Politics on the Couch: Splitting

What follows is the second section of my new book, Politics on the Couch. Because we live in an interactive world and this election is an interactive process, I am conducting a new experiment -- posting sections of the manuscript twice weekly on my blog at HuffingtonPost.com and inviting readers' comments which may be folded into the final print edition.

SPLITTING

From early infancy, we try to organize our internal world, a need that persists throughout life. At first we simplify that world, turning our experiences into good and bad, comfort at our mother's presence and discomfort in her absence. This attempt to order psychic life into good and bad experiences is called splitting, and it is a fundamental way to make sense of different emotions by keeping opposite feelings separate from one another. This protects the child from feeling confused or anxious that his bad feelings will destroy his good ones.

When children divide up into teams of good guys and bad guys, they are splitting. When parents divorce, some children have to see one parent as the victim and the other as the victimizer in order to manage their fears and confusion. Whatever the circumstance, as children we all learn to split in order to manage anxiety. It is normal and a necessary part of emotional growth.

Politicians are aware of this universal unconscious process, and try to use it to their advantage. George W. Bush is a master at manipulating our tendency to split, tapping into the general public's need to protect itself from overwhelming anxiety. Psychic splitting is reinforced by fear: Bush exhorts us to fear terrorists. We hear his threat to other nations - "You are either with us or against us" - either as comforting if we link supporting America to supporting Bush, or as threatening if we disagree with his policies.

Splits within groups - whether the current split between Obama and Clinton supporters or the century-old American split between North and South - are even more absolute and dramatic than those within one individual. For example, when journalist Samantha Power called Hillary Clinton a "monster," not only was she splitting - unless Senator Clinton really is a monster (a term I generally reserve for unrepentant serial killers) - Professor Power herself was labeled a monster, and was given no room to admit a mistake or to apologize. Perceptions become absolute and splitting complete. The Obama campaign was itself acceding to the power of splitting when it fired her. She became the bad team member/monster who had to go.

I was shocked at some responses I got to my announcement that I was going to vote for Obama. Some friends said, "So you really hate Hillary." They didn't seem to believe me when I said that I actually liked Senator Clinton and thought she'd be a good President. People under stress in groups tend to divide their worlds into good and evil - no matter how well educated or thoughtful they are as individuals.

People split between idealization and demonization. Before the age of five, most children idealize their parents as powerful people without fault. Idealization facilitates growth and development, enabling the child to identify with the strengths of a parent. At the same time idealization keeps aggressive or murderous feelings from reaching the child's consciousness. The child thus avoids guilt feelings, remaining unaware of potentially destructive wishes against his perfect caregivers. But when the child becomes disillusioned with his parents - it usually happens around the age of five - organized patriotism, religious indoctrination, or team sports are there to pick up the pieces and form bases for new idealizations that protect the child from disappointment and anger. In healthy environments the child eventually gains perspective on parental faults

Political candidates try to convince voters of their moral integrity, their compassion, and their patriotism. They masquerade as ideal people - and ideal people can't admit mistakes, lest they be dethroned. When Senator Edwards acknowledged the mistake of giving Bush power to invade Iraq, he gained stature in the minds of many, but lost other voters who need to have a president who is never wrong. Childhood idealizations are activated in adult voters who are drawn to support one candidate over another. We've seen that process intensely at work in the rival Clinton-Obama camps. Threats to idealizations are rapidly dismissed.

Unconscious internal splitting is now reinforced by material splits that are starker than at any time in US history: voters face real-world splits between black and white, man and woman, young and old. Polling often emphasizes those splits. In this election cycle, groups are more likely to identify themselves by who they are not, rather than who they are. Splitting simplifies. Politicians use fear to maintain that simplification - Obama declares himself safe and different by calling McCain the same as Bush; McCain declares himself strong by accusing Obama of always wanting surrender in Iraq.

When a person splits, he becomes an unconscious hypocrite: he doesn't keep in mind the relationship of what he says to what he does. This kind of split is between thought and action, between public and private - and it can be complete. Gay-bashing Republicans who turn out to be gay themselves are clear-cut examples of total splitting: they eliminate all capacity for self-awareness.

Was Senator McCain splitting in his June 2 AIPAC speech? He said, "We should...divest from companies doing business with Iran" while at the same time his chief campaign advisor - lobbyist Charles Black - had just helped a Chinese oil company invest in Iran. I think McCain was splitting; he seems genuinely unaware of what his close friend, Mr. Black, actually does. If McCain were mindful he wouldn't be splitting, because splitting involves a total lack of mindfulness. If he is mindful, then he has made a conscious choice to lie.

How do you see splitting manifested in the current political process - in the media, in the candidates, in yourselves? What do you think about temporal splitting, about how we split what we say to day from what we forget having said yesterday?

Next: RACE AND SPLITTING

Sign up for email alerts to this blog with the "Become a Fan" button at the top of the page.

Comments

[CharlesWarner]

Excellent analysis. Clear and concise and very insightful. Again, I suggest ending with a checklist so that we can be aware of splitting we might be unconsciously doing.

[TomR]

----
I was shocked at some responses I got to my announcement that I was going to vote for Obama. Some friends said, "So you really hate Hillary."
----

Could this also have been an example of projection, projecting their dislike or hate for Obama onto you as hate for Hillary?

I think that a win-or-lose race between two competitors has inherent splitting built into it. Imagine if our system was totally different, where the outcome was win-win. I'm not saying both would get the Democratic nomination, but maybe some other important role or responsibility for our country could be granted to the 2nd place finisher, something different from the VP position.

The media hypes the splitting because contrast makes for better storytelling.

I think another factor that encourages splitting is it's "hard work" to understand the world in shades of gray rather than in black and white. Just look at all of the hard work diplomacy Bush avoided over the years because he refused to talk to our country's enemies and rather spent many days at his house in Crawford. Where’s the truancy officer when you need him? Bush being lazy, incurious and apathetic was framed to the American people as strong and steadfast.

The need to belong to a group, form relationships and emotional bonds may also play a role in splitting.

- Tom

[tyrdofwaitin]

Yes, Tom, that is another dimension of splitting. "Winner-take-all" is the traditional American way. For contrast, look at the apportionment rules for primaries in the Republication Party where winner takes all vs. the proportional delegate assignments for the Democrats. Some would say that proprortional representation is less democratic, i.e., the electoral college; I would agree. One person-one-vote would seem more just than a tortured electoral system.

Proportional representation is the rule in Europe and in nations like Israel. However, and this is the big difference, they are opposing parties with greatly differing views on policy. Ostensibly, Hillary and Barack are in the same party! The intra-party spliting served only one of the candidates and that splitting did not occur over policy issues: Rather, that splitting occured over race and class and gender. Only one candiate benefitted from that splitting, but in fact, that candidate lost. Divide and Conquer doesn't always work.

[tyrdofwaitin]

I think we have to distinguish between the Uncs. dynamic of splitting and bald-face-lies! Much of what we have seen in the Bush adiministration is mendacity; they are fully aware of their duplicity. What Bush has done, rather successfully, is to invoke splittiing in us --- the American populace. It is the most fundamental process of "divide & conquer".

The most magesterial of poiticians now how to manipulate this defense mechanism. Where is Melanie Kiein when we need her?

[oncethere]

I do think the psychological hallmark of the Bush Admin is the failure and/or inability to take responsibility for their bad acts----which, itself, is a form of splitting, as they are supposedly the Party of personal responsibility. My belief is that their self-esteem is too fragile to absorb the blow and it would be a devastating injury to them. But, in any event, there is very little "learning" done with people who can't admit their mistakes and there can be little growth in relationships with such people.

It is one of life's least rewarding experiences to find yourself in a relationship with someone who splits or is unable to take responsibility for their behavior. Quite honestly, there is very little that can be done to improve such a situation.

[JudeWaves]

Thanks for this information. One of the shocks of my life was that getting older didn't make one, necessarily, wiser; in fact, in this political season, my frustration with the elders is legion -- they seem stuck in the WWII mindset, with winning at any cost the only goal and the enemy as clearly defined as Hitler or Tojo. They're stuck in the "nation state" mentality of the last century.

And now I'm scratching my head over the Hillary supporters that threaten to flock to McCain. I'd have to question not their loyalty, but their common sense. And as "splitting" does not seem to fit into sensible emotional patterns, I guess you've told me what I need to know. Now -- the only question: is there a remedy for this mindlessness? We sure need somebody to dump it in our drinking water.

[cybermome1207]

I love your perspective and love that you are blogging parts of your new book.

Do you think splitting explains how people vote against their own economic best interests?

[oncethere]

Extremists on both sides will accuse each other of "hating" America or being "unpatriotic."
Quetionable actions will be labelled "treasonous." There is some splitting involved here, but it also reflects a tendency, widespread in this society, of personalizing differences, that is, to wrongly assume a person is a "hater" just because he has a different view of things.

Bush and many Republicans have an over-idealized view of America, which prevents them from seeing and addressing it's shortcomings. Bush is also the Great Rationalizer and Denier. The day the tax cuts for the Super-Rich passed he said, quote, "It's a great day for the working man of America." Denial---Katrina and many other things.

But I think the most devastating---for the rest of us--- psyc phenomenon involved here is, as you say, the lack of "self-awareness" you see with so many Repubs caused by splitting and compartmentalization. Thus, we had the army of self-righteous right-wingers, most of whom were involved in extra-marital affairs and visiting prostitutes, condeming Clinton to political hell. And who can forget REp. Foley, caught sending suggestive e-mails to boys, being the chairman of a congressional committee on child abuse. Finally, we have the pervasive projecting amongst Republicans; also, stems from lack of self-awareness and is actually considered a primitive defense mechanism used by lower functioning people (Just thought I'd throw that out).

[research]

Interesting.

Do you believe Bush and Cheney are NOT conscious of what they are doing?

I think they consciously believe that the rich and powerful conservative elite are best able to run the country and the world. Then they deceive to accomplish this goal. The mob doesn't deserve the truth.

The wiki article on splitting is also good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

[oncethere]

I would say that Rationalization is what allows them to "consciously believe that the rich and powerful" should lead this country---when we cater to the rich and powerrful, their thiniking goes, everyone will benefit. Trickle-down economics.

Forgot to mention one example of projection----I couldn't believe my ears when Limbaugh not too long ago said this: "We all know that the Democrats want to establish a permanent majority in Washington."

[Hallucinocynic]

Excellent analysis, Justin. Look forward to reading more. One observation you made...

"When a person splits, he becomes an unconscious hypocrite: he doesn't keep in mind the relationship of what he says to what he does..."

...underscores the sense of personal identification that many people have with their candidate, and their inability to assay the entire political landscape beyond the confines of a campaign. Those who commit themselves to an individual, without any acknowledgment of that candidate's weaknesses and incongruent beliefs or policies, often prove to be incapable of understanding political cause and effect, and are only too happy to behave in self-destructive ways. That explains the harsh reaction to the Obama victory by many, many Clinton supporters who now claim they will support a candidate whose political history offers no suggestion that he would share, much less support, any legislation that Clinton supporters feel is important. It's difficult to ascribe any sense of political maturity to a group that will vote in order to 'get even.' That kind of thinking goes beyond hypocrisy, it is simply irrational.

[vcsmith]

As I understand Mr. Frank's splitting theory, it is in some sense a way of simplifying peoples lives, black or white, good or bad, etc. Therefore, these people are avoiding any complex thought process and probably cannot see past the candidate to the issues. They never really get to the point of hypocrisy and/or irrational thoughts because they stopped thinking well before getting to these points.

On the other hand, splitting is employed quite effectively by the Sean Hannity's of the world to bully anyone who questions their rhetoric. "Would you associate with an unrepentant terrorist?" If you answer no, then you agree that Obama is evil. If you answer yes, he dumps the caller.

[outnow]

Obama did not consolidate his organization within the Black community before becoming the leader of the Democratic party. He side-stepped some deep divisions which he attributed to the baby boomers and the 60's. In "actionalist" theory he will pay a price for his actions withing groups and subgroups. The 60's were times no different from these times. The laws of nature have not changed even after 9-11. Human nature and politics are the same as they have been for thousands of years. Jesse Jackson came closer to achieving a consensus within his subgroup. He had no Rev. Wright problems, nor did he extol the virtues of Ronald Reagan, the enemy of the middle class. Obama skipped the stage of gaining cohesion within his own community, i.e., was he black enough? Etc., etc. Hillary Clinton had baggage and she was a woman. She lost rather than Obama having won. Now Obama must achieve some consensus among the moral majority - a very prejudiced group. There is nothing new under the sun. "Reaching across the aisle" is a good way to have your entire arm chopped off. I just wonder if Obama is authentic and can keep with his principles in the face of AIPAC and the moral majority with Guns, Gays and God. Already he has left his church as did John McCain, the panderer-in -chief. How authentic is that? Too much splitting already.

[peaceplez]

I beg to differ. I think the reason Obama has gotten as far as he has is because he doesn't identify (split) with any one group, he is able to see the good qualities in a myriad groups. I believe it's very different from pandering. There is a core truth in him that he stays true to and rises above others differences. If he had first identified with the black community, many members would want him to focus on the differences and justifiable grievances, but that would have alienated him from other communities.

I worked in Washington, DC many an eon ago on the "Poor Peoples Campaign" and was involved with MLK's movement. What happened after he was shot, (understandably so, yet sadly) was that the movement split and most whites were essentially left out. Since I'm white, I was sad to loose a sense of unity, fighting injustice. And it was hard to have old friends pull away.

[ParanoidPollyanna]

Obama must achieve consensus with very prejudiced group, the "Moral Majority"? Are you kidding? The right-wing extreme wing is & always WAS a MINORITY of the American People! They only achieved their strangehold on our Society by being FANATICALLY FOCUSED on creating a Right-Wing Political & MEDIA Propaganda & Attack Machine, & by forming an UNHOLY Alliance with the Extreme Right-Wing of Fundamentalist Evangelicals, cynically & very calculately pretending to care about THEIR crazy, fanatical religious agenda. The TRUE Moral Majority woke up one day & found that the "PUBLIC AIRWAVES" had been taken over by the Right-Wing & traditional Voices of REASON were shut out, MAINSTREAM beliefs & opinions were being suddenly attacked & called names!

The Conservative RIGHT-WING Republicans & RELIGIOUS Right-Wing staged a BLOODLESS COUP", seized Political, Economic & Cultural power, & began the calculated, cynical, & cold-hearted "SHREDDING" of the Social Safety Net, which F.D.R. created after the DISASTROUS experiences of the American people under Pres. HERBERT HOOVER during the GREAT DEPRESSION, after W.W.I, when there was no such "safety net", even for W.W. I VETERANS & their families! George W. Bush's Presidency has been SO catastrophic, hopefully the TRUE Majority of Amerioans won't be fooled AGAIN, at least for a long, long time! We finally have a CHANCE to actually form a "more Perfect Union", with real Grassroots Democracy, in America!

[fairwitness]

Very helpful perspective, thanks. Not a "splitter" myself, I really hate the rest of you for doing that...

[texanna]

LOL! And much needed today, I assure you!