The Best, Not the Brightest

I've been listening to an audiobook of the Civil War lately, and there is a theme running throughout the narrative. The smartest man does not always win and intelligence does not guarantee success.

I was thinking about it in particular when they went over General Hood's part in the battle of Atlanta. General Hood was not all that intelligent, but he was bold. This had served him well earlier in the conflict, where boldness and aggressiveness were more important than sound tactics, but fell apart when he reached Atlanta and was put in charge of the Confederate forces after General Johnston was relieved.

However, often, other Civil War leaders prevailed despite their low academic standing at West Point. Shelby Foote often noted in his book The Civil War, A Narrative, what the class ranking at West Point was. If the person was near the bottom of his class, he typically did poorly, but often, those at the top of their class didn't do very well (the premier exception being General Robert E. Lee). Those that were in the middle or lower third tended to do better.

When you look at General Ulysses S. Grant, he was not great in his class and not noted as a particularly spit-polished soldier during peace time. However, he was persistent and dogged, and not much given to fear. In contrast, General McClellan was touted as a brilliant leader, visionary and adored by his soldiers. But, with the exception of his Antietem victory (which, to be fair, he had a copy of the enemy's battle plan) did not reflect his record as a commander. In fact, he was quite reluctant to commit his troops to battle and often would not move forward even under intense prodding from President Lincoln. Some considered him a coward, but you have to wonder if sometimes too much awareness is a bad thing. The more you know about what might go wrong, the more freaked out going into battle should make you.

I believe that this illustrates that deep thinkers do not always lead or succeed. Often, over thinking a situation can be harmful, because it can confuse the issue or bog down the simple process of quickly acting when the need arises.

When you look at our recent past Presidents, it seems to me that the smart ones are the less successful ones. Carter, Clinton, and Obama are not short of intelligence, but they were unable to work together or get the public to understand and agree when they were doing something correctly. On the other hand George W. Bush, who few would argue is an extremely intelligent man or a deep thinker, had a single minded unity of purpose and a dogged persistence that worked very well for him. Few should argue that his Presidency was not successful, despite the shortcomings in his mental abilities.