Is America Too Rich to Lead?

Several day ago, a link to a link to a link led me to this website about IQ, a definition and what amounts to a differential diagnosis between Gifted (130-144), Very Gifted (145-159) and Profoundly Gifted (160+) in terms of social characteristics. People on the plus side of the curve are more introverted than the people on the minus side. At least that’s what lured me in the first place.

Buried way down on the page is this little tidbit:

“[T]here is a direct ratio between the intelligence of the leader and that of the led. A leadership pattern will not form, or it will break up, when a discrepancy of more than approximately 30 points of IQ comes to exist between the leader and the led.”

That’s interesting, and sort of explains a lot. This info was unattributed, and there are no details that explain why, but I suspect that goals change with IQ and what is wanted by someone with a higher IQ is not interesting to the lower IQ side. My guess, you understand, I’d be curious to see more research on the study, but you have to remember that I’m below gifted -- just Bright (115-129) -- and compensate by being a smart-ass. (It’s a bad habit, but unfortunately, it seems to work. – Ed.) This works out to two standards of deviation on the chart shown at the above site.

What if there is a similar principle in economics and how do you measure it? Consider this: In the U.S. during the 19th Century, people admired the wealthy, but hated being at their mercy. It’s pretty close to the same as earlier centuries being ruled by an aristocracy. Love/resentment, loyalty/jealousy, “It’s my country, my King – but he’s really making me mad!”

Today the U.S. is resented by “the rest of the world,” if you believe the NY Times (I don’t). But if Americans go overseas, they are generally very well accepted by the people of the host country, foreigners still want to emigrate to the U.S. and enjoy the benefits of a successful capitalistic democracy – but they HATE being told what to do by the U.S.

What I’ve been worried about lately is the shrinking middle-class and how it will effect the political process. I think™ that the U.S. will end up being ruled by a wealthy aristocracy, beloved and the rest of the country will remain loyal, but jealous and the rule will be resented.

Globally, how do you compensate for this? Well, you have to bring the whole world up a couple standards of deviation and somehow keep so many of the super rich from running away from the pack.

Thomas Barnett in his Rumsfeld-touted book “The Pentagon’s New Map” touches on this a little, referring to the Core and the Gap countries as to where a military presence will be needed. He points out that once you get the average annual wage above $3,000 in a country, trouble stops and prosperity starts to take hold. People basically quit fighting because they have something to lose.

Anyway, that just an interesting thought that popped into my head. Not very capitalistic, I should say that even though I enjoyed Barnett’s book tremendously, overall it lean’s a little too Divine-Rights Absolutist for my Libertarian tastes. I don’t think I like the idea of ‘exporting security’ without developing prosperity also.