« Assorted links | Main | Markets in everything, Ukrainian restaurant edition »
Why do lefties dominate Presidential politics?
Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Gore, and now Obama and McCain are all left-handed. Call it chance or availability bias, but I'm still wondering. Read more here, and thanks to Martin Weil for the pointer. Here's one on-line discussion. Here is a brief survey on Wikipedia. It is my general view that left-handers have higher genetic variance in a number of dimensions, so they should be over-represented in many different kinds of extreme situations, including the Presidency.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 23, 2008 at 02:50 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
So Carter and Bush II are the only recent right-handed presidents? No wonder their incompetence is so blatant.
It is a good day to be a lefty.
Posted by: LZ at Jun 23, 2008 3:07:20 PM
The Wikipedia article doesn't pick up the book by Chris McManus, Right Hand, Left Hand, which won the Aventis prize in 2003. http://www.righthandlefthand.com/ is his website. Its subtitle is the "Origins of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms, and Cultures". Definitely worth reading, though it won't help answer the question for Presidents.
Posted by: Bill Harshaw at Jun 23, 2008 3:27:49 PM
This could be part of some sinister conspiracy....
Posted by: CD at Jun 23, 2008 3:33:00 PM
They are probably over-compensating for the evolutionary perils a lefty is confronted with.
Posted by: tut at Jun 23, 2008 3:34:23 PM
1. One theory of why people are lefties is that they receive more testosterone in child birth.
2. You would expect the language side of the brain to be stronger. Wikipedia also says that left handers use more synthesis while right handers (on average) are more analytical. I don't know if that is true or not, but given that many politicians are lawyers, this seems like a plausible explanation. Another would be that people who tend to be successful in government aren't the ones with real analytical capability, but those who can explain things to others.
Posted by: John at Jun 23, 2008 3:38:30 PM
The other day I was thinking about all the similarities between George W. Bush and Barack Obama (there are more than you might think) and it occurred to me that a lot of recent presidents have had only daughters. Chance? Probably. But interesting to speculate on how the lack of male offspring might affect a man's desire to find some other method of leaving his mark.
Posted by: John S. at Jun 23, 2008 3:42:37 PM
They note that a bunch of losing candidates have been as well. Robert Dole only sort of counts, though, because in his case it's due to war injury.
Posted by: John Thacker at Jun 23, 2008 3:43:00 PM
From an evolutionary perspective, this one is no mystery for anybody who has played a team sport at a relatively competitive level -- having a lefty on the team is a considerable advantage in any number of situations.
I'm assuming that the massive disadvantage of having to use tools developed for right-handers probably accounts for imbalance between the two.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jun 23, 2008 3:56:04 PM
Simpler than genetics or hormones,
Part of the specification for a good President or Presidential candidate is that at some crucial moments he has to not let his left hand know what his right hand is doing. It is easier for the left hand to keep secrets from the right hand than vice-versa. Something to do with asymetry in the passing of messages betwen the two hemispheres of the brain, I guess.
Posted by: Diversity at Jun 23, 2008 4:02:37 PM
"left-handers have higher genetic variance in a number of dimensions, so they should be over-represented in many different kinds of extreme situations"
I don't follow this logic. A greater variance can have the same mean.
Posted by: James Hanley at Jun 23, 2008 4:33:11 PM
"It is my general view that left-handers have higher genetic variance in a number of dimensions, so they should be over-represented in many different kinds of extreme situations, including the Presidency."
This made me laugh, then shake my head.
Posted by: stan at Jun 23, 2008 4:43:14 PM
I don't follow this logic. A greater variance can have the same mean.
Higher variance means greater representation at the extremes - both extremes. If you have two groups, both of whose mean height, say, is six feet, the group with greater variance is going to have a higher percentage of both five-footers and seven-footers than the other.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Jun 23, 2008 5:02:02 PM
"I don't follow this logic. A greater variance can have the same mean."
Sort of. Imagine a bell curve of presidential competency. If left-handers have a greater genetic variance, then the farther from the center you get, whether more or less-presidential, the more left-handers there are.
People with high presidential cred will be more likely to be left-handed, even though people with low presidential cred will also be more likely to be left-handed.
Posted by: Brandon at Jun 23, 2008 5:08:06 PM
Reagan was a natural lefthander, but was trained to be a righthander, and ended up with pretty nice handwriting. (The Reagan Library has copies of his handwritten letters to Gorbachev on display.)
This was very common in the early 20th Century -- the Germans were particularly obsessive about reprogramming lefthanders to write righthanded, and German theories about education and childrearing were very influential then. Yet, by the 1992 election, all three candidates in the debate, Bush I, Clinton, and Perot, were out of the closet lefthanders.
Apparently, there had been a Lefthander's Liberation Movement sometime between Reagan's childhood and Bush I's childhood. It's funny, though, how little you hear about the heroes of this liberation movement, in contrast to how often PBS runs documentaries on the heroes of other liberation movements, such as women, racial minorities, and homosexuals.
I suspect the reason is that because lefthanders don't form a coherent political group -- they're pretty randomly distributed.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jun 23, 2008 5:34:15 PM
I've always been left handed in everything I do (most left handers are ambidextrous in a number of activities such as kicking, cutting, eating, throwing, etc. I do nothing with my right hand).
I've always found the idea of "lefties struggling to adapt to the tools of a right-handed world" to be downright silly. It seems to be prevalent in academic psych literature though (and a few comments above, though I don't know if they're being ironic). I don't think I've ever noticed anything being more difficult except for can-openers and scissors. Of course, I don't remember the last time I used a buzz saw, but I think I managed ok. Try opening the fridge next time with your left hand; you'll need the right to wipe the sweat off your brow.
On another note, it's fascinating to see some of the studies they've done on it though, particularly in monkeys:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/35/12634
"Chimpanzees that nut-crack are predominantly right-handed, whereas the chimpanzees that termite-fish are left-handed."
"These findings reinforce the view that the motor and cognitive demands of different tasks can have a significant influence on handedness in human and nonhuman primates. Last, hand preferences in wild chimpanzees are heritable."
Posted by: JB at Jun 23, 2008 5:35:25 PM
Lefties are nonconformists.
Posted by: Lord at Jun 23, 2008 5:49:38 PM
CD came closest in my opinion. They have been taken over by aliens.
No? Ok, maybe not.
How about the possibility that lefties are more likely to vote for other lefties (perhaps without realizing it), while righties don't give a damn?
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Jun 23, 2008 6:11:51 PM
My point has been made but it is worth repeating that every elected president since Kennedy, excluding H W Bush, has had daughters.
The reference above by Liz to the incompetence of Carter seems to be a theme amongst Americans that I don't understand. Of all those in the group he is the one who would least likely be tried as a war criminal. If that is his incompetence, along with pursuing a progressive energy policy, limiting the deficit, and tirelessly promoting democracy around the world after leaving office, then you Americans have at least one modern president to be proud of.
Yet you rather celebrate the Reagans and their trickle up economics. Why is there so little independent thought?
Posted by: openhand at Jun 23, 2008 7:55:24 PM
"Try opening the fridge next time with your left hand; you'll need the right to wipe the sweat off your brow."
As a righty, I don't really understand this. Why not use your right hand? I use my left hand to open the freezer or other cabinets that the left hand is more suited for. It's not a particularly hand-specific action.
Posted by: Robinson at Jun 23, 2008 8:04:00 PM
Re Robinson: Honestly it's just what feels natural. I was being sarcastic because that was the example my high school AP Psychology textbook used to describe how 'the world was built to be more difficult for left handers.' I believe that's what Michael Martin was alluding to above with his comment: "I'm assuming that the massive disadvantage of having to use tools developed for right-handers probably accounts for imbalance between the two."
The textbook was attempting to explain why left handedness causes one to have a life expectancy of 6-7 years less than right-handed folk, and that left-handedness concentration diminishes markedly as one goes up the age spectrum. The idea was that left handers die in greater numbers due to the difficulties of being in a right-handed world, but I just don't see that being even plausible.
The daughters observation is quite interesting. Anyone know how well it holds up with prior presidents, or across countries?
Posted by: JB at Jun 23, 2008 8:13:52 PM
Tools are rarely an issue for lefties. Aside from scissors (and these can be produced without handedness) most common tools are equally usable with the right or left hands: saw, hammer, screwdriver, wrench, drill, axes. Or on the distaff side, spatulas, spoons, knitting and sewing needles, etc. I'd bet the mean size difference between men and women has more impact on the ability to use certain tools than handedness does.
Posted by: Left-handed at Jun 23, 2008 8:58:45 PM
Carter:
Supported the Sha and then the revolution . Failded rescue of e bassy hostages.Gave permission to Saddan to invade Iran.Did nothing real against Afganisthan invasion.8 % uneemployment with high inflation.Almost lost by himself the cold war.After the presidency have supported every electoral fraud in the world as soon the thief is from the left.
Posted by: k at Jun 23, 2008 9:30:00 PM
I have lived with refrigerators that opened from the right or left. Which one is supposed to be righty friendly? I prefer to pen the door with my left hand, and remove an item with my right, closing the door with my left hand again.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Jun 23, 2008 11:47:33 PM
I'm not convinced this isn't just random chance. Before 1974, just two presidents were known definitively to be left-handed: James Garfield and Harry Truman. Is 7 out of 41 preisdents so unusual? Is it that unlikely that at some point there are several in a row? People notoriously underpredict repeating decimals in strings of random numbers.
I haven't seen any data suggesting that other world leaders or leaders at other levels of government or business are disproportionately left handed (with the exception of certain sports, which is understandable). Why single out this group?
There are hundreds of characteristics times hundreds of reference sets times dozens of time periods, etc. that one can select. It would be very improbable if a "1/1000 chance" event didn't happen in many such sets.
Picking the characteristic, reference set and time period only after the fact makes the 1 in 1000 statistic as meaningless as saying there is a 1 in million chance the president's middle name would be Walker.
Posted by: a student of economics at Jun 24, 2008 12:58:18 AM
The supposedly free world is in fact ruled by a secret, shadowy cabal. Only those who rise to the top of the society and are chosen by the Highest may become their puppet leader in the US.
One of the arcane rituals by which a puppet is selected is a bare-knuckle boxing fight between the candidates, in which southpaws have a definite advantage.
Well, it makes as much sense as many of the alternate theories suggested here.
Posted by: Sam B at Jun 24, 2008 4:43:41 AM
