I'm not American, so I try to not chime in with an opinion on this topic because I don't feel like its any of my business.

Now that you've raised it though, I think it's worth considering that GWB at least understood the office he was taking (setting aside how I or others feel about the actual decisions taken). I don't feel like your next president understands this at all, and certainly I don't think even his supporters see any reverence for the office.

I see no evidence, even now, that he has any grasp of the situation he is in, which is incredibly dangerous for global stability.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think there's a very good chance that history will remember GWB more favourably after the next 4/8 years are behind us.

I am very much in line with your general thinking.

I thought both that Bush was one of the very worst presidents in US history AND that he compared favorably (above average) to other world leaders in his time.

Before Trump, we could take it for granted the US president was a serious person who cared about having the country do well and wasn't interested in anything resembling an authoritarian takeover. (Even Richard Nixon had plenty of lines he wouldn't cross, some of which Trump already has.)

Trump is incomparably worse than Bush as a choice for President.

And it's really, really clear that a successful presidency on the part of the currently elected-one (should it happen) will be many folks' worst nightmare.

HBS didn't increase their caliber until after the 70s, when they were shamed by Stanford's Business school Until then, it was more of an easy street and not as rigorous as it is today.

The HBS alumni of that era I knew were smart. There could be selection bias, as I generally know ones who worked in finance or tech, but leaving bias concerns aside, the pattern was consistent.

I also had a small amount of more direct exposure in the late 70s, and it fit the pattern.

Now, these "smarts" were more in the way of getting to a quick, non-stupid analysis of a situation than they were about really deep thinking or about having a nose for additional facts to seek out ... but that pattern fits Bush.

As a "former Harvard public policy research fellow", I'm guessing it's a lot more than just selection bias.

Bush's gift was the ability to be charming. But it's pretty clear he isn't even close to being the smartest person in almost any room, let along a room full of Stanford students as the made-up OP story described.