January 13, 2008
The bald truth
As journalists thrash around to make sense of the American election, the latest theory is that John McCain is the favourite. The US may not be ready to elect a black (Obama) or a woman (Clinton) - so it could opt for the Republicans’ current front-runner, the reassuringly white and male Mr McCain.
But there is one factor that few people are considering yet, which I think the Republicans would do well to think about - the baldness factor. In a fascinating recent blog entry, Dan Hannan - a Conservative Euro-MP - points out that if an election comes down to a contest between a baldie and a man with a full head of hair, the bald man always loses. Hannan had to go back to 1880 to find a presidential election where the bald candidate won. (It’s true that Eisenhower was bald, but he was running against Adlai Stevenson, who was also follically-challenged).
There may be an element of hysteria in Hannan’s argument. He is an ambitious young politician who is beginning to go bald, and his just seen his party leadership handed to a man with magnificent locks - David Cameron.
But if Hannan is right, the Republicans have reason to worry. All of their leading candidates - bar Mitt Romney - are bald or balding. Giuliani, McCain, Fred Thompson - there is very little hair there. Mike Huckabee has a notable bald patch. Only Romney boasts a full head of hair. When he was informed in a recent debate that a rival campaign had threatened to smash his teeth in, Romney’s response was - "Just don’t touch my hair." No joking. Romney’s campaign is in trouble. But if the Republicans have any sense, they will rally behind him before it is too late.
If Matell have any commercial sense, they should produce Romnie — the perfect male companion to Barbie. (I hereby claim my right to the royalties.)
Posted by: RCS | January 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Report this commentWell, I would assume that Barbie is an Anglo-Saxon protestant. So I don’t know if she would be interested in a Mormon. Plus, I think Ken would have some objection to a middle-aged, handsome man, with uniformly suffused white sideburns wooing his wife. But if anyone has enough private sector experience to help Matell make it happen, it would be Romney (just ask him).
Posted by: kian | January 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm | Report this commentThe FT’s featuring of a very poor interview with Christopher Hitchens at the weekend has raised my concerns about how far the paper has drifted from being a journal of record.
As for recent commentaries in this space that seemingly flippant on what should be a pivotal US election simply disappoint. Baldness and “Is the US ready for a woman or a black?” are helping to mask the real power dynamics behind this mediatised democracy. One need not dig too deep to find more interesting factors.
To read my criticism as dismay that my views are not represented would, I feel confident to say, be a mistake. The FT is the global journal of record and too many stories of global importance are receiving poor coverage. Slants are welcome, but please give us some depth again. Otherwise, one can dervie a slant from what you are not writing about.
If others share in my disappointment, I hope they will share it.
Posted by: WCM | January 13th, 2008 at 10:49 pm | Report this commentNot sure what happened in the first sentence in the second paragraph:
“Recent commentaries in this space that are seemingly flippant on what should be a pivotal US election simply disappoint. …”
Sorry!
Posted by: WCM | January 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm | Report this commentIf France has elected a Jew as Prime Minister, we could think America can choose a Black President and Israel a Palestinian Prime Minister….
The difference is that in Europe a woman like Thatcher or a Jew like Sarkozy were elected because they headed a Party and People vote for a Party (even if the personality of the one heading it is extremely important too)
Given a chance to choose it is evident there is an obvious reticence from an essential part of voters (not necessarily big, but decissive) who will not vote a woman, a black or a jew given an opportunity and after declaring in the Polls a day before that they don´t care (as saying the opposite means being called xenophobic or whatever by the mainstream media)
And I would add there are many women who will never vote a woman as Prime Minister, no matter how good she looks.
They care.
Anyway, i think all options are open right now.
Posted by: Enrique | January 14th, 2008 at 12:52 am | Report this commentEnough with the myth, Sarkozy is far from being a Jew: his paternal grandfather was a Greek Jew who had converted to Catholicism, whilst Judaism is determined through the maternal line. Nevertheless, thanks again Enrique for your sonorous undertones…
(France did once have a Jewish prime minister — Leon Blum; Britain came close with D’israeli, who was born Jewish.)
As for Israel: it is the only country to date which has elected both a Jew (all its prime ministers) and a woman (Golda Meir) to the top position. What’s more, Ariel Sharon — who was born in British-mandated Palestine in the 1920s — would I think be considered a Palestinian according to the PLO charter (the same should go for Rabin).
Posted by: RCS | January 14th, 2008 at 4:56 am | Report this commentThe effects of heightism should not be ignored either. With relatively few exceptions, taller candidates have won the US elections (so somebody like Sarkozy wouls have had no chance stateside!).
In any case, the election of Dubya was the final nail in the coffin of the American presidents’ prestige. Nobody will have any illusions that you need charm, intellect or talent for that office.
In fact the more stupid the better, it seems.
Best,
P
PS Without wanting to divert this topic to Sarkozy, I think RCS is trying to win on a tenuous technicality. See This Australian Jewish News’ article:
http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=3162
The man’s sympathies and frame of mind are entirely Zionist.
However, I predict a failed presidency so I don’t think he matters.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am | Report this commentEnrique, You’re saying that people voted for Labour rather than for Blair? Or that Thatcher didn’t carry her party to 4 election wins? Not for the first time I think you’ve misunderstood the key elements.
The vast majority of people vote for leaders with what they believe are good policies and strong skills. Whether male or female, heading a party, or standing in a presidential style contest, this is true from Germany to New Zealand, via the UK, India and Pakistan.
However, there are exceptions to this. Spain for one.
Dear P, Sarko seems pretty even-handed to me, including the offer of nuclear technology to various Arab states. Oh, and I don’t think you wanted to bring it back to Sarko particularly, just the usual “Zionist plot” line.
Posted by: AYC | January 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am | Report this commentRCS,
I think you don´t understand what the “bald truth” means.
Even if a Palestinian Christian or Muslim Israeli, citizen of the state of Israel, was the best candidate for President (if Israel had a Presidential system)according to his knowledge and rethoric….would most isrealies vote for him? And remember that 18% of Israelies are Arab, while Blacks are just 12% of Americans.
Of course, in Saudi Arabia there is not even the possibility to think about that question…
Yes, usually candidates have hair and are tall (from DeGaulle to Chirac in France, from Reagan to Clinton in the US) while Dictators and unelected Chiefs of State are usually short (from Napoleon to Franco, from Hiro Hito to Elizabeth II)…..curious.
Posted by: Enrique | January 14th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this commentI ve to make a correction. In Frace there are both President and Prime Minister and while Prime Minister are not elected directly by the People, Presidents are.
So France has demonstrated to be one of the most open societies in the World electing a short Sephardic Jew (Jews are just 1.5% of the French population) with an interesting program and good rethoric, something that should be seen as normal in a color blind, religion blind society.
(I will not remind the Anglo-American-Israeli media propaganda against France in 2002, hehe)
Posted by: Enrique | January 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Report this commentIllogical.
If we follow your logic, then that means that all those bald senators could only have been elected against other bald candidates. Considering the high number of ELECTED bald candidates,there is obviously a logical flaw. Otherwise the number of elected balds should be close to zero since they would lose against any hairy person.
Well, of course, I’m bald and have political ambitions
Posted by: Leo | January 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Report this commentJohn McCain is in the same ballpark baldness category as Vladimir Putin.
Posted by: Felix Drost | January 14th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this commentAs a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat (with one possibly disastrous exception, when I hit the nadir button by mistake),I find your Electoral Follicles theory at the root incredible. My theory is that emptiest head will prevail,the Bushier the top mop the better. Patrick D.Hazard, Weimar, Germany, but voting in my home, Philadelphia
Posted by: Patrick D.Hazard | January 14th, 2008 at 5:16 pm | Report this comment“Dan Hannan - a Conservative Euro-MP - points out that if an election comes down to a contest between a baldie and a man with a full head of hair, the bald man always loses. Hannan had to go back to 1880 to find a presidential election where the bald candidate won. (It’s true that Eisenhower was bald, but he was running against Adlai Stevenson, who was also follically-challenged).”
Hannan is right — in fact he understates the case.
You have to go back to 1836 to find the last election in which a bald candidate (Van Buren) won the general election for President. It also happened in 1824.
It has NOT happened since 1840, around the time photography was invented. Van Buren lost in 1840. Lewis Cass lost in 1848. Seymour, also bald, lost in 1868. Ditto for Greeley in 1872, W.J. Bryan in 1986, 1900 and 1904, C.E. Hughes in 1916. Eisenhower is the exception that proves the rule. He was “balding” — not entirely bald, whereas his opponent, Adlai Stevenson, was completely unabashadedly bald.
Is this mere coincidence? Anyone with any understanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution, particularly sexual selection, knows that it is not. Bald candidates tend to lose elections for the same reasons that many — e.g. Giuliani until recently — go to great lengths to hide their baldness. Think about it.
Posted by: mnjam | January 15th, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Report this comment