Looking Good

sexytime and voter preferences

First off, I must apologize for the long delay that has accidentally crept up on me; although I’ve been very busy, I recognize that this is no excuse for my ridiculously low post count. That said, tonight I want to talk about physical appearance. Being good looking is a tremendous advantage; those described by their peers as handsome or pretty have been shown to receive huge boosts in everything from lifetime earnings (10-15% higher) to mate selection (this one seems obvious) to general lifetime wellbeing. More disturbingly, parents have been known to display a bias in favor of their better-looking offspring. Indeed, the instinct to give the comely the benefit of the doubt is a deeply engrained one; in his book Blink author Malcolm Gladwell suggests that there are powerful evolutionary reasons for this bias, such as the fact that being symmetrical improves ones reproductive chances or that good looks are generally correlated with good health, which suggests that if one must prioritize scare resources among a group it should go to the healthy (and thus the handsome).

Within the context of democratic politics, the handsomeness heuristic has had a tremendous impact. Although the correlation between handsomeness and electoral success is not entirely linear (one can be “too hot” to be taken seriously), those who look senatorial or congressional tend to win at a significantly higher rate than less attractive opponents. Indeed, in tests where control groups were given only sound free video clips of two candidates in a race they were able to pick the winner the majority of the time on looks alone. To see a recent example of this, one need look no further than the fact that nearly every serious piece on Mitt Romney sees fit to mention his looks as a key reason for his competitiveness in the race (usually mentioned just after his gigantic sack o’ cash). Furthermore, it seems likely that the impact of appearance will only increase as time goes on; with the introduction of new forms of media like youtube and new higher resolution television standards it seems likely that the impact of looks on political discourse will only continue to increase.


i'd tap that...


Up to this point, it seems as though I have made a wonderful argument against democracy. After all, if those in a democracy will vote based off irrational heuristics such as this, what chance is there that we will ever get a government that will function effectively? Of course, there are motives that could be taken to mitigate this bias; for example, if campaign financing was limited then perhaps the role of attractiveness would decrease as more voters decided based on policy and fewer looked to physical stature.

But that said, I believe that although the tendency to choose the more handsome candidate may seem ridiculous, it may have its own sort of logic. When one elects a politician they elect them not to serve in a vacuum but rather to interact with others. For congressmen, this means one must be persuasive among 434 other individuals who are as greedy and self-centered as oneself. Ditto senators. Because of this, if good-looking people really are viewed as more trustworthy, competent, or friendly, then even if the bias has no merit, it may make sense to act on it because others will likely share this bias. Put another way, if everyone thinks your dashing congressman is a swell guy, then it gives him much more leeway to advance your interests. Politicians deal with human beings, not computers, and bearing this in mind it may actually make sense on a limited scale to trade intellect for looks in selecting a candidate. Obviously, as is true with any tradeoff, one can take this too far (senator Rhianna, anyone?). That said, the very fact that a rational, intelligent person may recognize the good in picking a handsome representative suggests this bias may not be as inane as it seems.

And on the presidential level, the benefits of attractiveness are particularly salient. Tucker Carlson once described the president as America’s “orator in chief”, a description that I believe has tremendous merit. Despite the powers of office the president’s role is a relatively limited one, since he must contend with an active legislature and a gigantic bureaucracy. As such, the freedom a given president has to radically redefine America is fairly limited (though one can make a good argument that the Bush administration has changed things far more than most). Yet if the president’s power of policy is normally somewhat constrained, his influence over the public discourse is fantastically powerful. When one elects a president they elect a man who will be in their living rooms for the next four years, someone who will constantly be seen as a symbol of the United States and its government to the people of the world. In many important ways, the president is thus the nation’s most important actor; he is chosen to play a specific role and present a very specific image. Put another way, from the perspective of the average American the president’s primary role is to “be presidential”, to embody what they think a president ought to be. Indeed, if one thinks back to American presidents who are hailed as great, one finds that very often their policy successes pale in comparison to their ability to instill confidence and hope and to “be presidential’ in times of national crises. Because of this, if looking the part allows one to better fill this vital function then it is fair to say that looks are a relevant criteria in choosing a commander in chief.

Of course, there is a philosophical problem with this; isn’t it unfair to judge people on their looks? Isn’t it wrong to blame people for what they can’t control? Perhaps so. Yet as philosophers such as Peter Singer have pointed out, many other ranking mechanisms that seem more, well, fair, such as intelligence or personality trait, are randomly and arbitrarily assigned at birth in the same way that looks are. To give these other heuristics more moral consideration than looks would be a fallacy, since we didn’t choose those either. Naturally, one could argue that personality can be affected or altered by hard work, but so, too, can looks. Candidates can (and have) gone to significant lengths to improve their appearance, just as less affable politicians have worked hard at developing a new, friendly persona (think Eliot Spitzer). Naturally, this may not seem promising to someone so ugly that nothing can be done to improve them, but if said person had intelligence at the same level no one would think twice about precluding him from the political arena.

At this point, I feel that I must take a step back and consider the ramifications of treating looks as valid to leadership and political success. This is a heretical proposition, one that contradicts two decades of politically correct education and PBS Kids morality. But if one believes that this position cannot possibly form the basis of an effective society or culture, she would be well advised to look to the Greeks and Romans. In the Western tradition the importance of looks was on a par with that of other attributes like skill, dexterity, or intelligence, and maybe, just maybe, with good reason. If nothing else, by giving physical appearance a publicly acknowledged value in discourse these cultures avoided the hypocrisy that comes with announcing to the world that looks are irrelevant while choosing business leaders, politicians, and lovers on the basis of how they look.


ancient greeks, here depicted chasing young boys

Finally, I would like to close with a bundle of disclaimers. So, in no particular order:
1. Moral worth or value should NEVER be assigned based on looks (or intelligence, or any other attribute we cannot control)
2. Handsome people are NOT necessarily good politicians
3. Ugly people can be great politicians (see James Carville)
But in writing this post, my intent is not to describe how humans ought to be but rather how they are, and once one acknowledges that our governments must operate in a web of human interactions, the rationality of making looks a priority rapidly becomes apparent. Stay classy, DER


* Disclaimer: Author is an INCREDIBLY shallow person, and will go to enormous lengths to justify this attitude as acceptable. To date, he has proven fairly convincing.