Atypical People Pursue the Power of the Presidency (article)

We will soon elect this century’s first President and, whenever I think of presidential politics, I think of power. Since the President’s decisions affect millions of people, it is useful to consider the candidates’ relationship to power because the effect of that power devolves from the President’s own core values and personal history, including unresolved issues. My central question is: What kind of person will exercise power over the nation?

This year’s two major candidates, Albert Gore and George W. Bush, are dissimilar personalities in many ways, but both share at least three features: (1) both are men, (2) both are sons of politically successful fathers, and (3) both possess a clear desire for executive power. As Presidential candidates they are atypical people, since only a few seriously pursue this office. What differentiates those who want extraordinary power from the majority who do not? What motivates them to want to be set apart from, and perhaps above, the rest? Is it a sense of entitlement? Is it the grandiose notion that no one else can do what they can do? Is it, in this particular election, a need to supersede paternal accomplishments? Or, might it be a sincere desire to serve people, emanating from a psychologically healthy personality?

The depth psychologies provide various frameworks for examining such questions. For example, Alfred Adler maintains that when individuals experience certain inferiorities, a pathological superiority complex may result through overcompensation. Karen Horney, agreeing, discusses the neurotic need for power as one manifestation of neurosis. Personal experience tells us that people who are “power-hungry” may connive until they achieve their goal, as if only power can vitalize them or make them feel important and different. Notice that the language employs an oral metaphor relative to those pursuing extraordinary power, implying that achieving it will “fill them up” in some incorporative, survival-related way.

Numerous psychologists suggest that excessive power pursuits demonstrate a lack of centeredness, that is, an imbalance of needs and drives within the ego system. This would, of course, be true if primary incorporation needs were unfulfilled or if oedipal conflicts were being acted out through power pursuits. These issues and conflicts can be acted out on the world stage or in personal relationships. In The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm says that overpowering another (i.e., pathological power) is the opposite of love, and this comports with theologian Paul Tillich’s view that controlling organisms in a manner inconsistent with their nature renders them objects of coercion. If manipulation is used to buttress this goal, a false sense of strength results. In general, then, we should be wary of those who need excessive power over others. The Taoist sage Lao-tzu many centuries ago said, “He who loves his body more than dominion over the empire can be given the custody of the empire.” In other words, he should rule who does not need to rule. Perhaps Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., are models of Lao-tzu’s wise counsel.

Balancing one’s internal reality is difficult but vital for psychological health. When certain drives or forces overwhelm the personality, other dimensions suffer underdevelopment. True strength derives from seeing clearly and honestly, something one cannot do when being pulled and pushed by intractable, unresolved and, perhaps unconscious needs. The internally strong person is a reflective self-knower, whose fears and issues have been largely worked through. An illustrative case may be Socrates, who, refusing to compromise his personal, internal truth, moved beyond his fear and, on principle, drank the hemlock. Real strength eschews a facsimile of power, since real strength comes from within the personality structure. Substituting power for internal strength is false strength.

Compensating for insufficient internal strength does not, per se, disallow a powerful person’s doing good things, nor am I implying that healthy people never attain extraordinary positions of power. Perhaps Richard Nixon, lacking self-confidence, being deceptive, and manifesting pos-

Page 53

sible paranoia at times, exemplifies the former, while Jimmy Carter, to the best of my knowledge, exemplifies the latter. Abraham Lincoln, now a mythical hero, is not as clear a case. Nonetheless, plagued with unbalancing, depressive episodes and suicidal ideas, he appears to have transcended those challenges to keep the Union intact. But, although good behaviors often suggest a “goodness of person,” we know that what appears to be true may not be. We must certainly apprehend the pattern of a leader’s acts, but we must also explore what fuels that pattern. Is the apparent goodness of behavior the natural outgrowth of a fundamentally healthy personality or is it actually an approval-seeking dependency or oedipal process unraveling in a socially beneficial form? To understand this, one must understand the person.

I consider many pursuers of any type of excessive power as people working through oedipal and pre-oedipal issues. I think that, for them, there is still someone to please, someone to feel above, someone to defeat. Life is a battle in which there are winners and losers, as in children’s games. Appearing vulnerable or dependent is forbidden, although these are shared dimensions of the human condition. Having once attained power, retention is vital since its loss constitutes a return to peerage, where dependency and narcissistic threats are no longer shrouded by the visage of power. Losing means not being “good enough” to win (to be loved?). But, win for whom? Win for what? One can only hope that, if oedipal or pre-oedipal issues are unconscious motivators for the two major candidates, the future President can resist unnecessary conflicts with father-images and avoid succumbing to the need for excessive approval by maternal symbols.

Given our brief discussion, are there any guidelines for selecting the best integrated person for the Presidency? This is an exacting question, but the indicators below may provide some general direction.

First, in everyday life we evaluate others by observing them — their facial and verbal reactions, and their behavioral patterns. Watching candidates’ areas of blockage, tension, and impulsive reactions is important. How is the head held? Is there an appearance of arrogance or entitlement? How does the candidate diminish an opponent? Does the candidate manifest an easy flow or a pressured force? When under pressure, is the candidate straightforward without defensiveness or overly intense and abrasively reactive?

Second, is winning everything? The health-y candidate’s life will be broader than winning an office. Resorting to pathological manipulation, distorting the other’s record, and creating false impressions through half-truths indicate the candidate’s lack of internal power. In this case, the loss of the office suggests an overidentification with the office that may be tantamount to a loss of the self.

Third, what is and has been the candidate’s typical lifestyle? Assuming that lifestyles of power-seeking engender self-sustaining strategies (e.g., ambition, pandering), we may conclude that what gives meaning to the power seeker’s life is, in fact, not merely the pursuit of power itself, but the systematic maintenance of those qualities that sustain it. Healthy people use few defenses and those are typically adaptive rather than destructive. Moreover, the research shows a strong positive correlation between the number of defenses employed and a person’s degree of psychological dysfunction.

Fourth, I find it helpful to distinguish between authority and power. To possess authority means to author, to invent, to create, so I conceptualize directive authority as a type of creative “authoring” of policies, programs, and ethical compromises. Power means unidirectional force. Will the candidate likely rule creatively and cooperatively or through intimidation? Can he command respect for who he is rather than fear for punishments he might bestow?

Finally, is the political aspirant oriented toward using power for unifying rather than divisive ends, even though this may be unpopular? Without this ability, Tillich argues, power will likely become coercive.

In conclusion, let us not become unduly cynical when selecting our President, even though we may have a sense that chicanery is required for achieving political goals. Our task is to elect the candidate who will use political power well. He will be fundamentally balanced, internally strong, humbled by serving, and self-reflective. His decisions will reveal his considered values and others’ reasoned input rather than popular opinion or whim. To better ensure this kind of leader, we should carefully attend to the candidates’ styles, watch for indicators of centeredness and integrity, as well as his ability to govern cooperatively and well. We should also note defensive patterns, arrogant and impatient styles, and the intensity of the desire for power itself. Then, after careful observation and information-gathering, we can assess

Page 54

who might enter the White House with more efficacy than transference issues, and who has the stronger core of values — one that, in our best judgment, has been tested against the exigencies of life.

Page 55