Skip to main content

Even if Rand Paul gets elected president next year, you probably won't see too many more kids being named "Rand" than in years past. And there are scant more "Baracks" now than seven years ago, according to baby-name records.  

If you're having kids, you might be more likely to give them colorful monikers like "Bodhi Ransom," "Apollo Bowie Flynn," or "Buzz Michelangelo," which are not random word combinations I just made up. They are the names of children born to celebrities Megan Fox, Gwen Stefani and Tom Fletcher, respectively, in 2014.

And in this way, it turns out, celebrities are just like us. More Americans are getting extra creative when picking out names for their kids, as opposed to in times past when a film star or politician who rose to popularity would leave in the wake of their celebrity nurseries full of babies named "Truman," say.

Here's something to consider: If you have a baby girl after next year's presidential election, and Hillary Clinton wins the White House, you might consider naming your daughter "Clinton."

It might just be the most on-trend name you could give her at that point. Let me explain why.

"There's an ever-growing desire for uniqueness from a generation of mothers who grew up as Jennifer H. or Melissa R.," said Linda Rosenkrantz, a baby name expert and author and co-creator of naming Web site Nameberry, in an email to TheStreet.

A 2010 study on trends in baby naming in the United States by researchers from San Diego State University and the University of Georgia found that today parents are much less likely to give their children common names than they were in decades past.

In the 1950s, more than 30% of newborn boys received one of the 10 most common names, compared to under 10% today. The percentage of girls getting one of the 50 most common names has fallen to just over 20% from over 50% since the 1950s.

"It's a pretty substantial shift," said Jean Twenge, one of the researchers behind the study and author of Generation Me, a 2014 book on how millennials have redefined what it means to be an individual in today's society. 

"Since the 1970s, the way we name after people has changed utterly," said Laura Wattenberg, name expert and author of The Baby Name Wizard. "We have seen almost an abandonment in our society of hero-naming."

For proof, she pointed to parents naming children after U.S. presidents. "It used to be that every new president, and even every major candidate, would be honored by a slew of little baby namesakes. Since Watergate, we just don't do that anymore," she said.

In 1932, the year Franklin D. Roosevelt became president, his first name catapulted to the 66th most popular baby name in the United States from the 147th the year before. And in 1933, the year he took office, it became the 33rd most popular name for newborn boys, with 5,360 births.

When Barack Obama was elected to the White House in 2008, 52 baby boys were given his name, and 69 the following year. Since then, however, the name has steadily declined in popularity, and it has never broken the top 1,000 names in the U.S. To give a frame of reference, the 1,000th most popular name for boys in 2014 was Rylen; "Barack" is less popular than even that. (Think where a girl named "Clinton" would fall: More on that later.)

"In the past, losing candidates and vice presidents inspired more namesakes than Barack Obama did being elected," said Wattenberg. 

One arena from which parents still appear to draw significantly for name ideas is sports.

A recent ESPN article noted the "Peyton" phenomenon in Indiana, with a slew of children named after Peyton Manning, who was the starting quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts from 1998 to 2011 (and now plays for the Denver Broncos). A snapshot of life at an Indiana high school from the article: "The football, delivered with startling swiftness by Peyton Williams, soars over a thicket of outstretched limbs and lands 40 yards away in the hands of Peyton Trexler."

TheStreet Recommends

Something similar occurred with Tom Brady. In 2000, the year the quarterback was drafted by the Patriots, 19 baby boys in Massachusetts were given the name "Brady." In 2007, when the Patriots went undefeated in the NFL's regular season, 213 were given that name. But the "Brady" name trend started to decline the following year and has continued to do so since.

But celebrity-inspired naming trends today are generally short-lived.

Beyoncé sang, "Say my name," in the 1999 Destiny's Child track by the same title. And soon, more of us were. In 2001, the year the band won its first Grammy and released its third album, 353 newborn baby girls in the United States were given the name "Beyoncé." But by 2002, just 153 newborn girls were given the same name as the starlet, and more than a decade later in 2014, 22 U.S. babies born that year were named Beyoncé.

The name "Madonna" peaked at 146 babies born in 1985 (the year after "Like a Virgin" was released), only to dip down to 70 in 1986. "Kanye" got a bump to 507 baby boys born in 2004 when rapper Kayne West's debut album, The College Dropout, hit the shelves. The next year, just 202 newborn babies got that name.

By contrast, in 1939, the year The Wizard of Oz was released, starring Judy Garland, the name "Judy" shot to the 28th most popular name for baby girls in the United States, with 8,083 babies born. In 1940, it moved into the 16th spot, with 11,381 births. It did not drop below the 20th spot until 1950.

"Either the celebrity slips out of view and we forget the name, or the name simply loses its freshness and novelty appeal. When the name does stick around, it tends to outgrow its origin. For instance, when you meet a woman named Samantha you probably don't think of Bewitched," Wattenberg said.

Parents may be hesitant to call their children after someone who could potentially fall from grace (whether you love Hillary Clinton or hate her, you know it's a distinct possibility that she will make at least some enemies as president; now back to our narrative). It is an issue, too, that plagues companies that use celebrity endorsers (Subway and Jared Fogle or Accenture and Tiger Woods).

"Parents today seem a little bit reluctant to tie their child's name to a living figure whose life might go in any direction," said Wattenberg. "I think that phenomenon struck the business world in the case of making someone other than your company the face of your company. You're sort of putting your image in someone else's hands." 

While some are quick to point to the age of the Internet as a reason parents are no longer naming their children alike (the idea being when people search for names and realize how popular they are, they decide against them), the trend toward uniqueness in naming dates back long before the World Wide Web and is evidenced in other aspects of life. It could be part of a greater shift toward a culture of individualism.

A 2014 study points to eight markers of individualism in the United States, all of which increased over the course of the 20th century. The list of indicators includes individualist themes in book, frequency of single-child families, percentage of adults living alone and uniqueness in baby naming.

They key could be the massive 21st century shift to an information economy from an agrarian and manufacturing one, according to Michael Varnum, assistant professor of psychology at Arizona State University and one of the study's authors.

"We see a shift in the kind of names people gave their kids, reflecting this greater desire to sort of stand out rather than fit in," he said. 

Some parents appear to believe that naming girls more like boys gives them an edge at work as well. They are increasingly choosing traditionally male names for girls, and research suggests it will benefit them. Studies show that girls with linguistically feminine names may be more likely to shy away from math and science than those with more androgynous ones and that women with male names have more successful legal careers.

"We've seen a lot of unisex names go over on the girls' side, and I believe that's kind of a way of putting the women or the daughters at an even playing field with the boys. Historically, we perceive masculinity as strength, so you'll see names going from the boys' side to the girls' side, but not vice versa," said Jennifer Moss, founder and CEO of BabyNames.com.

Celebrities are doing it. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, named their newborn daughter "Max." Actors Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds named their daughter "James" (she was born in December 2014). Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler and his wife, former reality TV star Kristin Cavalleri, named their baby girl "Saylor James" (born in November 2015). (Bristol Palin, daughter of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, has said she plans to name her baby, due in December, the same but spelled differently, perhaps "Sailor.") 

But if Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, manages to capture the White House, don't expect a raft of boys named "Hillary" -- or girls, for that matter. When she hit the national stage as the First Lady in the early 1990s, her name spiked to the 132nd most popular name in 1992 but then quickly dropped to the 566th spot by 1994. It hasn't been within the top 1,000 names since 2008.

And that's exactly why you might consider naming your daughter "Clinton," if Hillary manages to win: It's generally a boy's name (checked box on that trend); people don't name their kids after presidents anymore, so it would be unique (check, again); even if there was a spike in girls named "Clinton" following the election, it would probably short-lived (check); it could help with her career; and what's a more individualistic namesake than the first woman president? 

Or, you could name your daughter "Donald." Trump, a celebrity and candidate, hasn't seen his first name in the top 1,000 since 1946.