(no subject)
There's been a steady increase in the ability to do IQ tests. I wonder if it translates into more people with coherent political beliefs.
(no subject)
Hell, my husband used to say he was either moderately apathetic or apathetically moderate, take your pick. Now he can't afford to be.
The problem is, many people don't take a look at the overall picture when voting for their candidate. Many of them look at it purely from a single issue, if they look at the issues at all. Either that, or they go for an ideology, without necessarily seeing what the results are.
I mean, how many people would have voted for Perot the first time around (had he not dropped out), just because he was different? He was new, he wasn't one of the two main parties... Who cares that he had no defense ideas worth speaking of, who cares if he only had a good business sense but had no idea what to do with the rest of the country on social issues? Who cares that he had diplomacy skills that were even worse than Bush's (and that's not saying much), he was a likable goofy-eared character who had enough money to take the country by storm, and he wasn't one of the two main parties. People are sick of having to take "one side or the other", when really, neither "side" is worth diddly/squat (can you tell I'm personally sick and tired of the political bullshit?).
I remember at the time that there was a poll at one point that had all three candidates (bush the daddy, clinton, and perot) tied neck and neck, and Perot was actually on top by three percentage points or something... (I think it was 31, 32, and 35%, bush, clinton, perot). And this was with a man who really had no agenda, just spunk. The only thing he ever talked about was his economic plan, but nothing else. And that many people headed straight for him without even being aware of what his political ideologies were, or knowing how he felt on social issues or foreign policy.
Charismatic the man was, diplomatic he wasn't. There's a difference.
But I knew a bunch of very well educated people who wanted to vote for him simply because he wasn't bush and he wasn't clinton.
These are people who very easily fall into categories ranging from "above average intelligence" to "mensa candidate".
High intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that the person USES the brains they've been blessed with.