Politics on the Couch: Projection

What follows is the first chapter for the interactive book, Politics on the Couch (the introduction can be read here). Readers' comments are welcome and an integral part of this experiment.

PROJECTION

Pogo got it right in 1970 when he said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Projection is an unconscious effort to look for an outside cause rather than an internal one - it often results in blaming or fearing others in order to protect the self from recognizing unwanted impulses, usually of destructive nature. Using this mechanism helps us manage anxiety by mobilizing our aggression against internal threats we now perceive as external.

It is not simply impulses that are projected, however. One can protect against fears of destruction at the hands of a parent -say a hypercritical mother or physically abusive father - by externalizing that scary relationship and superimposing it onto someone current. Hence a boss may be experienced as extra-punitive because the employee had a punitive father.

While the result of such projection is paranoid thinking, it primes us to fight and thereby feel less helpless. Our enemy no longer lurks inside. How we see the world and respond to it is partly determined by what we project onto it. We may project internal conflicts as well, partly to get rid of them, and partly to better resolve them.

So how is thinking about projection useful in helping us understand political candidates, the media, ourselves? Since this process is unconscious: the person doing the projecting is unaware of doing it. But voters needn't be clueless. For instance, we can look at the names candidates call each other and wonder whether they are really talking about themselves.

When Senator Clinton called Senator Obama naïve, couldn't she have been describing herself in several ways? She was naïve when she believed President Bush's lies - obvious to many of her Senate colleagues - when she gave him the authority to wage war in Iraq. She also behaved naively when she assumed her Democratic nomination was inevitable, saying at the end of 2007 that her nomination would be secure by February 5 - super Tuesday. Even if she gets that nomination, which she still might as of this writing, it will have been by no means inevitable.

Kids understand projection: When someone calls them a nasty name they say, "I know you are but what am I?" Candidates do the same at times, though so far Obama seems to be the most successful at it. On Memorial Day 2008, McCain said of Obama, "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq." Obama's quick rejoinder, that McCain was the person who hasn't been able to learn from the experience of a failed war policy, is similar to an interpretation a good psychoanalyst might make that the patient is "projecting" when he accuses the analyst of doing the very thing he himself is doing. Obama also understands the effect that displaced images have on voters as continues to say at every stump speech, "John McCain is running for George Bush's third term."

The examples used so far focus on disowning unwanted aspects of self by ascribing them to someone else. But one can project positive feelings to protect against anxiety about separation from good parents or yearned-for protectors. Projection can sometimes get internal conflicts outside the self so one can resolve them in a wider context. While I have no proof, I think that Obama's biracial history could be an impetus for his unusual emphasis on resolving political differences between people.

His message of change resonates powerfully because its source seems to stem from his own relentless need to resolve inner conflict. I think young voters in particular respond to his efforts, as entering the political is one avenue for adolescents to work on their own struggles of self definition and separation from home. Obama's struggle about what to do with Reverend Wright reflects his own inner conflict - one he has often resolved through accepting that people are not one-dimensional.

Where voters - all of us - run into trouble is when we cannot distinguish how much our own projections influence what we call "political realities." The fact that there are so many different voter reactions to the Hillary-Barack conflict makes clear the sway our own projections have over our emotional perceptions. What projections might fire the passionate devotion shown by Clinton and Obama supporters? And what projections account for their antipathy to the other candidate?

To me, idiosyncratic family relations - unconscious or not - must influence our different perceptions. Is our passion evoked by a sense that Hillary and Barack are behaving like children fighting over the estate of their recently deceased father (read Bush's totally failed policies)? Now that father is gone and no longer scary, they want everything for themselves.

To those of us who are children of divorce, the experience could be similar. We may be so identified with one parent that to vote for the other - should the candidate representing the projected other parent get nominated - would be a disloyal and therefore unthinkable act. To some, Hillary is the carping mother who wants to destroy the father, no matter its effect on their children. To others, Obama is the charismatic father coming home after doing nothing all day and then demanding that he be listened to despite his wife having washed the floors, fed the children, and paid the bills.

I must also mention hope and change once more, as children often develop grandiose fantasies about themselves to compensate for frustrations they feel because their parents are powerful. Super-heroes help the child feel powerful, and many adults use sports heroes and movie stars in much the same way. Bush intimidated the media and his own staff, exposed once again by McClellan's book. Voters who felt powerless for years - not just against Bush but against the Supreme Court and Diebold - feel hope again not only of being heard but of effecting change.

But when voters spoke up clearly in 2006, even Democratic leaders turned their backs - when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" she left Bush as powerful as ever. It was as if the election never happened. Now Obama receives deeply held fantasies of power harbored by frustrated voters. We project our own grandiose fantasies onto him - fantasies that compensate for feeling helpless against rising gas prices, for example - allowing him to seem even more heroic. This process allows his more devoted followers to identify with what are in fact their own projected wishes.

Group phenomena will be discussed in a later section. But in the meantime, what projections have you noticed in the candidates, the media, and in yourselves?

Comments

[TomR]

----
Projection is an unconscious effort to look for an outside cause rather than an internal one - it often results in blaming or fearing others in order to protect the self from recognizing unwanted impulses, usually of destructive nature.
----

What I find difficult is determining which behavior is projection vs. behavior that is merely opportunistic and self-serving. It appears to me that Karl Rove has no problem using any of a myriad of manipulation tactics and is quite willing to accuse others of the same manipulative behavior if and when it suits his purpose, particularly if it helps him achieve his goal. So, in other words, the goal is really the only thing that matters to him. He appears unconcerned with trying to find an external cause to his own problematic internal behavior. And unfortunately, he's enabled by Newsweek and Fox News. Rove manipulates to deflect others' attention away (as opposed to his own attention) from what he's doing, like a magician's sleight of hand. He doesn't appear to feel vulnerable like George W. Bush. Bush needs to project in order to function. Rove may appear to project at times, but it seems incidental with someone who simply doesn't care and has little to no conscience. This probably applies to Dick Cheney as well.

- Tom

[Heartlander]

I suspect that some of the liberal Democrats who support Obama are deeply embarrased about, and feel unable to alter, the negative opinion they percieve that the rest of the world has of the USA. Because Obama is biracial, and has antecendents and relatives in Africa, and lived for a time outside the USA, they project onto him an ability to change the global opinion of the USA by his very background, appearance and demeanor.
For some liberal Boomers, voting/caucusing for Obama is seen as a way of supporting and connecting with their offspring who are Obama enthusiasts. They see in their children's politicial activity and support of Obama some validation of their parenting, and they wish to endorse this by also supporting Obama.
I also think that the "halo effect" affects many Obama supporters. Because some people are drawn to and powerfully moved moved by Obama's charisma and oratory, they impute other desirable qualities, which he actually may not possess, to him.

[research]

Obama is brilliant, moral and persuasive.

We all have ancestors in Africa.

[tyrdofwaitin]

My favorite projection? Interviewer: "There are rumors that Obama isn't a Christian, but a Muslim. Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian". (The actualized projection) HRC: "AS FAR AS I KNOW".

My favorite post-projection, projection: Geraldine Ferraro lobs a racist bomb into the campaign when she maintains that Obama would not have gotten this far if he weren't black. The ActualizedProjection: When a farly widespread backlash to her comments surfaced, Geraldine Ferraro claimed that the attacks against her "...are racist".

The Most Profound and Catastrophic Projection: "We have to go to war with Iraq because they possess WMD" The Actualized Projection: "The pre-emptive war against Iraq has begun with a massive campaign of "Shock and Awe".

The Moral of this story is....When folks are building a rationale for something untrue, unkind or nefarious you can betcha their characterizations or accusations are embodied in their own hearts and minds; be patient and you will see the actualized projections emerge.

Re: positive projections: I think of them more in terms of a "halo effect" or in analytic terms a positve transference; these are problematic for different reasons. Where negative projections tend to demonize a person, positive projections tend to "idealize" a person. It's all okay until that person doesn't live up to our idealized projections.

Barack Obama will do well to keep his (imperfect) feet firmly planted.

[majorsongs]

Perfect example of projection: BIll Clinton on Todd Purdum, author of the Vanity Fair article that nail's Clinton's narcissism: "That's all right-- he's still a scumbag," Clinton said. " Let me tell ya--he's one of the guys -- he's one of the guys that brought out all those lies about Whitewater to Kenneth Starr. He's just a dishonest guy-- can't help it."

[Chazzam]

Outstanding post on the politically prominent psychologocal phenomenon of projection! I see it frequently displayed by those with whom I disagree, often calling it out, but am naturally (despite being an introvert) less inclined to apply the same rubric to my ideological or political compatriots or myself.
Your post has stimulated me to reflect on my own unprecedentedly high (for a political figure) regard and enthusiasm for Sen. Obama. In all honesty, I find there to be a strong projection component fortifying it, as Barack embodies many of the traits (though more virtues, especially warmth) of my own father, who my mother divorced when I was 3. My father, a very cerebral and eloquent individual (though predisposed toward depression) was present in weekend visits and the divorce was thankfully amicable. It is clear, upon reflection that Barack Obama embodies certain idealized "father" archetype attributes (good judgement, a drive to reconcilliation, even-headedness, hopefulness). Thes traits make him an excellent recipient for my ideal father projections, that resulted from my more conceptual than relational father/son dynamics. Does this invalidate my support for the candidate? I don't think so. It does certainly make it a more personal "argument" for his candidacy than an objective one.

Thank you for this post Dr. Frank.

[CarmenCameron]

EXCELLENT!!!

I've been telling my friends and associates for months that this entire election a really helpful person improvement tool in that it is little more than a collective Rorschach test for our entire nation. Whom we support - and why - is an incredibly telling fact about ourselves because it is so easy to distantiate "big" events from the mundane daily "little" ones.

To answer your question, though, it seems to me that "victimhood" has been manifesting as a major projection by many supporters of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

On the other hand, my own long-held belief that we'll NEVER resolve our national problems until we stop blaming and start REALLY communicating is what I see reflected in Sen. Obama.

[outnow]

Dr. Frank,


I loved your book. This "voter projection" matter is really dry in your new book. It is exciting to analyse a sociopath but not as fun to analyse those who elected him (or voted for him). I understand the importance of projections. I prefer to analyse voter behavior according to commonly-held attitudes, values and beliefs but the psychological and psychoanalytic analysis is interesting. What projections did voters give Bush and why. These voters need a good psychiatrist! Hahaha!


I call Bush "Oedipus-Tex" but that is not original. Good luck trying to explain the sociopaths who voted for this man. A guy you want to have a beer with? Then get into a train wreck with.

[research]

Great article. Please keep these deconstructions of "projection" and "opposite world" in the public eye.

Pray, we don't get fooled again.

[Leebot]

I enjoyed BOTC so thanks for this!

I'm interested in your take on Bill Clinton's projections; remarks about "people who think they're better than us" strikes me as cathartic personal therapy sessions, where he revisits every perceived injury.

"Grandiose fantasies" may apply to SOME seeking a larger-than-life hero, but please don't generalize overly much. I'm frustrated with our current leadership,, but connect most with Obama's life story AND philosophy of leadership. I've worked in government/politics, including for elected officials of both genders, and my observations inform what qualities I seek (inclusive, collaborative "we are all stakeholders" approach, understanding of history & constitutional principles, sharp intellect, introspective nature & emotional health). Resume & policy wonkishness are not sufficient. It's not grandiose to expect a president who is a) smarter than me and b) won't trample the constituents. I initially supported Clinton as a close second, but she's been a disappointment to me in many ways. I admit that her dramatic "celestial choirs" act felt chillingly dismissive.

Female friends who support her vary in their projections as well. Some are pragmatic and prefer her resume. Others speak symbolically; a female president would go a long way in repairing inequities and injustices, and pave the way for more females to attain positions of power. Some friends seek to assuage personal rejections and injustices.

[DMHendrix]

Your other book "Bush On The Couch" was/is one of my favorite books of the past couple of years. I saw an interview on The Young Turks show between you and host Cenk Uygur and it made me go out an immediately buy the book. I had a better understanding of why George Bush is the way he is. Still can't stand him, but it opened my eyes quite a bit.

[TheraP]

In my opinion you did an excellent job explaining projection. On the other hand it seems to me that your "interpretations" of Obama are not flagged as such.

I too am fascinated by how psychodynamics can be helpful when looking at politics, better to say it's "your view" only.

My own take is different from yours. I'd need to know a whole lot more about him to suggest "inner conflicts." And how people perceive him won't fall into neat categories or be based on projection.

My own view of Obama? He is one grounded individual with a wisdom far beyond his years. He makes great eye contact. His manner of speech is inclusive and autonomy-generating. He has a capacity for insight, is capable of deep long lasting relationships, exercises drive and motivation of in the service of attaining goals. He inspire others, an ability which bothers some people (but that's their problem!). Obama appears to do well in the areas of both work and love, the two areas which are important for life.

As readers might note, my description is a "behavioral description" based on what I've seen of his behavior and what I know of psychological health. Basically I see him as *not* driven by inner conflicts. Because if he were, he would not be succeeding so well in these two areas of life. No one is perfect, but he's doing pretty well.

I heartily recommend him as a candidate!

[TheraP]

My reply had to be truncated, losing many interesting thoughts, in order to fit the software which prevented me from saying all I had to say. Sorry about the strange sentences that resulted!

[Annoula]

Excellent, as usual, Dr Frank!
A really blatant example of projection in this campaign was Hillary's famous: "Shame on you, Barack Obama! Shame on you!" that she delivered in an indignant tone in response to his accusation (I believe it was something about her role in supporting NAFTA), which she further qualified as "taken from Karl Rove's book". Her furious demands for an immediate apology looked very much like an externalization of her own modus operandi...
When Obama refused to apologize and instead, chose to level and stand by what he had said, her own attempts to distort the truth in order to appear as his "victim" were exposed. Her destructive intentions did not go unnoticed and the clip, which was repeated ad nauseaum by the media, ended up being more damaging to her than to Obama.
Regarding my own projection:
In the last few weeks, I have have developed a deeply visceral rejection for Hillary. I have tracked it back to the principal of my grammar school. This was a woman who couldn't stand the idea of not being in control. She was willing to say or do anything to hold on to power. She could be a witch or a wounded puppy depending on the situation. She was a professional charmer and always told parents what she felt they wanted to hear. Machiavelli 's portrait was probably hanging somewhere in her office.

[valkyrie607]

One thing I have noticed in talking to Clinton supporters, particularly those who, like her, are women of a certain age, is that they see themselves and their struggle in her. This is a good thing, to a certain extent, a useful tool for a politician to mobilize her base, but it seems to me that in some cases it's eclipsed the rationality of her supporters.

Instead of seeing Clinton fighting for the nomination, these women see themselves fighting against their abusive ex-husband, their belittling father or boss, that arrogant young man who upstaged them in the workplace. They respond as if they were fighting that same battle over again, they feel personally affronted and even threatened that Clinton seems on the verge of losing. To them, Clinton's loss is their defeat, yet another example of women like them being shoved aside by insensitive, arrogant, sexist men. They project their struggles onto Clinton, and their anger and hatred towards those men who hurt them in the past onto Obama.

Hence, you hear Clinton supporters saying they'd vote for McCain over Obama--it makes no rational sense whatsoever. McCain would overturn Roe v. Wade, but that doesn't impact their thinking--they're too consumed by the struggle, the pain, and the anger this campaign has triggered for them.

[Chipster]

No one should jump to the conclusion that because that whole last post was taken up with one aspect of this chapter that I don't commend Dr. Frank for his work and value his project. I do, and will be back to comment more.

[Chipster]

>She was naïve when she believed President Bush's lies - obvious to many of her Senate colleagues - when she gave him the authority to wage war in Iraq.

This has been a canard that I've never heard fully addressed, yet it is almost as pervasive as "Gore invented the Internet."

Since HP's posts are limited to 250 words, I'll first offer the link to Clinton's senate Iraq speech:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program....So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option....I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force....I will take the President at his word that he...will seek to avoid war, if at all possible....A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

Naive now? Nuanced then? A clear, unqualified war vote?

Is it fair to say that Barack Obama has better judgment because he opposed the war, when he when he wasn't in the Senate then to vote on the issue?

[Annoula]

I agree, she wasn't naive. but she was self-serving. She did what she thought was better for her future political aspirations. And she confirmed it by admitting, years later, that she hadn't read the whole report before voting. That was a careless and irresponsible act. It is obvious that the pressure was high to show support to a President that appeared resolved to retaliate against 9/11 and she, being from NY and a freshman to the Senate had additional stakes in that vote. But her lack of interest in getting to the bottom of the issue before voting and having her staff read the report for her shows where her priorities are.

[research]

Naive: "..I will take the President at his word ..."

[ProFromOre]

Chipster: "Nuanced then?"

Annoula : "she was self-serving"

THE reasons she lost AND the reason the Democratic party's in turmoil. Virtually every statement the Senator made during the campaign has been SO damn nuanced that she's been able to convince herself and her supporters of some ridiculous and far-fetched notions.

Those of us that didn't buy it need to understand what she has done to our fellow Dems who believed her -- look at what Bush's former 'Liar to the Press' McClellan is publicly going through: he became doubtful while on staff, then as he got away from the indoctrination bubble he became more clear-minded. Then he saw how his mother was treated in a recent election, (something no interviewer's thought to ask him about), and he made the final progression toward seeing the Bush crime family for what it is and changed the direction of the book.

That he didn't go all out and really tell us what he thought or knows is a silent testament to what McClellan knows the Bush crime family is capable of doing in revenge. Look how they've turned on him so far...

But, back to Clinton supporters. We need to understand that some will switch to Obama right away - the majority will need to go through a 'McClellan' process of their own - getting far enough away to see the situation for what it was. Most will, but they need to be supported and given the time to do it.