Election 2008: candidates we don’t have to look up to?
This election campaign promises to be a long one.
But in some ways it’s rather short—short as opposed to tall, that is.
I may in fact be the first to point out that this campaign is distinguished by a bunch of relatively height-challenged candidates. This observation began with my thought that, now that we have the first truly serious female contender for President—that’s Hillary Clinton, for those of you who may have been on a desert island for the past year—I wondered whether that old saw about the taller candidate winning might still be operative.
On further reflection, I realized that the man against whom Hillary will be running—assuming she wins the nomination—will probably not tower over her. Although these things are difficult to determine for sure—politicians may lie about their heights more often than they lie about other things, which is saying a lot—I’ve done some research that indicates that the nominees may indeed be unusually short this year.
Nobody is in the realm of Fiorello La Guardia, reputed to have reported for duty at an even five feet zero. It’s not all that easy to find information on the subject, but rumor has it that Giuliani, the present Republican front-runner, claims to be 5′ 9″ and a fraction, but looks shorter. And, although Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both reputed to be over 6 feet tall (you research it; I’m weary from trying to find the information and coming up empty-handed), neither is a front-runner at the moment.
Then there’s John McCain, even shorter than Giuliani at 5′ 7.” And as for Hilary, she doesn’t stack up too badly against this particular crew—that is, if she really is 5′ 6″, as claimed (doesn’t seem correct to me; I’ve always seen her as 5 ‘3″ or 5’ 4″, maximum. But photos can mislead.)
And what of that legend that the taller candidate almost always wins? It’s pretty much nonsense, although, as with many legends, there’s a particle of truth there.
Take a look at the stats (you need to scroll down a bit to find the comparative table of heights of Presidential candidates). From the chart, it’s pretty clear that it’s only since the twentieth century that height seems to have been a relatively consistent determinant of the winner. Even then it’s by no means been a sure thing; by my count, the taller man (yes, it’s always been men) won sixteen times and the shorter nine times. Before the twentieth century the trend was nowhere near as clear—although the ever-helpful Wiki points out that three of the earlier shorter winners had actually lost the popular vote and won the electoral one.
Another unusual fact jumps out: even though, in earlier years, the taller man lost nearly as often as the shorter (and, of course, some of the data is/are missing), there were nevertheless some unusually tall Presidents. Lincoln immediately comes to mind (at 6′ 3 3/4″), but he’s not alone. Some of those founding fathers were really men one could look up to, especially when taking into account the fact that the height of the average man at the time was considerably lower than it is now.
George Washington was Bill Clinton’s height at 6′ 1 1/2″, although the resemblance probably ends there. Jackson was up with Reagan at 6′ 1″, and Jefferson was, at 6′ 2 1/2″, the third tallest President ever (after Lincoln and the only-slightly-shorter LBJ, who was 6′ 3 1/2″).
The 5′ 9″ Truman (same height as Jimmy Carter–again, few other resemblances) was lucky in his opponent; he just squeaked it out in the height category (as in the election itself) over the 5′ 8″ Thomas Dewey. The short end of things, Presidentially speaking, was brought up by James Madison at 5′ 3″, but he was much the exception. It seems that Presidents do tend to be at least a bit taller than average, and sometimes a great deal taller. This is consistent with research about the business world, as well.
Not all world leaders have been tall. But the roster of the short ones does not especially reassure. First of all, there’s the well-known Napolean, although it turns out that he may have gotten a bad rap and actually been about average—or slightly-above-average—in height for his day.
But take a look here, and you’ll see that, with the exception of some unelected heredity leaders such as Haile Selassie, who was 5′ 4″, most of the short leaders have been a sorry bunch.
Sure, there was the much-lauded Gandhi—at 5′ 3″, a bit taller than I expected. But even he is controversial; see this. And Ben-Gurion, same height as Fiorello, is usually only hated by those who hate Israel. It must have been a gas to have watched the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, since Douglas (nicknamed “The Little Giant”) was the same height as Ben Gurion and Fiorello.
Which it turns out to have been the same as Deng Xiaoping. And many of the rest of the shorter world leaders are among the worst. The glorious Arafat was 5′ 2″, while the wonderful Kim Jong-il is 5′ 3″, which would put him at eye level with Khrushchev, making Stalin a veritable giant of a man in comparison at 5′ 5″.
I actually met Chairman Deng (long story which I will save for a book) andI think he was actually under five feet tall. He was also arguably the most positive politician of the Twentieth Century in effect, wrenching China out of Maoism into its current condition (admittedly not so perfect, but vastly better than the Cultural Revolution).
Deng famously said of ideology: “I don’t care if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.” Those words changed China. They could also change our miserable political scene, but few are listening. (Just sticking up for short people – they make great film directors – Truffaut, Scorsese, etc.)
Doesn’t surprise me that Deng padded his height a bit. It seems to be a common phenomenon.
Another fact is that ballet dancers–and all stage dancers, actually–appear much larger onstage than in person. Ballet dancers have a tendency to be compact people, but their long lean lines and upright carriage, as well as the stage itself, make them look far bigger when performing than they really are. Invariably, when one meets them in person, it’s surprising how diminuitive they are.
So does this mean that the dictators are short and have short man’s syndrome?
I had arguments concerning this height thing. And I concluded, based upon some chess/soccer stats, that people who are naturally tall, are motivated early on in life to lead and be charismatic towards their peers. Certain traits required in politics. So it may not be that that people vote for tall people automatically, although that is a factor but probably not bit, it may be just that if you are tall, you get in the “leadership” earlier and are more motivated. Reagan was an actor, if he was short, would he have been as personally motivated to go into the personal charisma business?
After my trip to CPAC, I can say that Romney and Ginwrich are approx 6’and Bronwback’s approx. my height (5’10”). Giuliani was too far away from where I was sitting so I can’t tell, and McCain didn’t show up.
Dictators I Have Measured Department:
Adolph Hitler = 5′ 6″
Josef Stalin = 5′ 3″
Source: Alan Bullock: Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Biographies
How come nobody’s noticed that Hillary would be the first blonde president?
Why does this remind me of the Napoleon episode in “Time Bandits?”
Who thinks Napoleon here was short though?
Wasn’t he, though?
Are you telling “Time Bandits” wasn’t based on solid, historical truths? That’s very disappointing.
Well, the real question isn’t how tall they are, it’s whether you can kick their asses when the Secret Service guys aren’t watching. I’d give myself about even odds against Hillary, maybe a little better if she’s wearing a skirt. Nancy could probably take me best two out of three falls because she reminds me of my wicked stepmother – very discouraging. Newt looks like a myocardial infarction waiting to happen. No trouble there. I’d watch out for McCain, though. Ex-military, survived the POW camps, gets lots of fresh air and sunshine. Sounds like trouble.
HIs measurement in French units was 5 feet 2, but that translates in modern US as 5 feet 6.
Six inches below tall, but then again folks back in their day had malnutrition problems.
HANES study 1999-2002 Average USA Male height is 5 ft 9.3 inches. Canadians are approx. 0.8 inches shorter, 2005 data. HANES is about due to be done again.
Yep, Napoleon wasn’t that short. This is also why Humphrey Bogart looked a little above average in movies in 30’s and 40’s, he was about 5’8″ – 5’9″.
Cappy,
Not only that, Hillary would be the first blonde president to have been the wife of the first “black” president. Top That!
I dunno, guys. I’ve seen paintings of the guy and Napoleon looks pretty short.
I feel that I am slightly above average height and I disagree with this essay. I believe when I was shorter I was much smarter. My father and mother both around 5’5″ are very intelligent and have a lot of common sense. My oldest brother is 6’1″ and he towers my parents but my other brother is 5’7″ and he is the smartest of us all. I think I was smarter before I turned big.