To cite one recent "feminist" response to the final-stage smear campaign against Arnold Schwarzenegger: "The difference is that Clinton was so brilliant ... If Arnold was a brilliant pol[itician] and had this thing about inappropriate behaviour, we'd figure a way of getting around it."

Leaving aside every question about cynicism, hypocrisy, double-standards and straight-forward dishonesty, what makes these words interesting is the light they shed on current Democrat attitudes in the US today, widely echoed around the world.

They are made especially relevant by their resonance with typical leftist and overseas judgments of President George W. Bush, which in turn eerily recall the disparagement of President Ronald Reagan for his supposed intellectual deficiencies.

A solid defence can and has been made of the practical intelligence of all three slandered Republicans mentioned here. Their achievements - if highly controversial - do not seem to be obviously overshadowed by those of their "pointy-headed" rivals. But let us instead accept that such leaders are indeed "dumb", what follows from it?

For their critics, it is an unspoken assumption that lack of intellectual gifts disqualifies someone for high political office. Yet what truly sends such commentators into paroxysms of infuriation is the fact that the US electorate seems nowhere close to agreeing with this principle.

Worse still, perhaps a broad majority of US citizens positively dislike highbrow politicians.

Such dislike actually makes a lot of sense.

It is no coincidence that the (big government) Democrat Party is the source of such sneering in the US. Democrat supporters positively exult in the thought of politicians making as many decisions as possible on their behalf and therefore seek leaders who are cognitively equipped to do so.

Republican supporters, who are typically happier managing a larger proportion of their own lives, have no such reason to trust smart - or more precisely, self-consciously smart - politicians. They wisely predict that "smart" leaders will be more inclined to spend their money on their behalf, wrap them in red-tape and manipulate social institutions (such as the legal system) in order to realize elite objectives without broad popular support.

For most US voters, being ruled by leaders who think they know best, especially when it comes to spending other people's wages or micromanaging society, is not a price worth paying for extra presidential brain-cells.

In the US context, tax-cutting and intellectually modest leadership have become deeply fused in popular opinion across the entire political spectrum, to such an extent that a BQ or "bossiness quotient" could now safely simplify the matter by encompassing both factors. Low BQ politicians might make more grammatical errors and be more likely to mispronounce the name of a foreign dignitary, but they are also less likely to interfere with your life, destroy your savings, or approriate ever larger chunks of your income for elaborate social programmes.

California's new Governor Schwarzenegger will soon have his low BQ credentials tested as he tries to wrestle with a disastrous Democrat economic legacy without raising taxes. Many of those who voted for him will be hoping he proves as "dumb" - and cheap - as promised.

starcomment@yahoo.com