
George W. Bush is smarter than you (2013) - kory
http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
======
mikeyouse
I'm sympathetic that GWB was smarter than he seemed, but there was plenty of
evidence that he wasn't smart in the sense of the very curious and thoughtful
high-functioning people that we all know.

Listen to him give an answer to a question about Native American sovereignty:
[https://youtu.be/kdimK1onR4o?t=25](https://youtu.be/kdimK1onR4o?t=25)

That's not a verbal misstep, that's someone who doesn't know the definition of
the word sovereignty. After invading several countries.

Or watch the 10-minute interview where he defends his foreign policy to an
Irish reporter:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis)

If I may quote a telling section:

Reporter asking about Iraq:

> _The world is a more dangerous place today. There are terrorist bombings
> every single day. It wasn 't like that two years ago._

GWB's response:

> _What was it like September 11th, 2001?_

The whole thing is a train wreck. So either GWB isn't as smart as the OP
claims, or he is smart, and just happens to be profoundly dishonest. I'm not
sure how OP can claim he'd get high pass marks without trying though. We have
his transcripts, we don't know how hard he tried, but he certainly didn't get
anything resembling a 'high pass'. He was a straight C student.

I think the most charitable thing to say at this point is that if he was as
smart as claimed, his intelligence in no way helped his presidency. For all of
the 'grilling of analysis and recommendations' he did, he sure made a number
of objectively terrible decisions.

~~~
rudedogg
I wasn't really old enough to understand and judge GWB's presidency, but from
what I do know I can say my opinion of him isn't great.

Anyway, the first video about Tribal sovereignty doesn't really prove the
point that he was stupid in my mind. I don't know what would be a good answer
to that question, and I don't think he did either.

~~~
mikeyouse
There's a difference between not having an opinion of tribal sovereignty and
not having an understanding of it. In my reading, GWB doesn't understand it.
Further, if GWB was such a smart person, he should have both.

Any moderately informed, politically active person could answer that question
broadly. Most politicians I vehemently disagree with could talk intelligently
about the topic for a half hour. GWB has a _history_ degree from Yale, he
spent most of his life in politics, he was the governor of a state, and then
President.

He should definitely have an opinion on Tribal Sovereignty, there are
something like 6 million native Americans in the country, it's kind of an
important topic.

------
zafka
I really don't like this article. It makes me think that I might have been
very wrong in my judgement of GWB. More and more I have been finding out how
much of life is a mirage of perceptions, many of them far from reality.

~~~
kobeya
> I really don't like this article. It makes me think that I might have been
> very wrong in my judgement of GWB.

Why would that cause you to not like the article? If an article teaches you
something new, something true that you didn't know before, isn't that
virtuous? If your prior beliefs were wrong, wouldn't you want to know they
were wrong?

~~~
BoringCode
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the above poster was being
sarcastic.

~~~
planteen
Yeah I read it as tongue in cheek too.

------
scarmig
I don't think GWB is stupid. But I've never really gotten this article: Keith
Hennessey spends some time claiming that if GWB were a student at Stanford,
he'd always be getting high grades without trying, and whenever he did deign
to try he'd always be at the top of the class.

It seems like a high act of trollery, especially since we do have transcripts
of just how well he performed at Yale and they don't offer nearly as rosy a
picture of GWB's academic acumen.

To the extent that he's successfully getting people to not trust media
representations of public figures, good on him, I guess.

------
CoolGuySteve
I don't think he's stupid but I know he coasted through life on his parents
money and prestige. It's not much consolation that Al Gore did the same. John
Kerry and John McCain both funded themselves with family money and connections
as well.

I think people are generally fed up that US politics confuses legacy with
competence.

But when Bush became president, he surrounded himself with the same Republican
apparatus that his father did, leading to disastrous results. At the end of
the day, it didn't really matter how smart Bush was. His decisions were
stupid.

~~~
hellogoodbyeeee
It is intellectually lazy to call the decisions of people you disagree with
"stupid" instead of trying to understand how their priorities and principles
may be different than yours.

~~~
jessaustin
There is no defensible set of priorities and principles by which invading Iraq
can be supported as not "stupid", other than perhaps, "It is our priority for
the Pentagon to spend more money." (not sure if that's really defensible
though...)

That wasn't the most annoying thing about GWB, however. Even though that
invasion was misguided, it was misguided in a particular way that reflects a
particular flawed mindset, which wouldn't surprise observant voters. The most
annoying thing was that he waited until the end of his term to shit the bed in
completely different fashion, with the "bailouts". I can understand a
President who is owned by the military-industrial complex. I can understand a
President who is owned by the two or three most influential investment banks.
A President who is owned by both of those, however, has no ethical core
whatsoever, and he will be cursed by all when the "Even Greater Recession"
rolls around and is easily attributed to his abdication of leadership to the
cronies.

~~~
kobeya
> There is no defensible set of priorities and principles by which invading
> Iraq can be supported as not "stupid"

I like how the word "defensible" here makes this entire claim take on
subjective meaning instead of being readily testable. It is quite easy to find
a set of priorities, principles, and (I would add) core values that makes
GWB's actions make perfect sense in the context of the time and without
hindsight bias. But whether such a position is "defensible" is up to your own
prejudices.

~~~
jessaustin
Thanks; glad you like it! I've already offered the example of, "It is our
priority for the Pentagon to spend more money." If it's "quite easy" to come
up with a more defensible priority or principle, why don't you give it a try?
If I had to come up with something to support _both_ of the disastrous
decisions that bookended his administration, it might be something like,
"Listen credulously to the self-interested crooks that Dad told me to hire,"
but I'm sure you can do better than that!

~~~
kobeya
I have no interest in engaging in political conversation where not all
participants are interested in having their mind changed.

~~~
jessaustin
I don't believe that; it's a roundabout way of saying that you have no
interest in political conversation at all. Yet here you are.

------
tnecniv
If I recall, he lost his first race for public office because his opponent
criticized him for being too academic, which prompted him to change his image.

~~~
gozur88
That's when he adopted the speech patterns that made coastal people think he's
stupid. He was born in Connecticut, was raised by East coast old money
parents, went to prep schools, then to Yale and Harvard. You don't end up
sounding like a rancher with that upbringing, at least not accidentally.

------
navait
I don't doubt W. is a smart man, but I seriously doubt this:

> 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?”

Some presidents delegate more to trusted subordinates(Reagan), preferring to
pick a knowledgeable person. Some have a more collegial atmosphere and take on
things directly.(Clinton) [[Politics of the Presidency, 6th edition]]

I think that's a valid question to ask without meaning "how smart is Bush".
For example, many decisions were made about the Iraq war, such as de-
baathification of the country. Bremer ordered this, but did bush know and or
order it, or did he trust Bremer to make the right call? This is important to
interpreting and judging his presidency. And instead of answering that
(important) question, he assumes that the student is asking if the president
is dumb. He doesn't even let the student answer if that was a correct
interpretation!

~~~
464192002d7fe1c
I read this is a higher-level overview of the situation, and not a direct
transcript from the classroom.

I wouldn't assume that this was asked in isolation, or that there was no
follow-up. Also, it really only serves as a framing device for the rest of the
article, its not particularly material to the meat of the story. Unless, of
course, you want to argue that nobody thought George Bush was a dummy which I
know to be personally untrue.

------
guildwriter
To lend additional credence to this article, GWB in 2006 alone read 95 books
that year:

[http://www.omnivoracious.com/2009/01/george-w-bushs-
reading-...](http://www.omnivoracious.com/2009/01/george-w-bushs-reading-
list.html)

That comes out to about two books per week. If you look at that list, I
wouldn't call any of those books light reading. Considering his job at the
time and how he loves outdoor activities, calling him a fast reader would only
begin to describe it. I would call it a stretch to say he's half as stupid as
a lot of people like to think

~~~
hkmurakami
Schwarzenegger works on keeping his accent. Bobby Jindal is definitely capable
of speaking without his southern accent. George W Bush, likely, is capable of
not acting the way he does. But all three realize the benefits of their image.

------
mladenkovacevic
The focus on his intelligence is a distraction. He's a war criminal. Who cares
how smart he is.

This is like discussing something written by Leni Riefenstahl titled "Hitler
was a better artist than you."

------
gleventhal
I know several people who speak English as a second language who are more
articulate than Bush in English. I don't care, I refuse to believe that he is
some secret genius. I am confident if he were born to a poor family, that he
would have risen to the average or lower expectations of those around him.

------
gleventhal
The only accurate quote in the whole article: "my job involved juggling a lot
of balls"

He was cupping them as well, and he clearly still is. It's easy for someone to
seem smart when a team of people feed him talking points all day, and you're a
huge admirer of him as the author seems to be (which is why he made the not
very obvious stretch from the student's question of Bush's level of
involvement to his level of intelligence).

------
jakswa
It's like we've all been fooled, and more than once. Shame on... shame on...
you?

~~~
superflyguy
That was funny, but then again, he went to Harvard, so perhaps all that folksy
crap was a zelig-like adoption of the mannerisms the peasants like. I mean, it
worked - he became president.

------
chockZ
I don't think he is stupid, but he certainly cultivated an "average guy"
persona that had a disdain for expert/elite opinion. It also doesn't excuse
the (bad) decisions he made in office on a variety of issues.

~~~
464192002d7fe1c
> cultivated an "average guy" persona that had a disdain for expert/elite
> opinion

I think you need to untwist these opinions a bit.

Firstly, "cultivating" implies that his "average guy" activities were an act.
From all accounts, it sounds like he has continued his activities after
leaving public life (something I am eminently grateful to him for). I really
don't think they were or are an act.

I would also say that "expert" and "elitist" are two very different things.
Considering expert opinions does not sound like something he didn't do.

> doesn't excuse the (bad) decisions he made

I really can't agree more, but its the _reasons_ why he made those decisions
that I find important. Previously I just felt like he was an idiot, and
therefore made stupid decisions. Now, I've basically come to the opinion that
while I disagree with him on serious issues (for fucks sake, why did you
invade Iraq!) he didn't do it from a malicious point of view or because he was
an idiot. He was merely wrong, with terribly catastrophic results.

------
darkandbrooding
This article is rhetorical slight of hand, written by a man who directly
benefits if history takes a kinder view of the GW Bush administration.

The author asserts that GW Bush is smarter than [the typical reader]. Howard
Gardner describes nine different types of intelligence. (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Critical_reception)
) Is GW Bush smarter than me in every metric? I am skeptical. Is he smarter in
only some out of nine categories? If so, the the statement "is smarter than
you" is missing a dependent clause.

The article relies on anecdotal evidence from biased sources. People who were
invited into the administration based on loyalty and ideology all think that
GW Bush is super smart? That is both unsurprising and unconvincing.

The author slams the cultural biases of the coastal elites, while indulging in
his own.

"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."

Bush 41 was an athlete. GW was a cheerleader. I understand that the whole
point of this essay is to rewrite history but know your limits, man.

I readily concede that a group comprised entirely of smart individuals can
make bad plans, or execute a good plan so badly that the outcome is the
opposite of what they intended. If your best intentions regularly have
calamitous results, does that matter when judging your intelligence? I would
argue that it does. If you declare Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to be
existential threats; let North Korea get The Bomb; dramatically strengthen the
regional influence of Iran; and turn Iraq into a hellscape whose only export
is terrorism, does your alleged intellectual superiority provide any solace?

The author mentions an anti-Texas bias. Having spent decades in close
proximity to Texans, I would like to make an observation. There are Texans,
and there are Texan Secessionists. I have found the former group to be open,
generous, hospitable people more often than not, and frequent contributors to
art and culture. The latter group never miss an opportunity to remind you,
"Texas can secede if we want. It's in our constitution. We were a Republic
before we were a state."

Want to understand the term "Ugly American?" Spend a couple of years listening
to Texans act like they're doing you a favor by not seceding.

------
kobeya
Why was this flagged?

~~~
r0m4n0
I believe its because the higher beings at HN decided to implement a ban of
political content.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The ban on political content was just for last week only (and it ended early,
in fact). Though arguably, pure politics posts, that have no tech angle, have
always been described as "off-topic" in the guidelines.

------
woofyman
I don't care how smart he is when is actions were profoundly stupid.

~~~
intopieces
Which actions, and what were the results of those actions?

~~~
woofyman
Invading Iraq resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands civilians.
Destabilizing the Middle East.

~~~
dongslol
Christopher Hitchens also thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

~~~
gozur88
I keep seeing that more and more from people on the left, particularly in
contexts where it doesn't make sense. Like this one. You can't believe, at the
same time, that Bush was stupid because he invaded Iraq and Hitchens was very
intelligent even though he supported the invasion.

That's not whataboutism.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
"attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's
failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly
refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument."

Sounds exactly like whataboutism.

Look, Bush knew confidential information that no one outside the government
could and still made those decisions.

Stop trying to deflect this with some unrelated person who wasn't in the
government, had no security clearance, and had nothing to do with the
invasion. It's simply irrelevant.

~~~
gozur88
>Sounds exactly like whataboutism.

Nope. This is simple inductive reasoning.

> Look, Bush knew confidential information that no one outside the government
> could and still made those decisions.

Yes, and they were probably reasonable decisions, given what he knew at the
time.

>Stop trying to deflect this with some unrelated person who wasn't in the
government, had no security clearance, and had nothing to do with the
invasion. It's simply irrelevant.

It _would_ be irrelevant if people who also don't have information no one
outside the government could are using the Iraq war to draw conclusions about
Bush's intelligence.

------
gleventhal
But he didn't get high grades, so why speculate that he would? We know he
didn't, and grades are not necessarily an indication of intelligence.

------
throwaway1216
It is extremely notable that the words "Iraq" and "Afghanistan" only appear
once each in this article.

------
omegaworks
The proverb goes: Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by
stupidity.

If GWB was actually brilliant, he must have cultivated this façade to hide
malicious, self-serving intent. Via the endless wars he started, he grew his
family's oil wealth and enriched his VP through government contracts with
Halliburton and Blackwater at the expense of global stability and the United
States.

This professor does us a service. It's easy to write off an idiot, not so easy
to write off someone that intends to actively harm your country for self-
serving purposes. Maybe in some just world he and his cabinet would be tried
for the war crimes they committed.

