Will Americans Ever Put a Person Genetically Predisposed to Choleric Temperament in the White House?

Here in the USA we still decide questions of who shall lead by voting, not by measuring nucleotide codes against each other, and this will never change.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Welcome to the Moment of Truth: the salad that needs no dressing.

I need not tell you there is no mention in the Constitution of genetic superiority as a criterion for deciding who will occupy the position of Chief Executive. Of course not. It's elementary school civics. This is a democracy, not a genocracy. Even a child knows that.

To start with, our Founding Fathers were technologically incapable of discerning the genetic makeup of a candidate, other than noting possible phenotypic correspondences such as hair color, height, etc. But even then, there was no sense that hair color might have any connection with the ability to make decisive risk calculations under stress. Only today are we even beginning to explore these mystifying connections, to unravel that beguiling double-helix, with its strange enigmas and conundrums and brain-teasers and sudokus.

Greater Nuevo Prussia adopted genetic fitness as its sole leadership test back in 2140, and look how that turned out -- now ruled by a troika of ultra-centrist clones of Marlene Dietrich, Nuevo Prussians had to watch as the UberBank devalued the Ubermark four times in the last six years. I suppose they could have done worse. Still, determining the winner of a contest for leadership by comparing genetic traits is a blemish on the idea of "republic," and to any believer in democracy it must ring obscene.

Here in the USA we still decide questions of who shall lead by voting, not by measuring nucleotide codes against each other, and this will never change. For we believe a person's worth resides not in his or her genes, but in whether that person has optimized his or her genetic potential and subdued his or her genetic weaknesses. This idea is the foundation of democracy.

However, so long as it is the number of votes deciding the outcome, it is perfectly sensible for voters to take into account a candidate's genetics when deciding whom to vote for. Ballot-casting decisions have been based on sillier information -- one hundred fifty years ago, statesmanship was thought to correspond with the sincerity of one's claim of faith in one or another of the popular cosmological superstitions, for example. And, foolish as that might seem as a gauge of ability to rule, the method of determining a candidate's level of sincerity was even more dubious. There was no way of chemically indexing a person's sincerity or other character traits back then. Voters relied instead on sensations believed to be located in their viscera. The organ for judging character, thought to reside in the upper abdomen, was called the "gut." And with corruption rampant, character became such an important leadership issue in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries that Americans focused nearly all their time and resources toward developing this organ to prodigious, astronomical dimensions, in their struggle to better evaluate their politicians. Of course, the resulting governments were less than stellar, as we readily see with hindsight. Tax rebates in the form of pastries was the sole innovation of those dark times.

Weight, height, symmetry in physiognomy, depth of vocal register, shapeliness of kneecap -- a century-and-a-half ago these too were aspects of a candidate which influenced the gut organ to an astonishing degree. Still, comparing, say, two candidates, it was generally an easy matter to tell with the unaided human eye who dominated whom in the greatest number of these characteristics. So it was not all left to the mythical intuitive powers of the gut, there was a scientific aspect to popular decision-making.

As there always has been. It is safe to say that scientific measurements, however trivial in nature, have influenced the outcomes of elections in the United States since its founding. And now that the genome of every U.S. president has been reconstructed and catalogued, we can compare not only genetic endowments and deficiencies between current candidates, we can see how each stacks up genetically against the greatest leaders of the past.

The current Whigocratic front-runner, Cleopatra Esposito, has the MMHH (meiotic mr hyde homolog), the so-called "tantrum" gene, on one of her X chromosomes. This gene on that particular chromosome, in the presence of several others, under certain circumstances, predisposes one to grotesque uninhibited expressions of displeasure when under stress associated with emotional insecurity. Thus we can say, medically speaking, that Cleopatra Esposito is genetically predisposed to choleric temperament.

Never has a person with the genetic predisposition just described been elected to the U.S. presidency. It is a simple fact. Granted, we have never elected a president named Bob either, but presumably the genetic question is of more moment to the voters than a mere moniker. Or at least as much.

It is sometimes said that Richard Nixon, the 37th President, had the tantrum gene. This arose from a joke made by the scientific standup comic Dr. Funny on his HBO special, Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Bilateral Morphology But Were Too Fatigued To Ask. But in fact Nixon came by his choleric temperament in spite of his genetic make-up, which predicted a calm, reasonable demeanor. He had to work at it. And he overcame his genetic blueprint to become the most ornery president in U.S. history.

Which is, of course, the point. Whatever her genes say about Esposito's humor is merely a suggestion from a meager few of nature's limitless multitude of chemicals. She is clearly a calm, steady leader, as her heroic performance in the bloody Kashmir Border Staring Contest amply demonstrated. Just as Nixon triumphed in his struggle against his inherited pleasantness in order to become a paranoid jerk of the first water, Esposito's genetic inheritance does not determine her emotional destiny. She is the boss of that.

There are many who say a person with a genetic predisposition to choleric temperament cannot be elected in this country. I certainly hope, and believe, that Americans will look beyond the genetic marker and see the human being. People who are genetically predisposed to choleric temperament have always had a tough time in our society, for some unknown reason which may be just a coincidence. But if we can elect a president with a genetic predisposition to choleric temperament, we will have come a long way toward healing whatever the hell is wrong with us. Or at least that is one possibility.

This has been the Moment of Truth. Good day!

Popular in the Community