It was quite common in the 1800s for older men to marry much younger women and produce children with them. If paternal age were a guarantee of high mutational load, there would have been an epidemic of autism and down syndrome in the 19th century, but we find no evidence for this.
I think it's a mistake to focus on paternal age. The majority of mutations any of us have will be inherited from previous generations. The number of mutations that "matter" at all (e.g. to coding regions) that come from mutations during one man's lifetime will be very small, not much more than about 1 or 2, and most of these won't have any observable phenotypic effect.
.. that said, I'd guess that leftism arises mostly from emotions like envy that are evolved; and that we'd have leftism regardless of the average mutational load.
A possible explanation for people increasingly voting left-wing since 1945 is that the welfare state rewards more people than it penalises for voting left-wing, through welfare payments (broadly defined), subsidies and government jobs. Left-wing governments also give women pretty much anything they want (policies and free stuff), so you'd expect women pursuing their short-term self-interest to flock to the Left, which is what you see. Men are innately gynocentric so it takes a lot for them to rebel against a system that treats them as ATMs and second-class citizens in order to benefit women. However, it is not only men who are being used, but also future generations who are saddled with unsustainable debt. Women aren't reproducing at replacement levels so it is a giant ponzi scheme.
The drift to the Left also reflects the increasing proportion of elected representatives who are female. Once elected, women tend to prioritise giving women anything they want so the political parties themselves are realigned from within to serve this agenda. It has historically benefitted them at the ballot box but there are signs that this may be changing as men finally realise that they are being ruthlessly exploited.
Children of older fathers appear to tend to be more left-wing because families with older fathers are wealthier, better educated, generally more upper-class across the board. Left-wing beliefs are elite beliefs, but for some reason online rightists have this undying obsession with having it proven to them that being right-wing is a sign of being successful, well-liked, and whatever else middle-class hysterias crawl like cockroaches over the minds of people whose horizons extend to what their neighbours think of them. It would seem to me that "being right-wing" is an exercise in "going off the reservation" and howling at the moon, not in trying to replicate the neuroses of the comfortably ensconced leftists, but verily what do I know.
It was quite common in the 1800s for older men to marry much younger women and produce children with them. If paternal age were a guarantee of high mutational load, there would have been an epidemic of autism and down syndrome in the 19th century, but we find no evidence for this.
I think it's a mistake to focus on paternal age. The majority of mutations any of us have will be inherited from previous generations. The number of mutations that "matter" at all (e.g. to coding regions) that come from mutations during one man's lifetime will be very small, not much more than about 1 or 2, and most of these won't have any observable phenotypic effect.
.. that said, I'd guess that leftism arises mostly from emotions like envy that are evolved; and that we'd have leftism regardless of the average mutational load.
A possible explanation for people increasingly voting left-wing since 1945 is that the welfare state rewards more people than it penalises for voting left-wing, through welfare payments (broadly defined), subsidies and government jobs. Left-wing governments also give women pretty much anything they want (policies and free stuff), so you'd expect women pursuing their short-term self-interest to flock to the Left, which is what you see. Men are innately gynocentric so it takes a lot for them to rebel against a system that treats them as ATMs and second-class citizens in order to benefit women. However, it is not only men who are being used, but also future generations who are saddled with unsustainable debt. Women aren't reproducing at replacement levels so it is a giant ponzi scheme.
The drift to the Left also reflects the increasing proportion of elected representatives who are female. Once elected, women tend to prioritise giving women anything they want so the political parties themselves are realigned from within to serve this agenda. It has historically benefitted them at the ballot box but there are signs that this may be changing as men finally realise that they are being ruthlessly exploited.
Children of older fathers appear to tend to be more left-wing because families with older fathers are wealthier, better educated, generally more upper-class across the board. Left-wing beliefs are elite beliefs, but for some reason online rightists have this undying obsession with having it proven to them that being right-wing is a sign of being successful, well-liked, and whatever else middle-class hysterias crawl like cockroaches over the minds of people whose horizons extend to what their neighbours think of them. It would seem to me that "being right-wing" is an exercise in "going off the reservation" and howling at the moon, not in trying to replicate the neuroses of the comfortably ensconced leftists, but verily what do I know.