The charge that President Bush is dumb, stupid, a dunce, etc, is commonly advanced, sometimes even here on America's Debate.

Because I don't understand such a charge, I'm asking those who hold that view to advance whatever facts they may have that support their view, i.e. WHY?

Well here are some quotes (unverified by yours truly) that may be fuel for this smear campaign

Bushisms

I can't say that an attentive person in my classroom wouldn't have a list like this from me, but I also can't say that some of these didn't make me chuckle.

Just for everyone's information...

If this topic gets out of control, it'll be closed. I have already deleted one non-constructive and insulting post by Passion51.

Please stick to the topic presented by Bikerdad (paraphrased):

Are there any actual facts proving that President Bush is dumb?

Mike

I feel that Bush is very wrong in his political course of action. So much so, that I feel he is a danger to the world.
I'm not sure if he is actually 'dumb', (by which I presume you mean stupid?) but judging on the way he speaks, what he says, and his stated opinions, then if I had to answer yes or no, to the question you put forth, then I would have to say yes. He strikes me as being a deeply foolish man who's allure is that he says what many Americans wish to hear in this time of fear and uncertainty.

I do not believe he can deliver what he promises, and I believe that by promising what he has, he reveals himself as flawed. Either he is lying, or he really is stupid enough to believe his own promises...

Other than that, I cannot say for sure. George W Bush is the president of the worlds leading economic power, and I have no idea how much of his success can be attributed to his father or to his fathers friends. It is not an easy thing to become President though, so perhaps he is far more intelligent than I give him credit for?

Perhaps he is much smarter than I am... or perhaps he is just a sock puppet.

My guess would be George has an IQ in the 110-120 range. Presidents that are not quick on their feet in the television age get labeled dumb, Eisenhower, Ford, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. are all examples. Not everyone can be a Kennedy, Reagan or Clinton.

Dumb? No, you can't earn an Ivy League MBA without at least high average intelligence + hard work. He also qualified as a jet fighter pilot, whether he ever actually served in that capacity or not, which takes some smarts too. He's certainly smart enough for the job, though not nearly as smart as the most intelligent Presidents we've had, which would include Nixon and Clinton. He knows he is and where he stands, and can make a decision and stick to it, which counts for a lot. I'd rather have a HMFIC with that combo that the reverse: very bright but unfocused and indecisive, which would seem to fit Kennedy

None of that says anything about policy though, about which I have my differences with Dobya though I still consider him preferable to any likely Democrat nominee.

A lot depends on what you mean by "dumb". If you mean inarticulate, then the frequency of Bush's pronunciation and grammar errors definitely qualifies as evidence. If you mean ignorant or uneducated, then it's debatable whether those same things constitute evidence; one would normally expect good pronunciation and grammar to be one of many things absorbed in the course of getting an education, but there are obvious exceptions to the rule and Bush could be one of them. If what you mean by "dumb" is "unintelligent" then grammar and pronunciation don't count at all.

I still think Bush is unintelligent, though. The key to intelligence is learning - not book learning but the ability to develop new skills or integrate new information. An intelligent person is distinguished from a savant or a well-trained but unintelligent person (or a robot) by how they respond to new challenges, not old ones. Therefore we can judge intelligence by seeing what challenges and seeing whether the person has responded by learning. Has Dubya shown any increase in his understanding of economics since he was governor of Texas, or manager of several businesses? I would say no. Has he become better at diplomacy, or at judging the quality of information he gets from subordinates? The Iraq situation stands as a counterexample in both cases. Has he improved his pronunciation and grammar, given the obvious incentive of being lambasted constantly for his poor command of the English language? Doesn't seem like it. Learning opportunity after learning opportunity seems to have passed him by, leaving him to all appearances the exact same person with the exact same capabilities as ten years ago.

Intelligence is an affirmative trait, not an absence of something else, and it does tend to be manifested externally. If there is no evidence of intelligence, the most likely explanation by far is because the intelligence is not there - not that it's somehow hidden or blocked from expression. This is one case where I do treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and there's an absence of evidence that Bush is intelligent. He's trainable, certainly, but I don't think he's intelligent.

That is a laughable argument.

His grammar, while maybe not up to the standards of Al Gore or Bill Clinton (career politicians, who have never held a real job) are certainly not terrible. Have a talk with half your neighbors or go visit Texas. You will see much more egregious grammar.

Policies? So your argument is that because he hasn't changed his policies that he is dumb? No evidence there, I am afraid.

Post-9/11 was a challenge, an unforeseen event which I believe he has responded to admirably. Maybe he has been a bit slow on the economic side, but it's coming along.

YOU think that Iraq is a counterexample of intelligence, which I believe is (again) laughable. He saw a threat, he eliminated said threat. Just because you do not feel that it was the correct decision does not make it an unintelligent one. If a reasonable explanation can be offered (which it has been, by me and by MANY others) for these actions, then the actions are NOT unintelligent. They simply differ from what others may have done.

For anyone to climb the ranks of our government (both state and national) and hold the top spot, they can not be stupid...well I hope not?

I do see a case to argue his intelligence level from an academic standpoint. He is a graduate of both Yale and Harvard but was in no means an exceptional student at either institution. I saw somewhere that he graduated from Yale with a very low GPA in the 2's. Also, the only qualification he had was name recognition for admittance to both places. But in the end he still walked away with two highly sought after degrees.

Okay, you go in front of 25 T.V. cameras, speak to 275,000,000 people, and don't screw up. It isn't as easy as you would think. It takes quite a lot of skill.

CP

Yes, his grammar are terrible. I know how "regular people" talk, just from listening to my own family...but I don't want them running the country either. I do expect better from people for whom language - legal language, diplomatic language, addressing the media - is the mainstay of their profession.

BTW, I specifically did not make Bush's mangling of the language the centerpiece of my argument, and yet you seized on it anyway. Sometimes it seems his fans are even more sensitive on that point than detractors' criticism would warrant.

I am sure GW is hoping stupid liberals continue to underestimate his intelligence. You would think they would know better by now. I know they give all the credit to Karl for Bush's political machinations. I always give a manager credit for the work of his employees.

So much for individual accomplishment; that sounds practically monarchist to me. BTW, do you also assign blame to that manager when his employees screw up, or are you on the "Bush got bad intel" bandwagon?

That does not mean the individual employees do not get credit also. Yes, any manager gets credit when his team succeeds and gets blame when his team fails. That is the way it should be.

I guess I won't be President since I forgot to change the verb when I edited the subject of my sentence. Ah well, c'est la vie! (Actually, I would pit my grammar against anyone else's anyday )

I made 4 points, ONE of which was grammar. I addressed all of your point in the order in which you made them. All were easily refuted, hence the brevity of each section . I fail to see how I "focussed" on his grammar anymore than you did.

BTW, Bush is NOT a career politician and should not be expected to speak like one.

I don't think Bush is dumb - far from it.

I think he's rather cleverly exploited his real tendency to be somewhat inarticulate on the hoof (i.e. when unscripted). This does provide some of his political enemies the opportunities to laugh at him, sometimes in a rather lofty way. But he seems to think that many people who don't think of themselves as intellectuals - probably the majority - rather disapprove of those that are, especially when they smugly laugh at those they consider beneath them, as this still seems to be a form of elitism that is largely frowned on in the USA.

For example, he isn't the unashamed intellectual that Clinton was, for sure, but he's smart enough to have realised that some of the people who didn't like Clinton were doing it because he is both intellectual and unashamed of it.

In short, I think Bush (or maybe his backers and supporters) are just smart enough to have realised that there is a groundswell of anti-intellectualism in the US at the moment, and played up his own non-intellectualism to take advantage of that. His inarticulacy does him very little harm except to people who would never vote for him anyway.

Besides, IQ and education are only two of the factors that attract voters. If they were the sole drivers, Stephen Hawking would be the President of the Universe. Being charismatic, good on TV, and (let's not beat about the bush - no pun intended), being a white heterosexual Christian male who is married with children, having a full head of hair, and being above 5'9" tall are equally, if not more, important to the success of US politicians these days.

What's your definition of "career politician"? He's been in politics full-time for over a decade; most people who've been in a field for a decade are considered to have made a career of it, and that doesn't even count the time spent at Daddy Bush's knee.

I think Julian has it correct. George, with his grammatical flaws, is a refreshing contrast, to many, of the "Slick Willie" image that was somewhat successfully applied to Clinton.

Looks like another excluded middle to me. Is it not possible to be articulate without seeming "slick"? Has our anti-intellectualism progressed so far that even using language plainly but correctly arouses suspicion? I hope not. An aversion to big words or complex ideas is no guarantee of honesty; I'll bet more people in our prisons resemble Bush in those regards than resemble Clinton.

Smart people don't have to use big words and complex sentences, but they darn well should be able to look up or practice a word like "subliminal" before they use it in a public speech. A smart person, even one with a genuine speech impediment, could have avoided that particular gaffe.

I'm with Platypus - while I can see what I think George is doing, I'm more disappointed than impressed by it.

BTW, there's a word for "An aversion to big words or complex ideas " - MEGALOGOPHOBIA.

I know 'cos I coined it - click here for details. At least I think I coined it - all the Google references to the word lead back to the James Randi Education Foundation website I've linked to.

I don't see the excluded middle. "To many" is the qualifier here.
I'm not impressed myself, but I'm not the majority of the American public.

George W. Bush inarticulate? Yes.
George W. Bush tortures the English language? Absolutely.
George W. Bush is an boring, stilted and uninspired public speaker? Most definitely.

George W. Bush is dumb. No.

Dubya is not intellectually curious. Yeah, it's easy to clown him for his literary choices and inelegant syntax, but if he's dumb he's dumb like a fox.

Let's just see what this dumb President has accomplished:

1. Won a war.
2. Got two major tax cut packages passed.
3. Campaigned relentlessly and helped the GOP hold the House and win back the Senate.
4. Provided leadership following the worst act of terrorism directed against the United States.
5. Has remained untainted by scandal such as the Enron meltdown.

Dubya's defenders could quote chapter and verse Bush II's accomplishments. He's not unsinkable, but right now Bush would whip any Democrat in a landslide. Bush has played the fool for so long people think he IS a fool. But as he has smirked, "They misunderestimated me."

I don't. I take Dubya very seriously. He's no Forrest Gump.

Very well stated Nighttimer.

Except #5 happened under Clinton, it just surfaced under Bush.

You could add:
6. Added many seniors to his constituency by demanding a prescription drug program be passed this summer. Link Now he has Democrats attacking him because "it's the wrong kind of plan".

Bush is very smart, politically.

All by himself? The war on terrorism is far from won, and getting us into a war in Iraq is not universally accepted as a smart move.



Definitely not smart cuts.



So he's tireless. How is this evidence of intelligence?



What does "provided leadership" mean? What has he done? Created the bumbling department of Homeland Security? Led us into a war we didn't need while the war on terrorism was still unfinished? Alienated our allies unnecessarily? Dumb, dumb, dumb.



Yeah, so have I. So have a lot of people I know, and some of them are morons. Maybe he's untainted because he's moral, though I doubt it. How does this prove he's intelligent unless we assume he's getting away with something (and not relying on advisors to hide the bodies)?


I'm not saying that his policies are evidence that he's dumb, but they're not evidence that he's smart either. Where is the evidence that he is intelligent - i.e. not unintelligent?

GW's SAT scores 566 verbal, 640 math. Average SAT scores 1998 (first year I found stats on) 505 verbal, 512 math. Bush is brighter than average.

Wow, that's kinda low. I know people who made much higher scores than that and I still didn't think they should be President.

Hmmmm....maybe there's something to this? Like, maybe being a President is more than just intelligence or grammar skills!? Personally, I think Dubya's better than Clinton in the grammar section. Clinton and his southern drawl were almost unbearable for me.

Subtract 100 points from the scores of those people you know, for a true comparison. SAT scores are weighted differently now.
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/defining.html

A lot of very smart people disagree with you on that. As has been noted, policy disagreements with the Platypus are not evidence of stupidity.

Just because Bush stutters and fumbles with his words, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Really, his so called "stupidity" comes from people who don't like his policies and in lack of better words choose to call him stupid (even though I really don't like Bush and disagree with many of his policies).

From the SAT scores I would estimate Bush is smarter than at least 2/3rds of American voters. Denocrats better be careful who they are labeling stupid. The stupid people might be smart enough to take offense and vote Republican.

If you are a President who is quick on his feet, you get the terms tricky (Nixon), teflon President (Reagan), or slick( Clinton) applied to you. If you are not, you get labeled dumb.(Ike,Ford,Bush)

Nor is it evidence of intelligence, as I'm getting tired of pointing out.

Very well then, what is evidence of intelligence?

Here is suggested reading, an examination of the wider question...

Why Liberals Think Conservatives are Stoopid



Something to think about...

Reading a thread before posting to it, for one thing. Try it.



Looks like a huge strawman to me. The beliefs and rationales he attributes to all liberals are in fact held by few, if any, and so his arguments are completely inapplicable to most liberals.

Bush may be manipulative and dishonest but he's not completely stupid. I don't think he's particularly smart either. I'd say his intelligence level is about average.

Dumb: a: markedly lacking in intelligence : STUPID b : showing a lack of intelligence



Lets take the three criteria Huarte proposed as definitions of intelligence.

Learning ability. As has already been pointed out, Bush earned an Ivy League MBA and qualified as a jet fighter pilot. So his ability to learn can’t be called into question.


Imaginativeness. This is very subjective as I may believe the policies he enacted since taking office are very creative, someone who doesn’t agree with those policies will think just the opposite. But if we just stick to the fact that he does direct the creation of some policies we could draw the conclusion that he has an imagination.


Good judgment. Another subjective factor in determining GW’s intelligence. Do his policies make a difference in our lives and in this country? Definitely. Are the good for this country? That’s debatable.


I don’t believe GW is dumb. I also don’t believe he is extremely intelligent. But I do believe he is above average.

Based on your criteria, we can determine the following:

GW learned enough to get into two Ivy League schools. Being a legacy helps, but it ain't enough to get you into Harvard's Graduate School.

While in those schools, GW learned enough to graduate from both.

GW learned enough and developed new skills enabling him to become a jet pilot. Do you have a pilot's license?

GW has learned that drinking like a fish is a losing proposition, and has apparently developed the skill and discipline necessary to stay sober.

GW learned enough as governor to become the first governor of Texas to be elected to a second consecutive four year term, not too shabby for a guy without any past reason to have any knowledge, information, or skill at meeting the challenges of governing one of the largest states.

Thus far, you haven't actually provided any facts to support your contention that he isn't intelligent. As others have noted, it seems that the gist of your assessment is simply that GW has arrived at different conclusions than you. Since you are smart, he must be dumb.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the article I linked predicts.

So, give us facts.

I don't think Bush is stupid (and it's not because i support Bush ). He may seem stupid to some people but i think that it is his Texan accent and Texan background makes him look and sound stupid. He is just an ordinary guy who is President of the United States.

Besides, if he were stupid, how'd he get into Yale??

It couldn't have been his money or family ties....nuh uh no way. He already used those up to get that cushy National Guard stateside position during Viet Nam. I don't think they let you get a free ride like that more than once do they?

That's right, you also need money, lots of it...and the Bush family has it.



With a C- average...good job Mr. President.



No, but then again my father can't get me out of going overseas to fight in a pointless war either. Too bad he never actually flew any missions while defending the Texas skies from a Vietcong invasion.



Perhaps he does have some intelligence after all.



More accurately, he was the first 2nd-term Texas Governor to resign. Besides, the terms weren't always four years and he wasn't the first governor to be re-elected.

You seem intent on making this thread into another Bush-basher, Danya.

Can you offer any facts that indicate that Bush is dumb? That is the topic of this thread.

So far I haven't seen one single fact that indicates Bush is anything less than above average in both intelligence and ability, from you or anyone else here.

You know we got a lot of people in this country with money and family ties; only one is President of the United States.

His black eye (caused by a pretzel and a coffee table!), his falling off that scooter recently, and his stoned appearance during his speech declaring war on Iraq make me wonder if he really is still on the wagon.

Think he'd agree to submit to weekly drug/alcohol screenings?

Once again a Bush-bashing post that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I will repeat my question, you know, the one that was asked in the post originating this thread?

What facts do you have to offer that Bush is dumb?

The claim has been made that Bush's turning away from chronic alcohol abuse is evidence of his intelligence. If he is not intelligent, then he is unintelligent. Therefore, exploring whether he did in fact turn away is quite strictly topical and your attempt to stifle posts with which you disagree is objectionable.

What proof do we have that Bush is well and truly on the wagon? If he's not, wouldn't that be kind of...well, dumb? Personally I think he has stayed dry, but it's valid to explore the possibility that he hasn't.

Maybe drug and alcohol tests are a bit extreme.

I'm willing to be fair and settle for a few sworn first hand accounts confirming his attendance at any recent AA meetings.

I know a lot of people who couldn't stay on the wagon that I would call smart.

We tend to say that Clinton is smarter than Bush, but look what he did with who and where he did it. That was a series of stupid things.

Bush has often made statements that seem to point out his lack of knowledge about a subject. These are the things






Source

.


Link


Link

SAT tests before 1995 (when the standards became lowered), were essentially designed to be IQ tests. Obviously, much of that would be subjective. A score would be dependant on home environment, education level, and preparation. Nonetheless, Bush's SAT score of 1206 would indicate a fairly high IQ, about the top 6 percent of the population.

IQ and SAT comparison chart

side note...I do agree that high IQ is not necessarily a measure of what's important. I think Carter is probably a genius, but I don't think his policies were good for the country.

Maybe my perspective's off, but I don't know anyone who'd be proud of a 1200 score, and I don't think I did in college either. IIRC, 1300 was considered ho-hum and you'd need 1400 to have any confidence that you'd done better than the guy sitting next to you. Apropos of recent conversations in other threads, this was at UMich in 1981 onward.

I think your perspective is a bit off (at least correlating to the general population). Most don't score that high. Mine was 1280, which I wasn't exactly 'proud' of, but I certainly didn't consider it worth retaking the test.

Average SAT Scores for OSSHE First-Time Freshmen

The nationwide average is around 1000 for the time period of 1986-1996 and didn't vary by much each year (less than 1%).