Letter: What political difference?

From Vincent Campbell, Department of Media and Communication, University of Leicester

I was very interested in the ideas presented in Jim Giles’s discussion of the possible genetic roots of political preference (2 February, p 28) and its even-handed consideration of what is obviously a contentious concept.

The real problem for me, however, is the way this is being framed by predominantly American researchers, and their use of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” as if they were actually meaningful in American politics.

It gets worse outside the US, where the distinction between “liberal” capitalists and “conservative” capitalists is so small that it barely exists at all.

Taking the four remaining major US presidential candidates as an example, is it any wonder that factors other than these labels seem more important to their chances of success? Hillary Clinton’s chances seem less determined by “liberalness” than by gender, Barack Obama’s by race, Mitt Romney’s by religion and John McCain’s by age.

None of this undermines the possibility of some genetic influence on political preference, which seems as logical as the idea of genetic influence on pretty much any aspect of human behaviour. However, a better approach might be to use labels that are not parochial to an illusion of political difference in mainstream American politics.

Leicester, UK