Sorry, dude, but gotta ask you for a cite for that. And be sure the cite is from the relavent time period, too. Thanks.
Don’t have a cite, but I did have a roomate who got into Harvard Biz. (as well as Kellog) and was rejected by BC Law, as a matter of fact! The roomate went on to American U. Law in DC, (the place where we were actually roomates). B-school was a safety of sorts. He considered Stanford, Chicago, Sloan, Kellog, etc. to be far better B-schools than Harvard, though I don’t know the rankings (Harvard was “old school” according to him, whatever that meant). As it is, I can’t really compare these schools based on rankings alone, because it’s such an Apples to Oranges kind of thing. Law schools are well known to be extremely competitive in admissions, given the huge demand for slots. Not so with B-schools.
On further thought, my experiences from the early 90s probably wouldn’t tell me what I would need to know about B-school vs. Law schools in the late 60s, so you do have a good point there. I can’t readily extrapolate into the past.
Brainglutton said:
Then you haven’t been paying attention. When Reagan died there were all sort of retrospectives of his life where various commentators had to admit that they didn’t realize he was anywhere near as smart as he was. He wrote thousands of letters to people on a dizzying array of topics, from letters to kids to letters to policymakers discussing arcane points.
Here: Read this interview from REASON magazine. This is Reagan unscripted, speaking extemporaneously. I expect you’ll disagree with his point of view, but look at his command of facts, figures, and his deep understanding of the issues. Can you imagine, say, George Bush being able to talk like that?
You’re kidding, right? Reagan is widely considered to be one of the best public speakers the White House has ever seen. And yes, I’ve seen many of his speeches. Have you? Have you seen his Berlin Wall speech? Or his speech commemorating D-Day in 1984? That’s the one that contains the line, "These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. … " It’s a speech that brought tears to the eyes of many people.
Reagan was a GREAT speaker. It was his biggest talent.
Exactly.
You can re-define “intelligence” whichever way you want to, but in the end, I think we would all like a President who has “command of facts, figures, and deep understanding of the issues.” And, by your own admission, George Bush lacks that.
So, the issue in the end is not whether Bush is an idiot or not, but whether he has the basic intellectual tools/abilities to be a good President. And knowing how to appear “folsky” is not the most critical ability a President must have.
This is all bollocks. It’s interesting how a question about Bush’s intelligence has turned into a forum for you to propagate all kinds of straw men and just plain ignorance about liberals and intellectuals. What was objectionable about Reagan (and Bush) was not that they spoke plainly – but that he used his superior ability to communicate in order to mislead the public. Most of the time he was doing it deliberately and sometimes, I suspect, he was doing it because his own instinct to simplify complex issues actually resulted in distorted reasoning and led to the incorrect result (See Mencken for “clear, simple, and wrong”). Reagan’s speeches, while brilliant, are not examples of superior reasoning and principle. They are brilliant examples of propagandistic appeals to prejudice and emotion.
Would you have passed the offer of a much more comely intern also ? Just trying to figure if you were “smart” enough not to get involved with an intern or if you think Monica wasn’t worth the trouble. 
Still going to a quagmire war on ideological ideas is a much worse choice than a blowjob. There is a saying here that men have two “heads” but that they never work at the same time. So accusing Clinton of being an “idiot” isn’t valid… he wasn’t in “control” at that specific moment.
The fact that Monica was chubby and unnattractive just proves that Clinton was an equal opportunity womanizer. Personally I would fuck a good looking intern… but I would have made sure there wasn’t DNA evidence though.
Well back to Bush... no one mentioned Bush being a "C" student... something he likes to boast about. Still we should judge Bush for his latest decisions... not his grades as a teen and a twenty year old. Invading Iraq and thinking they will throw flowers at you and call you liberators isn't exactly a brilliant idea, actually smacks of arrogant stupidity. When you keep a bunch of yes sayers around you... your not being smart.Guess that would be me. I have little first-hand knowledge, being a Kansan (and the last time our politics got interesting was when old Doc Brinkley (the goad-gland guy) ran a write-in campaign for gov in the 30s; though Joan Finney was a bit flakey).
There may be no better source on Texas politics in the past thirty years than the various collection of Molly Ivins columns. Speaking of whom, I’m reminded that she has pointed out that Texas is a weak-governor state. While the smarts necessary to get the job may be disputable, it doesn’t take much white matter to keep the chair warm.
I thought it was grey matter that mattered ! Oopppss…
Get real. The question isn’t whether the smarter or more meritorious candidate always wins. The question is whether it is reasonable to expect that someone who is severely lacking in mental acumen would attain such high-ranking positions in government.
There’s a huge difference between those two theses. Do you need someone to explain the difference, or have you discerned it on your own by now?
What I need is for someone to help me understand what you’re trying to say - I’m having a hard time following your convoluted prose.
“Is it reasonable to elect a moron?” Of course not. “Is it a reasonable expectation that a moron can get elected?” Well, these days, maybe it is.
Does it help if I point out that I was twitting Evil One’s assertion “Any reasonable person . . . must conclude that it would be impossible to be the Governor of Texas and President of the United States and be as stupid as some badly want him to be”? It sure as hell is possible. Just consider the long line of losers elected president in the 19th century.
My basic point is the general lack of correlation between ability and electibility.
Rashak Mani: Mebbe it has somethin’ to do with the fact that my white matter, like everything else, is turning grey. . . . [P.S.: That should read “goat-gland”. At least our frauds are entertaining.]
I think the problem is deeper than that, for reasons that we shall shortly see.
What I actually said was “The question is whether it is reasonable to expect that someone who is severely lacking in mental acumen would attain such high-ranking positions in government.” There is nothing particularly convoluted about that phrasing – and there is absolutely no way to interpret it as cannot be construed as “Is it reasonable to elect a moron?”
Besides, you’re sidestepping the issue. You’re the one who interpreted this thread as pertaining to whether the more meritorious candidate would necessarily get elected. That interpreation comes entirely out of left field. Regardless of whether absolute moron can or can not attain state governorship or the Presidency, that says absolutely nothing about whether the more meritorious candidate (to use your own wording) would be elected.
Sorry, I meant to say “There is absolutely no way to interpret as ‘Is it reasonable to elect a moron?’”
(This time my words were convoluted, I’ll heartily admit. That’s what happens when we press “Submit Reply” too quickly.)
Compared to other tasks, the Presidency of the United States is one requiring much more responsibility and wisdom. Is it not worth it to hold the folks who occupy that role to a higher standard as well?
Anyone who equates priest-murdering nun-raping rebels as the “moral equivalent” of the Founding Fathers is not smart enough for the job of POTUS, IMO.
To answer the OP, and as others have alluded to:
Inherently, no.
Functionally, yes.
You are right, but you are wrong. Intelligence comes in several flavors, and Bush is quite adept in several political flavors (though in what I perceive to be adeptness that serves him and his cronies far better than it does the American citizenry).
To wit, Bush is an excellent networker. He is good at reading people and using them to his advantage. He also projects the dominance that greatly helps a leader be a leader. Although he is nominally a poor orator, he is quite skilled at projecting his position with absolute confidence.
These qualities can take someone quite a long way. It is with these qualities alone, and his numerous and strong family connections, that he became governer and president. I would argue that his personal qualities alone would not have taken him there.
But is Bush stupid? You bet.
-
Completely inarticulate, revealing a lack of understanding of both words and the concepts that underlie them.
-
No sign of any skill in logic or quantitative analysis, and his failures both in school and in business back up this view.
-
A wretchedly parochial view of life and the US’s place on the planet. Most self-admitted hicks show a better understanding of things than he.
-
Seemingly great ignorance on various matters of fact. During the 2000 debates I saw no evidence of any knowledge whatsoever.
Yes, Bush is stupid, but he’s crafty like a fox. A very dangerous combination, one that has greatly hurt our country in the last 3+ years.
I don’t have a problem believing this at all. In his teens Bush very well might have had considerable intellectual potential.
I think the problem is one of character. Having no intellectual curiosity whatsoever (or so it seems to many), Bush did not grow intellectually. According to report and rumor, during college (and many years afterward), Bush was a slacker, drug user, and general frickup.
Good writing, good oratory, good analysis, and knowledge of the world do not come from a high I.Q., although having the base intelligence helps. They are born of a relentless battle against the “blank slate,” against ignorance. I do not sense Bush has ever fought that battle. I think he avoided the draft and never showed up for the physical, as it were. :dubious:
Reagan had the political qualities I said Bush had above, but also a lot more:
-
Good acting ability and first-rate oratorical skills.
-
A much deeper understanding of foreign policy and world affairs/events.
-
A strategic vision for the US. Not always right, but Bush doesn’t even have one, at least not one with any depth or realism to it.
What this country needs is better masses!
I’m a socialist, not a Dem, but I will admit that I hold the masses in contempt, not for who they are as people, not for their intellects, but for their political apathy in this grave time of danger for our country and the world. The fact that GWB has any support at all is a de facto condemnation of where we are politically as a nation.
GWB is, as a poster indicated above, a whole mess of bad qualities, only one of which is his stunted intellect. The two distinct halves of the American electorate are working hard to get the democracy that all of us will end up deserving:
Will it be
A) A reckless Hillbilly Empire dedicated to spreading our prudish, politically backward (“free”), self-serving vision around the world
or
B) A great and powerful nation (as opposed to empire), yet one among many, dedicated to both the welfare of its citizens and the political evolution (including true freedom, both political and economic) of the planet.
We choose in November.
Interesting comments, Aeschines.
After twenty years in the classroom and post-graduate work in educational and developmental psychology, I think I have a little insight into the intellectual abilities of people that I observe over a long period of time.
George Bush is not an idiot. If I were to guess at his IQ, I would say that it is probably in the upper end of the normal range – 110. I think that his problems with public speaking probably stem from a disorder of some sort rather than actual stupidity.
For a President, he appears to be unusually ignorant and unable to cover for himself. I disagree that he has a lot of political savvy. (What kind of a politician admits that he never reads the newspapers?) What he does have is a strong political machine behind him and a lot of personal charm. The twist is that he is nobody’s marionette. He is extremely stubborn and contrary and has to be “handled.”
In a crisis situation, I would think he would have to be spoon fed. I don’t think he would know what questions to ask.
I think that George Bush’s biggest problem is not his lack of intelligence, but his shallowness. Sometimes I think that he took us to war in Iraq for the same reason that Clinton screwed Monica – because he could.
BTW, Ronald Reagan in his prime in the 1960’s was much smarter than Geo. Bush. By the time he was President, his powers were fading.