Democrats on the other hand react so strongly against taking “marching orders” that they can scarcely stay on message even if their political lives depend on it (which they often do). Whether because he wasn’t sure exactly what he wanted to do or because he took the laissez-faire attitude toward leadership that bedevils the Democratic Party, President Obama let a Democratic Congress craft his signature legislation on health care. The result was a patchwork quilt that took 15 months to sew, and was stitched so sloppily that it left the average American cold.

Just as the two parties differ in their attitudes toward authority, they diverge in the value they place on intellect. In both cases, the two parties might have something to learn from each other.

Whereas Democrats have carried forward the belief in the role of science and knowledge in improving our lives, Republicans have moved in increasingly anti-intellectual directions. Three of the Republican presidential hopefuls report entering the race at the urging of God, a claim that would have distressed the founders, who rejected claims to leadership by divine right.

It is deeply ironic that the Republican Party, long the party of privilege, has become the party that champions the view that anyone — from an exterminator (Tom DeLay, former House majority leader) to the owner of a pizza joint (Bobby Schilling, freshman congressman from Illinois) — has what it takes to run a country.

Yet if the Republican presidential debates have demonstrated anything, it is that intellect is not just a liability for a Republican primary contender, but a disqualifier. It is no accident that Mitt Romney has had to renounce the best thing he ever did for the people of Massachusetts as governor — passing health care legislation that actually allows the people of the state to go to the doctor when they’re sick.

Democrats, in contrast, are too likely to view intellect as both necessary (which it is) and sufficient (which it is not) for high office. They have repeatedly presented the American people with candidates — Hubert H. Humphrey, Walter F. Mondale, Michael S. Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry — with more than enough gray matter to be the world’s chief executive but not enough of the other skills that matter to the American people. Those qualities, which many Democrats perceive as “irrational,” are quintessentially rational if the goal is to lead, to implement policies effectively, and to keep voters engaged between elections so they can weigh in to coerce their elected representatives to represent them when members of Congress are disinclined to do so (usually, today, because of the competing demands of their campaign contributors).

THE ability to “read” the emotions of the electorate and to speak to those emotions in a compelling way do more for both electoral success and legislative success than I.Q. Similarly important is the ability to articulate a vision and a set of values, which is a far better predictor of voting behavior than positions on “the issues.”