AHC: more genuine scholars / intellectuals as President of the US

So... how to get more of what Harding (oh, the irony!) called "the best brains" into the Oval Office?
I'd question whether having more scholars and/or intellectuals as Presidents would automatically be a good thing. I've met a number of academics who whilst undeniably smart and incredibly knowledgable in their fields were absolutely clueless in other spheres of life. Look at LBJ, one of the most effective Presidents at working the system and getting legislation passed – Kennedy also has to receive credit for doing his part in getting killed – but I doubt you would call him either of these.
 
I, for one, do not the believe the assassination of President Kennedy to be a good thing.
I do. Without the sympathy derived from the assassination and freeing of Johnson I'm sceptical that Kennedy would have been able to pass as much legislation as was done.
 
Nixon without a doubt belongs in this category. He wrote a significant amount of books, of which I own all of them.

Hoover would also have to qualify I would think.
 
ObWI: Obligatory what if. Usually added on the end of an off topic comment in a thread dedicated to Points of Divergence or What If questions responding to a theme or concept.

C20: note taking shorthand for 20th century I was taught in uni ages ago.
 

kernals12

Banned
With exception given to Truman, who was a clothier and still not an idiot; have any of the U.S's presidents been actual every-men? I can't think of any, aside from said clothier, who were even close to the common man. At the very least they are often lawyers, or engineers, neither of which is a profession predisposed to idiocy.
Carter
LBJ
 
ObWI: what if the US presidency was more of a general secretary than a generalissimo in the C20?

Probably the last General Secretary who could be considered an intellectual--albeit a self-made one--was Stalin. Simon Sebag Montefiore calls him "the best read ruler of Russia from Catherine the Great up to Vladimir Putin." https://books.google.com/books?id=f-HerzgvxssC&pg=PA97 Khrushchev and Brezhnev by contrast were no intellectuals and they knew it. Brezhnev sometimes asked his speechwriter Georgy Arbatov to cut out references to the Marxist-Leninist "classics" in his speeches: "And who's going to believe I ever read Marx?" https://tnsr.org/2018/02/assessing-soviet-economic-performance-cold-war/
 
I do. Without the sympathy derived from the assassination and freeing of Johnson I'm sceptical that Kennedy would have been able to pass as much legislation as was done.
That is almost an existential dilemma, in that I’d hate for good things to come from somebody’s murder, whether this person is president or anyone else.

although I understand Stephen King explored this very concept in his 11/22/63 (haven’t read this book myself)

——————

I’d like to give you some pushback and challenge you this way: LBJ’s Great Society programs went too far and led to a backlash, and it might have been better if we didn’t have the backlash. What do say about this?
 
Last edited:
There are two major issues here. The first, as discussed above, is that voters tend to be suspicuous of intellectuals, especially in the modern era. However, this can be overcomeThe second is that academia isn't really good preparation for a career in politics. The average PhD as of 2012 graduated at the age of 33, and you would need another five to seven years after that to earn tenure, so you'd be almost 40 before you could think about entering local politics (historically, PhD's didn't take as long to earn, but it would still be a longer time investment than going to law school or into business).

If you define a scholar/intellectual as someone who's published peer-reviewed journal articles or monographs, you could meet the challenge by slightly tweaking the career paths of OTL politicians. Clinton and Obama could both qualify by writing articles for law journals during their jobs as law professors. Ford and Nixon also earned law degrees, although their careers would be less likely to include academic publishing. Wikipedia lists Jimmy Carter as completing a "postgraduate physics course program" at Union College, so a POD could be him deciding to earn a doctorate in physics after leaving the Navy rather than running the peanut farm.

You could also consider PODs or future timelines for politicians with academic backgrounds. These might include:

Henry Cabot Lodge Sr.: Earned a PhD from Harvard and was a member of the American Antiquarian Society and American Academy of Sciences and on the board of directors of the Smithsonian Institution. PODs could include being selected to succeed Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 or running in 1920.

Paul Douglas: A professor of economics at the University of Chicago before being elected to the Senate from Illinois, was seen as a potential candidate for president in 1952 but refused to run. A POD could include him deciding to run in 1960 or JFK selecting him over Johnson as a running mate (you would need the South to be less contested in 1960 for this to work).

George McGovern: A history professor and the Democratic nominee in 1972, but it would be very difficult for him to get elected without either substantially changing his political position or Watergate breaking during the campaign.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan: PhD in history and professor at Syracuse University before entering politics, but it's difficult to see him having a chance at the White House

Phil Gramm: Professor of economics before becoming a senator from Texas, ran for President in 1996, but his candidacy was derailed by a scandal over his investments in pornographic movies.

Newt Gingrich:Was a professor at the University of West Georgia before running for Congress. Ran for president in 2012, but a more plausible timeline would have him running in 1996 or 2000, or some sort of 25th Amendment scenario where Clinton and Gore are both taken out in the 1990s.

Paul Wellstone: Professor at Carleton College before running for senate, could have been a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2004 if it hadn't been for the plane crash that killed him.

Ted Strickland: Former Governor of Ohio with a doctorate in psychology, was mentioned as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008

Ben Sasse: Was President of Midland University in Nebraska before becoming a Senator, occasionally discussed as a primary challenger to Trump in 2020, and if he'd decided to run for Senate in 2012 instead of 2014 he could have been a presidential candidate in 2016.

Eric Greitens: Rhodes Scholar and PhD from Oxford who was an adjunct professor at Washington University in St. Louis before being elected Governor of Missouri and then having his career flame out in a sex scandal. Absent the sex scandal, he would probably be seen as a likely future presidential contender.
 
I say the great society didn’t go too far enough. The counter institutions and organisations needed more social democracy to mature. So did the British. Not enough fertilizer for the young growth of antisocialdemocratic communism.
 
BTW, Adlai Stevenson is a good example of an American politician with an exaggerated reputation as an intellectual. "Wanting to read a book was something to talk about but not do. He was not really an intellectual," wrote his biographer John Bartlow Martin. https://www.google.com/search?q="wa...-pHiAhUKWq0KHY7nC2wQ_AUIFCgB&biw=1839&bih=779 JFK was probably telling the truth when he told friends that he read more books in a week than Stevenson did in a year... https://books.google.com/books?id=rnphPjrOOkMC&pg=PA399
 
Ronald Reagan was an idea man.

He really worked on sculpting his ideas through his writing and his radio show. His two ideas were:

1) lower top tax rates, as a way to increase economic growth, and​

2) standing up to the Soviets as a way to prevent nuclear war (in fact, following the March '81 assassination attempt, Reagan believed God may have saved him for the purpose of preventing nuclear war)​

And while he had a very close relationship with his wife Nancy, that many people may envy, did he have a friend. Yes, he had fellow conservatives he was friendly colleagues with, and he had disciplines.

It's a strange question to ask, but all through the '70s and '80s, did Ronald Reagan have a friend?

He was an introvert and a policy specialist.
 
It's a strange question to ask, but all through the '70s and '80s, did Ronald Reagan have a friend?

He was an introvert and a policy specialist.

Tons of introvert actors, seems to be a thing lol. As for friends think basically LA Republicans and actors. But really most were Nancy’s friends, Reagan never seemed to forge a lot close friendships. Perhaps his best man at his wedding, William Holden? Although he died in 1981.

LATimes said:
Close friends, like Bonita Granville Wrather, have been invited to stay over in the past months, so that they will have "slept in the White House."
[…]
Sunday night here, the regulars (with a few additions) drifted out of the back room at Antoine's, the landmark restaurant in the French Quarter--the Jorgensens; former Atty. Gen. William French Smith and his wife Jean; Betsy Bloomingdale; Erlenne and Norman Sprague; Giney Milner; David Murdock; former Ambassador William and Betty Wilson; former White House Chief of Protocol Lee Annenberg and Harriet and Armand Deutsch.
 
Paul Laxalt? . . .
. . . As for friends think basically LA Republicans and actors. But really most were Nancy’s friends, . . .
Reagan and Paul Laxalt respected each other as fellow conservatives, but I’d question whether they were really friends. He and Nancy enjoyed seeing Jimmy Stewart and his wife Gloria Hatrick McLean, but I don’t know how often. Reagan also liked and respected Rock Hudson, one reason I wish he could have been ahead of the curve regarding AIDS during his presidency.

But all the same, Ronnie Reagan was a very self-contained person.

He had Nancy and he had his ideas. And he focused on a relatively small subset of ideas, almost just the two I listed above, maybe a few more.
 
Last edited:
Top