CE Week #10: “The Bald Truth”
By Steve Rushin
If the 2008 presidential election comes down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and front runner Rudolph Giuliani, Americans will elect a woman before they will elect a bald man. The U.S. has had more than five bald Presidents, but Americans haven’t voted one into office in 51 years, when Dwight Eisenhower won a second term over Adlai Stevenson–the second consecutive election in which two bald men went head to glorious head.
That was 1956, when 20th Century Fox released The King and I, starring Yul Brynner as the King of Siam. It was an annus mirabilis for hairless potentates but also the twilight of their brief golden age–the last time heads of state were not synonymous with heads of hair.
When President John F. Kennedy went hatless during his Inauguration speech in 1961, he committed in essence a double homicide: of the hat industry and of the prospect that any bald man would ever have to the nation’s highest office.
Since Eisenhower left the White House, voters have carved out a Mount Brushmore of Presidents–Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton–with magnificent hair. What we need is a tonsorial memorial to those giants–Ike, Winston Churchill, Mohandas Gandhi, David Ben-Gurion–of the World War II era, that one brief and very shining moment in history when baldness was tantamount to greatness.
Today the only thing voters like less than a candidate who gets a $400 haircut is a candidate who doesn’t require one at all. Whether or not they realize it, voters think of great leaders as people with haircuts, and really great leaders as people with haircuts named for them. George Clooney once wore a Caesar. It is unlikely that he will ever ask his stylist for a Stevenson.
Or a Giuliani. Indeed, the last time Giuliani was elected to anything (re-elected as mayor of New York City in 1997), he had a scalp full of hair (wink, wink), even if that comb-over was the biggest political cover-up since Watergate.
In the present presidential campaign, some of Giuliani’s rivals have receded (John McCain), and some have even reseeded (Joe Biden, whose scalp is less spartan than it used to be), but none are nakedly, unabashedly bald. Not even Homer Simpson, who announced his candidacy to David Letterman and combs his pair of hairs to the right, a two-string comb-over that still leaves him two strings shy of a ukulele.
Hair is, quite literally, political cover. The emperor may have no clothes, but he damn sure better have a comb. Charles the Bald, the 17 century King of France and Holy Roman Emperor, was not bald but fully maned, to judge by the portraits and coins of the day. The nickname was evidently ironic, the way 300-lb. members of Hells Angels frequently answer to “Tiny.”
I wish it weren’t so. As a bald man, I long for a President who is, in the words of the English poet Matthew Arnold, “bald as the bare mountaintops are bald, with a baldness full of grandeur.” This is the baldness of Sean Connery or Michael Jordan or Buddha.
But as a realist, I know I can never be President, will never be part of the American hairistocracy. The presidency is not one of those high-profile jobs in which you can sneak by with a paisley head scarf (think Steven Van Zandt of the E Street Band) or a pompadour wig (think Steven Van Zandt of The Sopranos).
Balder men can be aldermen, even Governors and Senators. We seem to have a competitive advantage as late-night TV sidekicks (Paul Shaffer and Kevin Eubanks) and early-morning TV weathermen (Al Roker and Willard Scott).
But no bald man has been voted into the White House in 12 elections. (Gerald Ford doesn’t count. And neither does Dick Cheney.) Before Ike, you have to go all the way back to the election of 1836 and Martin Van Buren. But his white sideburns were so overcompensating–two enormous parentheses bracketing the nonrestrictive clause of his face–that he is seldom thought of as bald.
The country’s most prolifically failed presidential candidate, Harold Stassen, ran nine times, and in many of those elections he wore a toupee so alarming that the Washington Post thought it resembled a “sullen possum that had been dipped in bronze.”
But Stassen knew that wearing a bronzed possum was safer than hitting the stump with a naked scalp. Why? For the same reason, perhaps, that bald men are icons of evil in the movies, from Lex Luthor to Dr. Evil to Mr. Potter in It’s a Wonderful Life. Sometime in our political history, baldness was downgraded from Churchillian to … Dr. Phil-ian.
Hairless breeds never win the Westminster Dog Show. And they no longer win the dog-and-pony show that is a presidential election, no matter what surveys say about Giuliani as the Republican front runner. Forget the Roper polls. I trust the barber poles.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/11/02/ce-week-10-the-bald-truth/trackback/
A Hairy Problem…
Wow. This is quite an interesting article dealing with an interesting tidbit of information that most people would not have any idea what is going on. In fact this article was quite humorous in linking baldness to presidencies. One can not help but wonder why we as Americans do not vote for bald men to be our leaders.
Aside from the humor, under the sugar-coated publication, I believe this is a sad reality. Do we vote the president according to his looks? I hope not, but I believe that people no longer look at the issues of the President but rather look at what he looks like. The amount of hair on a person’s head should not affect the voters’ decision on Election Day, but it does. What have we digressed to? As long as we have the better looking President, then our country will be better. I think that if this holds true then our country is falling a lot faster than even I expected it to be falling at the moment. As Americans we need to figure out why we vote for leaders and if the amount of hair is the deciding factor we might as well nominate John Travolta for President. His hair won’t be leaving anytime soon. The amount of hair does not decide the strength of the leader and I cringe at the thought that we are voting due to the amount of hair on a person’s head.
Danny Porter
Response to Danny,
First of all, I definitely have to agree with you that the connections made by the article about baldness and the presidency were both humorous and a sad commentary on American politics. Also, if it is true that having hair has become a perquisite for becoming the President of the US then we definitely are falling a lot faster than any of us thought. On the other hand, I personally would like to think that we as a population are less shallow than that, and that the recent trend of non-bald men as our president is a coincidence. I mean come on, how shallow can people really be? Does it really matter that our Commander in Chief has a full head of hair? I certainly hope that what is between their ears is more important to voters than what covers their head. While I understand that many people find it easier to vote for a presidential candidate who looks the part, I am behind you 100% when you say that “The amount of hair does not decide the strength of the leader and I cringe at the thought that we are voting due to the amount of hair on a person’s head.”
Andrew Barnes
I agree with both Andrew and Danny. I am utterly appalled that an entire article would be written on this subject! Why on earth would it matter if our president was bald or not? I mean, if the guy put on a toupee would it all of a sudden make a difference?! Is the American population really that shallow that we wouldn’t put a guy in office that didn’t have a gorgeous head of hair that went around swooshing it from side to side like Prince Charming in “Shrek 2”? I mean come on! Of course it is necessary to have perquisites in order to become President of the United States (POTUS), but ones that sink as low as appearance like a receding hairline…well I don’t know what to tell ya. I completely stand by Andrew when he said, “I certainly hope that what is between their ears is more important to voters than what covers their head.” We should be choosing our leader based on their political concerns, stances and beliefs rather than by how much hair they have. If Election Day comes and voters can’t make a decision, well we better start welcoming Hilary Clinton now because although rather unstylish, she does have a lot of hair!
This was a very entertaining article. I had never really noticed that all of our presidents since the 1950s have had hair. Wasn’t Eisenhower bald? And George Washington couldn’t have had much hair underneath that powdered wig.
But I agree with everyone else: Who has the time to write an article on this topic? More so, who has the time to read it? There are far more pressing issues in the world today.
Honestly, I just don’t care. Maybe the fact that all of our recent presidents have had hair has something to do with the fact that those people were liked better by the general public? If an intellegent (yes, Derrick, CONSERVATIVE) bald guy ran for President, I’d vote for him. If an intellegent guy with blue hair or a rainbow wig ran, I’d vote for them, too.
It’s really no big deal, nor is it a big issue. Reading this article, I felt the same thing after reading last year’s Vox article on eyebrows: deep shame and anger. We need to concern ourselves with real issues, not fake ones.
Yes don’t elect the bald ones, they’re evil! How funny would it be if we found out that Bill Clinton and George Bush both are bald and wear hair pieces, or even better yet were bald and had super duper top secret hair surgery treatment to gain back their proud manes… I know I would laugh. But what would be really funny is seeing Guliani’s face when he found out he lost to Hilary because she has more hair than him, and what would be even funnier is having Hilary shaved bald and seeing the confused looks on the American people as they try to decide who to vote for… okay that last one took it a bit too far, but everyone loves a good hypothetical, like if Hitler was bald would he have come to power? Does Castro wear that hat all the time to hide his shiny round weakness? Is Osama bald under that turban? Is it really stupid that we pick our leaders based on how much hair they have? That last one was definitely yes… and the Osama one was probably true too but no one will ever be able to catch him to find out. Maybe Hilary has irregular woman baldness and wears a wig… okay mind wandering, wrapping up this post now.
I have to disagree with some of your opinions regarding this article, because it is truly one of a kind. The thing that drew me to this article was how unique it seemed. Yes, we can tolerate reading dozens of articles on how black Barack Obama is, but when someone comes up with an actually original topic, we shun it? As Danielle said, this article is “no big deal”, but neither is 99% of the things we watch and read everyday. As far as the article goes itself, I found it fascinating actually. The author had the creativity to point out something that I would never think about myself. And I have to admit, that I am slightly convinced now that maybe the amount of hair a politician has, does in some ways, affect his status. But, at the end of the day, its just hair, and I don’t really care (yes, I do realize that rhymed). But, if I was running for President of the United States and I was growing a little thin up top, I might have to think twice about the evidence that is presented in this article. I don’t think Americans are shallow, but I really don’t think we can help it.
Ha ha! This article may be my all time favorite. Not because of its context or anything like that, just because someone has enough time on their hands to sit down and write something as useless as this. Is this really a problem in the United States? Do we actually chose the best mane for President? The information that Steve included was awesome. I love how he knows all the candidates and winners with hair or without. And his the way he relates the candidates head to Michael Jordan and Buddha is hilarious. The funny thing is that I might agree with the article. Image is huge in today’s world and a full, wavy head of hair is something that impresses many people. Most of these candidates are somewhat older and to have a thick head of hair is impressive. I guess Hillary is set, being a woman and all. America has really become about fashion and popularity. To be able to look better than the competition you have a good chance of having an advantage. People love the ones who are easy on the eyes and will watch them for hours among hours. It is almost like their looks are brainwashing the country. People will stare at them, while they give their speech and their thoughts will sink in and the viewer will start to agree. This is genius! What a way to run for President!