Opinion : Judge Judy vs. Jeopardy: Smart people choose smart entertainment, smart leaders

If there is one report from the news lately that indicates best how bad things are in American society, it's this:

More Americans, according to the Nielsen television ratings service, watch "Judge Judy" than "Jeopardy."

A few years ago, Betty White was part of an effort to revive the "Password" game show. It failed, said White, who has had a lifetime of performing, because Americans are not interested in that kind of intellect, not smart enough to play along.

In 2005, a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer asked White what she thought of modern television. Specifically, the reporter asked White if she thought the new reality shows were like game shows.

She replied:

"No, not at all. The game shows were mental exercise. The fun of the game show is that you can't watch it without participating. Reality is, you are just staring at this nonsense, and it's not mental stimulation at all. There are no answers to figure out. No mental exercise. So I think it's stupid. I don't know if it's a prediction or just wishful thinking, but I think sooner or later, hopefully, we'll get back to something that involves the viewer on a little more of an intellectual level."

A year later, a survey indicated that more than 30 percent of American Idol viewers thought their vote on that show was more important than their vote for President.

So it shouldn't surprise us that there are politicians doing reality shows, and reality show people threatening to run for President.

In this age of "information," just about every study of IQ, test scores or knowledge indicates that Americans are not as smart as we used to be, and not as smart as many people in other countries.

The children in the "Little Rascals" television comedy from more than a half-century ago performed a script written at the 8th-grade level, according to the Flesch-Kincaid. The grown-ups of "Seinfeld" and "Friends" give us a show at a 6th or 7th grade level.

Many conservative groups pointed out that the University of Minnesota's Smart Politics publication (from the Herbert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs) evaluated the 2011 State of the Union Speech as the speech with the lowest grade level in decades -- even lower than George W. Bush's. (See that report HERE.)

They have a point. I heard candidate Obama in person in Vinton. Twice. By the middle of the second speech, I was saying his words along with him.

But the Republicans, it seems, responded to the Democrats nomination of a lightweight by flocking to featherweights. Two possible GOP candidates recently made it quite clear that they are not all that proficient at early American history.

The only hope for Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann is that Americans were too busy watching Judge Judy and saying, "Wow, what a moron" to notice their not-so-strong grasp of history. Or maybe too many of us really do think that Paul Revere really did ride through New Hampshire, ringing bells and telling the British they can't take our guns.

When President Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not seek re-election in 1968, Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko wrote that maybe Johnson was not the best President America could have had. But then he wrote something that I think applies as we look forward to our next presidential election.

"We are not the best people a president could have."

Before we start thinking about the qualifications of the candidates of 2012, we need to turn off our national TV and start thinking about the qualifications of the voters.