At Outside the Beltway James Joyner comes out in favor of mandatory retirement ages for elected and appointed officials or at the very least periodic evaluation:
We are increasingly a gerontocracy. Maybe it’s time to get past the joking about cognitive decline and actually start doing something about the real dangers of critical decisions being made by people who are likely suffering from it. It would not be at all unreasonable to require people who want to be in those positions to be evaluated regularly and have the results part of the public record.
Bringing back mandatory retirement, while politically unfeasible, may be advisable. Many US states require judges to retire when they reach 70, for example. And while the Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes mandatory retirement illegal, it makes exceptions for Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (usually, public safety—law enforcement officers, pilots, etc.) and for “Bona Fide Executives†or those in a “High Policymaking Position†over 65.
Certainly, the President of the United States is both a bona fide executive and a high policymaking position.
Such a move would require a constitutional amendment and would be hugely controversial. Periodic evaluations are a move that sounds a lot better than it would be in practice. I’m skeptical that it could be done without being political.
What would you evaluate? Physical ability? That would probably have ruled FDR out. Memory? There are lots of completely competent people with lousy memories and individuals with serious mental or psychological problems with excellent memories (they’re called “savants”). Neurocognitive tests of the sort used by physicians tend to rely heavily on the judgment of the physician applying them. They may seem objective in nature but they aren’t. When the stakes are low that’s one thing but administering such tests to a president is something entirely different. How would we determine that the physician is applying his or her professional assessment rather than his or her prejudice or agenda?
Intelligence? There is a close correlation between the old pre-reform SAT scores and IQ. Bill Clinton’s combined SAT scores have been widely reported as 1032. That would suggest an IQ of around 110 which is about what I would expect but lots of people find that shocking. I think he would have rated extremely high on any assessment of social-emotional ability which actually matters a lot more than IQ. My own combined SAT scores correlate pretty well with my measured IQ, thank you for asking.
Psychological? I suspect that a lot of our presidents have been sociopaths or at least have had sociopathic tendencies. As many as 20% of highly successful people have been estimated to be sociopaths and presidents frequently have traits that are associated with sociopathy (craving validation and recognition from others, self-centered, high levels of entitlement, etc.).
While I wouldn’t be opposed to a maximum age for elective and appointed officials of 65, I would oppose periodic assessments. We already have them. They’re called “elections”. We also have a provision for an extraordinary evaluation of the president’s mental fitness. It’s called “the 25th amendment”.
Otherwise I think there are some things we are better off not knowing.
“Intelligence? There is a close correlation between the old pre-reform SAT scores and IQ. Bill Clinton’s combined SAT scores have been widely reported as 1032. That would suggest an IQ of around 110 which is about what I would expect but lots of people find that shocking. “
I know this is not the thrust of the post, but it’s an interesting topic. I’ve run in some pretty high octane circles for 25 years now. Lawyers, investors, govt specialists, academics, business people, technical people etc. Bill Clinton does not have a 110 IQ. Sorry, he doesn’t. No matter how bad someone, for some reason, wants to believe that.
The smartest person I ever interacted with was a physics prof at Purdue. Prof Sato. A Feynman-like pulsating brain. But very specialized. One of my partners for 14 years is the second most. The youngest partner ever at Booz Allen he was supposedly in the 150s. He and I developed a bond because we operated on a similar level. He had a very fine mind, and he elevated every discussion; but he was a lousy investor. A good measure of raw memory power, or acute analytical prowess, is important, but when the facts are all laid out, or as laid out as they are going to be, intuition, experience, judgement and risk tolerance are the keys. He was caught in analytical mode.
And that applies generally to decisionmaking, whether investing or executive action. In the current political realm I’m fascinated by the number of people who criticize Trump, who is obviously not a towering intellect, but truth be told are just whining and bitching little fools who would whither under the mandate to graduate from staff to executive. Trump runs circles around them; they are simply stuck in their conventions.
Professionals, e.g. lawyers, physicains, etc. tend to have IQs from one to two standard deviations above normal, i.e. 110-135. Docs typically a little higher than lawyers. Much higher than that and they get bored with what professionals actually do.
Much is made of Clinton’s having been a Rhodes scholar. One of my high school classmates became a Rhodes scholar. Coincidentally, he was the son of an old family friend. He was about in the middle of the class. Rhodes scholars are politicians not brain trusts.
What Clinton has is charm, magnetism. That’s very different from IQ but it’s what a politician needs. Could he have “under-tested”? I guess. But the evidence that he has an IQ more than two standard deviations above normal is lacking despite the claims of his supporters.
I have absolutely no idea what Donald Trump’s IQ is and I really don’t care. I think he’s probably a typical member of the professional class, i.e. between 110 and 135. Could be higher, could be lower. What concerns me more than his intelligence are his decision-making process and that he seems pretty incurious. I definitely don’t think that IQ above normal has a lot to do with whether you make a good president. Jefferson unquestionably had a high IQ and was an okay president. So did Wilson and was a pretty lousy president. I would guess that, contrary to the beliefs of his supporters, Obama’s IQ is probably pretty typical for a member of the professional class.
Funny you should mention physics profs. Physicists tend to have higher IQs.
Wasn’t Clinton a rural kid? He may not have been aware how important the SAT was. I certainly wasn’t since I worked the late shift the night before the test and didnt get home until after 1:00 AM. Fell asleep during the test. I think people from big cities and the coasts were aware of the importance of testing, but in my rural area I dont think anyone really understood it. There were none of the refresher courses or prep courses like kids have available today.
I know it is common for Trump critics to call him a moron, implying he is stupid, but he is not. Stuff that he actually knows, he knows pretty well, like real estate and TV. However, seems pretty clear, he actually brags about it, that he doesn’t read much of anything. He just doesn’t have the well rounded knowledge base that you expect of someone who has been around for a while and professes to have an interest in public issues. So he uses his 6th grade vocabulary, which his base loves since it proves he isn’t a snotty elite, but it means that when he talks about complex issues he doesn’t come across well. Most politicians dont sound that good talking about medical issues, but he sounds awful.
Think the brightest guy I worked with was a biophysics professor at Penn who I worked with on a research project. Guy was also an Olympic Gold medalist. Multiple PhDs as I recall.
Steve
See, it’s an interesting topic.
I have no reason to disagree with the aggregate stats you cite in your first paragraph. But they are aggregates. I’ll leave the last comment/sentence about professional boredom alone. Heh.
Rhodes scholar means nothing to me. Knew three, one my best friend in high school, and the other his rival. Both had mediocre careers. Perhaps satisfying, but relatively inconsequential. One was my favorite lawyer of all time. (Princeton, Harvard, Oxford). We had a lot of fun (the war stories abound) when he was on the other side of the table, and later my side. I loved that guy, and he taught me all in contract law I will ever need to know. But I’m sorry, I’ve just met too many, as I say, high octane people in the last 25 years to believe Bill Clinton, the immoral fuck, is a 110 IQ guy.
As for Trump, I think people underestimate him. Partly partisanship, partly his boorish nature. I know Donald Trump. I worked for a Trump. I know the strengths and weaknesses. Enough time has passed since his death that I can say who, Michael Heisley. A Chicago turnaround investor. Billionaire. Look him up. His strength was his drive and conviction. His weakness was same. Trump is wiser and smarter and learns. If one wants a standard issue Joe Biden or HRC type instead, they are a fool.
Physics, eh? Let’s cut the crap. Your interests or training in physical chemistry mean you are a physics guy. By original training I’m fundamentally a physics person. In the physical sciences, it’s all, at its core, physics. Period, full stop. This enables de novo considerations of almost any issue. You also enjoy a memory capacity that is an absolute gift. I wish I had it. Only my high school buddy rivals your recall and capacity.
But this only sets one up for the potential for success. So many other traits come into play. Have we had presidents who have it all? Not to my knowledge. So I’ll pass it to the usual commenters. What do you want in an executive, especially the one sitting in the White House?
I think there may be a mistaken impression that I’m dismissing Clinton as a lightweight. Far from it. I’m actually paying him a compliment. He has a reputation as a “policy wonk” and I think he works hard at it. He works to stay well-informed. I’d rather see that than someone to whom it comes a lot more easily.
But I’m also disagreeing with the claim one frequently encounters that he’s some sort of genius. As I’ve said, I believe that in terms of intelligence he’s a pretty typical member of the professional class. IQ probably between one and two SDs above average. No way he’s at the genius level. I’ve known quite a few people with IQs greater than three standard deviations above average (Michael is one of them). One of my dearest friends is another.
Now in terms of social-emotional ability I think he’s a prodigy and that is known to be a greater indicator of success than IQ.
Enough on Bill. But as an aside, I’m sure you mean Michael Reynolds. Having sparred good, and bad, naturedly with him for perhaps 10 years I would not make that assessment in any way shape or form. I find him quite pedestrian, unless his commentary is not reflective. What is it that causes you to make that assessment?
He told me so. Over some good conversation and a lot of single malt.
Heh.
Well, whatever. I guess I can’t resist – I’ve gleaned more interesting or thought provoking insights from you, especially, and other commenters here – and yes, even steve, despite my schtick – than MR. Or any of that band of gypsies over at OTB.
Dave,
I agree that mandatory retirement would require a Constitutional amendment and that it’s a political non-starter for that reason.
In terms of testing, presumably the sort that we now do for Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia. But effectiveness might require some baselining. (And, as I believe I noted in the comments section discussion there, I agree that the politicization is an issue. We’ve seen it with President Trump’s over-the-top health assessments.)
I do believe that the current administration has demonstrated that the 25th Amendment can’t be relied upon to save us.
That physician who handed out the over the top physical is running for office. As a Republican. I am so shocked.
Steve
So assessments of mental health depend on the political affiliations of the testers and the tested. Who knew? I always thought I was nuts, now I’m sure of it/sarc
Age is should not be used for retirement purposes. Sanders and Biden are close in age. Sanders still seems fairly sharp; Biden is a dim bulb who’s flickering out (of course the two brain surgeries he had (people seem to forget about that) didn’t help). It’s all in the genes.
Jackson gave a long, overly effusive press conference about Trump’s health. Conley, the current in house physician, said he was in very good health and not much else, which has pretty much been the norm when they announce these exam results. So the assessment may or may not be biased by one’s affiliation, but the presentation clearly was. Or maybe it was just a coincidence that the guy raved about Trump, then ran for office. LOL.
Steve
This comment thread is a perfect example of why I don’t put much stock in assessments of “IQ.” Even if “intelligence” can be accurately measured (and I’m skeptical), it’s only one part of the whole person and arguably not the most important part.
It’s also interesting how we value things differently – for example, someone with ambition and success for power, influence, and money is perceived to be smarter or better than someone with ambition for other things.
” for example, someone with ambition and success for power, influence, and money is perceived to be smarter or better than someone with ambition for other things.”
Wish I had said that. Part of the problem I think is that people who prioritize money and/or power cant conceive the idea of people valuing other stuff.
Steve
https://youtu.be/p1c-WyooGEY