“Be it remembred that, although most of the Scientific Arts, such as evolusion or embriologie, must be dismised as Demonnes from the Mouthe of Helle, a true Conseruativ minde may still holde in high regarde the keene and subtle Science of Numerologie.”
If my great ancestor Edward Kelley were alive today, I am sure he would say something like this. Science has been so overtaken by the liberal agenda that certain respectable fields, such as numerology and the occult, appear to have been left in the dust simply because they do not conform to the bigoted hegemony of the left liberal elites. But the truth is that numerology is a strict and exact science that can be used for great purpose, including a precise analysis of the political ideologies of past presidents and our current presidential candidates.
From a numerological perspective, the first step in the task of such an evaluation is clearly, and in sympatico with the theme of this site, to determine the level of liberal bias of individual letters in the alphabet. This determination can be done in a quite straightforward manner by taking the names of all past and present Presidents of the United States, and counting the number of times each letter occurs in their names, and then grouping those Presidents by their political party. This will produce the following table of letter-occurrences:
As you can see, there is only one president who was a member of “no party” (George Washington), and he had 16 letters in his name. You can see in this table the total number of letters counted for all of the names of Presidents in a particular party, with the average letter count per name in the right column. Republican names tended to be longer on average, but only by one letter: 13.9 letters per Republican President name, on average, compared to 12.9 letters per name for Democrats.
The yellow row calculates the amount of liberal bias for each letter by taking the number of times a letter appears in Democratic President names and subtracting the number of times a letter appears in Republican President names. Clearly, a letter that appears much more often in Democratic President names has a strong liberal bias, and will therefore have a very high number. On the other hand, if a letter prefers to appear in Republican President names, it will have a negative number.
It is interesting to note that the most Liberal letter in the alphabet is N, whereas the most conservative letter in the alphabet is tied between H and R. This makes intuitive sense, with John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton as obvious examples of liberally-biased N-words, and Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower as obvious R- and H-words.
Once we have calculated the total liberal bias of each letter, we can then go back and calculate the overall liberal bias of each President’s name. The calculation is simple: Add the liberal bias score of each letter in the President’s name together to get the total liberal bias score of the name. Thus, for example, the liberal bias of the name “Herbert Hoover” would be -102 (extremely conservative), whereas the liberal bias of the name “John F. Kennedy” would be 2 (on the liberal side).
This computation for every President has produced the graph at the top of this article. The Presidents are ordered from the most liberal (Lyndon B. Johnson) to the most conservative (Dwight Eisenhower), and are colored according to their party: red for Republicans; blue for Democrats; orange for Whigs; green for Federalists; and purple for Democratic-Republicans. On the far right, I have also included Obama and Mitt Romney side-by-side for comparison.
This graph also shows that the median score for all presidents is -45, which is fairly conservative. This only proves the well-known point that we live in a “center-right” country. As expected, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton are on the extreme liberal side, while George Bush and Founding Father George Washington are on the conservative side.
It is a little surprising that Ronald Reagan is close to the median and right next to Jimmy Carter. However, upon further reflection this makes sense for a number of reasons: 1) the country as a whole is very conservative, so although Reagan is near the “middle” his score is still -49 which is very conservative, 2) Perhaps the reason Reagan was so popular was exactly because he agreed with most of the country, and 3) the fact that Jimmy Carter is in the middle doesn’t reflect anything about his values, but rather the fact that he was totally spineless and therefore was “neutral” and ineffective on most issues. In the case of Jimmy Carter, the correct numerological interpretation of him being in the “median” is that he was completely ineffective in every way.
Finally, we can see that Obama is much more liberal than the median, and of course is much more liberal than Mitt Romney, who is only slightly on the conservative side of the median. This reflects the well-known fact that although the liberal media want to paint Romney as some kind of extremist, he is obviously a slightly conservative, but primarily moderate, candidate who is totally in touch with the people.
It’s all there in the numbers.