"Rightwing candidates are better looking than their leftwing counterparts, something they benefit from during elections, according to a study conducted by Swedish and Finnish economists," reports Agence France-Presse. The lonely economists, who studied candidates only in Finland, speculate about what it all means:
"One possible explanation is that people who are seen or consider themselves beautiful tend to be more anti-egalitarian and rightwing," Niclas Berggren, one of the three co-authors of the study, told AFP Wednesday. . . .
Explaining the findings, he said that globally, "the left perhaps traditionally has used a more rational approach."
The right meanwhile, "has been more conscious of the importance of looks," he said, pointing to the examples of Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin in the United States.
"Bookworm," an anonymous blogress, has an explanation less flattering to unsightly liberals: "My theory is that unattractive people are often angry, unhappy people. They feel as if the world has treated them unfairly. They resent other people for having better looks and, with those better looks, having better luck in life."
But what about New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie? The New York Times's Michael Shear writes: "A heavyset man, Mr. Christie is often described as fat by his critics"--a gratuitous insult that Shear lamely attributes to anonymous "critics." Maybe liberals just tend to be jerks.
Once again, hattip Jim Taranto
No comments:
Post a Comment