SEX Rules The Populists

SEX is ruling the populists like never before. By definition, populists appeal to “the people.” But that begs the question, which is, “What in the people are the populists appealing to?” The answer is usually emotions. The implication is that “the people” are more ruled by emotions than, than, well, who? Who is everyone else being appealed to, other than the people? Whatever the answer is demographically, in reality the others are those people who are less motivated — inspired — by emotions. This might include the educated, the socio-economically successful, and the Republicans. However, the dirty little secret is that they also have emotions, they are also motivated by emotions, they are also  inspirable by emotions.
And the emotions are, in 2016? SEXUAL ONES!
No, I’m not talking about sex-Y emotions. I’m talking about sexual ones. Here’s how it works:
The essential functions of life, survival and reproduction, are played out differently in different species. In humans, males are biologically, including psychologically, focused on survival. That is their biological job. In humans, females are biologically, including psychologically, focused on reproduction. However, it is only part of their biological job. After the offspring do not need mother to be around all of the time, females join males in the survival function of acquiring resources for the nest. The age at which human offspring can survive without their mothers varies from infancy, when daycare or family help is available, to kindergarten, when school contributes to their care.
Now, carrying out survival and reproductive functions is fueled by pleasure — an emotion. Support for them arouses pleasure. When these basic functions are moved away from, there  is anxiety — also an emotion. When individuals actually fail to perform survival and reproduction, there is pain — also an emotion. Pleasure, anxiety, pain.
Further, males feel these three emotions in relation to their basic biological job of survival, which includes acquiring resources for the nest and protecting it. Females feel them in relation to their basic  biological function of reproduction, which includes receiving resources from their mate and feeding/nurturing the offspring. When females venture into the world outside the nest to engage in survival functions, there is not as much pleasure, anxiety, or pain. Females are more rational and less emotional, when it comes to survival functions than are men. If females do not make as much money as men, they are not as anxious or pained. If they do not protect the nest from intruders, also a survival function, they are not as pained as men. After all, their fundamental biological job is reproduction.

With this as a preamble, let’s take a look at the populists of today: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Sanders focuses on reproduction issues, such as preparing the young for the real world. This is primarily a female function, biologically, and thus he arouses pleasure in them. He supports education. He  wants to forgive educational debt, focusing on the preparation function. In doing so, he focuses inside the nest, on those who are not yet ready  to contribute to society, the offspring themselves. Pleasure for them. He also focuses on healthcare for all, also an in the nest, female function. Pleasure for them. He focuses on equal pay of the sexes, arousing pleasure in those females, who do not have a male acquiring resources for them. He decries income inequality. This is an in the nest, female reproductive value. In the nest, each child is given an equal chance to survive and survive well. This gives pleasure to females, for it promotes the reproductive function of making the most copies of ones genes. Last, he focuses on those dirty old men, who are acquiring and hoarding resources very successfully. This touches the biological reproductive function of women to receive resources from men and disburse them to their offspring. Men who cannot or do not bring resources into the nest for their family are devalued and even scorned by women. Basically, successful women, in environments until today, were those who attracted a male, who could  protect and provide for them. This still does exist, deep down for some and right on the surface for others. By denouncing men who do not share with those less able to adapt to the environment, he touches another pleasurable emotion in women. By the way, at the same time, he arouses anxiety in  those engaging in male survival functions, such as acquiring resources and protecting the nest/country.

Now for Donald Trump, the other populist. He clearly touches emotions, mostly of survival, not reproductive, functions. He favors protecting our nest/country from intruders. Pleasure for men. He focuses on the economy, an issue shared between men and women, but one that generates more emotion — pleasure at success, anxiety at possible failure — for men. His notion is not to take from American men, but to take from other men, those foreigners, whom we gave  jobs to. That is, to support the ability of our men to be successful at their survival function of acquiring resources for their mate, offspring, and nest. He  arouses pleasure in them, when he does so. He also arouses pleasure, when he supports protecting our nest/country from would-be intruders, such as dependent immigrants, who would siphon off the resources our own offspring/families would have, and terrorists. Pleasure is aroused.

Both Sanders and Trump are inspiring. That is, they stimulate people to action, via stimulating their very basic emotions. As one, Sanders, focuses on reproductive emotions and the other, Trump, on survival emotions, and as reproduction and survival are carried out fundamentally by females and males,  respectively, sex has certainly ruled populist politics this election cycle.

Only Candidates Who Understand Sex In Politics Can Win

Sex in Politics states that inside the nest values of reproduction (nurturance) are the focus of the Democratic Party of America, while outside the nest values of survival (prosperity and protection against intruders) are the  focus of the Republican Party of America.

Given this, a Republican candidate must, must focus on – and support – survival and protection. Rand Paul devalues that primary Republican value of survival: protection against intruders. He may be right, but that is not the point. The point is that to win, a candidate must show he or she clearly supports both prosperity and protection.

At the other end of the spectrum, one Republican candidate, Donald Trump, continually maintains he can fulfil both aspects of the Republican value of survival: prosperity and protection. With  respect to survival, his focus on his success continually reminds Republicans he values prosperity deeply. With respect to protection, he continually reminds people of his focus on winning. It is not how one plays the game; it is who wins or loses: us or them. He talks  about  winning in life, in work, in wars, and in polls. He portrays himself as the consummate warrior. That is what Republicans value: winning, not playing nice. Protecting the nest, not ushering intruders into it.

The middle candidates show they are willing to compromise when reality demands it. Paul and Trump show what they value – what their goals are. It doesn’t matter whose knowledge or plan is best, because no plan is ever fulfilled. Rather, it is the value system one holds that tells voters what a candidate will strive to do, despite one obstacle after another. Paul values one survival function, that of acquiring resources (the economy), whereas Trump values both aspects of survival in humans: prosperity and victory.


In the beginning of this country, one had to own land in order to vote. Later, one had only to live here – and be an adult.

Back then, by 18 one was an adult. High school was not universal. Later, at 21 one was considered an adult, could sign a contract, and vote.

Currently, few people function as an adult by 21. The car rental companies know this, and charge more for drivers under 25. The healthcare

industry has acknowledged it, covering youngsters until they are 26.

Basically, as society became more complicated, one needed more education or experience in order to function as an independent adult.

But they can still vote at age 18 or 21. That’s a real problem, of course. It is as if the children are running the household.

By the editorial staff of



Donald Trump’s rise in the polls resulted from a variety of factors, as does most everything. The media pointed out most of them. However, there is onE that he likely did intuitively. If not intuitive, but wholly conscious, he’ll continue to use it. However, I think he’s stopped. He likely thinks telling everyone he’s a winner is one thing that works. It may, but he cannot ignore other things that worked. Here it is:

Trump uses concrete examples to communicate what he’s about, what annoys him, and what he’ll change. This is akin to charities, which use the single picture of a pitiful, hungry child, in addition to statistics, to gain donations.

Some of Trump’s examples include survival issues. “Did you see that ship, with hundreds of cars, all made in Japan? They sell them here. We buy them here, but we don’t make them. We need to bring those jobs back to America!

Now, anyone who has ever seen what he’s talking about gets it right away. That’s communication, communication that makes people understand exactly what he means. If they agree and want those jobs back in America, they’ll follow him. Remember, the most fundamental aspect of being a leader is to have followers. When people believe you will lead them where they want to go, they will follow you – and vote for you.

From the Editors of

Trump – Why 4th Grade Vocab Works

A recent front page article in the anti-Trump Boston Globe implies Donald Trump is not very bright – or that he appeals to a not very bright part of the electorate. As most people assume billionaires are dumb like a fox, the question is why using 4th grand language works.

For one, asking this question is as relevant as understanding why lots of things work. After all, if we knew the answer, we could perhaps do even better. Another reason is that with the answer, we might be able to appeal not only to the perhaps 50% of the population that reads at that level, but also to the other, let’s say 50%. This would include the, again, let’s say 49% who read at a lower level than 4th grade and to the 1% who read at a higher level – but whose words are read by all of us in “the masses.” So, it is worth understanding just why simple language works better than complex language.

One answer is akin to why writing teachers encourage writers to use Anglo-Saxon words. Yes, those simple, one-syllable (monosyllabic for the 1%) words need less brain effort to comprehend. Perfect for the masses. Less effort. Simple.

But what about the, let’s say 25% or so of us who still read books. We’re not the masses. We don’t need simple words and less brain effort. Yet such language is effective (works, to use a 4th grade word) for us, as well.

So, here’s an answer right out of human biology: The simple, one syllable words are the first ones we learned. Their meaning is at the foundation of the brain cell (neuronal) networks that build up over time and are able to decode more and more many syllable (polysyllabic) words. When we hear the most fundamental of words, their meaning is deeper. For example, “No” means “no”. It was heard from our parents, and often enough associated with other meaningful results, like a scowl or even – hush – punishment.

On the other hand, “I would consider such a possibility not to be worth pursuing” means, well, what does it mean? I mean, what does it mean, exactly. Not only does the more sophisticated rendition of “No” require many more nerve cell pathways to decipher, otherwise known as more effort, there is also a range of interpretations left in people’s minds. Mom was clear. Trump is clear. We knew what Mom meant, and we know what Trump means – at least what  he means to say.

While the percentages I’ve used here are guestimates, they make a point. Clarity will bring more votes and is more appreciated than sophistication, simplicity more than complexity, and the direct more than the obtuse.

Personally, I prefer constructions like, “See Dick run,” or “See Spot run.” Perhaps that’s why many voters prefer to, “See Don run.”

And  you?

Authored by the editorial board of



Political Biology: Gender and Race: Hillary and Barack

An interesting interview with author Ed Klein on Dick Morris’s site ( describes a manifestation of two fundamental, genetic aspects of life as played out in modern American politics.

The interview touches on the reputed speech, evidently a valedictory speech, made my Wellesley valedictorian Hillary Rodham (Clinton). The story, though likely distorted by the game of telephone over time, is that then Senator from Massachusetts Ed Brooke, the first African-American Senator since reconstruction, gave a traditional speech to the Wellesley grads, class of 1967 or thereabouts. In it, he encouraged the young women to raise the next leaders of America.

Next up Hillary evidently “tore up” her valedictory speech and, instead, “tore into” Brooke, evidently on the gender issue of ignoring women’s potential for leadership.  In the Morris interview, Klein relates that Michelle Obama and Valerie Jared still cannot forgive Hillary for those remarks against a black man. That is, though Michelle and Valerie are of Hillary’s gender, they did not praise her for supporting women by criticizing a male. Rather, they disdain her for criticizing someone of their race.

Again, while Hillary’s issue was related to gender, Michelle and Valerie could not separate it from its racial dimension.

This ranking of genetic priority of race over gender was seen in the primary of 2008. When a black man (Obama) was running against a white woman (Hillary), race seemed to trump gender. Not only did black females vote overwhelming for race over gender (Obama over Hillary), but a very visible, popular female TV personality, one whose popularity was based on gender, endorsed race over gender. That was, of course, Oprah. She endorsed Obama. Race was more important than gender.

Oprah paid heavily for this, as many of her white female viewers were turned off. That is, they turned against someone of their gender, Oprah, as she endorsed against their race. This was not any more surprising than Michelle and Jared’s attitude.

If this is viewed from a biological, evolutionary standpoint, it makes perfect sense. After all, considering that the evolutionary imperative is natural selection for more copies of one’s genes, then individuals who reproduce within their race will produce more such copies and thus be more highly selected for. That is, the behavior of mating with a member of one’s race is selected for and thus strong. There are both males and females in all races, of course. The issue biologically is to favor co-racial individuals over co-gender ones.

The wise political operative will hold this principle in mind, if not already doing so intuitively.