"Done subtly, but clearly, the issue would be reversed—rather than a Manchurian pro-choicer he was a Manchurian pro-life, Governor of Massachusetts"
Posted on 01/10/2008 5:12:10 PM PST by shrinkermd
Crowds invariably select a leader. Our nature is to look for a leader and then give that leader affection and power. While we may recognize the importance of having a leader, we seldom bother with reflecting on “how” this occurs. This brief effort attempts to understand “how” we select a leader.
At one time, a psychiatric paper always referenced Freud. No longer. Both Freud and psychoanalysis are discounted by many as wild and fanciful speculations at best or humbug at worst. What is forgotten is that Freud observed and recorded aspects of human nature for the first time that have now been incorporated into the common culture. Among these observations is “transference.”
Over 100 years ago Freud in his Postscript (1905) to The Interpretation of Dreams Freud laid out the essentials of ”transference.Later (in 1912) he wrote The Dynamics Of Transference. These two papers summarized Freud’s conclusions as to how transference operates in individual psychology...
Transference is generally defined as set of expectations, beliefs and emotional responses that a patient brings to a doctor-patient relationship. These expectations are not based on what the doctor is like but, rather, on what the patient experienced with previous authority figures. Usually, the transference is positive and includes affection for and over-idealization of the doctor. Sometimes a negative transference occurs manifested by undeserved mistrust and contempt. In insight oriented psychotherapy the doctor submits this transference to rational, intellectual assessment.
Usually, the psychoanalyst manages and interprets the transference since it acts as a resistance to actual understanding. In a certain sense psychoanalysis can be defined as the analysis of transference. The limitations of psychoanalysis are well known. If nothing else, the average psychoanalysis requires 2-3 visits per week for several years or more.
Early on Freud recognized transference was a universal phenomenon and not something that just occurred in the doctor-patient relationship. In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921), Freud dismissed the idea that groups suffered from a mental contagion or acted as they do because of group instincts. Instead he offered quite a different view.
Freud argued that transference was a universal human attribute and that, “man has an extreme passion for authority and wishes to be governed by an unrestricted force.”People give up a portion of their individuality in order to have a sense of participation. They transfer child-like obedience to their parents to a leader; they slavishly follow this leader. Their seemingly mindless dependence is actually a desire to be governed. By means of transference they also attenuate their feelings of smallness, helplessness and fear of death. They have something bigger to believe in.
Fromm, Jung, Rank and Becker later expanded these thoughts even further. According to them, we seem to crave a magic helper. We crave someone who we can “tune in to” and so we can have meaning to our life. Transference is common in everyday life. Men worship and fear the very power that they and the others have given the leader.
Like the transference experience in psychotherapy, people develop an intense attachment to their leader. The leader becomes, at times, the center of their lives, is given rock star status even by those who picture themselves as self-sufficient, self-determining and possessed of independent judgment and choice. All of these approaches to a leader are automatic and unconscious once a threshold of acceptance is achieved.
Once this transference to a leader takes place, the leader becomes the conscience of the group. The leader can carry out or demand actions that are contrary to the individual consciences of the group members. This is particularly true when the leader offers an opportunity to become a hero in transforming the world as well as oneself.
Transference permits a meaning to life and trumps being isolated and alone. Losing a portion of one’s individuality, then, gives meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence.
The leader must also give up his individuality. He loses his individuality in the process of becoming a leader. Leaders need followers as much as followers need leaders. To be a leader requires tailoring one’s persona to fit the demands of the group being led.
As mentioned, leaders can lead the group into moral transgressions. Paradoxically, the guiltier the individuals become, the more they are bound to the leader. Gradually, with a morally transgressing group, individuals see the leader as the principal meaning of their lives. An example is Germany and Hitler. The more Hitler persecuted the Jews, the more the Germans were bound to him out of guild and, eventually, gave Hitler unlimited power.
Freud saw that transference to a leader or cause was a universal human phenomenon. He saw this transference as permitting individuals to relate to large groups. He also noted that those with less confidence and ability were the most likely to completely submit to a leader or a cause. Finally, he noted the universal, irreconcilable conflict between the urge to stand out and the urge to belong to a larger cause and to merge with a powerful other.
Human nature is defined as those psychological characteristics, including ways of thinking and acting that all normal human beings have in common. Put in another way, human nature is comprised of those psychological features deemed normal and consistent over long periods of time and across all cultures.
E.O. Wilson in his landmark book, On Human Nature, pointed out there are three broad theories of human nature—religious, Marxist and scientific humanism.
Christians, Jews, and Moslems see human nature as the sum of qualities and traits common to all humans but they would add this definition centers around man's free will and his relationship to God. Since God created us and human nature is his work product. Man from this perspective may chose to obey or deny God but he cannot change human nature. While ebbing in influence, the religious view is still dominant in the United States.
Marxists, socialists and many on the liberal see human nature only as a few reflexes, instincts and biological urges. To them the mind exists as a blank slate and is easily changed. The result is political behaviorism whose goal is to mold humanity into an egalitarian utopia. Thus far attempts to achieve this utopian vision have failed, yet the hope remains; if nothing else, this view has many academic adherents.
Scientific humanism considers humanity to be just another mammalian species that evolved over millions of years. It believes we have acquired intelligence yet we are still governed by complex inherited emotions and behaviors. This type of human nature channels learning. Human nature exists but it is a product of evolution.
Transference to a leader or a group fits in quite nicely with each of these three broad, Western approaches to human nature.
The Christian religious experience of seeking out a personal savior surely is mediated and affirmed by transference to that savior.
Marxism claims to be a form of scientific materialism but it is not. To be a Marxist or socialist requires the belief in the inevitable class struggle resulting in a highly governed, egalitarian society with all production under control of the workers. To do so requires a leap to faith as much as any other religion. In making this commitment, transference is required to both the leader and the ideology—hence, the religious nature of Marxism and the deification of its leaders.
It is harder to explain how transference is compatible with scientific materialism. The easiest way is to review the work of E.O. Wilson, a proponent of evolutionary biology (psychology). He readily admits that evolutionary psychology is founded on the myth of evolution. In essence, he states the evolutionary epic is based on laws that can be adduced but never proven. Transference to both a leader—Darwin —and a belief system—evolution—becomes a requirement. Surely, transference is acceptable to all three of the basic approaches to human nature. It is a matter of opinion whether this was given by God or evolved. But transference is how we orient ourselves to leaders and groups.
Sometime in the spring of 2007 rumors circulated that Fred Thompson was running. Many applauded and encouraged him to run. Things seemed to go slow over the summer; some accused Thompson of not really wanting the job.
He did file for office late in the summer. Initially, the polls suggested he was the first choice of Republicans. Then another series of rumors occurred suggesting this was a flawed effort by someone who did not have the “fire-in-the-belly” approach to the job of POTUS. His support began to trail off.
Then more recently he indicated he would not change his personality or beliefs to become President and could accept quite easily not being President. This resulted in the pundits and posters on FR describing him as less than willing to be a candidate. That he pointed out he was offering himself for this job, did not stop an additional decline in the polls.
By the time of the New Hampshire primary he was almost written off by the political cognoscenti; he received only 1-2% of the votes in the NH primary.
Fred Thompson is a mature, balanced man with basic and fundamental conservative principles. Why should he fail after such an auspicious start?
The reason is simple. Many of those eager to transfer their allegiance to Fred Thompson also made some demands. Remember, I said the leader loses individuality as well as the follower in this schema. Fred Thompson projected an image where he was not going to change his personality or beliefs simply to become POTUS. The potential and actual followers drifted away since they wanted an unequivocal leader to match their unequivocal search for a leader.
Not I, along with many others, find Fred Thompson’s approach to leadership not only above reproach but the sine qua non of leadership. That is, keeping one’s perspective at the seat of power is laudable and necessary. Unfortunately, most do not see things this way. They crave an unequivocal, dominating personality who is willing to say and do most anything to secure office. These citizens bring this into the political arena as part of their human nature.
Leaders need followers and followers need leaders. History is replete with examples of people believing leaders blindly and obediently. History is also replete with examples where this belief has failed and tragedy has ensued. We want leaders to be larger than life, to be bigger than ourselves so we can lose ourselves in their greatness and goodness. But the leader does not bring this desire to the table. It is already there--within us.
Fred’s problem is he was unwilling to completely give up his identity in order to be POTUS. The majority distance themselves from him because he doesn’t measure up to their psychological need for a completely focused candidate.
Issues are important. Likewise, other personality characteristics are important. It is true we have multiple allegiances to multiple leaders at any given time. It is also true most of us will eventually function as a leader. But a consequence of leadership is losing some of one’s individuality to please the group.
Contrary to Fred Thompson, most of the candidates strive mightily to please and placate their actual and potential followers. Listen to any news show on any day and you can see evidence of that. They need to do this, but when they do they are often accused of being “flip floppers.” But the need is there and they fill it regardless of criticism.
Leaders need followers but why do they lead in the first place?
Ask someone why they are running for office and watch hemming and hawing as they try to come to terms with themselves. The masses believe that one must have a cause greater than themselves to justify leadership, so the usual answer is something like, “…I want to lower taxes…abolish abortion…protect traditional marriage…finish the war on terror…defend traditional values…”
Once the candidate has acquiesced to this ritual, he or she then hopes to proceed to a detailed discussion of policy. The whole idea is to avoid any personalmotivation for seeking office. But what is this personal motivation?
Like many truisms, we usually don’t think of recognition as an important motivating goal. Recently David Brooks wrote a short article in the New York Times called “All Politics is Thymotic.” In this short article Brooks summarized Plato’s thoughts. I tried my best to read the source document but eventually relied on Brooks and others for this discussion of thymos.
Within all of us, whether we actualize it or not, is a desire not only to follow but to lead. Like transference this is biologically based. A summary of what thymos means and its effect is as follows:
The above list is taken from a FR post I did called ” Why People Run For Office.
The upshot of this discussion is we need to select leaders who want to lead. They need not give excuses as to why they want to lead nor do they have to be defensive about striving for leadership. This striving is part of our human nature and like transference is essential in making large groups work.
It is always risky to give advice. Many see it as criticism. It also helps to own your advice as your own and let the target of the advice reject or accept it without having to be nasty. One way to do this is to use the, “If I were king I would…” therapeutic strategy.
So, if I were Fred Thompson I would make the issue personal. I would, in a subtle way, point out I am no ordinary person. I have the ability to lead and have done so. I am unabashedly urging you to vote for me. Then, to assuage those needing reasons although no reason is necessary, I would list some of my leadership efforts. I would then conclude with not only can I lead but I am the best person to actualize the conservative agenda. However it is argued, the point is, I am a leader who can lead and I am not apologetic about leading. This should be an adamant statement destined to appeal to those looking for an affirmation of their views.
If I was Mitt Romney I would again make the personal plea that I am a successful leader—business, politics and charitable service—but also buttress this with a frontal attack on what is really holding him up. FWIW what I think is holding him up is the mistaken perception he is not a follower of Christ and is a Manchurian pro-choice candidate. I would answer this from the depths of my being. If I were him I would affirm I follow Christ as my faith prescribes, I have advocated and followed traditional mores and morals in my personal life. Further, I might hint my long term and consistent profile is one of pro-life; however seeking office and leading in a secular society demands respect for all points of view. Done subtly, but clearly, the issue would be reversed—rather than a Manchurian pro-choicer he was a Manchurian pro-life, Governor of Massachusetts.
If I were Rudy Giuliani I would first play some Janis Joplin records. I would listen for, “Courage is nothing left to lose.” I would recognize that time is short and opportunity fleeting. I would stress again my personal leadership qualities but recognize this has already been recognized by the voters ---the only attribute keeping me in the race. What is holding Rudy up is the animosity many, but not all, pro-lifers have for his positions on abortion, homosexual marriage and his three marriages.
As for the social issues, if I were Rudy I would seek the moral high ground. On abortion, I would point out 27 years of advocating a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion has not worked and, in any case, I cannot assign criminal status to the 1.3 million women who had an abortion last year. I also believe I am in the middle ground of this issue like most Americans. In respect to homosexuals, I have always believed and acted on the following—“we are all more alike than different.” I see no reason to ridicule or persecute homosexuals, etc. The idea is to take a leap into faith that the conservative electorate is not as the liberals describe—rigid, uncompromising, homophobic.
If I were Rudy I would also approach the three marriages in an existential fashion. “I did not marry to get divorced” would be one theme. I would express my regrets and disappointment but note the vital relationship of marriage is often ended when it does not work. In essence, gain the support, respect and affection of all those who have also divorced or at least come close to it.
As for the remaining candidates, FWIW I have no opinions as to how to improve their condition according to the laws of transference, thymos and human nature. They all have fatal flaws, and even if nominated, will not become POTUS.
If Fred Thompson is not the nominee, it will be Hillary/Richardson in the White House.
Thank you for taking the time to write this insightful piece.
I was struck by this particularly:
~snip~
Not I, along with many others, find Fred Thompson’s approach to leadership not only above reproach but the sine qua non of leadership. That is, keeping one’s perspective at the seat of power is laudable and necessary. Unfortunately, most do not see things this way. They crave an unequivocal, dominating personality who is willing to say and do most anything to secure office. These citizens bring this into the political arena as part of their human nature.
Leaders need followers and followers need leaders. History is replete with examples of people believing leaders blindly and obediently. History is also replete with examples where this belief has failed and tragedy has ensued. We want leaders to be larger than life, to be bigger than ourselves so we can lose ourselves in their greatness and goodness. But the leader does not bring this desire to the table. It is already there—within us.
Fred’s problem is he was unwilling to completely give up his identity in order to be POTUS. The majority distance themselves from him because he doesn’t measure up to their psychological need for a completely focused candidate.
Issues are important. Likewise, other personality characteristics are important. It is true we have multiple allegiances to multiple leaders at any given time. It is also true most of us will eventually function as a leader. But a consequence of leadership is losing some of one’s individuality to please the group.
~snip~
ping for interesting piece
Good post.
"Done subtly, but clearly, the issue would be reversed—rather than a Manchurian pro-choicer he was a Manchurian pro-life, Governor of Massachusetts"
A very insightful posting . Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts .
I will now ask you : How effective do you think the pre-announcement labelling smears against Fred have been ?
Did the Romney camp create the permanant damage that was intended ?
We all know that the Romney camp had every intention of affecting the Fred factor before he decided to enter the race , your thoughts ?
What do you think the unintended consequences ,if any , have been in regards to these tactics in regards to Romney and the other candidates . In essence , has there been blowback ?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/10/antithompson_site_connects_to.html
Ping.
Very informative. Thank you.
I too agree that Senator Thompson's humility is attractive. And that McCain in particular will not be POTUS, whether or not he is nominated (and of course, that goes double for Huckabee).Given McCain's history of hostility to tax cuts, his sponsorship of McCain-Feingold (which Thompson unfortunately is guilty of having cosponsored), and other insults to good government, I don't want him for POTUS. But his fatal flaw is his dependence of the good graces of journalists - which will last exactly as long as he is useful to journalists in their effort to demonize conservatives. Put him head-to-head with someone who is not conservative about anything, and they will drop him like a hot potato - the Keating Five scandal will suddenly be worse than anything Nixon was ever accused of.
Too long.
??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.