
George W. Bush is smarter than you - godarderik
http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
======
jonnathanson
_"President Bush intentionally aimed his public image at average Americans
rather than at Cambridge or Upper East Side elites."_

I suspect the experiences, and attendant political lessons, of George Bush Sr.
had a direct influence on the way George Bush Jr. presented himself.

Bush I was often criticized as intellectual, elitist, nerdy, aloof, and "Ivy
League." He was trounced in his reelection campaign by Bill Clinton, the
ultimate charismatic -- a brilliant guy who was adept at hiding his formidable
intellect behind a folksy manner and a slow, Southern drawl.

Bush II took great pains to present himself as a man of the people, a Texan
(he was born in Connecticut), and a guy's guy. Whether this was a reflection
of his true character, or a political affectation, doesn't really matter; the
distinction has been lost to the sands of time. It's probably some combination
of the two. (Affectations, carried out over the long haul, have a tendency to
shape actual character).

~~~
illuminate
"Bush I was often criticized as intellectual, elitist, nerdy, aloof, and "Ivy
League.""

Boogie Man really was an incredible documentary.

------
randall
I appreciate this because it's a bit of a challenge to a narrative. I think in
startup landia, we see the same thing. Everyone knows company x is next to
ipo, everyone knows company y doesn't have a shot.

And while sometimes those public projections are correct, other times they're
carefully orchestrated pr masterpieces.

Without giving too much away, our company has chosen to go quietly along,
trying to attract the right attention that'll get us noticed by our customers,
without alerting our (actual) competitors[0].

GW Bush connected more effectively with the middle class than Romney, and that
might have been his best weapon in a fight against another likable candidate.

Whether you'd like to admit it or not, public narrative effects business /
presidential / fundraising / customer acquisition outcomes. If you're the one
in control, everyone else can be a pawn in your game.

[0]: I'm sure our current close competitors are acutely aware of us, but
they're not the ones I fear. Our game is much longer than the current space we
occupy (getting social media on tv) and so keeping our head down and just
impressing customers is the best way to get us to the goal. Raising money,
especially from places like YC or the kind of investors everyone wants, would
put a target on our back. So instead we just lay low, and get all the
flexibility we need to try out a bunch of different business models.

------
a_p
In 2010, the Sienna Presidential poll — which is very well respected — ranked
George W. Bush as the 42 most intelligent president (only Harding ranked
lower). [1, pdf file]. 14 of the 19 categories have W. in the bottom 5. These
categories are: Communication ability, Court Appointments, Handling of U.S
Economy, Ability to Compromise, Executive Appointments, Overall Ability,
Imagination, Domestic Accomplishments, Integrity, Executive Ability, Foreign
Policy Accomplishments, Leadership Ability, Intelligence, and Avoid Crucial
Mistakes. The 4 categories that he is not in the bottom 5 of are: Background
(he is the 7th worst), Party Leadership, Luck, and "Willing to Take Risks".
Luck is the only category in which he is in the second quartile.

The article states:

"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."

Important criticisms of his presidency are not about his lambdacisms or
rhotacisms. The criticisms of his presidency are not that he couldn't make
decisions but that the decisions that he made were wrong, harmful, or showed a
stubbornness to consider the fact that he was wrong. His presidency was marked
by decisions to ignore _nonpartisan_ reports contrary to the party line: when
a international terrorism report that had been published annually for 19 years
said that terror was increasing, not decreasing, his administration cancelled
the reports. [2]

[1]
[http://siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/co...](http://siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%202010%20Rank%20by%20Category.pdf)

[2]
[http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002243262_terror16...](http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002243262_terror16.html)

~~~
Ravenlock
I feel like this would be a really interesting point to get Mr Hennessey's
response to, but since he has comments disabled on his blog, I guess that's
unlikely.

------
rayiner
It's a huge error to assume that people who disagree with you are dumb. Bush
is like 4th generation Yale, and his father is extremely smart. It makes more
sense to pin e.g. his record at Yale to being a slacker than the apple falling
so far from the tree.

~~~
spamizbad
George W Bush did abuse alcohol for most of his adult life. That can impact
you cognitively. Not saying he "drank himself stupid" or anything like that,
but It wouldn't surprise me if his drinking accelerated his cognitive decline
as he aged.

~~~
vxNsr
It's awesome that you have such insight into his private life, it would be
even more awesome if you could source this type of defamation.

~~~
spamizbad
It's pretty well documented:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy)

------
tptacek
If any of this resonates with you, I'd also highly recommend _Angler_, Barton
Gellman's account of the vice presidency of Dick Cheney. It's hard to
overstate how far-reaching and insidious Cheney's efforts were during the
first Bush term; he more or less co-opted intelligence efforts, and ran what
at times amounted to a shadow presidency with his staff and Donald Rumsfeld.

On the other hand, it's hard to get around the Harriet Miers and Alberto
Gonzales debacles, both of which involved comically bad judgement calls.

------
espeed
When George W. Bush was governor, he spoke at my sister's high school
graduation (<http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/president-bush>). His public
persona changed significantly from Governor to President, and he definitely
played up the everyman persona during his presidency.

While this may have polled well, these type of false personas should have no
place in politics. The President is not an actor playing a role -- we should
demand candidates whom are genuine and present their true self so we know who
we're voting for.

~~~
nostrademons
But these types of personas _always_ have a place in politics - that's a large
part of what makes it politics. If you didn't play a role you wouldn't get
elected.

I highly doubt that Obama is the same in private as his public persona - from
everything I've heard, he's very much the intellectual, introverted college-
professor type in private, and the gregarious "audacity of hope" person is a
mask he puts on for public events.

------
jordanthoms
The narrative that Bush was/is dumb because he stumbled on his words
occasionally was always ridiculous and it amazed me how many people piled in
on it - people who would normally never call someone dumb for that. (And who
knew plenty of extremely smart people with public speaking skills far worse
than Bush's).

------
rainsford
While the author seems to blame his political opponents for the perception of
GWB as unintelligent, a more balanced analysis should probably also consider
what Bush and the Republicans did to further that idea. When you use words
like "elite" and "intellectual" (and "windsurfing" for some reason...) as
pejoratives and go to great lengths to avoid publicly highlighting your
intelligence and playing up how average you are...you probably shouldn't be
surprised if people don't consider you a great thinker.

I'd certainly believe that Bush is smart, but is the author really complaining
that people judged him based on what they saw of his public persona rather
than how he behaved in private meetings in the Oval Office that they had no
way of knowing about? Had Bush's public face been more like what the author
claims he saw in private, I doubt there would be any such stereotype about
Bush.

Basically, is anyone surprised or appalled that it turns out that perception
matters at least as much as substance?

------
te_platt
Politics aside, this is a good reminder on the importance of when confronted
with an opposing viewpoint to consider "Why would a smart person think that?".
They may in point of fact not be smart but it's too easy to use that as an
excuse to stop thinking. Ever notice how hard it is to hear someone you
respect say something you disagree with?

------
georgeecollins
I have never met George W Bush so I can't say how smart he is. But you can
look at his SAT scores (<http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html>)
before Yale, and his resume before he went to Harvard Business School.

Then ask: Could I have gotten in into Yale with that SAT? Could I have gotten
into HBS with that resume?

~~~
ams6110
And what about Obama's SAT scores and other academic history... oh that's
right, he's never released them.

~~~
georgeecollins
I didn't mean this as a political argument for one party or another.

------
volandovengo
There are similar accounts on quora citing that bush is extremely intelligent.

The challenging things about all these accounts is that not only in public did
he seem like an idiot but the decisions that he made in office were similarly
inept.

To cite a few: \- Spending increases while incurring tax cuts \- The Iraq War
+ the willful deceiving of the public \- The lack of remorse of any decision
made in office

Malcolm Gladwell cites that (in life) the people who really excel aren't just
the ones who are the most intelligent but the ones who posses other factors as
well which make them a success. Perhaps this provides some of the explanation
for the discrepancy between the personal accounts and the actions of his
administration.

~~~
deelowe
Actually there are reasonable explanations for these:

> \- Spending increases while incurring tax cuts

Regardless of whether you agree politically, this was intentional. The
strategy is called "starve the beast" and the goal is to strategically force
austerity cuts. As a bonus, you force it to happen when a democrat is in
office. And guess what? It appears to have worked (somewhat).

> \- The Iraq War + the willful deceiving of the public

It wasn't willful. There _were_ intelligence reports of WMDs. Colin powell got
quite pissed about it really. Truth of the matter is that some messed up stuff
happened in the intelligence community and Colin was lead to believe there was
a real threat in Iraq. How much Bush was involved in the whole deal is
unclear. Also, Hussain did try to kill his dad, so it may have been slightly
personal.

> \- The lack of remorse of any decision made in office

Remorse for what? Politics is politics. There's blood on everyone's hands. For
example, policy changes made during the Bush Sr and Clinton administrations
appear to have contributed significantly to the housing crash in 2009.
Regardless, even if he isn't remorseful, that doesn't make him dumb. Heartless
maybe, but not dumb.

Disclaimer: I'm not a republican. I think democrats and republicans alike
spend too much time playing politics these days and not enough actually trying
to fix things. I also think the worlds problems can be solved without war. The
one thing I did like about Bush is that he appears to have really wanted to
reduce the size of government, which appeals to my (mostly) libertarian
beliefs.

~~~
volandovengo
Thanks for breaking these things down. I don't really agree with them but I
appreciate how a different reading on things could conclude that an
intelligent person could have made those decisions.

------
securingsincity
I've heard similar things about President Bush's ability to memorize
information, I think its even mentioned in W by Oliver Stone. President
Clinton has a "photographic" memory. What interests me is how they are able to
use that memory to supplement their charisma. People are certainly enthused
when you can remember their name, now what about where they are from and what
they do and what they contributed in the last meeting and you are able to
weave that into a conversation next time you see them. Suddenly you have
something to discuss with someone you've only met once.

As liberal who grew up in New York and has lived in Boston since, I completely
ate up the Bush as dunce narrative a few years ago. Ironically because it
doesn't necessarily paint him as a genius, W by Oliver Stone framed arguments
that changed some of my opinions about President Bush. His father's actions,
his being born again which helped end his drinking and his staff in the white
house very much influenced him, and probably contributed to some of the
biases.

------
michaelhoffman
My opinion is that George W. Bush intentionally cultivated a slow, bumbling
Texan everyman image when he ran for political office on the national stage.
Compare his debate performance as gubernatorial challenger in 1994 versus the
presidential incumbent in 2004:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvknGT8W5jA>

------
t0
Who ever said he wasn't smart? This fad was created by comedians such as
Letterman and bares absolutely no truth.

~~~
VikingCoder
1) Unless you have data to back you up, you're speculating, just like anyone
who speculated that his intelligence was lacking.

2) It's "bears," not "bares".

~~~
t0
Good point.

I've been spelling that wrong forever. Thanks.

------
eldude
Anecdotally, having been born and raised in Orange County, CA (11yr), then
Arkansas (5yr) and finally Texas for High School and College (7yr), followed
by Denver (liberal) and now Silicon Valley, I can confirm this liberal bias
toward both Texas and The South, and also by self-appointed intellectuals
toward individuals like myself who tend to not take themselves too seriously.

I regularly find myself catching others off-guard professionally when I exert
my intellect, because they tend to have me pegged as an easy-going So-Cal /
Southerner. However, from my experience, liberals and self-appointed
intellectuals share all the same personality and reasoning flaws as their
counterparts.

People are people and differ mostly in the person they choose to project, not
in their inherent abilities. Both are honest about different portions of
themselves.

~~~
rainsford
Initial perceptions shape the views people have of each other...it's not just
about how people view southerners. I'd guess from your post that you have
certain preconceptions about "liberals" and "intellectuals" that aren't always
accurate ;)

You can't judge a book by its cover, but that's where first impressions tend
to come from.

------
argonaut
1\. I don't judge his intelligence by how he spoke at speeches or how he
presented himself. I don't usually watch Obama's speeches either. But I judge
him based on his record, which was flat out abysmal.

I actually supported the Iraq War, believe it or not, no matter whether there
were WMD's (I'm of a slightly interventionist bent when it comes to foreign
policy) - but Bush's handling of that war and the War in Afghanistan was
absolutely dreadful.

Don't get me started on economic policy or Katrina.

2\. As someone pointed out, this judgment of intelligence based on speech
doesn't just apply to southerners, it applies to foreigners as well.

~~~
leephillips
I agree about Obama's abysmal record, and yet he gives every impression of
being highly intelligent. Maybe Obama and Bush, therefore, are in the same
category, probably along with many others: smart and capable, but somehow, as
presidents, producing lousy outcomes because of a process of political
compromise that leads to bad decisions.

~~~
argonaut
Uh, I was talking about Bush's record. I actually think Obama has a fine
record, speaking as someone who is economically liberal but somewhat
neoconservative on foreign policy,

------
metadept
The more relevant question, especially in the context of startup success, is
whether George W. Bush is wiser, more forward-thinking, or oriented toward
better goals than you. Intelligence is only useful when you're directing it
toward the right tasks and your end goals are genuinely beneficial.

~~~
kamakazizuru
what is a "better" goal. The whole point of the article is that things are not
black or white - and what you consider right and beneficial may not be the
same for someone else :)

~~~
derefr
In a president specifically, I imagine a "better" goal is one more aligned
with the will of the people (even if not specifically in the long-term
interest of the people.)

------
beatpanda
In that case we can finally settle the question after all - it was always
malice, not stupidity.

------
derefr
As someone from outside the US, I had a fairly bad impression of George W.
from the general media that reached us. You know what changed my mind?
Listening back through the early NPR Planet Money episodes quoting Bush's
reactions to, and speeches during, the 2007/08 financial crisis. Before that,
all I had really heard were statements from him concerning the war in Iraq et
al--but on economic issues, he seemed incredibly erudite and with a better
picture of the issues than even the people working for him.

Of course, it was all an image manufactured by his staff... but so was his
"character" during his speeches on other topics. I wish you all had gotten a
bit more of the former.

------
pewpewlasergun
Its worth noting that the Keith Hennessey's entire blog is anti-democratic
party's economic policy. He has only worked under republican congressmen and
presidents. This is hardly an unbiased source.

~~~
vxNsr
But, It is a source, of a first hand account of who P. Bush was. Regardless of
Mr. Hennessey's Political associations he did deal directly with Bush on a
near daily basis.

Also stop for a moment and think about your former and present bosses, how
smart do you think they are, do you like or hate them, do you often defend
them? I think it says a lot that Hennessey felt compelled to defend Bush.

------
fixxer
I never thought he was dumb. I just thought he was wrong.

------
leephillips
I never thought G.W. Bush was particularly bright, but I also never agreed
with the popularly held image, which I was sure was grossly underestimating
him. This image seemed to animate the kind of people who tended to consider Al
Gore to be some kind of colossal intellectual: Al Gore, who, at about the time
that Bush was earning a Harvard MBA, was flunking out of divinity school.
_Divinity school._

------
bherms
Here's what happens when you try to share on Facebook: <http://d.pr/i/lZCI>

~~~
andrewflnr
Same here.

Edit: on further inspection, a request for the file 404s. Reading the docs,
there doesn't appear to be any recourse.

~~~
bherms
I inspected the source and didn't see that file in there? When I removed the
"preview" that Facebook tries to generate, it worked, however. There goes my
conspiracy theory :\

~~~
andrewflnr
Odd. But I think the sabotage theory (no conspiracy required, I think) is
still a go, it just required the preview to work.

------
incision
I've grown to distrust all but first-hand assessments when it comes to this.

I find that people are often quite at ease with judging, if not pre-judging a
person's intelligence on the most minimal impressions, appearance, accent, a
single opinion or remark.

Personally, I'm so used to facing certain assumptions that they no longer
bother me.

------
hexonexxon
Bush seems pretty smart, after all he got away with warcrimes
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/16/us-torture-
priso...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/16/us-torture-prisoners-
indisputable-report)

------
nhashem
Has the OP considered that the perceived lack of intelligence of George W.
Bush may be based on the outcome of the decisions made by his administration,
rather than his southern drawl or verbal miscues?

------
subsystem
Caricaturization is a defense mechanism, we much rather assume someone is
stupid or don't understand than having malicious intent. Also intelligence
doesn't necessarily imply rationality.

------
stephencanon
Even if this were true, pretending to be stupid with the goal of getting
elected is far worse than actually being stupid.

~~~
andrewflnr
De-emphasizing intellect is a far cry from pretending to be stupid. In fact,
character matters at least as much as intelligence in real life. What use is
intelligence if you don't have the character to execute when you have to do
something hard? And of course, ethics provide the end goals to which
intelligence is applied.

~~~
stephencanon
So your contention is that character and ethics are exclusive of intelligence?
If not, why would one need to feign stupidity in order to project character?

~~~
andrewflnr
No, that's a preposterous straw man I'm not going to dignify with a serious
reply. Read what I actually said.

------
niggler
Was posted and killed a few hours ago

~~~
michaelrbock
Why was it killed?

~~~
niggler
degrades to political debate. The content doesn't really lend itself to much
interesting startup commentary.

~~~
vetrom
On the contrary, I think randall, commenting previously, highlighted perfectly
well how it relates to startup commentary. HN is very much about accelerated
startups and investor attraction I think, but there are those who also want to
work differently.

I've had debates with friends and associates on exactly that topic in the
past, about whether or not it's smarter to inject money, or just run your
business.

There was definitely the intellectual argument that came up. Equating a
difference of values to a difference of intelligence or wisdom is a hallmark
of the inexperienced. In my opinion, those who do so invite themselves to
peril.

Edit (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5605014>) for context

------
dmayle
Actually, you can look up what George Bush's IQ is. Depending on the specific
test mentioned, he comes in at about 120. So he may or may not be smarter than
you...

~~~
ontoillogical
You know that number is pulled out of thin air, right?

~~~
cogitov
"Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who
achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of
his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George
W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the
SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore
obtained 1355.)"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax#IQ_es...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax#IQ_estimations_by_academics)

<http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm>

<http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html>

------
EternalFury
My dog is still smarter, though.

------
benihana
> _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._

As a southerner living in New York City, this rang especially true. I grew up
around brilliant people who the "intelligent elite" discounted simply because
they weren't born in the proper region. It's such an arrogant and sad stance
to take.

~~~
ceph_
Bush was born and raised in CT an hour outside of NYC. The image of him being
a Texan was cultivated in the same way as much of his persona.

~~~
shirkey
...just as every politician learns to create a persona.

"The caricature of President Bush is that of a good ol’ boy from Texas who is
principled and tough, but just not that bright."

Whether genuine or not, that was the caricature he cultivated and embraced,
further distancing himself from the "elite" in the minds of most Americans.
Whether a voter found this to be charming or not went a long way to how those
voters cast their ballot.

~~~
waps
Yeah but you've got to appreciate the irony in America. America has a very
selective elite who have a very narrow definition of what that elite is (ivy-
league, "entrepreneurial", rich, democrat, ...) and is regularly accused of
having -very- little tolerance for anyone outside of their core group ... I
wouldn't say that's true for the whole group, but there's a significant
portion of them that certainly do this.

And this elite is blasting everyone else for not having an equal system.
Seriously. Of course the French aristocrats did the same. I'm sure many
elites, present and past, liked to claim their superior status was due to
"inherent" but ill-defined characteristics : nobility, chivalry, scientific
accomplishment (like the Roman elites did) ... are all words that come to
mind. None of them held up their own ideals. The majority of French noblemen
were cruel drunks. So were most Roman elites if Cicero's anything to go by.
I'm not saying America's Ivy-league elite is a bunch of drunks, but they
certainly don't satisfy their own rules : they are not social (in the
political sense), they do not advance equality (quite the opposite), and most
importantly : it is not the case that they're the self-selected best and
brightest. Like all other elites, the reason they get in power is that they
are in power and get pulled in by their buddies (which, granted, beats why
French noblemen were elite : because great-great-great-great-great-granddad
managed to get a command position in the king's army. The first generation of
French noblemen were probably very capable people who genuinely meant well).

The only distinguishing characteristic that matters in members of America's
elite is friendships and other associations with other members of the elite.
As for "best and brightest", you could say that there's a (low) lower bar that
they need to hit. That's it.

~~~
ravloony
"The majority of French noblemen were cruel drunks."

The feodal system held together for about a thousand years in France. Give
them a tiny bit of credit.

Also, insulting generalisations about a vast group of people doesn't do the
rest of your arguments any credit.

------
edwardunknown
I understand that even a "dumb" president is probably smarter than the average
person but on the other hand starting the Iraq war and ignoring the housing
bubble are pretty convincing evidence that he was an idiot in all the ways
that count.

Also impressive how fast these guys appear from under their rocks when they're
called upon.

~~~
niggler
" starting the Iraq war and ignoring the housing bubble are pretty convincing
evidence that he was an idiot in all the ways that count."

Not necessarily. Dick Cheney had financial interests in Halliburton, which
benefited greatly thanks to the Iraq War. I imagine Bush had much the same (or
if not him directly, then family), which would make the Iraq war a brilliant
move for his pocketbook.

------
zeroexzeroone
He is certainly smarter now...No Child Left Behind, right?

