The Physique of Liberals and Longevity Data

The Physique of Liberals: From Stereotype to Longevity Data

Is there a “physique of liberalism”? The question sounds like a costume joke, but it has served as an archaeological site for arguments: that those who defend the free market are scruffy, bald, and sickly looking; while socialism, conversely, attracts.
The matter begins with an image and ends, as it almost always does, by discussing what a liberal country is and who pays the salaries of its prophets. The record matters: here, mockery mixes with data.

Who Lived Longer: Mises, Hayek, or Marx

The most quantifiable argument is longevity, according to the age list circulated by one participant: Ludwig von Mises died at 92, Friedrich Hayek at 92, Milton Friedman at 94, and Ron Paul surpassed 90. At the other extreme, Karl Marx died at 64 and John Maynard Keynes at 62. The implicit conclusion—that liberalism extends life—is poorly supported. Some respond that comparing those who lived before penicillin is a statistical trick and that the sample has been hand-picked. The case of Clint Eastwood, who lived past 95, does not close the circle either: some maintain he is not a liberal, and his ideological label remains disputed.

The Cemetery Bias

Methodological objection: if you search among the dead, they all smell equally bad, measure what you will. Generalizing a physical stereotype from the cases one chooses to observe does not describe an ideology; it describes the observer. Also, average physique works against the cliché: most people are ordinary, and celluloid heroes are the exception. And there is a historical counterexample: photographs of Espartero, Prim, Churchill, Washington, or Jackson do not fit the stereotype. The problem, it is argued, lies with the “modern man,” not political affiliation. Literature adds its own trap: Ayn Rand’s novels portray protagonists of improbable appearance, and this dissonance generates rejection in the reader.

The Public Payroll of the Free Market

The most uncomfortable criticism is economic. One participant argues that much of the intellectual class criticizing public spending is paid by universities, foundations, or think tanks supported by money external to the market. Against this defense—“they earn their living”—the rejoinder appears: “most of it is paid by public funds.” The paradox of the subsidized divulgator who preaches deregulation looms over this criticism.

Does a Liberal Country Exist?

The discussion descends into definitions. One current holds that there is no liberal country today because none fundamentally recognizes the negative liberties of the individual, and that only founding United States approached this historically. Another replies that there is no real socialism in the West, that the PSOE is social-democratic, and that this family was opposed by communists. A third line responds that socialism is, simply put, collectivization: and if most of the payroll is expropriated, it is socialism—call it what you will.

The analysis stalls right there. You can measure the longevity of a deceased economist; you cannot settle with a photograph what a liberal is or who pays their salary. The figures are on the table. The conversation, with or without pectorals, remains ungoverned.