If you're stuck with a name (or part of a name) you don't especially like, are you entitled to start calling yourself something else? If you do that, do the circumstances change if you run for president?

Obviously, I'm thinking about this because of the "Barack Hussein Obama" flap. I don't know what the rules are, and while I'm not fond of political correctness, I don't think the man's name is his fault, because it was given to him as an infant, and infants have about as much control over their names as they do accidents of birth. I think if you don't like your name, it is your prerogative to change it. Fortunately for John Kerry, his grandfather took care of that for him.

For whatever reason, Jimmy Carter did not like using "James Earl Carter" -- to the point where he never used it, no one called him that, and he was even formally sworn in under the name of Jimmy Carter.

I think Barack Obama is entitled to be sworn in minus the "Hussein" if that is what he wants.

Obviously, none of this forbids anyone from referring to him as "Barack Hussein Obama," or for those who demand red meat, the more reproachful, Coulter-preferred appellation of B. Hussein Obama. I don't think this is much of an indictment of Obama, though. It's so shallow and opportunistic as to be an act of desperation, and I think it's a classic ad hominem attack, because the implication is that anyone unfortunate enough to have been given a name shared by a bad person must somehow be bad.

Woe be unto anyone with the middle name of Adolf.

As a red meat political tactic, though, it can't be denied that invoking the "Hussein" specter is a good way to rally the troops, if not whip people into a frenzy. Those who like red meat will drool in Pavlovian-style anticipation. However, I don't think it has much persuasive value. Obviously, the red meaters dislike Obama, and would never vote for him anyway, so they're not persuaded of anything (any more than a dog is "persuaded" that it wants to eat a steak by waving a steak in front of its nose). As to the people who aren't sure -- the ones who are thinking about voting for Obama, I think this ad hominem tactic would be lost on them, and it might make them more inclined to vote for him, not less. (That's why Hillary wouldn't be caught dead using it.)

I don't know why Jimmy Carter didn't like James Earl Carter. Was it his populism? Certainly "Jimmy" sounds more folksy and down-to-earth than "James Earl." Might the name of the King assassin "James Earl Ray" have had anything to do with it? Things like word associations are subtle, and work on the unconscious mind, and I think it is quite possible that irrational voters might have been a bit uncomfortable with "James Earl Carter" precisely because of the assassination ring. Even now, people still remember that name. If you told random citizens to fill in the blank in "James Earl ______" I'd be willing to bet that in the 1970s, most people would have immediately said "Ray." Even now , a lot of people would, and I think Jimmy Carter was well aware of that.

Ditto having the first two names of "Lee Harvey." A lot of us would change a name like that, and I think few American mothers would choose that combination as names for their baby -- and even if the dad was named Harvey and the father in law was named Lee, they still wouldn't do it.

Or, take the name of that British champion of freedom, and friend of the American revolution, the great John Wilkes. Countless American babies were named after him, but as circumstances would have it, one of them grew up to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

No one in his right mind would say that this assassination made John Wilkes look bad, but the tradition of naming American babies in his honor died a sudden death. Even now, I'd be willing to bet that not too many babies are named in honor of John Wilkes -- simply because of the irrational association with the assassin's name.

Something about the fact that a bad guy could make the name of a good guy live forever in infamy troubles me, because it is so deeply irrational, and poorly understood. There's no consistent rule, though. "John Wayne Gacy" didn't manage to tar the name of the actor, and I'm sure many American babies are still given Marion Morrison's stage name. (I also think that had Wayne run for president, he would not have been sworn in as Marion Morrison.) OTOH, I seriously doubt anyone named "Gacy" would ever consider running for president, as the name will live forever in Google infamy. (Wannabe sickos, of course, exult in playing name games.)

But these things fascinate me, and it's why (no matter how disgusted I become with politics), I continue to blog.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I am not trying to smugly condemn human irrationality here, and I don't know whether it comes off that way. Not only do I understand why mothers would hesitate to name babies after John Wilkes, but if I had a baby I wouldn't either. I would refuse to inflict on a child a name associated with popular prejudice, because that would make it tough on the child. Whether this means that I too am a coward ruled by popular prejudices, or whether it's a simple acknowledgment of a reality I cannot change -- those are questions for moralists, philosophers, and shrinks. (Personally though, I don't think it would be morally justified to "stand up to popular prejudice" by dragging an unconsenting child into such an argument.)

MORE: Discussing Michelle Obama's complaint that the Hussein name is being used as a "fear bomb," Tom Maguire (via Glenn Reynolds) has an interesting post about "He Who Must Not Be Middle-Named."

I'm a bit curious about what Obama should or could do about this, as I think he may be in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position. He's getting flak for name chosen for him at birth by others, which apparently he would rather not use. (In that respect, the phrase "keeping it in the closet" might be said to apply.) Obviously, he cannot deny his middle name. But does that mean he should start using it again? I think if he did that, he'd be in for even more criticism -- because he would then be seen as being proud of a name for which he should be dutifully shamed -- and it might even be claimed that "Hussein" was now his "choice."

It's probably too late to change "Hussein" to "John Wayne."

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all. I see that Don Surber is holding a Barack Obama middle name contest, and TigerHawk makes an excellent point about how a Republican with an unfortunate middle name would be treated.

Hell, they couldn't even leave Bush's middle initial alone.

(Alas, poor Dubya.)

While we're on the subject of names, there's probably much to be the Hillary Clinton approach to falsely bragging about name origins, then blaming your mother.

On a final note, I was feeling guilty about the Hillary Rodham Clinton name anagram I discovered -- "Halt Old Horny Criminal" (and "Old Horny Maniac Thrill") -- because I didn't do the same with "Barack Hussein Obama."

So, after much soul-searching I finally decided to do the fair thing, and I came up with "Bareback Human Oasis."

Well, horny old criminals have to have somewhere to go, don't they?