Psychohistorical Insights Prior to the 2016 Election

The importance of the 2016 election loomed over us as 15 other members of the Forum and I sat around seminar tables inside Fordham University’s Lincoln Center in Manhattan at the November 5, 2016 election meeting. We sought to make sense of this unusual election that has evoked intense emotions for so many. Moderator Jacques Szaluta kept the group focused on the psychology of the election. I was struck by the fact that convener/director Paul Elovitz was quiet throughout most of the meeting, except when presenting, addressed, or his writings were the central focus—he is the type of leader who wants to hear what others have to say. The morning was brightened by the sunshine pouring in from large windows and the smell of fresh doughnuts and pastries brought by two colleagues. Our Fordham host, Harold Takooshian, took pictures during the meeting, which we have posted on our website (www.cliospsyche.org).

Following meeting protocol, we began with introductions accompanied by questions for the presenters Herbert Barry (University of Pittsburgh), Ken Fuchsman (University of Connecticut), and Paul Elovitz (Clio’s Psyche). All three are scholars with long experience doing presidential psychobiography. They spoke in order of the distance they had traveled, so Herbert Barry, hailing from Pittsburgh, presented his paper, “Decisions Shortly Before Election Day.” Barry described the mindset of voters as the election approached in 1980, and compared that to the uncertainty of many voters as this year’s election grew nearer. Fuchsman, who came to the Manhattan meeting from Connecticut, presented “Temperament and Truthfulness,” a paper that addressed the campaigns of Trump and Clinton, as well as their careers. Elovitz expanded on this topic as he presented his psychobiographical comparison of the two candidates. He also described how negative publicity has worked so well for Trump throughout his business, TV entertainment, and now political careers, while negative publicity has had quite the opposite effect on Hillary Clinton’s career. His papers, “A Few Free Associations on Election 2016” and “A Presidential Psychobiographer’s Countertransference to Trump,” were mailed to members prior to the meeting partly to explain the difficulties of maintaining objectivity and even-handedness in the face of intense negative feelings for Donald J. Trump.

The questions and concerns posed, but not answered, during the introductions, included David Lotto’s concern that Clinton, with her call

Page 328

for a “no fly zone” over Syria where Russian planes are active, might provoke a war with Russia. After everyone seated around the tables introduced themselves and asked their questions, the 20 minutes of presenters’ comments began.

Subsequently, the attendees’ inquiries were addressed by the group and a vigorous discussion opened with Candace Orcutt’s and Joyce Rosenberg’s questions regarding the role of gender in the election and connections to Oedipal issues. Elovitz agreed that there is definitely some element of the campaigns that represents paternal and maternal figures arguing for control of a family. Rosenberg also noted that some hesitation of American voters to choose Hillary may be a fear of a mother regaining control of a child’s life. These ideas flowed into dialogue regarding Hillary’s image as a cold woman, which does not fit the expectation of a warm, motherly woman. Jeannie Seitler commented, “nobody wants to hang out with Hillary!”

The conversation eventually moved to Tom Ferraro’s hypothesis that America may have an unconscious death wish evidenced by the lack of fear that Trump, an unpredictable man, might try to use nuclear weapons. A fresh start, a rebirth, seems to have appeal in America. This inspired Michael Britton’s allusion to Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), specifically the final scene in which the old man becomes a fetus, floating alongside Earth. This idea, that a vote for Trump was a vote for a return to a new start may exist somewhere within the unconscious of Americans.

Ken Fuchsman noted the incredible strain the lengthy electoral process puts on candidates and the American people. Candidates are far more concerned with campaigning than governing and the people suffer through an extended psychodrama so often. He also contrasted this system to the parliamentary system that exists in Britain, which squeezes elections into a span of weeks or a month. Elovitz noted that the current American system grew out of the desire to democratize the process and rid the parties of crooked bosses. While the intent was to democratize, who knows what other negative consequences came of this change. Some at the meeting argued that the election season more closely resembles a season of a reality TV show, allowing reality stars like Trump to have tremendous success in this format. We live in an ultra-competitive society obsessed with celebrity, evidenced by the fact that the single most unifying event in the nation is the Super Bowl, as pointed out by Ken Fuchsman. Now, this mass celebrity culture has seeped into the political culture.

Much of the meeting’s focus was on the divisiveness of this election. The obstructionism and gridlock that have plagued the administration, Congress, and the country was a point focused on by Fuchsman, who predicted that this Republican policy would not end with a Clinton

Page 329

administration. Now that the Republicans surprisingly have taken the presidency, while retaining the House and the Senate, they have made this a moot point. According to Ferraro, the United States becoming a one-party system seems the inevitable result of the current polarization. The meeting took place three days prior to the election, and a focus was how the disappointment of Trump supporters might be vented after the expected Clinton victory.

For many, this election was more about the economy than anything. Tom Ferraro, among many others, spoke of the impact Americans are still feeling from the 2008 recession. While recovery has happened for many, there are still those in middle America who feel forgotten and left behind. The wound of the Great Recession is still fresh. Understanding the mindsets of Trump supporters and their perceived realities is crucial to understanding this most unusual presidential election. Of course, for millions it was about choosing between two disliked candidates.

The meeting was adjourned as the presenters responded to the final questions and everyone felt an exhaustion, not only from the long morning of discussion, but also the lengthy electoral cycle that exhausted the concerned public as well as candidates.

Page 330