Before everyone decides this is stricly a left wing promotion please note that the list is 27 presidents long and stops at George Bush Sr..... so we have a Bush included in there. Nixon and Eisenhower are two others that make the list along with Carter and Clinton.... the latter of the two checking in high on the list at #4. Bill Clinton's intelligence has never really been a question.... just his judgement. http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5315/most-intelligent-presidents?utm_medium=cm&utm_source=outbrain&utm_campaign=ao.cm.ob.dt.5315&utm_term=dt#27-John-Quincy-Adams
What? Obama didn't make the list? I thought that was the whole thing he was so damn smart, Ivy Leaguer and all. Also how'd they come up with the IQ's, the Stanford-Binet Test didn't start to be used till around 1916.
I've become jaded with regard to polls and rankings. I went through this list, and what jumped out at me is that you could take virtually every president, throw them all in a bag and shake it up, and come out with an intelligence ranking that no one could refute. It stands to reason that to be president, you have to be highly intelligent, accomplished, and ambitious. However, we've all seen in our lifetimes that intelligence and ambition - on both sides of the aisle - are not enough to make a good president. This study does not concern itself with the effectiveness (aka success) of the presidencies, only the author's perceived level of intelligence of the individuals. It does make for interesting reading, however. I learned some things about past presidents that I never knew.
Sid I think the rankings were based on overall writings and oratory records and abilities as much as academic achievements. Hence... the "decider" didn't make the list but his more polished daddy did. Abe Lincoln had no formal education but became a lawyer and according to history was a great orator and leader. My aunt years ago worked for a law firm in Jacksonville and for his education the senior lawyer of the firm had convinced the dean of a law school to admit him with no undergrad education and he subsequently earned his law degree and started a successful firm. You have to be pretty damned smart to do that I would think.
Well.... the creators of these presidential intelligence lists must indeed be anti-Skybox and and left wing as they have the SB darling George W down at #4 on the list of unintelligent presidents. http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5392/least-intelligent-presidents?utm_medium=social.paid&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ao.sp.fb.dt.5392#15-Ulysses-S-Grant
Interesting. As we can now empirically see, there is a very low correlation between measured intelligence and actual performance and results. My thoughts. Carter was extremely intelligent but his one term in office was an unmitigated disaster. Reagan had a low IQ and Lincoln was basically unschooled yet both had successful runs in extremely trying circumstances, making tough decisions on the fly in the midst of turmoil. George W did the one thing he's was sworn to do; he protected us when we were under actual attack at home. It never happened twice under his watch. Truman clearly is not considered smart by the author of the article who also makes light of his previous employment. Yet he is widely considered one of the best, had more moral fiber than most of them and made one of the single toughest decisions any president has ever been faced with. They take a swipe at Nixon for his scandals which is justified but they paled in comparison to this three ring circus coming to a close presently or the Bill Clinton presidency. Nixon's foreign policy skills dwarfed most of the others. Obama has a rather pedestrian academic record to go along with his job history that was practically devoid of accomplishment of any kind. In his case, his lack of any pedigree was an accurate predictor of future results. Of course, he was sold to a lackadaisical America as a scholar, a united of all peoples, a visionary. He clearly went to "Willy Sutton University".
Not being high on the list of intelligence was not a predictor of success at the presidency but it certainly did not exclude that result as a possibility. Lincoln is high on the list.... and also considered to be a successful president. W had 9 months in office... and we were attacked monumentally. He had almost 8 years in office and we damn near had a depression ( and did in Detroit ). I can't get over thinking W didn't run his own show while in office. Not a malicious guy.... just a little clueless. Carter is a likeable guy, ranks high on intelligence... and actually is good friends with W. He just was not cut out to be president. I think if you add up the ledger there were large exceptions like Reagan and Carter but by and large the higher the intelligence the more successful the presidency at least in term of public perspective and those low in intelligence typically had poor to average presidencys.
How a guy writes is so far down on the lists of good leaders that it's meaningless to me. In reality the times he served in contribute so much to the accomplishments of a president. For instance, how would we view FDR if he'd only served 2 terms? He'd be a lot like our present leader clueless to fix a struggling economy. Lincoln was the man for his times. Yet despite courageous leadership, he came within months of being undone by the anti-war leftists in the Northeast. Had Sherman not taken Atlanta, he probably would have lost his reelection bid. And while being president during a war was great for Abe and FDR it really was the undoing of LBJ and W.
FDR and Abe were perceived to be successful and by this list intelligent. W and LBJ were far down the list on intel and also in terms of success. Is the perception of job performance by the latter two a direct result of their perceived intelligence? I don't think so.
OK so here's another presidential list. http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3995/ranking-modern-us-presidents?utm_medium=social.paid&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ao.sp.fb.dt.3995&utm_content=ranking-modern-us-presidents&utm_term=insidegov So who's ranked first among modern presidents? Why Mr. lack of success LBJ. Which just goes to show that these lists are bilge.
With LBJ as the anomaly the rest of the rankings are close in form to those of the intellingence lists description of successful presidents. Clinton is a little low at #7 because they are saying he lost party seats but in researching that a little I found the statement below about the 1998 mid-term elections: "With the GOP having lost 5 House seats and failing to gain any seats in the Senate, it was the first time since 1934 that the non-presidential party failed to gain congressional seats in a mid-term election. It was also the first time since 1822 that the non-presidential party had failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a President's second term." So his middle of the road #7 is a little confusing based on that as the main criteria.
Leadership is hard to measure with statistics but you know it when you see it. Lincoln was a leader, FDR was a leader. Reagan was a leader. To name a few. They commanded attention and respect. This country needs a leader. I don't care if he/she can spell or not.