The Vote. Take Another Look.

The news from neuroscience and psychoanalysis about the election until now has stressed the scientific evidence that emotions play a big part, and that the rational is therefore hardly to be expected. That is true, and we should know this. But that is only part of the story. The discovery of the unconscious, and its exposure to the surface, as well as the confirmation of its role by neuro-imaging, should not result in us overlooking other relevant factors. Conscious life in the decision-making process plays as much of a part as the unconscious, and in fact has the ultimate say. And the unconscious plays other tricks besides leading to the irrational.

A colleague recently wrote me 'Where is your compromise of integrity? It belongs here. I miss it". She was right. She was referring to a subject that plays a part at the center of common psychopathology, whose role in mental aberrations has generally been overlooked or not coherently integrated. This is the moral dimension, the question of integrity. While it can hardly be contested that dishonesty has a place in the current psychological disarray, any mention of this is for understandable reasons a no-no and taboo. I would like to describe the story of the role of integrity in the science of character and its place in the dilemmas of the country today.

The sciences of the brain-mind, neurology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and sociology, combine in

Filling in and fusing the roles of cognition and affects, thinking and feeling, in the total sequence of brain functioning that precedes every final outcome into external action. The act we are all focusing upon as we approach November is that magical vote, the pushing down of the small, metal pencil in private into the hole of our choice. Choice has unconscious roots and a conscious commander-in-chief in each one of us. And our internal apparatuses give us the power to learn, change and develop. Otherwise, if all is already determined, why talk more? But we can, as one or now both of our candidates tell us. And we live in a society that permits it.

In the mélange of outcomes of the decision-making process, reason and emotion, two of the major ingredients of the products that emerge, have been discussed copiously and continuously. I would like to enter and elaborate on that neglected third element-honesty, the question of integrity. I have sort of made this, the moral dimension, an area of special theoretical interest, claiming for it a more overt role in the science of the mind.

*****************************************

It is about 40 years ago that I introduced a new entity, "the syndrome of the compromise of integrity" (C of I for short) into the psychoanalytic literature as on a par with neuroses in human life.

Half a century before, Sigmund Freud had entered the world of depth psychology, discovering the unconscious base of human behavior through his studies of neurosis. His subject was the rampant hysteria of his times, acute and available to him in a peak way in Victorian Vienna at the turn of the 20th century.

In the second half of the next century, there was not necessarily a decline of neurotic behavior but the emergence or at least increased visibility of another type of psychopathology. This was more readily seen in group than in individual psychology, given the non-judgmental requirement of the psychoanalytic process in the treatment of the individual.

I first became aware of this new and pervasive phenomenon in a serious way in the 1950's, and became riveted to its presence by observing, and being a part of the mass of people glued to their new television sets watching the behavior of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the ultimate investigation to unseat him. I experienced two phases at this American event. One was the long period of public acquiescence, during which the people "bought him", at least partially. I felt that the group, and each individual, was internally divided, the same way in each person and the group as a whole. They believed him, and they were uncomfortable with this agreement. As a young psychoanalyst, I felt that what I was learning about the individual could be applied to the mass -- and that a certain type of conflict and psychopathology was showing equally in both.

The spell was not broken until a Boston lawyer, Joseph Welch, appeared on the scene and on the television screen, and, defending a junior member of his firm whom the Senator had accused of being part of a Communist front, confronted McCarthy. "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" The gallery erupted in applause. The McCarthy days were over.

I don't think this could have happened until the audience was ready for it. The public had moved from one side of the midline of opinion to the other. What they now wanted was provided. The public gets what it wants more than it knows.

Sitting at the table near McCarthy at the hearings as a vigorous ally in his accusations was a young Richard Nixon. Some 20 years later, Nixon was himself being investigated as to his complicity in a crime as president of the United States. Again I was fixated to the proceedings, this time conducting a more formal study. The audience glued to the screen was my extra daily patient each night as the detective story unfolded. "The Mind of Watergate" that resulted was not the analytic study of a man, the president -- psychoanalysis of an individual from afar is not a valid or authentic activity -- but the analysis of the electorate who elected Nixon President by the second largest landslide in history after his name had been "Tricky Dick" for a quarter-century, 6 months after the break-in, and one month after the Washington Post had announced that those caught and arrested for the act extended into the White House itself. This was data in the public domain, not only permissible but to me pressing to be understood. I was writing about millions of people. I was describing a pattern intrinsic to civilization.

It is the base of the population pyramid, not the leaders, that determines outcome. One conclusion, or speculative explanation of the pathological mass effect, was an unconscious identification with the loosely corrupt. "Who would not like to be able to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, to do the wrong thing and be cheered, to say one thing and do another, to get credit for what others have proven is right and you have always opposed? It is a dream comes true. Henry Steele Commager wrote that giving Nixon a medal for opening up China was like rewarding someone for starting a fire who then called the fire engines to put it out.

The human ego -- not as the synonym for arrogance -- but the mental agency that directs internal psychic traffic, is pressured on two flanks, one from instincts and the other from conscience. Compromises with the first lead to neuroses, with the second to compromises of integrity. I am not speaking of crime or sociopathy, but to the normal bending of the rules acceptable to everyday life. C of I is to crime as neurosis is to psychosis A borderline patient need not be between neurosis and psychosis but can with equal frequency be between neurosis and C of I.

Although described on the political scene, the syndrome belongs to life in all its aspects. Recent history is non-stop with accounts of its occurrence in politics, business, sports, academia, even science, every human activity in which men jostle with men, whether for financial gains, fame, comfort, reputation, ego satisfactions of any kind. Kenneth Lay, Elliot Spitzer, Jim Bakker, Pete Rose, each name conjures up a peak that toppled in a different field.

In the next decades, American life became the scene of a regular recurrence of public re-plays of these dynamic mental dramas. A succession of sensational events in a continuous series involving ethical breaches tested the tolerance and the morality of the general population. A new type of emotional-ethical-legal-sociologic preoccupation emerged, each instance of which brought complex dilemmas and new criteria to test the judgment of the people and the state of their values. The parade of events transcended politics, news, entertainment, sports; it was a mixture of them all. From excursions into small Wars by a succession of Presidents, into Grenada, Haiti, then the Persian Gulf, all before the present one in Iraq, to the beating of Rodney King followed by the burning of Los Angeles, the Hill-Thomas hearings, the O.J. murder trial, the public's responses to questions of right and wrong, and the need to solve Solomonic conflicts, were stirred to a point of impotence and incredulity. As the procession of moral challenges rolled on, the public could only sit by transfixed, in a state between arousal and hypnosis.

The 60s had seen the bitterly-divisive, protracted Vietnam War, when the credibility of our Government reached a low point. Ellsberg documented that 4 presidents in succession over twenty-one years had lied to the American people in their public presentations both as to the motivations for the war and the number of casualties it was costing. From Eisenhower's lies about an American U-2 spy plane over Russia, JFK's problem ending the War, Johnson falsifying a Gulf of Tonkin provocation, to Nixon's and Kissinger's series of broken promises, no American leader came out clean. In the seventies, the famous, and infamous Watergate; in the eighties, the Iran-Contra, with again an equal degree of injury to the trust engendered in the top levels of our Government. The much-admired Ronald Reagan did not escape.

The same dynamic transcended military events. As much was at stake during peace and prosperity. In 1991, the Hill-Thomas "affair" (I say "affair" advisedly) hit the tubes, with again a transfixed audience of 40 million, and a conflict and strain over credulity at high places. Sex, aggression, dominance were in the mix, with race, secrecy and the Supreme Court added -- nothing was missing for high drama. Following a prolonged debate, the Senate voted 52 to 48 in favor of confirmation, probably reflecting the same division within the viewing and participating audience.

Four years later, in 1995, the O.J. trial-the new "trial of the century" (forget the Leopold and Loeb trial of the '20's) captivated the viewing audience. 91% of all persons viewing television were glued to the unfolding scene in Los Angeles; 93 million followed the bronco chase. The entire world was aware of the celebrated travesty of justice as experts made a mockery of incontrovertible DNA evidence, and scholarly lawyers interpreted Constitutional law in favor of their celebrity-athletic star-employer-client. Inexorably, Judge Ito ruled in a series that led to an acquittal. Los Angeles was probably spared another riot. I was as little surprised at the outcome as I was about the smoking gun in the 70's.

Comes 2000. And in 2001, 9/11. And the next 3 presidential elections -- until here we are in October, 2008. The same audience. The same electorate. But with growth each year. Things progress. But in which direction and how much?

Scientific advance tells us to take into account at least three streams of determinants crucial to character, cognitively intelligence, emotionally maturity, on the moral scale integrity. Simply put, have we not a right to expect our elected leaders to be smart, rational and honest? Is that too much to ask? Is any one of these traits dispensable in the would-be leader of the free world, potentially responsible for the fate of the planet?

As I prepare for November 4, I muse and reflect, as a psychoanalyst and citizen, that many believe, and I have no reason to think otherwise, that the last two elections were stolen, one in Florida, one in Ohio. That is unacceptable, and perhaps could have been fought against more. In 2000, Gore was too timid about receiving support from President Clinton, whose record as President was very positive. He lost by a 50-50 vote, leaving questions. The Supreme Court ruled for his opponent by a 5-4 decision (one of the 5 was the Justice Thomas of the moral trial of a decade before, appointed by Bush, Sr.). In 2004, it was not nice for the candidate whose war service was limited to the National Guard to make fun and cast aspersions on the other who had performed heroic acts on a Navy boat in combat. I feel sorry that the belittled Kerry did so little to expose and oppose this slanderous attack. It did not reflect well on him as a leader. I would also like to see an appreciation of the difference between an appropriate and even admirable change of mind, and flip-flop as a smear.

As I view the two pairs of present candidates, I feel it is wrong to make a virtue of being close to the bottom of one's class in college, i.e., to be a tough guy and a bad boy, while painting his opponent, who had been Editor of the Law Review at Harvard, an elitist. The irrational ought not to prevail. Smart and good are better.

Is McCain being consistent or even truthful, when he states he would rather lose an election than let his country down, then follows with his choice of Sarah Palin for his running mate? Does he really believe Palin is the best choice for the country? Or did he think that this dramatic pick was best for his election? For the "straight-speaking express", deviousness and a lack of honesty shine through. Although I assess Obama as the more honest, and also the more capable of the two, I wonder why Obama says so little now about the withdrawal of troops. I know why, and have some sympathy, but I have my preferences. Does he really feel that the troops should be switched to Afghanistan, or is that a compromise rationalization? I am disappointed that Obama does not defend himself with appropriate forcefulness; I would find it refreshing to see a bit of Joseph Welch confronting his opponent again.

The centerpiece, of course, is that we were sent to War on a lie. And thousands have died and are still dying. That outrage in this country needs to be suppressed or muted does not make for a healthy emotional climate. I did not think that Senator Muskie's weeping when a journalist impugned the character of his wife, Jane, was a sign of weakness. I would like to see more natural human reactions occupy the political and social scene.

Each sees these issues his way. How will the electorate carry out its responsibility? Let the ballot boxes roll. That is the democratic, still the best way.

Thank you and God bless America.

Ha, ha. I didn't mean that.

Comments

[WilliePilgrim]

In Alaska there is a generally observed but little understood dynamic where people vote for the least effective leadership. It's wryly presumed that selecting the weakest or most corrupt will translate as one that is least invasive and easier to ignore and/or undermine. Who cares if some brilliant leader comes up with a solution but it requires everyone to fill out forms and register yearly in order to comply...or else (there's always an "or else" in order to insure compliance), the current system of income taxes being the prime example. Never the less, they will register for the Permanent Fund Dividend.
Perhaps, as backwards as it may sound, it works with our human snese of self-identity and desire to not have external control over our personal lives within our community.

[TinyNow]

Why can't our leaders be honest? I have a theory. To want to be president is to already be lying. Who honestly wants to be president? If honesty is a core value, why would you choose to run for president? It seems to me that a person running for the highest office has power and control higher up on the list of values than honesty. If honesty were at the top, they would choose a path that made it easier for them to be honest.

[Republicrats]

Smart and good are better,in the abstract but not necesarily as leaders. Humans do not always pick the smartest and goodest to be their leaders, from the time of the schoolyard, through the boardroom, they often pick the loudest, most intriguing, brashest personalities, best speakers, those with interesting ideas. The ability to garner support amongst your peers and be selected to be their leader has many facets, not all entirely understood by the academics that study them, or for that matter the populace that elects them.

[Puller58]

Doc, the patient needs the sheet pulled over the head. The patient is the American electorate.

[January]

This all sounds to me just like the pot calling the kettle black.

I may be wrong, but I always thought that integrity could only be measured by a comparison with the behavior of one"s peers. So far as I know, psychotherapy equates health with success in whatever ethos one belongs to. Therefore when I consider a Jack Abramoff"s success in working our system for great profit, I am not aware that any of the mental health disciplines could object. In fact, the dominant delivery of mental health services in our society through fee for service obeys the same model. When both settle for the justification "whatever the market will bear," it's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

My point is that I am not aware that mental health services contain any models that contribute to the understanding of the difficulties of a democracy. In a democracy, we the people get the leadership that we nurture. We consistently elect the less intelligent, the less mature, and the less honest because that is the way we want to see ourselves; e.g., we prefer to entertain ourselves rather than educate ourselves. And this particular article, while apparently innocent of subterfuge (it"s free; so we can take it or leave it) exemplifies the typical way we Americans see ourselves"confused.

[Clatech]

It"s becoming more evident the so called "Boy Geniuses of Wall Street" got this country into its financial mess. And now we want the "untested" political equivalent as President? Give me a break!!!

[nk007]

Judging by the erratic way McCain behaved with regard to the financial crisis it seems to me that he is the one who is "untested." Even with all his sleazy antics, he couldn't even convince his Republican buddies in the House of Rep. to back him. No. America needs to elect a calm, steady and smart president who knows something about economics and constitutional law. We need a president who actually thinks of "country first" in deeds and not in sleek sloganeering. Please people we do knot need a drama queen who smears his opponent constantly and then goes around whining and throwing tantrums because people call him on his lies sleaze.

[believe08]

I am not affiliated with a party, so my views are non-partisan. It is a shame Americans are so gullible, but if we weren't, then marketing wouldn't be a business. This is the way I see McCain and the bailout. Let's say a doctor is going to cut off your leg. He has the support of board members to do it. You have no decision in the matter, he is going to cut off your leg above the knee and is coming at you with a chainsaw. A nurse comes in the room and sees what is going to happen. The nurse knows this doctor is going to cut off your leg regardless of what anyone says. So she tries to make a few suggestions. Maybe we can cut below the knee, maybe we can use another instrument instead of the chainsaw, etc. Everyone agrees and the nurse believes the agreement will stand. She leaves to help other patients because she has been yelled at for sticking her nose in where it didn't belong and where she wasn't wanted. Then the doctor does whatever he wants. McCain went to Washington because he knows how the Congress works. The Democrats did not want the Republicans to see what they were about to pass. The fact there was about $20 million for ACORN and who knows what else in the first bill was not something they wanted publicized. .... to be continued

[believe08]

McCain knowing this, said hang on a minute and lets talk. Lets get rid of this arbitrary spending and try to pass a bill that looks out for Americans. He worked to get it done while heavily getting criticized. Who risks leaving their campaign? A man who understands either he or his opponent will be stepping into this mess in January. When he left Washington on Sunday, the members of congress agreed to pass the bill. If we cannot count on a person's word, what do we have left to believe in? He went back to campaigning. The reason the members of the house did not ultimately vote to pass the bill was because something unexpected happened. The American people voiced themselves. I am one of them. I faxed and emailed senators and congressman asking them not to pass the bill. They are also up for election... to be continued...

[believe08]

What was McCain supposed to do, walk around the room while the members placed their votes? Like a teacher making sure the students don't cheat when they are taking a test? The man showed leadership. I cannot vote for a man who chose to continue to be a Senator while running for presidency yet not even bother to see what's going in Washington. A man who says he can no more disown his pastor than disown the black community and his white grandmother and then withdraw from his church a week later because of political pressure. Those are the things I look for. McCain made a decision and followed through. Obama stood by and then later said he would go to Washington and force the bill through. FORCE it through, what else will he be shoving down our throats?

[Mike789]

Citing the Dr's blog ---- "three streams of determinants crucial to character, cognitively intelligence, emotionally maturity, on the moral scale integrity. "

Which candidate fullfills these criteria best? Emotional maturity is paramount here. It is clear Sen. McCain's is yet the erratic renegade of his youth made heroic. His lack of emotional and interllectual reserve has led him to overplay his hand again and again. He becomes angry and then when that doesn't work, self-deprecatory and asks for differment.

There were times when I myself idealized his persona, the fast and loose, the "Maverick". I think many of us who came to the world in the 50's and 60's saw the James Dean model, the opposition to status quo, as desirable. However, times change.

[(Omnia mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis) All things are changing and we are changing with them.] We cannot insist upon appoaching contemporary problems with attitudes of the past. Do do so is neurotic. Sen. McCain has not shown adaptability. As a result he comes across as less mature.

[darker]

What is INTEGRITY? Is that something NOT REPUBLICAN?

Oh. Oh yeah, yeah...

Republicans:
THEY'RE TOO DAMN CORRUPT & DANGEROUS
AND WE CAN'T AFFORD THEM.

[Brandij]

great read. thanks.

[Gma11]

I thoroughly enjoyed this.

Could you, however, clarify a sentence. "Scientific advance tells us to take into account at least three streams of determinants crucial to character, cognitively intelligence, emotioanally maturity, on the moral scale of integrity." These sentence seems garbled and I'm not sure what the three "streams of determinants" are and which is the primary variable they are streams of/to.

Thank you.

[sphinxy]

It took an awful long time for this bus to get to the station, doctor. I think you understand human nature, but I don't think you understand people, the great mass of people. That's okay, i don't either. But to be a politician, a winning politician, you need to. And Obama does. I've second-guessed him a dozen times during this campaign and he has always turned out to be right. His campaign has advanced steadily like a glacier. And he's seven points ahead. The biggest psychological factor in this campaign has been bigotry. It's the enormous black elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. If you want to truly understand this campaign, yes, look at his psychology, but don't overlook his skin. I would also like to see Barack express some righteous emotion at McCain, but that has pitfalls given his unique candidacy. I don't agree with some of what he's said and done lately, but he has the gift of pragmatism. He first needs to get the job. If he doesn't, it's all down the toilet in one night of nail biting. So, I forgive Obama some of his recent votes, like FISA and the bailout, and his restraint against really slamming Mccain. I know what I need to know about the man. I see it in Michelle's eyes. Sometimes... sometimes... that's the only true indicator of a man's character.

[Brandij]

The last statement you made about Michelle or any other wife for that matter is so true.

[Prufrock08]

A very fine post, Sphinxy. I have struggled with the same issues, but Obama's pragmatism and intelligence suggest to me that once he gets the job, as you say, he can revisit and undo FISA and work on honing the bailout. The alternative candidate is eminently unqualified to hold any office in the land.

[JeffLebowski]

Dr. Rangell,
The sad part is we are already in possession of proof of McCain's lack of integrity due to his Keating 5 involvement. I believe he is a mindless cog in the Washington machine. One of the biggest problems facing this election is a psychological one. The brainwashing and mass hysteria of religion and partisanship have too many Americans focused on the Captains while the ship is sinking!!!! I will not vote based on the mythological being a candidate believes in. I will not vote based on which archaic political ideologies a particular candidate's party is affiliated with. I will vote for the individual I believe is best suited to run MY country. The ability to see through all of the smoke and mirrors separates the strong from the weak. As much as I value my vote, it saddens me to that it will be cancelled by a VP candidate that thinks a mythological God is on our side in Iraq. What if God doesn't care or is busy?? A group failure as a nation to be informed and perpetuate a culture of ignorance has left us bleeding prey for the political predators. Turn off the television..... Gather your facts...... Question the media..... and get off your couch and VOTE!!! That USED to be the American way.
ABIDE.

[certainot]

any analysis of our politics in the last 20 years is incomplete if it doesn't factor in the dominant but invisible effect of the GOP's talk radio monopoly and the coordinated uncontested repetition to 60MIL that it enables. we wouldn't be in this bush disaster without it.

[leopoldmozart]

I completely agree. In the same way that iron weapons changed warfare, and modern psychological techniques changed advertising and marketing, I see the right wing propaganda infrastructure as a technological advance that has changed the rules of culture and politics. The 30% that still love and admire Bush are deeply brainwashed and beyond help.

What's even worse from my standpoint as a born again Christian is how the teachings of Christ have been turned upside down by the right wing propaganda infrastructure. Christ was generally pretty warm and fuzzy, but in Mattew 25 he's hardcore: if you want to go to heaven, you are kind to the stranger, care for the sick, feed the poor, and visit those in prison. If you want to burn in Hell, you ignore the stranger, the sick, the poor, and the imprisoned. Right now, the right wing Christians are supporting a president and policies that, instead of being kind to strangers has KILLED a million Iraqis, instead of caring for the sick is the strongest voice AGAINST national health care, that instead of helpling the poor cuts taxes on the rich so that they can cut government support for the poor, and that instead of helping prisoners supports TORTURING Iraqi and Afghani prisoners. How can these right wing Christians even call themselves Christian? It's like we have experienced the opposite of a Great Awakening. We've experienced the great Narcissism, the great Moral Bankruptcy.

[rozboy]

To Dr. Rangell -

I found this article very informative, and it provided me an insight to the human mind, and how it influences the decisions made today. It is funny, that if it is your party's candidate, your opinion of that individual will be skewed to validate your own agenda. For instance, in another post, there was talk of how the folksy, down-to-earth performance of Gov. Palin is seen as refreshing, and representative of Middle America. However, if the same performance was from a minority, he or she would be seen as ignorant, slow, and uncouth. The truth is, she appeals because she represents the tried and true, no matter how dysfunctional or inappropriate. This scares me, in that we deserve better from our leaders. They are supposed to be smart, well-informed, clever, and possess superior leadership qualities - without these, they are not leaders, but just the regular guy or girl in a really big chair. I want my President to be smarter than me, and definitely smarter than the average Joe. If not, we will go no further forward than we are at this moment.