Offspring and politics: go figure
It struck me today, for no reason at all, that the only two presidents we’ve ever had who’ve been divorced are two of the most conservative presidents politically.
And then I started thinking about Ronald Reagan’s children. He had two sets, one grouping with first wife Jane Wyman and another with second and more long-term wife Nancy Davis. Curiously, though (at least to my way of thinking) the children he had and/or adopted with Wyman were Republicans (see this and this), and the ones he had with Nancy were and still are liberals (see this and this).
And this was despite the fact that during his first marriage Reagan was a liberal himself, and during his second marriage a conservative. One would think the political affiliations of the children would have followed more closely the trajectory of Reagan’s change, but it’s exactly the opposite. It was the younger ones who rebelled.
Perhaps that’s a generational thing; they were both born in the 50s and came of age during the 60s, that time of turmoil and rebellious youth. Ron’s (the youngest of all the children, born in 1958) Wiki page says:
Ron Reagan undertook a different philosophical and political path from his father at an early age. At 12, he told his parents that he would not be going to church anymore because he was an atheist…
Reagan became more politically active after his father left the White House in 1989. In contrast to his father, the younger Reagan’s views were unabashedly liberal. In a 2009 Vanity Fair interview, Ron said that he did not speak out politically during his father’s term because the press “never cared about my opinions as such, only as they related to him”, adding that he did not want to create the impression that he and his father were on bad terms because of political differences.
One would think that if anyone could have conveyed the rationale for becoming a conservative and rejecting liberalism, it would have been Ronald Reagan. But it doesn’t quite work that way, does it?
As for Trump’s children, there are a lot of them. It’s my impression that they are all very supportive of his presidency, and that the sons in particular share his political orientation. His daughter Ivanka has been rumored to be more liberal, and I think the rumors are probably correct, but my hunch is that she falls into the “moderate” camp:
[Ivanka] Trump advocates for women and Israel. At the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump said of her political views: “Like many of my fellow millennials, I do not consider myself categorically Republican or Democrat.”
I think Reagan, when he got into politics, was a more distant father, as best I can tell. Nancy was a mother like Barbara Bush and Lady Bird Johnson, whose time was taken 99% by her husband’s political career. The Johnson daughters have described their childhood in print. The Bush children seem more of a political dynasty and keep their mouths shut.
Trump is very family oriented and his kids grew up before politics appeared as a goal. They are a team.
Ronald Reagan never initiated a divorce suit. He was a defendant in a suit launched by Jane Wyman. She didn’t have grounds, so her attorney confected a bogus contention that Reagan was guilty of ‘mental cruelty’. RR (per Nancy) was poleaxed when papers were served on him (not uncommon among men sued for divorce) and offended by the stated reason, but elected not to contest the suit.
As a general rule, you’re father is the strongest vector influencing your views on politics and religion, but there are exceptions. I wouldn’t offer cohort effects as an explanation in the case of Ron P. Reagan, because people born during the years running from 1958 to 1970 tended more often than not to vote Republican in their youth.
You ever ask yourself just what it was that Reagan’s children did for a living? Michael is the only one of the four whose work life you can describe in a few sentences. (He was a salesman, then a radio host). Maureen had bits and pieces of work in acting, but not much of a career. Prior to age 40, she’d spent all of about 4 years as someone’s wife (and less actually with a husband in residence). Her father saw to it she had a series of patronage jobs during his administration and her husband had a lobbying business in Sacramento, but salient figures around George Bush pere couldn’t tolerate her and she was unceremoniously shown the door in 1989. She and her husband acquired a foster child (when she was age 52) and she did promotional work for this and than philanthropy, but she doesn’t appear to have been earning. About Patty, no clue what she ever did with herself. She had some performing gigs and was for about six years married to some no-account; she had no children. Ron was a member of the 2d string of the Joffrey Ballet for a while, had regular work offers for some years, had a radio program at a different point, and did have a wife with professional practice; I think someone said one of his lines was color commentary at dog shows. He and his wife had no children. As for the grandchildren, one of them is an elementary schoolteacher (unmarried until a few months ago, and childless), but the occupations of the other two are unknown. The grandson was a bad failure-to-launch problem at one time in his life.
Only Michael adopted his father’s politics. Maureen was a conventional pre-Reagan Republican (which got her no points with the Bush crew). Patty and Ron had no time for anything for which their father stood. Ronald Reagan and his brother were raised in the Disciples of Christ and attended the denomination’s college. Per Ron Reagan, churchgoing was standard in the family during his youth, but he refused to attend anymore after 1970; it’s not clear what denomination they were associated with at that point. I don’t believe there’s much mention of religious observance in Nancy Reagan’s memoir.
What’s interesting is that Ronald Reagan and Nancy had an abnormally affectionate marriage. RR had no history of trouble with his parents or his brother. Nancy grew up in mix-and-match households, but nothing’s ever been published which suggested that her day-to-day life was disfigured by conflict or that she had anything but congenial dealings with the relatives who took care of her. Jane Wyman had a difficult upbringing, but she was at least a capable theatre professional who had built a career from next-to-nothing (if one who had no talent for family life). And yet, the three of them produced a quartet of children whose performance as adults ranges from ‘something of a disappointment’ to grossly embarrassing. Patti in particular treated her mother shamefully.
Art Deco:
Regression towards the mean?
I think Reagan, when he got into politics, was a more distant father, as best I can tell. Nancy was a mother like Barbara Bush and Lady Bird Johnson, whose time was taken 99% by her husband’s political career.
Disagree. Barbara Bush was a recognizable blueblood type who invested a great deal of sweat equity in her domestic life. Her children were sent to boarding schools in adolescence, but that wasn’t unusual at that time and in the subcultures of which they were a part; at no time between 1951 and 1969 did they have fewer than two children in residence. Her husband wasn’t involved in politics avocationally until about 1962 and wasn’t on the payroll until about 1967. The children would have been between the ages of 7 and 20 when her time started to be taken up by social events connected with politics. There doesn’t appear to be a ready correlation between maternal attention and problems in living in the Bush family. As for the Reagans, Nancy quit working in 1957 and it wasn’t until Ron was 8 and Patti was 13 that RR’s political career began in earnest. NB, on an inter-personal level, it was Ron who had the least troubled relationship with his mother and father. NB, however attentive he may have wanted to be, RR was not the custodial parent of Michael and Maureen and he had to bite his tongue when Jane Wyman enrolled Michael in boarding school in 1952. (Nancy said they considered seeking custody, but decided a confrontation carried too many risks).
Regression towards the mean?
I’m not sure to what mean you’re referring. Jack Reagan was a salesman and small merchant (and not a good earner at either). Loyal Davis was the son of a railway engineer (IIRC), Kenneth Robbins (Nancy’s father, who evaporated after 1928) was the son of a bookkeeper. Edith Luckett Davis was the daughter of an office employee at a shipping company; her brother-in-law held a similar position with one of the railways which ran through DC. Jane Wyman’s father also worked for a railway (her foster father was a police officer). None of the Reagan children regressed to that particular mean. The only one who approximates it is Michael.
Regression towards the mean is the way most outstanding people will have less outstanding children. For a famous person to have less than stellar children takes no explaining at all. If your starting point is Reagan’s brains and talents, any regression towards the mean will put you back in the herd.
Generally very famous people are wealthy enough to disguise the fact that their children aren’t very talented. But two generations later and the money’s usually gone too.
It’s when a family continues to have brilliance generation after generation that takes explaining.
Art Deco:
Chester Draws discusses the phenomenon (above), but if you want to get a bit more technical, see this.
If your starting point is Reagan’s brains and talents,
Reagan and his brother were able to leverage the intellect they had quite well. Their academic history (a college degree earned at a time when perhaps 6% of each cohort was enrolled in baccalaureate programs) given their background and given the inclement economic circumstances of the times suggests they were well above the median intellectually. I doubt Reagan on a psychometric tests would have outscored any other post-war president, however. He might have scored near Kennedy, Johnson, and GW Bush. Intellect is only one element of performance. Barack Obama has ample intellect, but he’s never known what to do with it.
The children of Nancy Reagan’s brother Richard Davis would appear to be better examples of regression to the mean. There’s nothing obtrusively wrong with them. However, their father is a neurosurgeon (as was their grandfather) and that’s a tough act to follow. The son appears to be an old bachelor who works in civil aviation – pilot and mechanic; he’s moved around some. The daughter married into a patrician family that owns a handsome real estate firm which her husband now operates; she has three children and looked like a million $ at age 52. It also appears before he was married Richard Davis sired a child who was adopted out; that man’s a lawyer in Bakersfield, Ca., with one child.
Art Deco:
Regression towards the mean doesn’t just refer to intellectual ability as measured by tests. It refers to all characteristics that are heritable.
We don’t know how much of personality (such as drive, for example) is heritable. But in general, the children of prominent and high-achieving people are nowhere near as prominent or high-achieving as their parents, and it is often ascribed to regression towards the mean.
I believe there are also certain handicaps involved in having a prominent parent, as well as advantages. Different personalities react differently to it, of course, but some people find it very daunting to follow in the footsteps of a very high achiever.
It’s when a family continues to have brilliance generation after generation that takes explaining.
Again, not expecting brilliance here, just normal adult function. No clue how three of the Reagan children ever made rent.
The Nixon grandchildren may be a better example. They’re between the ages of 34 and 42 Two of them are in the helping professions; a third is a member of Actors’ Equity and appears to mostly work regional theatre; and one is a lawyer. Two are married for now, the other two divorced. One of the divorcees has taken up lesbianism in middle age. They have about four children between them.
Regression towards the mean doesn’t just refer to intellectual ability as measured by tests.
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
“regression to the mean’
See this with uber talented athletes all the time. Michael Jordan’s son was a lower level college basketball player at best (probably not even that if his name wasn’t Jordan). Jack Nicklaus’ son received numerous exemptions into tournaments that he in no way deserved and still never made it.
Art Deco:
I did not put words in your mouth.
You spoke of intellectual abilities in a previous comment, and I simply stated that it refers to many things besides that. I never said that you felt it referred only to that (although that was certainly a possibility).
I actually assumed you probably knew it referred to more things than that, and I was merely pointing out that it does and mentioning that fact mostly for the benefit of those readers who might not know much about regression towards the mean.
If I want to say you don’t know something and that I’m informing you of something you don’t know, I will make that quite explicit. I was not saying that, because I don’t read minds.
Dwight Eisenhower’s granddaughters (who number 3) have between them gone through the divorce courts 10x.
I did not put words in your mouth.
I never offered the slightest suggestion that we were discussing intellectual ability alone. The person who brought up intellect was Chester Draws. Stop this.
Art Deco:
What do you mean, “stop this”?
Are you now giving me orders?
Take a good look at your comment here, which you begin by quoting Chester Draws’ statement “If your starting point is Reagan’s brains and talents”, and then you go on to write:
A lot there about intellect. So I repeat what I wrote here. I wasn’t assuming you necessarily thought intellect was the only element involved in regression to the mean; I was explaining that for anyone reading.
I have been polite to you. Start reciprocating or my patience—which is generally pretty vast—will wear very thin.
Take a good look at your comment here, which you begin by quoting Chester Draws’ statement “If your starting point is Reagan’s brains and talents”, and then you go on to write:
That’s a response to one discrete thing that he said. Since my other remarks referred to people’s performance and behavior in a range of endeavours, you haven’t much excuse pretending that I was discussing intellect and intellect alone. I wasn’t even the one who raised the subject.
Art Deco:
I never said you were the one raising the subject.
I merely made some statements about regression to the mean and what it means and what it refers to. You are fixating on this for some reason; I have no idea why.
My entire comment contained general remarks about regression towards the mean, plus other factors involved in the psychology of being the child of a famous person. I addressed it to you because you were making comments about intellect as well as other things, and I thought you might be interested. I assume lots of people read the comments here, so when I address someone I also often put general information or general remarks in the comment as well.
Instead, you take offense at something I never said, and you start ordering me around.
Nancy grew up in mix-and-match households, but nothing’s ever been published which suggested that her day-to-day life was disfigured by conflict or that she had anything but congenial dealings with the relatives who took care of her.
Patti wrote a remembrance of her mother in 2016, in which she talks about Nancy’s childhood:
I’m personally saddened, and always a bit uncertain about, why so many very smart people are so stupid so as to support socialism. Most of my very smart college friends are Trump-hating liberals.
In the peer-pressure push of youth, it’s easy to see how the socialist simple solutions that are so “obvious” to those not yet living with real adult responsibility seem so attractive. It’s sad that, once the Dem side is chosen, the preferred method of defense of the Dem policies is the attack against Rep intentions and a failure to achieve perfection. In Trump’s case, also against his words, even if they need to be misstated before attacked.
There’s a big amount of heritability of intelligence. Probably a lot more mix of other Big 5 personality traits (or Myers’ Briggs 4-pairs). Wanting to be “in with the in-crowd” seems to always be a huge influence, and conservative independence and responsible has seldom been cool.
Don’t know much about Jane Wyman but I’ve long admired her for never dishing the dirt on Reagan. No tell all, not even a little interview in People Magazine or something. Everyone involved, especially the kids and even the nation as a whole, emerged more dignified because of it.
Neo said: “Different personalities react differently to it, of course, but some people find it very daunting to follow in the footsteps of a very high achiever.”
Alexander the Great is a notable exception. Of course he has been accused of involvement in his father’s assassination, which was committed by one of Philip’s bodyguards, but most modern historians doubt that Alexander was involved in any kind of conspiracy against his father.
I’ve observed that some children of successful parents often choose to go in a different direction. Sometimes the complete opposite direction. In college I was in a fraternity with some sons of wealthy, successful people. Several of them could not be bothered to study. Even with the motivation of being drafted to serve the Korean War. They flunked out and I don’t know what happened to them after that, but I assume they probably never reached the level of success their parents had achieved.
In 1971 I was part of the crew on a flight from LA to Knoxville. The country was in recession and the airline business was in the tank. We had one passenger for the entire flight – Jane Wyman. She was going to receive an award from the University of Tennessee for her body of work as an actress. The stewardesses (That’s what we called them then) told us she was gracious, but also quite proper and not particularly warm. She did stop by the cock[pit to say hello in Knoxville, but she didn’t make small talk. I’ve often thought it would be hard for two ambitious actors to be married. Differences in the caliber of roles and success, periods with no roles at all, on screen love scenes, and periods of separation would be difficult to handle for most people. Like most men at the time, Reagan probably wanted to be the boss and have his wife be dependent on him, even though Jane Wyman was more successful than he was. She probably resented his attitude. At least that would be my guess.
I once read an autobiography by Michael Reagan. It was not a happy childhood. He felt much like an odd man out. Not really wanted by either household, IIRC. That he finally became a success in radio and political commentary and was reconciled with Reagan was high point for him.
There have been many studies of great leaders in politics and business. I don’t think anyone has ever pinned down a formula for it. However, it is certain that it not genetically inherited intelligence and talent, only. There are many more intelligent people who never succeed in anything than those who do.
Some posit that some specific event or series of events in childhood or young adulthood impels them. Although, I have read a lot of biographies, and could never never nail it down to any one particular experience.
Personally, I think think that some people simply have the ability to perceive a leadership vacuum and they “step up” simply because they expect that that is what is required of them. Then, discovering that they have a talent for it, they continue to exercise it.
I don’t find it any surprise that the children of great people often disappoint. Such persons are often nearly fully occupied with their work and don’t make the best parents.
My dad was a conservative, I guess, if we have to assign labels. Mainly he wanted facts and truth to derive practical solutions, and had zero tolerance for virtue-signalling b.s. or platitudes. We rarely talked about “politics” per se, though — even though this was during the Vietnam War and Watergate.
That’s also me, 100%, and all three of my sons are the same way (no daughters). I’m quite sure my grandfather on my dad’s side was too. My dad encouraged me to think for myself and ask questions, and I’ve done that with my kids too. None of us “suffer fools gladly”. Now my oldest son has two young kids of his own, and they plan to home school, so I’m 100% certain this trait will pass to his kids.
It’s a “problem-solving” mindset that runs in the family. I strongly suspect that, 40 or 75 or 100 years ago, this was commonly viewed as the proper way to arrive at a good solution to any given issue. People were more practical-minded, I think (but that’s just an opinion, I’ve never seen any research on it).