When former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joked, “We’ve had a congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop” in a debate last May, he received as wild an applause as one can receive in a civil political debate.
Take a closer look at those applauding—you can see them on YouTube—and you’ll notice the demographic that defines every person in the audience: They are all old.
Why is this important? Because only old people would find the Edwards joke that funny, for one. They cannot fathom a presidential candidate spending $400 on a haircut, which Edwards so infamously did. Yet, appearance is vitally important in politics, and some politicians look further than their power suits to project an executive appearance.
Forget $400 for a haircut. Edwards trumped that figure with a $1250 haircut during his 2004 campaign, for which he flew his preferred stylist across the country. Considering he lost the election, the money could have been better spent, but there is no denying the influence of appearance on the American voter, especially the uninformed voter, a category which likely constitutes the majority.
There has not been a truly bald president in almost 47 years, while there have been no shortage of bald candidates. The reason could be something as simple as younger voters being unable to relate to bald candidates, who may appear to be older even if they are not. How many young voters were in the Fred Thompson camp from the beginning? Starring on Law and
Order and resembling our grandfathers does not reach down to the younger voters who may not look to platforms first. Younger voters are not the only ones who may be obsessed with appearance.
In the last 20 elections, the shorter candidate has been elected only five times, including the current president’s last two victories over taller candidates. Bill Clinton is only half an inch shorter than George H.W. Bush.
Appearance matters, as unfortunate as that may be. Needless to say, appearance does not influence actual politics at all: James Madison was allegedly 5’4”, yet he is one of our country’s great statesmen.
Even our current president has facilitated the notion of appearance influencing politics: He once called North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il a “pygmy,” referring to Kim’s small stature. How does Kim feel about his height? He wears platform shoes that add inches to his diminutive size.
With candidates’ maximum exposure to the public today, they cannot let their guard down and allow themselves to be photographed in compromising situations, like Barack Obama’s shirtless paparazzi photos from a trip to the beach. “Stop looking at it,” said an embarrassed Obama.
So while some jest at the high price John Edwards pays for his haircuts, they should consider how important appearance can be in a presidential race. It could very well put one candidate over the top or take one out of consideration.
In an attempt to further ride the haircut ridicule wave, the aforementioned Huckabee agreed to pay $400 for a haircut in New Hampshire, with the proceeds going toward autism research. During his haircut, he mentioned he wouldn’t have $400 if he received a dollar per hair on his head, taking another stab at Edwards with a hint of self-deprecation. What he does not realize is history suggests his lack of hair will stymie his presidential bid. It seems he would be more successful as a stand-up comic touring the retirement home circuit.
David Heller is a junior majoring in political science. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
