Genetic altruism and the meteoric rise of Barack Obama

[Thomas Wainwright]

Controlling for social, cultural, and economic factors in deciding the outcome of elections, Hamiton's rule in regards to genetic altruism can be used to predict whether or not a candidate for office is likely to succeed: rB > C Kin selection

 

Consequently, there are some who argue that Barack Obama's historic election by White voters on November 4, 2008 was partly due to the fact that he is partly of European stock. Contrast the example of Obama with Jesse Jackson and other black candidates who have never made it to the top, and we therefore have a compelling case to argue that Obama's landslide was partly as a result of his Mixed-Race heritage, and his popular appeal amongst the black AND white voters.

 

Then, what are the chances of success for candidates who have no visible trace of any European ancestors? How will they succeed and get to the top in a political climate that is predominantly White if they have no European heritage? How does genetic altruism predict the likely route to success for those candidates who are without any immediate European ancestors?

 

Well, the most recent examples of high profile non-White candidates who have reached the top of the political ladder would, of course, be the last two women to occupy the position of Governor General of Canada:-

 

• Michaëlle Jean
• Adrienne Clarkson

Some would argue that despite their non-White background, they still managed to elicit the popular approval and support of Canadian voters (mostly White), as well as support by the Canadian Parliament, which is on account of the White racial identity of their respective husband. Such a hypothesis is based on Hamilton's rule, which postulates that White voters are more likely to support a non-White candidate who has a conjugal relationship with a White partner. This is premised on the fact that such a relationship is likely to produce offspring (and descendants) who are genetically related to the vast majority of the voters who are White; and thereby, the non-White candidate can be more or less treated as "kin", which is by virtue of of his or her intimate blood ties with the voters (who are mostly White).

 

On the other hand, a non-White candidate who is bereft of any blood ties with the White voters is far less likely to elicit their approval and support, which is a different outcome predicted by the theory of genetic altruism.

 

Which begs the question: Would this be a valid interpretation of Kin selection, kin recognition, and genetic altruism; and thereby, is it feasible to apply the rule to statistically forecast the outcome of a general election?

 

 

Edited June 17, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

[Iggy]

Electing politicians isn't an altruistic act. You'd be hard pressed to find a less appropriate application of Hamilton's rule.

[CharonY]

Also even in nature identification of relatedness (i.e. kin discrimination) is not trivial. Instead, often proxy information is used and population viscosity becomes important. In other words, you are more likely to be altruistic towards people that you know. While a lot of other factors (which are arguably more important when it comes to elections), all things being equal people are more likely to vote for someone that they know, or at least have met. It would be rather unusual for people to run around and collecting DNA samples in order to decide whom to vote for....

 

But as Iggy mentioned, trying to apply Hamilton's rule to elections is truly far-fetched.