The misunderestimated George W. Bush?

George Bush is apparently smarter than a group of Stanford MBA students, a troubling fact, because that means he’s probably smarter than me.   

A recent blog by Keith Hennessy, former Assistant of Economic Policy for our 43rd President asserts that the public persona of a  “...good ol’ boy from Texas who is principled and tough, but just not that bright.”  contrasts with the reality of a quick-minded and analytical politician who, according to Hennessy,

“...is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.”

Okay, another rosy-eyed view from a Bush disciple. This assessment of the president, however, is corroborated by New York Times Columnist David Brooks, who asserted in 2012,

“[Bush] is 60 IQ points smarter in private than he was in public. He doesn’t want anybody to think he’s smarter than they are, so he puts on a Texas act...I’ve rarely seen a person whose off-the-record manner is so different from his on-the-record manner.”

Before you think this a misty-eyed tribute to W, on the occasion of his library dedication and new found appreciation of his artistic self expression, I reserve the right to distinguish intelligence from judgment.  Here is an insightful piece that gives good perspective on this issue

It is not especially fascinating to me is that President Bush, a graduate of Yale and Harvard Business, born in New Haven, CT was able to cast himself as a homespun Texan. 

Karl Rove would approve

What is interesting is what this says about a distinctly American populism where intelligence, particuarly garnered in an educational setting is a political liability.

Why is this?

It’s probably Abraham Lincoln’s fault.   I am stumbled across a fascinating book, “How Lincoln Learned toRead” by Daniel Wolff,  which chronicles the formative education of twelve iconic americans.  Abraham Lincoln, though fairly well educated for his time and remarkably well read, honed his image as a log cabin railsplitter during his presidential run of 1860. Though this identity of a backwoods laborer was based on fact, it was embellished for political gain in the campaign, and became part of his national image.

According to Wolff, Lincoln was likely influenced by political success of Andrew Jackson, the military hero who victory was due to his appeal to frontiersman who distrusted New England elites.  A similar strategy worked with the Indian fighter William Henry Harrison, who despite being the son of a wealthy plantation owner, polished his image as a "homespun backwoodsman who spent his days on his porch thinking homely thoughts of frontier virtues."

My own readings of presidential history have shown a similar trend. Teddy Roosevelt, the Harvard educated son of wealthy New York aristocrats, credited his twenties spent cattle wrangling in the badlands as a requisite in his election to the presidency.

Jimmy Carter, a Navy officer and nuclear engineer, was better known as a Georgia peanut farmer. I didn’t know that Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar until I visited his library in Little Rock a few years ago.

In many of these cases, it seems that these statesmen saw it politically expedient to stress their ordinariness. Other candidates that have done otherwise, like Adalai Steveson, John Kerry or Mitt Romney (I’m smart enough to fix the economy) have not.

There are certainly exceptions to this trend, but it is strong enough to warrant attention.

What does this say about American’s views of education?

I have observed a powerful dualism in American culture, on one hand we stress the importance of education, were college completion is generally considered the minimum threshold for mainstream success. This contrasts with the model of some European countries, where a certain percentage of high school students are directed towards the trades. Additionally we invest massive amounts of funds and school hours toward school metrics that monitor student achievement.

At the same time, we tend to value experience over education.  Entrepreneurs and college dropouts like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are our most esteemed cultural heroes, and Joe the Plumber’s views on politics are given creedence by about half of the population.

This is fascinating, and I would like to know why this is. Is it because our cultural history is one rooted in pragmatism and “what works”? Did this distrust of "book learning' " stem from an early desire to differentiate ourselves from our British overseers? Is it a cultural value that regards experience over intelligence?

Perhaps we should consider this in our approach to education. Maybe our traditional education, which tends to value math, science and language arts, needs to awaken to the validity of practical and hands on learning, as well as recognize the power of experience as a learning tool.  I like Barack Obama and tend to agree with him, but I also understand that "Joe the Plumber" and his ilk have some insights too. In a democracy we recognize the validity of all perspectives and approaches, and we should have an educational system that reflects this tolerance too.