Politics on the Couch: Opposites Detract or Listening to the Unsaid
What follows is the eighth post for the interactive book, Politics on the Couch. Readers' comments are welcome and an integral part of this experiment.
POC: Opposites Detract - Listening to the Unsaid
One aim of this project is to help us all -- myself included -- pay attention to our own unconscious, and think about how it affects our perceptions of political life in 2008. A second aim of this project is to interact with members of HuffingtonPost.com community who are willing to share how their thoughts and feelings affect their perceptions. Nowhere have these two factors -- thinking about our perceptions and sharing our thoughts -- seemed more compelling than when we try to make sense of what Barack Obama means by the word, "Change."
For years, I have been struck by how political candidates -- especially presidential candidates -- are in most ways like the rest of us, only super-sized. Their psychological coping mechanisms -- their "defenses" -- are also magnified when bathed in TV lights. One simple way to learn about whom the candidates really are is to pay attention to the slogans by which they define themselves.
Slogans such as "I'm a uniter not a divider" overtly express who the candidate is as well as who he isn't. But when we listen at a deeper level we know that by saying who he is not, the candidate may reveal who he actually is. The quality he denies to us about himself is something he had to think of - consciously or unconsciously -- in order to negate it. But hindsight is often 20/20, particularly in the case of G.W. Bush.
It's easy to look at McCain's "Straight Talk Express" and see that it is neither. He changes his positions dramatically -- as in the case of off-shore drilling. He also is not honest with himself, expressing disgust at having been attacked by the Bush/Rove cabal in 2000 and then embracing his attackers. And he is the opposite of the "express" part, admitting to his ignorance of both modern economics and computing.
But Obama has been more of a challenge, even to his acolytes. Democrats who supported other candidates, as well as most Republicans, openly questioned his authenticity or said they didn't know who he really is. Now, in light of his recent support of the death penalty, of government involvement with faith-based initiatives, and of the FISA bill, Obama supporters themselves have to look at who he is and what he might be negating about himself. Perhaps he is unconsciously offering "A Change you CAN'T believe in" or "MORE OF THE SAME you can believe in." My lovely wife, the editor, wishes he would offer, "Change in which you can believe," but that's another issue -- and another unconscious.
What excited so many Obama supporters and led to massive voter registration and turnout was his call for change in Washington. This idea invites projection like few others -- and something Kleinian analysts call projective identification. It means that we put our own hopes and fears into Obama -- not simply onto him -- and assume that he is thinking what we are thinking. We are not consciously aware of doing this, but unconsciously we assume we know what he means by "change" because of having successfully projected our dreams into what we think of as his mind, exemplified by his phraseology. We then identify with him, but our identification is based on projection more than on what he actually means. It's a lot like falling in love -- we meet someone who attracts us and unconsciously imbue that person with all of the attributes we desire in a partner, even before we really know much about her or him.
Projection starts early in life, earlier than disappointment and hurt. But both are involved here -- all infants experience moments when feeding is interrupted because mother has to do something suddenly or because some sibling makes demands or something else. The baby can be upset and angry, and then the mother tries to repair damage done. Projective identification often is evident when mothers change diapers: babies love to have their diapers changed, but experience it as though it's the mother who loves doing the changing.
The process of break and repair can be made worse if the mother is very inviting and exciting but not aware of how upset the baby feels when it's disappointed. I think that Obama should watch for the people he disappoints, as early on he vaulted over not only the disappointment we felt with Washington, but disappointments from our own lives as well. By using the word change he gave us hope -- and with a return of current hope come ancient hopes as well, which set us up even more for disappointment.
Hence disillusionment evolves into dismay at his FISA vote on July 9, 2008. He supported the Bush administration when 23 Senate colleagues (including vanquished primary foes Clinton, Biden, and Dodd) voted nay. So we are forced to ask ourselves what he actually means by "change" as compared to what we think he means. I thought change meant confronting the special interest groups, like pharmas and telecoms whose demands dominate all legislation. I thought change meant listening to others and not being doctrinaire -- that unlike either McCain or Clinton, he would try diplomacy with "enemies" like Iran. I thought change meant genuine thinking -- a foreign policy no longer dominated by knee-jerk neocons.
But others, from Gail Collins of the NYT to my father-in-law, thought Obama's idea of change meant including and even embracing diverse ideas and solutions. He opposed the "with us or against us" approach of Bush Republicans, something partly adopted by Clinton too. Republicans recently disillusioned with their party, thought change meant getting away from politics as usual; Obama's vote on FISA is already seen as flip-flop behavior not different from Kerry's in 2004. On the other side, liberal columnist Bob Herbert titled his July 9 NYT op-ed about Obama "Lurching with Abandon."
So I repaired to the Oxford English Dictionary -- to look up the word "change," which Obama uses as a noun, not a verb. Basically it means substituting one thing for another, a succession of one thing for another. Substitution of one for the other applies to situations as well, as in the phrase "for a change". But where does that leave us in relation to Obama? And where does that leave him?
To me, he wins because people can project all things into the word "change" and feel good about him and about themselves. To me, he loses because many people will end up feeling disappointed in him as he clarifies who he is, or as the positions he takes do that for him. To some, he has veered off his liberal course -- as Arianna Hufington and others think. To others, he has stayed on course, as Gail Collins and others believe. It all depends on what "change" is. I guess that's better than what "is" is.
Does defining a term like change help us think about our own contribution to what we think about Obama? What kinds of qualities might we project into our candidates? What other thoughts do you have about looking for the unsaid or for the opposite of what a candidate actually did say?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
----
I see Obama living out a series of contradictions that don't coincide with my view (projection?) of him. How do I hold Obama the supporter of capital punishment or an assault on the 4th Amendment in the same hand as Obama the visionary progressive, humanist, community organizer and world-changer.
My unconscious, however, speaks to my need for a "pure" candidate; a pure progressive, a pure liberal and new-age politician without contradictions. I have a difficult time resolving contradictions in people I admire...
----
According to Dr. George Lakoff, it turns out in our society that we do have people with a progressive worldview, a conservative worldview, and those who hold some of each worldview called biconceptuals. How many times have we heard of someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal or progressive? A person's brain can accommodate seemingly contradictory worldviews as long as those views are in non-overlapping areas of life. They coexist happily because they are kept apart and the brain switches back and forth depending on context.
The larger point I want to make is there is no center, middle or moderate position. That's why the left-to-right scale used in politics is WRONG. And conservatives have effectively used it to divide and conquer biconceptual people away from their progressive leanings on particular issues.
- Tom
When it comes to Obama, change and interpreting his FISA vote, I also factor in, as we recently learned, that Obama plays poker. I believe he is analytical, methodical and practical. He is not one to make rash decisions. So, voting for the FISA bill was definitely a calculated move on his part. I imagine he perceives some type of political benefit to help him win the election. As a poker player, was his FISA vote a bluff? And if so, who is he bluffing? If he is bluffing liberals and purposefully generating heat for himself from the left, does he perceive that it will help him garner votes from conservative-leaning independents? If elected, will he help Democrats dismantle this attack on our 4th amendment, thereby redeeming himself and his vote, and bluffing authoritarian conservatives? I don't know the answer.
If McCain had adopted the change theme from the beginning of his campaign, I don't think it would have worked for him. McCain has been around Washington for decades and is part of the Bush-enabling establishment. Obama is still relatively new, a fresh face on the scene, so the change theme seems possible with him. The antidote to fear is hope and courage. Who isn't sick and tired of having the fear card played on them by the Republicans? Of course we embrace the change from Conservative Fear to Progressive Hope. Feeling fearful feels awful. Feeling hopeful feels good. Choose your neurotransmitter: norepinephrine or dopamine.
- Tom
In Rick Shenkman's (terrific!) book Just How Stupid Are We?, he embraces a slogan, saying we should have a "War on Slogans"! Successful slogans are not just so vague as to communicate nothing substantial, they are also blank screens onto which listeners/readers can project whatever meaning their heart demands.
Even recourse to the dictionary isn't necessarily helpful. (Aside: Remember whence and by whom meanings attributed in a dictionary derive.) For example, to say that "change" means substitution of one thing for another can be misleading. Change can also mean changing one version of some entity or phenomenon for another version of the same entity or phenomenon.
So what does Obama mean when he uses the word? Shouldn't we demand he provide us an open-ended list of what he intends to change, how, and from what to what? Good luck. Might as well as an advertiser to explain what she means by the term "rich."
I fear that Obama doesn't have the psychic resources to weather the volatile waves of political sentiment in this country.He seems so eager to be accepted by any group that he's more than wiling to change his
persona and rhetoric to what will please them,When he wants to be accepted by the black community - he takes shelter with Trinity and Rev Wright adopts him Then to seek acceptance with a larger communty he throws Wright and Trinity away. He seeks acceptance with the Dems and Kennedy takes him up . Now that he's in the big leagues he's looking to the corporate elites to father him and they
will be so happy to, so happy .
Makes me wonder Is there any there , there?
Yup. Well put.
In relation to Obma's FISA vote, change is very simple. Up through February he said he was going to fight this with everything he had. This month he changed.....he caved in and betrayed the principals he clearly articulated before.
This is not changing a culture as you said or being accomodating to the other side as Gail Collins said, this is just fear of being labled soft on Terrorism. All it proves is that Obama can be manipulated by the Repbulican meme that Democrats are inherently weak and therefore have to cave in.
Democrats seriously believe that, after 8 years of Bush and complete accomodation to the Republican security demands, if we are attacked it will still be the Democrats fault. That is what Obama was capitulating to, and if it means flushing our freedom down the toilet...so be it
This is the result of years of getting beat-up by the Republicans on this issue and being forced to take it because that is what good centrists are supposed to do. This isn't about a definition of change, this is about Democrats and Obama suffering from battered wife syndrome.
First, I have to say that your approach is creative, but it is still another form of reading tea leaves to try to make sense of the past and predict the future.
Obama's message works, not for what it "means" but for how it works in the larger sense as a narrative that captures people's imaginations. This isn't Barack Obama's psychology as much as it is ours collectively. Your research would be more fruitful if you focused on what the public yearns for that is being met by that narrative, rather than focusing at a distance on Obama's psychology.
When the narrative doesn't match his actions, you lose elections. Just ask John Kerry.
I know that republicans have been working on the American consciousness in such a way as to make anything labeled liberal to be a horrible idea. But it's time we stop playing by their rules and start making our own. That's the change we need and that's the kind of change Obama can not now provide. He crossed the line already with FISA and it isn't even the convention yet.
Re: Bush says he is a "uniter, not a divider." Agreee, he had to think about being a divider in order to "negate it," but this also brings up another issue: what do you do when a person's perception of himself is way off base.? Republicans will tell you that Fox News is, in fact, fair and balanced, noting that they always bring out both sides of an issue. When an individual or company's perception of himself/itself does not accord with the reality of who they are, it makes it extremely difficult to have a relationship with them.
Bush has probably been the most divisive President in American history, yet he sees himself as an "uniter." Thus, he does not recognize or denies the ways in which he has been hyper-partisan and divisive. Similarly, people like Limbaugh and Hannity see themselves as uniters (their idea of unity is more like, "all march together, everybody looks the same," to quote a Phil Ochs song) and advocates of the average American
Then, we have a boatload of Rush Limbaugh listeners who believe he is joking (i.e.not his real personality trait) when he boasts about his brilliance and his connections to God. These folks fail to see that Rush is extremely narcissistic. They see only what they want to see. Bottom line: We, in America, need to more accurately see ourselves and others.
The word "Change" is being used by Obama as a political slogan, to differentiate himself from the Bush status quo (like all such slogans, it's without real meaning). Much more important, IMHO, is the lack of thoughtful, well-researched and reflective analysis found in European media, but no longer here (with a few exceptions, such as Bill Moyers). When citizens look to the media they find soundbites, petty and superficial discussions and a cult of personality replacing issues, ideas and an objective look at how each party's policies have affected the country. Without that depth of understanding, viewers are left without adequate information to make an informed choice, and become easy victims for the Karl Roves of the world. Americans have been infantilized and hypnotized to the point where a haircut or a lapel pin becomes a serious impediment to support. We can't fault voters who are so easy fooled by the Bushes of the world, when we raise them to be empty-headed, shallow and ill-informed. The educational system teaches historical facts instead of producing future citizens equipped with the tools and background they'll need to participate fully in a democratic government. Putting these two factors together, we've produced a nation of dangerous, ignorant and easily-manipulated children who complain about "being on the wrong track" while being perfectly willing to elect (or re-elect) someone who will continue the short march over a high cliff. Lemmings, all---
"Easily manipulated" citizenry is what many believe we have become. The family and school used to be the primary socializing agents in our society, but not anymore. Now, that job is done by the media and the advertising industry. So many have noted that we are losing our capacity for critical thinking. We are fast becoming a nation of easily deceived and misled citizens. On a personal level---the personal is the political, though---we see, in high-profile relationships like Christy Brinkley, the failure of relationships based on superficial appearances. Same is true for the actress, Anne Hathaway, who was going with a charmer who has now been indicted.
Marcuse coined the term, "de-sublimation," to convey (I think) how Freud's concept of sublimation has been modified by post-industrial society. Sublimation refers to the channeling of our aggressive and sexual instincts into productive and creative activity; de-sublimation refers to the channeling of those same instincts into the lowest common denominator, the least elevating, activities. Thus, we have Fox News.
We need to begin to look beyond the particular and the partisan and the superficial, for the traits and qualities that connect us to one another as human beings.
----
So many have noted that we are losing our capacity for critical thinking. We are fast becoming a nation of easily deceived and misled citizens.
----
As progressives, we need to understand the conservative narratives in order to defeat them. People who believe in conservative morality are taught that in order to be moral, they must be obedient to an authority. If they are not obedient, they will be punished. They believe that obedience leads to freedom. The more they obey revealed truth, the more they become liberated.
So, the whole conservative mindset discourages critical thinking in its followers. They must think and believe what their authority tells them to think and believe. This isn't simply a matter of choice for conservative followers. It is hardwired into their emotions and reasoning process. This explains why they are drawn by the millions to Rush Limbaugh like moths to a flame. To learn more, read "The Political Mind" by George Lakoff.
- Tom
I never though Obama as anything but an exceptional speaker .He was my third choice so I seemed to have missed the boat on projecting onto him. However I have a LOT of anger at Obama supporters who dumped all over everyone in the most ugly way, who didn't see him as they did.Even now any criticsm, and they say " Read his Book" as if he's the Supreme Leader like Mao. It was truly scary to watch .
Although I find it the rapidity with which it shed his thin progressive veneer shocking, the one good side effect is that its taken the sails out of some seriously deluded people.
we define ourselves in our dreams, in our unconscious, and then project that identity onto our loved ones, including the candidates we love. So we each have our dream of change and what it means. What I want is a change in leadership and a change in the Permanent Campaign mentality in Washington. If Obama has to move to the center to do that, it's OK with me. My dream won't come true under a McCain administration, and I'm willing to let the brilliant Obama figure out what his idea of change is so I can change my dream to his. I believe that as we grow older we must become more humble because after, maybe 60, we should start to recognize that there are people who a a lot smarter than we are. I know Obama is smarter than I am, so I'm going to trust him to figure out what change is, then I'll change my definition. And lastly, I like Obama because I think he is more authentic than McCairn, but we'll have to wait and see -- and hope.
This post was a helpful contribution to my thinking about Sen. Obama's centrist leanings of late. I believe that my conscious experience is the sense of betrayal and disappointment; I see Obama living out a series of contradictions that don't coincide with my view (projection?) of him. How do I hold Obama the supporter of capital punishment or an assault on the 4th Amendment in the same hand as Obama the visionary progressive, humanist, community organizer and world-changer.
My unconscious, however, speaks to my need for a "pure" candidate; a pure progressive, a pure liberal and new-age politician without contradictions. I have a difficult time resolving contradictions in people I admire, e.g., I admired FDR greatly. But I also know that he turned away thousands of European Jewish refugees during WWII from American shores; and was it Truman's plan to bomb Japan or was it Roosevelt's?
All this to say that I believe we project idealized notions on to our best leaders without acknowledging their feet-of-clay. Perhaps Obama is inoculating us to the idea that he is anything but perfect! A good test for us: How many Americans, of all stripes, idealize George W --- now or ever? I fear that he and his gang got away with so much because we never idealized them; we never really expected much and therefore they never really disappointed. If this is true, it's a gruesome commentary on modern politics. Let's risk being disappointed, folks!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
