I wrote, somewhat derisively about "IQ" in the past:
A Note on This Race and IQ Business.
The idea of so called "Intelligence Tests" debuted in the 1930's, certainly placing any ex post facto attachment to Garfield, Roosevelt and James Madison awarding a measurement in immediate disrepute.
Wilson had definite scholarly gravitas, and had been President of Princeton University. He was a terrible racist, of course, but so were many scholars in his day, which is not to excuse him.
The modern fondness for "IQ" by racists is exemplified in Trump, a stupid and ignorant man to be sure of low intellectual ability, who nevertheless feels qualified to throw reference to the concept of "IQ" around, as racists do.
Obama is another President who came from an academic background, of course; I regard him as the best President of my adult life, and I'm an old man.
Kennedy's reputation for brilliance is in my view is way over rated. His speeches of course were well delivered, but I suspect strongly that they were mostly written by a hired gun, Theodore Sorensen. Nevertheless one of the greatest American Chemists ever, Glenn Seaborg, who knew Kennedy well, spoke highly of him, so there's that. He was unreconstructed cold warrior, and through inattention and bluster, almost stumbled into nuclear war.
Carter was clearly a good man, but he was an unsuccessful President, probably because of his baptist reliance on the concept of "moral example," which posits one's own moral superiority. His ideas on energy were, frankly, poorly thought out, and have had dire results, even though he is often praised for these policies. The worst of them, and the one that we can be grateful for failure was Fischer-Tropsch coal to oil chemistry. It would have left the world with maybe 25-50 ppm higher concentrations of carbon dioxide than we see now.
Clinton was clearly a highly intelligent person, worthy of his wife on an intellectual level, although I personally value her values, and quite possibly her intellect, more highly. The stain on his Presidency of course was his puerile attitudes toward women, famously Monica Lewinsky. His high intellect did not prevent him from ruining his otherwise fine legacy with immaturity and disrespect, a thing he shared with JFK.
I rather respect men who developed their brilliance independent of academic excellence, the two greatest examples among Presidents being Harry S. Truman and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is said to have annoyed the hell out of far more educated men, in particular Salmon Chase and Charles Sumner by assuming, correctly I believe, that he was much smarter than they were. His brilliance is recorded in the distance he traveled without resources or formal education.
Truman I think was similarly gifted. Historians have only recently begun to appreciate his high level of performance.
It is often stated that Oliver Wendell Holmes was referring to FDR when he said that "Roosevelt had a second rate intellect but a first rate temperament." However, while in the conversation in which he made this statement took place was just after meeting FDR for the first time, he was discussing both Roosevelts, the one who appointed him to the Supreme Court, Theodore, and the one he had just met, Franklin. Historians are divided on which of them he was referring to in that remark.
Holmes was a powerful intellect, writer and scholar, but many of his decisions are highly questionable.
I think FDR was a brilliant manipulator, something he did for the good of his country, and it shows great cunning and probably high intelligence, although I think he was probably a real genius, his intellect, as with Clinton, probably overshadowed by that of his wife, Eleanor, who I personally regard as the greatest Democrat of the 20th century.
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
= new reply since forum marked as read
