Thread: The Politics of Hair

No, not heir. American Politics. World, too, probably. Two secondary (if that !) physical properties, height and hair, weigh heavily upon whom we chose to lead us. My question is this: are we nuts ?
Has politics in the US become simply a beauty contest to many oblivious citizens ?
Why do so many races come down to which is more physically attractive ?
Our requirement, almost, that our presidents have good hair a matter of record
Only Ike had but little. Can't think of another. Somebody will, though.

Well, let's just cut to the chase with this theory. Here is a chart of presidential images.

Its strange, I look at the pictures, and its almost like theres something, something common to all presidents?
I guess this might change as time goes by.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

My question is this: are we nuts ?
Has politics in the US become simply a beauty contest to many oblivious citizens ?
Why do so many races come down to which is more physically attractive ?
Our requirement, almost, that our presidents have good hair a matter of record
Only Ike had but little. Can't think of another. Somebody will, though.

Yes to all of those questions. substance no longer matters just so long as you "look" like you have substance.
no need to be smart, just "look" like you're smart. you get the idea.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Well, let's just cut to the chase with this theory. Here is a chart of presidential images.

I hate to say it but it started with Kennedy when he destroyed Nixon in the first televised presidential debates because he was way more attractive than scruffy disheveled nixon. From that point forward presidential debates became more about the packaging than the product. you may think the last 7 presidents may not be real lookers but you have to take into account the the looks of the men they were running against. The more attractive always wins.

I see some other craniums there. And powdered wigs; no telling what's under those>Adams was a chrome-domer, wasn't he ?

Still, I'm talking about image now, in the age of mass media. The US presidential race, among others, depends to some degree upon hair

Chicks seem to dig hair, and men envy each other over stuff.

Warren G. Harding was President just because "He looked like a President."

Yes, and the first women could cast a vote for.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Warren G. Harding was President just because "He looked like a President."

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Yes, and the first women could cast a vote for.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Warren G. Harding was President just because "He looked like a President."

And its rather sad reflection on American society that it would take nearly a century before a women would become a viable presidential candidate. And I'm pretty sure Hillary's hair color is from a bottle.

I've always thought Reagan "looked" like a president. That appeared to be sufficient to a hell of a lot of folks.

The powered wigs are somewhat of a misnomer as well. George Washington powered his natural hair--I suppose to control the bugs.

You may have a point regarding women voters, umbradiago. According to a few sites I examined on a quick search, female voter turnout has been increasingly exceeding male voter turnout since 1980. That's actually rather interesting, considering that not as many women seem keen on actually being politicians, at least not under the current format.

According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, there are clear gender differences in voter turnout:

In recent elections, voter turnout rates for women have equaled or exceeded voter turnout rates for men. Women, who constitute more than half the population, have cast between four and seven million more votes than men in recent elections. In every presidential election since 1980, the proportion [of] female adults who voted has exceeded the proportion of made adults who voted.

Still, I should hope that women voters would base their decision on policies rather than hair.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

I've always thought Reagan "looked" like a president. That appeared to be sufficient to a hell of a lot of folks.

While we are on the topic of hair and leadership, let's not forget the 38th Governor of California, from November 17, 2003 until January 3, 2011, Arnold Swarzenegger.



Do you suppose it was the hair or the Hollywood profile that brought in the votes?

Don't really need to suppose, do I ? This is what I'm complaining about. I love women having the vote and there are a lot of women in congress I admire; well of the relatively small number overall. But ladies, stop voting for hair ! And guys, a strong chin isn't necessarily a strong mind ! Yes, Romney had nice hair, but put him on a soap opera, not in the White House. Reagans looks, charm, and performing polish carried him much farther than his abilities, to the nation's detriment. How superficial
most of us are, how easily taken-in by packaging and marketing of products big and trivial.

To me, the importance of appearance is a secondary effect, the real issue is the importance of television. Candidates have no chance of winning if they don't get air time, and they have to make all sorts of compromises to get it. U.S. federal officials average spending as much as three times as many hours fundraising as they do actually doing their job; the bulk of that money goes to television ads. It would be incredibly naive to think these officials don't favor political contributors when making policy decisions. Good hair is cheap compared to the money that gets spent on campaign advertising.

We would elect much more competent and honest officials if people would ignore what they see on TV during the campaign season and actually do some research using other sources. Television heavily favors presentation over facts, exactly the opposite of what the voting public needs to make informed decisions.

To not be taken in by appearance requires a bit of critical thinking - for both genders I might add.....

After all - its all we have to go on when formulating our first impressions of people. But a recent study suggests a persons voice has a lot to do with the judgements we make about people and we do it within 500 milliseconds of hearing their voices PLOS ONE: How Do You Say . Of course once we have our first impressions then we look for things in that person that confirms our original judgement and ignore the things that don't fit in with it.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Originally Posted by umbradiago

I've always thought Reagan "looked" like a president. That appeared to be sufficient to a hell of a lot of folks.

While we are on the topic of hair and leadership, let's not forget the 38th Governor of California, from November 17, 2003 until January 3, 2011, Arnold Swarzenegger.

No, no, let's go ahead and forget him.

Perhaps hair should also explain why some will never be president:

All that money and he can't get a decent haircut. Vanity is insanity. Trump still wants to see Obama's birth certificate, the real one, the long un-redacted one.
How about an archived copy of the Honolulu newspaper announcing the birth of one Barack H. Obama ? I've seen it. Why can't Trump find it ? How is it possible his birth was 'inserted" into a 1962 newspaper. Others have questioned whether Hawaii was a state. Again, easily checked-out. Tell you what I would like to see: Trumps death certificate. Or his permit to wear an orangutan on his noodle.

Ah yes Donald Trump - unequivocal proof you dont need intelligence to make lots of money. Complete fruitloop.

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Ah yes Donald Trump - unequivocal proof you dont need intelligence to make lots of money. Complete fruitloop.

Just need to inherit it from your family and then have te Govmnt bail you out when you bankrupt yourself like 5 times.

If you want 100% of your electorate, then why not go for that, Supreme look.

And then just so you dont feel like a complete donkey with a hairstyle like that - mandate all the men in the country must have the same do.....

Yeah, grumpy. That was the first televised pre-election debate. Good point. Kinda' set the table, it seems.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Well, let's just cut to the chase with this theory. Here is a chart of presidential images.

I hate to say it but it started with Kennedy when he destroyed Nixon in the first televised presidential debates because he was way more attractive than scruffy disheveled nixon. From that point forward presidential debates became more about the packaging than the product. you may think the last 7 presidents may not be real lookers but you have to take into account the the looks of the men they were running against. The more attractive always wins.

Originally Posted by pineapples

If you want 100% of your electorate, then why not go for that, Supreme look.

sham elections seem to help, as well.

"sham elections seem to help, as well."

Note that the best looking candidate means nothing, since a good looking candidate of any party beyond the 2 official party gets virtually no coverage. North Korea should have 10 ultra-marginalized token parties that get no media coverage and have full coverage of the whatever main party. Then they can wave the little democracy flag "were 'democratic too, yea!".

Unless I am mistaken, in the last French election, the election results were virtually an exact match of the media coverage of each party. They have more than 2 parties and its still a sham.

This is a good point. Dan H. do you remember the equal-time provision in broadcasting political content ? Younger people don't even recall it, but public debates and ads had to be given equal time. Now, it's who's got the dough for advertising. Unlimited, says the SC.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

To me, the importance of appearance is a secondary effect, the real issue is the importance of television. Candidates have no chance of winning if they don't get air time, and they have to make all sorts of compromises to get it. U.S. federal officials average spending as much as three times as many hours fundraising as they do actually doing their job; the bulk of that money goes to television ads. It would be incredibly naive to think these officials don't favor political contributors when making policy decisions. Good hair is cheap compared to the money that gets spent on campaign advertising.

We would elect much more competent and honest officials if people would ignore what they see on TV during the campaign season and actually do some research using other sources. Television heavily favors presentation over facts, exactly the opposite of what the voting public needs to make informed decisions.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

This is a good point. Dan H. do you remember the equal-time provision in broadcasting political content ? Younger people don't even recall it, but public debates and ads had to be given equal time. Now, it's who's got the dough for advertising. Unlimited, says the SC.

The equal time rule is still in force. It basically says if a radio or TV station gives free air time to a candidate they must give equal time to all other candidates for the same office upon request. "Legitimate" news programs, debates, and interviews are exempt, so it is rarely enforced, as it is not hard for a station to give a preferred candidate time structured as part of such a program, though consistent abuse can result in penalties. Paid political ads are exempt from the equal time rule, and always have been, but I think there is language specifying stations must charge the same rates to everyone.

You may be thinking of the fairness doctrine, which required stations to present balanced political coverage, balanced generally interpreted as meaning they had to present competing points of view, not just a single side. The fairness doctrine was about issues, not candidates. The FCC announced it would no longer enforce the fairness doctrine in 1987.

The reasoning was that with the proliferation of networks seen during the eighties, consumers had a wide choice of programming, and market forces could be relied on to present a wide variety of points of view on the different networks.

It is no accident that the Rush Limbaugh program started broadcasting shortly after the 1987 announcement, and a host of imitators followed. If you find the current highly polarized political programming of FOX news, MSNBC and so on to be offensive and counterproductive, you can thank the end of the fairness doctrine.

THanks for the correction. I was thinking of the fairness doctrine, which seemed to have some effect of moderating the debate In politics. I don't find Msnbc offensive In the slightest , nor extreme. Fox, yes. It seemed as though NBC had to counter the Fox attack-dog politics with something aggressive. Each side accuses the other of bias but MSNBC hews much closer to fact. Much.
Unlimited political funding is a mistake, I feel sure.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

This is a good point. Dan H. do you remember the equal-time provision in broadcasting political content ? Younger people don't even recall it, but public debates and ads had to be given equal time. Now, it's who's got the dough for advertising. Unlimited, says the SC.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

To me, the importance of appearance is a secondary effect, the real issue is the importance of television. Candidates have no chance of winning if they don't get air time, and they have to make all sorts of compromises to get it. U.S. federal officials average spending as much as three times as many hours fundraising as they do actually doing their job; the bulk of that money goes to television ads. It would be incredibly naive to think these officials don't favor political contributors when making policy decisions. Good hair is cheap compared to the money that gets spent on campaign advertising.

We would elect much more competent and honest officials if people would ignore what they see on TV during the campaign season and actually do some research using other sources. Television heavily favors presentation over facts, exactly the opposite of what the voting public needs to make informed decisions.

They tried to bring equal time laws back a few years ago and the right had a fit and squashed that.

That was my view exactly, grumpy; And Justice Scalia being comp-ed all over the world by Chaney and the Halliburton boys. Quid pro quo bullshit. Then the SC decides
unlimited campaign funding is a perfectly fine idea. I gotta' wretch...