Stanford MBA students told George W. Bush is smarter than you
thefederalistpapers.org
thefederalistpapers.org
I'm glad that the author of this article didn't try to justify that claim. He definitely had more resources and technology available to him than the previous 42, so one could argue that a bit, but as far as raw intellect, I wouldn't say so. That's a hard argument to win.
I mean, if you sat him down in front of a page of logic puzzles how would he do? I have a hard time believing he would do really well although I could be wrong.
It seems like the main qualifications for a politician are political sense and looking good in a suit. But I don't disagree. Most people who make it to president have to be reasonably smart.
Another character of this type is Donald Rumsfeld, who appears making disturbingly well reasoned positions in Milton Friedman documentaries in the 80s.
It's very hard to maintain the positive view when you consider what actually happened with them in power though, but in fairness I struggle to think of a modern political leader that isn't true for of any persuasion.
Is Bush smarter than everyone in a room full of Stanford MBA students? Possible but doubtful.
These kind absolute statements without support are generally nonsense. I might add... exactly the type of aggressive hostile nonsense that Bush personified.
Some people might feel the dumb hick act was real. But most people who think about it probably realize it was staged. The issue is less Bush's intelligence and more his behavior. Being smart is only a small part of being a wise, beneficent and effective leader or doing what is best for one's country. Saddam was probably reasonably smart as far as smart goes. There are no shortage of smart criminals, crooks and tyrants all over the world.