JFK regarded as smart? I dunno. Charismatic is a better adjective. Now *Carter* was the archetypal smart man/failure as executive.

What these guys seem to have in common is an overfondness for details in a job that doesn't allow you that luxury. Adhering to a few over-arching principles seems to be the route to success. Hedgehog rather than fox.

Bruce:

No one thinks he was smart anymore, but recall that at the time he was sold as a Pultizer prize-winning Harvard grad who practically ran a salon.

I would have replaced JFK on the list with Mr. Nuclear Submarine himself, James Earl Carter, but the comparison does show that raw intellegence and common sense often are two different things, with ego a major factor in so-called very smart people doing very stupid things.

Carter played the yokel to good effect.

But the Democrats portrayed him as a genius compared with Gerald Ford, whose image the media cemented being as dumb, but clumsier than the current White House occupant. So he was the Robert Oppenhrimer of Plains for the intellectual crowd, while the born-again Christian image pushed by the party was for the fly-over hicks to focus upon.

Well, there were dumb failures too, like LBJ.

But he was a Democrat. All the dumb Republicans have been successful.

LBJ may or may not have been dumb, but he shared a trait with both Nixon and Clinton: deviousness. It got all of them into trouble. (And was LBJ the first of that type, or am I being too generous to some of his predecessors?)

Even Lincoln was devious.

Chester Arthur had the reputation of being devious and wiley. Ascending to the presidency changed him, which sets him apart from LBJ, RMN & WJC.

Dave -

You say that as if deviousness is a bad thing. In truth, it's a sine qua non of conducting war and governing in a democracy

Raoul:

I don't think LBJ was devious (he was too egotistical for that), but he was used to getting his own way. As Majority Leader, he only had to convince 67% of the Senate (with charm or with force); as President, he had to do better. He was successful for about two and-a-half years, and then quite unsuccessful for the remaining two and-a-half. Had he not been such a force as Majority Leader, I think he would be remembered as Jimmy Carter is, although he deserves credit for ramming the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts through the Senate.

Had he been more devious, Vietnam would not have gone as it did, and he would have fired (or eased out) all of the Kennedy best & brightest by January 1965.

lbj was in so far over his head that it would take mark twain to find him.

I guess by "devious", I mean not just an ability to be tricky or manipulative, but also enjoying sticking it to your opponents. Yes, it's true that anyone who gets to those levels of power enjoys himself, and sometimes outside events require it (Linkcoln) but it seems to me that LBJ was the first one who really enjoyed being nasty in petty ways. In that regard, Clinton may not deserve to be lumped in with the '60s guys, as Clinton just enjoyed having a good time, the consequences be damned.

LBJ famously said, "I never trust a man 'til I have his pec*er in my pocket." LBJ was that kind of guy.

RE: "It's no coincidence that the four most successful presidents elected in the past hundred years--FDR, Ike, Reagan, and W--have been considered intellectual lightweights while every one of the smart ones--Wilson, Hoover, JFK, and Nixon--was a failure."

Teddy Roosevelt was smart, not a failure, and served (just barely) in the last 100 years.

TR wasn't elected within the past hundred and was a lousy president--the first Statist.

jim:

Read the Caro biography of LBJ?

Being brilliant, yet lacking in self discipline, I can attest to the underlying truth of this post.

Note how our schools are designed such that they not only fail teach self-discipline, but embrace a curriculum that effectively destroys it.