Comment is free: March 2008 Archives

New research suggests that people can predict election results based solely on the candidates' facial features - it's thought that we make snap-judgments based on how "competent" the politician appears. As I note in my latest Comment is free piece, that's good news for Hillary Clinton - a study suggests that she has a slightly more prototypically competent face than Barack Obama.

But while outward appearances can reportedly help predict elections, they aren't necessarily the best criteria for picking presidents. In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell argues that Ohio Republican Warren Harding swept to victory in the 1920 presidential election largely on the strength of his rumbling baritone and "presidential" demeanour. Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Harding's scandal-besieged administration went down as one of the worst of all time, with the beleaguered president himself admitting: "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here."

Gladwell tells me he's not surprised to hear that voters are still judging politicians by their looks. Political races are essentially popularity contests, he says, and people are generally excellent at making snap judgments about traits like attractiveness, friendliness and likeability. Unfortunately, we can't make similarly rapid assessments of intelligence or integrity. "That's why candidates who pass the 'blink' test win," he says. "It's also why candidates who pass the blink test aren't necessarily particularly honest or conscientious."

Read the rest here.

The Andean crisis, which began when Colombia struck at leftist rebels camped in Ecuador, just won't die down: Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is rattling his saber like there's no tomorrow, and now documents captured from the guerillas appear to show that both Ecuador and Venezuela were negotiating with and perhaps directly aiding the rebels. I've bashed out a column for Comment is free eying the situation:

With the crisis nearing a flashpoint, it was clear that international mediation was needed. That put the US in an awkward position: as Colombia's major military backer, she couldn't simply sit on her hands while Uribe's security forces infringed on other nations' sovereignty. On the other hand, Washington couldn't credibly condemn the Colombian raid on principle. After all, the logic of the strike was virtually identical to that used to justify recent US raids against suspected terrorists in Pakistan and Somalia.

Thankfully, the Organisation of American States took up the slack. After frantic negotiations, the OAS yesterday gave Uribe a public rap on the knuckles, declaring Colombia's initial attack to have been a violation of Ecuador's sovereignty - but crucially stopping short of condemning the raid outright. Colombia responded by playing down the threat of open conflict. Ecuador and Venezuela were less conciliatory, with Chávez accusing Uribe of "war crimes" and Correa continuing a diplomatic road-show aimed at drumming up moral outrage among Colombia's other neighbours.

Still, the OAS statement was an important first step. It gave both sides grounds to claim a degree of victory, and kept everyone at the negotiating table. The next move should be for OAS observers to examine the documents retrieved from the rebel camp. If Colombia's claims can be independently corroborated, much of the regional support for Ecuador and Venezuela's sabre-rattling will evaporate, while if the two countries are absolved they will have far less reason to keep stoking the flames. Nobody's likely to come out of this mess smelling of roses, but as long as everyone keeps talking it should be possible to keep the Andean border brouhaha from boiling over.

Read the full thing here.