George W. Bush is Smarter Than You. (A Disturbing Essay, Episode 2)

Dear ATSers,

The first "Disturbing essay" thread attracted uniformly great post by some really impressive members. I learned a lot, and I think others did as well. I'd be a fool not to try again. In case you missed that first thread, you can find it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

For me, a disturbing essay is one which forces me to rethink my previous position, or one that draws new conclusions from existing facts which I had never considered before. Also, it helps if the essay is likely to be controversial. Episode 2 fits those requirements nicely.

I hadn't thought much about Bush's intelligence. I assumed he had some, certainly in the Ford-Carter range. He got through Harvard and Yale, but that could have been because of family connections. This essay describes the President as really smart, but allow me to let the author do the talking. He teaches at Stanford Business School, and was an economic advisor to Bush for over six years.

One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”

The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely.

I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”

More silence.

I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.

I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer. While it was a while ago, here is an amalgam of that answer and others I have given in similar contexts.

President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.

In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.

And while my job involved juggling a lot of balls, I only had to worry about economic issues. In addition to all of those, at any given point in time he was making enormous decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, on hunting al Qaeda and keeping America safe. He was making choices not just on taxes and spending and trade and energy and climate and health care and agriculture and Social Security and Medicare, but also on education and immigration, on crime and justice issues, on environmental policy and social policy and politics. Being able to handle such substantive breadth and depth, on such huge decisions, in parallel, requires not just enormous strength of character but tremendous intellectual power. President Bush has both.

On one particularly thorny policy issue on which his advisors had strong and deep disagreements, over the course of two weeks we (his senior advisors) held a series of three 90-minute meetings with the President. Shortly after the third meeting we asked for his OK to do a fourth. He said, “How about rather than doing another meeting on this, I instead tell you now what each person will say.” He then ran through half a dozen of his advisors by name and precisely detailed each one’s arguments and pointed out their flaws. (Needless to say there was no fourth meeting.)

So, how did Bush earn the reputation of being such a dummy?

Every prominent politician has a public caricature, one drawn initially by late-night comedy joke writers and shaped heavily by the press and one’s political opponents. The caricature of President Bush is that of a good ol’ boy from Texas who is principled and tough, but just not that bright.

That caricature was reinforced by several factors:
•The press and his opponents highlighted President Bush’s occasional stumbles when giving a speech. President Obama’s similar verbal miscues are ignored. Ask yourself: if every public statement you made were recorded and all your verbal fumbles were tweeted, how smart would you sound? Do you ever use the wrong word or phrase, or just botch a sentence for no good reason? I know I do.

•President Bush intentionally aimed his public image at average Americans rather than at Cambridge or Upper East Side elites. Mitt Romney’s campaign was predicated on “I am smart enough to fix a broken economy,” while George W. Bush’s campaigns stressed his values, character, and principles rather than boasting about his intellect. He never talked about graduating from Yale and Harvard Business School, and he liked to lower expectations by pretending he was just an average guy. Example: “My National Security Advisor Condi Rice is a Stanford professor, while I’m a C student. And look who’s President. ”

•There is a bias in much of the mainstream press and commentariat that people from outside of NY-BOS-WAS-CHI-SEA-SF-LA are less intelligent, or at least well educated. Many public commenters harbor an anti-Texas (and anti-Southern, and anti-Midwestern) intellectual bias. They mistakenly treat John Kerry as smarter than George Bush because John Kerry talks like an Ivy League professor while George Bush talks like a Texan.

•President Bush enjoys interacting with the men and women of our armed forces and with elite athletes. He loves to clear brush on his ranch. He loved interacting with the U.S. Olympic Team. He doesn’t windsurf off Nantucket, he rides a 100K mountain bike ride outside of Waco with wounded warriors. He is an intense, competitive athlete and a “guy’s guy.” His hobbies and habits reinforce a caricature of a [dumb] jock, in contrast to cultural sophisticates who enjoy antiquing and opera. This reinforces the other biases against him.

The author's challenge to us is reasonable.

I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.

If you can, find someone who has interacted directly with him outside the public spotlight. Ask that person about President Bush’s intellect. I am confident you will hear what I heard dozens of times from CEOs after they met with him: “Gosh, I had no idea he was that smart.”

This "Disturbing essay" can be found here:
keithhennessey.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

They dont let dummies become fighter pilots. He is very smart. Just not wise. Big difference.

well, i hope to god the president is smarter than me

but bush couldnt be classed as "smart"...he was pragmatic, but still impulsive...

he already knew the answers...he had to just show us the evidence...then lead us on a trail...to get us to his line of thought.

thats not what smart means

smart people can learn, plan, innovate, show efficency and effectiveness
just saying

reply to post by thePharaoh

Dear thePharaoh,

Are you referring to the Iraq war? I know many people question that, but wasn't it a policy decision? I don't think that deals with the widespread belief that his hand needed to be held (intellectually).

Frankly, I was surprised by the article. It presented a new view of Bush which I hadn't considered. I assume that the author is a credible source, he seems to make good points.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by theconspirator

Dear theconspirator,

Excellent point. I tend to agree that he is much smarter than people believe, but wisdom? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how to judge that in a President. I don't know whether Obama is wise, though I disagree with many of his policies and decisions.

With respect,
Charles1952

I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.

One mans opinion. Is there a consensus on this from others on the record? I can agree that at times I felt he played dumb (no speeka da english) just to get out of a tough line of questioning. I also firmly believe that the office of the president is merely a front man or spokesman behind which all the real authority hides. Like an announcer at sporting events.

Originally posted by intrptr

I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.

One mans opinion. Is there a consensus on this from others on the record?

That he is an Ivy league alum, ANG fighter pilot, State governor and two term President speaks for itself.

Those are the facts, what is the point of dismissing the authors observations as opinion then asking for a consensus of others?

I personally never had a problem with Bush. I always knew he was a smart guy. And I gotta say if it was a choice to have another 4 years with Bush rather than Obama finishing his term, then I'd choose Bush. His word fumbles, while funny, should not have had any barring on his intelligence. When having people drilling you about EVERYTHING, then yeah you're going to get slipped up.

I guess the line between smart and manipulative is a fine one. Cunning would be another word I used to describe Bush.

He helped coerce Americans to going to war with two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. Very cunning indeed.

Originally posted by Wanderer777
I gotta say if it was a choice to have another 4 years with Bush rather than Obama finishing his term, then I'd choose Bush. .

oh come off it

bush left the office at the perfect time... he pushed his international affairs to the limit

obamas legacy would be that he returned america to neutrality in the international arena...while diffusing the reaction to bushs campaign.

and dude, that wasnt a light feat...thats magic

at home...he returned some of the power back to the public sector, and he addressed the opinion polls


what you liked about bush...im just learning mate...is the power of the GOP and its effect on the internal affairs, especially of the state economy..... but most people liked bush because he addressed 9/11.....

but it could be seen that him and his father affairs with the binladen family maybe jeoperdised the state...

but its all dead noise...

my view is

i like bush...i like obama....i hate whiners....
theres no different levels of smart...only different types

peace

reply to post by thePharaoh

Dear thePharaoh,

If you don't mind, I'd prefer not to get into a discussion about how good a President Bush was. I know it's tempting, but I suspect that would become a heated and inconclusive discussion.

I was hoping to find out whether people are surprised at the author's view of Bush's intelligence, whether they agree, and, if they have the impression that he is stupid, why do they think that way.

With respect,
Charles1952

It's obvious that he is smart, he got to be president.
Yes, they may let people who are easily persuaded (sp?) into high government, but never an idiot!

This is done all the time, fall into a media character, then you become easily identifiable with the public and remembered more, which can increase votes (or decrease, it's a gamble.

In the UK, every PM has acted the "common every-day family man", it's common knowledge that they are putting all this front on.

It recently came out that Boris Johnson (London Mayor) puts his famouse waffling baffoon act on (which is obvious with a bit of critical thinking).

People with power are never stupid, because you have to be smart to keep hold of it.

reply to post by charles1952


One of the things that has for some reason achilles healed presidents is the touting of (that one is an intellectual) names Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson no grasp on real events, picture them with their books; they somewhere trying to find a treatise on the Napolionic Wars that makes sense, backwards in time Julius Ceasars field war strategies, just not realistic thinkers-- consulting a million pieces of information that have no corrolation to present events. The Film "GEORGE W" with Josh Brolin starring was the best Hollywood interpretation of a recent President Ive seen as in its portrail of 'a seat of the pants leader' (too smart for the job), and an innate dodger of authority. Im not sure anyone will understand this person. A legacy cast in the footprint of genetics (cant be that ignorant as you only have a 15 points IQ ratio above or below the combined quotient of your parents) and look at his father, former CIA director and President). No one rates with Lincoln but for comic factor, George W is up there because He Never Took Himself Too Seriously, which is good, do not want a Kruschev pounding the dias with a shoe to get an unforgetable point across (what was it something regarding Kennedy) good at its best, Dr. Strangelove a close second as to microscopically getting the various political dynamics/personalities across. Is it no wonder that an actor Ronald Reagan was as effective as he was, he was only playing the PART of a President for eight years and understood this "Oh, Nancy this script is for real, we had better find some good ad libers".

Originally posted by intrptr

I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.

One mans opinion. Is there a consensus on this from others on the record? I can agree that at times I felt he played dumb (no speeka da english) just to get out of a tough line of questioning. I also firmly believe that the office of the president is merely a front man or spokesman behind which all the real authority hides. Like an announcer at sporting events.

Have to say that's funny in part. As for administration spokespersons I'm not so sure, it's much more complicated than that. Possibly not much to do with playing dumb, (in GW's perceptions he is is lacking, but is also cunning, and probably for being in his position, privileged to be able to do that) He'll never go to Guantanamo for instance, will he?

I like this video, the interviewer lost her job BTW.
d]

Originally posted by Trolloks
It's obvious that he is smart, he got to be president.
Yes, they may let people who are easily persuaded (sp?) into high government, but never an idiot!

This is done all the time, fall into a media character, then you become easily identifiable with the public and remembered more, which can increase votes (or decrease, it's a gamble.

In the UK, every PM has acted the "common every-day family man", it's common knowledge that they are putting all this front on.

It recently came out that Boris Johnson (London Mayor) puts his famouse waffling baffoon act on (which is obvious with a bit of critical thinking).

People with power are never stupid, because you have to be smart to keep hold of it.

That is true, money wealth and privilege dont hurt as well as legacy. I would say some play the game better than others and are meant to even if their feet are drug to the fire. I do not see world leaders as every day men/women, they either fight for it or are legacied planned eventuals. Parlament vacancies and appointments, not the tooth and nail they were during Cromwells time or are they?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Those are the facts, what is the point of dismissing the authors observations as opinion then asking for a consensus of others?

He only started WWIII. How smart is that? How smart is the biggest debt in the history of the country? The Bailouts. Drill baby drill...The wars in Iraq, Adghanistan?

Here we are, are we that dumbed down that we don't see whats really going on?

reply to post by smurfy

Thanks for that video. Painful to watch all through. What a manipulator.

"Please, please, please, just let me finish".

Originally posted by intrptr
He only started WWIII.How smart is that?

You could call the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan a lot of things. Police action, Nation building, counterinsurgency, strategic occupation, or even imperial adventurism and have a case to argue.

What it is not, even remotely, is a world war.

You could make a stronger case for the 10th Crusade.

How smart is the biggest debt in the history of the country? The Bailouts.

Both of which are property of the Obama administration. You probably didn't know that it was during Clinton's 2nd term that Congress deregulated the banks under the bi partisan Gramm,Leach,Bliley Act ( which made the 2007 subprime crisis possible.)

Drill baby drill

I am guessing you are referring to Bush's support of increasing domestic oil production?

How is increasing domestic production to offset high import crude prices in a stagnant economy anything but intelligent?

...The wars in Iraq, Adghanistan?

I seem to remember both Congress and the American people supporting both rather overwhelmingly.

The purpose of government is to serve the will of the people.

The American people wanted blood post 9/11 and they got it.

Afghanistan because somebody was going to pay and Iraq was made an example of. Libya certainly couldn't give up their WMD program quickly enough after the U.S. made good on its promise to Saddam and there hasn't been another catastrophic terror attack on U.S. soil since.

Here we are, are we that dumbed down that we don't see whats really going on?

I think you just answered that question for yourself.

You might not agree with the guy or his policies but if you honestly believed Bush 43 is some kind of idiot you bought the MSM's usual smear of any sitting conservative President in modern times hook line and sinker.

Just call a spade a spade people.
They are just politically correct bigots.
People have called me one countless times on this forum, and as they say “It takes one to know one.”

They have had it hounded into them by the media so long, and they have just set there and sucked it up so long, that they just can’t handle the idea that a person that talks like a “southerner” is not bone crushingly stupid, let alone “smaurt”!.

They can’t understand that your place of birth, your speaking skills, and your accent does not have any effect on your intelligence level….. Well I shouldn’t say that. They, themselves say that about everyone else, except “Those stupid hicks!”/”southerners”/(fill in the blank)

It’s a result of the heavy cognitive dissidence that they have been exposed to during their education, and from the media.

“Those stupid hicks”/”southerners”/(fill in the blank) are the only people that they are allowed to judge based on preconceived ideas. Not just allowed to judge, but actually encouraged to judge based on those preconceived ideas. Ideas that the media it’s self created and impressed on its viewers.

They do it to reinforce their own beliefs. They think any open conflict/confrontation is stupid (unless it’s against “Those stupid hicks”). And since a “southerner” engaged in an open conflict, then it must be because “he is a stupid southerner”

It allows them to avoid the idea that the conflict may have been justified, because they believe nothing justifies open conflict. (unless it’s against “Those stupid hicks”)

They don’t want to come to grips with the idea that the outside world may be primarily responsible for the conflict.

It allows them to settle their own conscience, and allows them to continue to be confident in their own world view (for the most part).

That is one of the primary reasons for all this false flag crap you see every day on these forums. They can’t accept the idea that there is evil in this world, so the only reason why there is conflict must be because of us. For if they accept the idea that there is evil in the world outside the US, then they have to come to grips with the fact that their world view is seriously flawed. And that is one thing they can’t handle.

So, it boils down to… If they resign their mind to the idea that he is “stupid” then they can dismiss anything from him, or his supporters that may challenge their world view.

.........edit............
An article along those lines…
www.renewamerica.com...

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

You might not agree with the guy or his policies but if you honestly believed Bush 43 is some kind of idiot you bought the MSM's usual smear of any sitting conservative President in modern times hook line and sinker.

No I haven't. You have. it doesn't matter who's in The White House. Except that as head of the Executive Branch, the "Presider" has only to sign his name to legislation that the other branches have introduced that they were "prompted" to by the "lobbying" (bribing) from banks, corporations, and the military.

Done deal.

Now what was that about who to blame? Oh yah, the president is to blame for any "failures", and is allowed to take credit for any "successes".

Failures meaning anything that hurts the people and successes meaning anything that furthers "American Interests", i.e., not the people.

Junior Bush: "Do I sign this one Dad?".

Senior Bush: "Thats a good boy".

Here... look at it from this perspective.