A Psychoanalyst’s Ambivalence toward McCain and Obama

The Anxiety of Having to Make a Choice

The human condition is often characterized by ambivalence, with it feelings of uncertainty and anxiety. At times, the feelings of anxiety are so pervasive and so disturbing for some people that they cannot make choices, preferring instead, to be told what to do, a thesis eloquently put forth by Erich Fromm in his book, Escape from Freedom (1941). While at the moment I steadfastly refuse to be compelled to choose one specific candidate

Page 57

over another in the upcoming presidential election, I, nonetheless, wish one stood out for me so clearly that the “choice” required nothing more than a cursory second-thought. I recognize that the significance of a presidential election makes this choice critical, especially in the light of the serious problems confronting the United States: a weak economy, a neglected infrastructure symbolized by collapsing bridges, a deteriorating relationship with traditional, long-time allies, a loss of respect in the world at large, and the knotty Iraq enmeshment. Perhaps my greater emphasis on this particular presidential election is a reaction formation against what has transpired over the last nearly eight years, which is making me place greater stress this time on getting it right. Every vote counts, and every vote should be counted. This adds weight to my ultimate decision and becomes my inner dilemma.

So how do I as an analyst (speaking only for myself) get past my own ambivalence in matters like this? Below I will discuss the processes involved in understanding the nature of one’s conflicts, resolving them, and in making decisions.

Manifest and Latent Content in Political Issues

Freud suggested that in matters of importance, such as the choice of one’s career or spouse, decisions were best left to the unconscious. In fact, I believe that this is exactly what happens the moment people who are among the “undecideds” enter the voting booth. Does this mean that the issues on which each candidate runs become meaningless?

From a psychoanalytic perspective, the “issues,” may be compared to the manifest content of a dream. Raising and discussing issues of a campaign are important, but they are not sufficient. Analytically, it is also important to dig beneath surface discussions of “issues” so that we may uncover unconscious factors—the latent content. The former represents the workings of the more readily conscious, explicit verbal secondary process, while the latter constitutes the operation of the largely unconscious, implicit nonverbal primary process. While it is true that our cognitive state influences many of our choices, more often than not, it is our

Page 58

unconscious that predominates in dictating which course of action we tend to take. A famous example of this was seen in the public’s perception of and reaction to Richard Nixon’s pale visage in his first TV debate with John Kennedy, who, in contrast, presented a clean-cut, strikingly handsome image. In the above case, our unconscious imagistic representation of how a president should appear favored Kennedy’s friendly-appearing persona over the dour-looking Nixon personality.

Images, Wishes, and Fears

McCain and Obama’s handlers full well understand the importance of carefully sculpting an image that creates a positive impression. According to psychoanalytic thinking, a positive impression may occur in various ways. It may develop as a result of tapping into already existing images, pictures of an idealized leader, or a romanticized archetype residing in the collective unconscious. In addition, a candidate may actively seek to stimulate needs in voters or arouse a host of unconscious wishes or fantasies in them and then promise that he will be the person who can fulfill those wishes. On the other side of the ledger, candidates also may purposely stir up deep fears that people harbor inside by subtlety insinuating that voting for the opposing nominee will bring about the realization of those fears. An example of this was seen in the television ads that stirred up considerable controversy in which Hillary Clinton attempted to raise anxiety levels by showing what could happen if there was a nuclear attack on America and asking us who would we prefer to have in the White House at the ready for a 3:00 A.M. telephone call, someone like her who has been close to the center of power, or the less experienced Barack Obama?

Transference to the Candidates

In addition, transferences invariably arise in terms of how we perceive, or more accurately, misperceive who a candidate is. According to psychoanalysis, transference refers to a process in which an individual unconsciously sees and reacts to someone as though that person were someone else, usually a figure that was important during the individual’s formative years. This was clearly seen with Ronald Reagan, who reminded many of us of a kindly father-knows-best figure. Had he been chubbier, his body and his jolly red face would have looked remarkably comfortable if decked out in a Santa suit.

If this is so, then whom do we see when we look at John McCain III and Barack Obama Jr.? McCain’s broad toothy smile and locked in place jaw remind me of the Cheshire Cat or Jack Nicholson. As for Barack Obama, is he the second-coming of the oratory talents of John Kennedy? Or closer to home, is he a version of my older brother as a young man—a child prodigy with a gift for relating to people, seeing into them and capturing their essence on canvas with oil or acrylic paint— in Obama’s case, with words? Perhaps he is the symbolic embodiment and reminder of my generation from the Sixties who marched, protested, and sat-in for Civil Rights, pushed to get our country out of Vietnam, and who fostered a feminist movement, as well as a sexual revolution?

I admit I fear that if seventy-two year-old McCain, a cancer survivor, or Obama as the first

Page 59

black president is elected, something terrible will happen and he will not serve out his full term of office. This is also one of the reasons I am ambivalent about voting for Obama. Here is a man who says he advocates change. I fear that unconscious racial hatreds are still strong enough to rise up once again to pose a threat to the emotional stability and survival of Obama, thus injuring the nation.

Identification

In addition to transferential influences on the decision-making process, identification plays a role. Candidates seek to become societal “loved ones” (“objects” in psychoanalytic terminology) for us to identify with. In McCain’s case, he is being promoted as a Vietnam War hero who suffered greatly as a result of his jet having been shot down, and his being captured and tortured. Except for the most unfeeling individuals, this narrative elicits a wellspring of compassion and empathy. To question his story, or even suggest that he “caved under pressure” when he signed an anti-American propaganda statement as a prisoner of war, seems cold and insensitive. Because of this inhibition, his saga is unassailable and we are left with an image of heroism. Despite the fact that the question of his leadership qualities is never raised in this vignette, we are somehow left with the impression that it is unquestionable.

While Obama cannot point to any dramatic heroic actions in his vita (save for going into tough neighborhoods as a community organizer), his camp seeks to portray him as a man of change, youthful, vigorous, dynamic, and willing to speak his mind for a noble ideal. Contrasted with that, McCain’s people would like him to be perceived as a brave maverick, an independent thinker, and a tough old warrior.

Rhetoric that the candidates use is tested with focus groups and often specifically designed to further the aims of the image-makers whose purpose typically is to offer sound bytes that are in keeping with the image of the candidate. By reaching into the inner labyrinths of the unconscious where our urges are located, feelings may be evoked that are strong enough to elicit positive attitudes towards a specific candidate, followed by selective actions—in the form of voting for that candidate. It is my contention that the “issues,” become the conscious vehicle by which the imagistic message makes its way to the unconscious. Thus, whether we ought, or ought not to be in Iraq, it is secondary to the ultimate goal of unconsciously winning the hearts and minds of potential voters. So, on the issue of Iraq, the Obama campaign will attempt to draw from the public’s unconscious will by linking McCain to the negative attitudes people have these days of George Bush. McCain, in return, will try to nullify Obama’s brilliant oratorical skills by codifying him as an elitist. In so doing, Obama’s ideals can be dismissed as “pie-in-the-sky” idealism, and reduced to the junk heap of gallant, but impractical and unrealistic ideas. Obama’s mission will have to be to arouse the dreams, wishes, and aspirations of greatness that are secretly stored up within so many of us. But he will have to convince the unconscious that the lofty pictures that he paints are possible. Because his experience as a legislator is limited, he will have to persuade us that the office makes the man, rather than the other way around. McCain has the weakness, despite serving in the Senate a great deal longer than Obama, of not having any significant executive experience. By his own repeated and then denied admissions, McCain does not understand economics.

Both candidates will have to find a way to persuade us that their limitations are not obstacles to their viability. One way would be for candidates to assemble and associate themselves with blue-ribbon advisors whose credentials are impeccable and competency beyond reproach. In this manner, the public perception about fitness to serve can be delegated to the expertise of one’s advisors.

Both candidates are bright. John McCain is a graduate of Annapolis and Barack Obama of Columbia and Harvard. Both were able to run ultimately effective primary campaigns. Obama demonstrated that he was able to construct an organization practically from scratch that was able to snatch the nomination away from the early odds-on favorite to win, Hillary Clinton, this despite her crackerjack campaign organization already in place. He also correctly predicted that Saddam Hussein “posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States.”

In terms of issues, I favor the development and implementation of social programs emphasiz-

Page 60

ing helping people obtain needed health insurance, affordable prescriptions, reasonably priced housing, and so on. The problem is that no candidate has offered assurance that the country can find a way to pay for such programs. Similarly, neither has sufficiently spelled out plans for effectively tackling the current economic crisis—a recession which could deepen into a depression.

So, as the reader can see, there is some justification for at least some of my ambivalent feelings regarding which candidate to support. Ultimately, it will come down to what my unconscious finally decides—if it has not done so already in writing this essay.

Page 61