Scientists find liberal gene

free republic

As I've come to expect, a liberal commenter says liberals are smarter than conservatives.  Is there a way to gauge this empirically?   Perhaps one way would be to observe how well each does in political campaigns.

Republicans have won 5 out the last 8 Presidential elections.  So much for liberal superiority complexes.

For one particular example, consider Ronald Reagan.  I would put forth the idea that most Republicans and Democrats for that matter, do not understand why Reagan was as successful as he was.  I was old enough to vote for or against him, and voted against.  It was very easy to underestimate Reagan.  Intelligence is a subtle thing, not so obvious to discern.  The conventional wisdom at the time was Reagan was an "amiable dunce".  But not so.  Reagan was very wise not to call himself "right wing".  There is a strong bias against "right wing" politics, so any politicians that aligns himself in such a way has beaten himself before he even starts.  Reagan didn't do that.  Another problem amongst the conservatives is the tendency to divide themselves.  Reagan had a rule-- thou shalt not criticize other Republicans in public.  Another example of his wisdom--which is something that the Republicans need to remember.  A third thing to remember is that even though Republicans favor military strength, they are all-too-often, all-too-willing to use it.  Reagan was very judicious in how he used the military.  The two Bush presidencies were not so judicious, and wound up dividing themselves and the country in so doing.

It is a fine line in appearing weak and coming on too strong.  Clinton was able to walk that line.  Maybe not so much with Obama, but the jury is still out.  Bush, on the other hand, came on too strong.  Reagan was like the Goldilocks and Three Bears, just right.

It is not so useful, I think, to look only at the ideologies.  You need to look at the person.  Reagan was better than the two Bushes, Clinton was also better, but probably not as good as Reagan.  Obama may be more like Carter, who was the least of them all, in my opinion.  Ideologies didn't have that much to do with any of it.  It mattered more in how they conducted themselves while in office.  Clinton would have done much better if he was more truthful and kept his zipper up.  Reagan was getting a little old, but his judgment as still superior to Bush or Clinton.  Obama may appear strong in foreign policy, but that may be an illusion.  Trouble signs are mounting. He is failing badly in economics--- foreign policy requires strength, and a weak economy makes a weak hand.

Romney seeks to unseat Obama.  One advantage Romney brings to the table is a record of competence.  It doesn't help Obama when he doesn't appear to have a grasp of the problems that face the nation.  In a mano y mano matchup, it will become apparent who will be the better master.  I'd bet on the guy who has a record of success versus a guy who doesn't.  The ideology won't matter for people who are looking for leadership and signs of competence and strength.  Obama doesn't project that at the moment--- Romney has an edge.