Id He The One?

I don't know about you, but boy I am sure hearing a lot about Senator Larry Craig. Everyone wants to discuss his case, everyone has an opinion and everyone asks me for the psychological explanation of this scandal. The problem right off the bat is, What exactly needs to be analyzed or understood psychologically? Is he gay? Why didn't this come out before? Why did he plead guilty? Why was the police investigator so intrusive and indignant when questioning him? Why is there so much hysteria around this story?

Since I live with a political columnist, we have had many discussions about these issues and yet we seem to be understanding it from different angles. One can look at it from a political and legal angle or one can look at it from a psychological one pertaining to the individual and his instinctual need to survive. It is possible that a politician, especially a long-term senator like Craig, has a different instinct than most other people and that's what makes him a politician in the first place. But I would still guess that Craig is like most people. The need to survive and to be reelected has to conform to the personality style that he has constructed for himself and shown to others.

So, politically, maybe we would say that the challenge is to maintain a consistent political persona --in this case, conservative family values. To add to the mix, we are in the midst of presidential races that require each party to make sure that no matter who the candidate is the ideals of the party are upheld, that these ideals are clear to the country, and that power is maintained by that party. Therefore, the motivation is strong to expunge whomever doesn't conform to either his previous identity or the party's own.

But this sounds like a psychological analysis as well. Craig's ego structure is supported by many years of constructing an identity for himself. It's not only one that the voters believe in or that his family believes in. It's one that he believes in. Even if his id, his gut responses or desires, wants something else, his higher reasoning abilities will try to stop that or to cover it up. So, of course, he would deny being gay. If he is or isn't, is irrelevant. What is important is maintaining the identity that has been established and that coincides with the structure he wants to maintain -- his career and family.

Why he pleaded guilty is a bit more complicated. And yet it follows the same reasoning. Yes, he hoped that the whole thing would just go away. And, yes, he hoped to avoid a trial where the question of being gay would come up. So, if he admitted to disorderly conduct, by mistakenly widening his stance in the bathroom stall, he would not be saying he was gay and then hopefully the whole mess would go away and his conservative and conventional identity would be maintained. Or in psychological terms, his id may have gay desires, but his well-defended ego structure and identity were being maintained.

We should also remember that in the last couple of years it has become increasingly difficult to determine how we should respond to crisis situations. The culture now tells politicians and/or celebrities that they must profess guilt, show contrition and accept responsibility in order for us to forgive and to consequently lose interest in the crisis. I don't know if this has encouraged honesty or just established a new ritual of hypocrisy. But in Craig's case, his dilemma was to respond to the crisis in the expected ritualistic way and yet not expose the painful truth of his sexual preference. So, he admits guilt to disorderly conduct.

But, that wasn't the real issue and it didn't satisfy people. They didn't want to see him accept responsibility. They wanted to know if he was gay or not, a question incidentally that it appears has been asked many times before. So, in reality, the public isn't as interested in resolving the crisis as much as they are in finding out Craig's innermost, private, dirty secrets. We can't avoid the urge to expose, to judge and to feel powerful over those actually in power.

So, finally, what is this excitement and intense interest in this all about? Politically, obviously, each party has a stake in the proceedings. The Republicans want to maintain their conservative, moral values identity. To show internal stability, they have to express concern and to get rid of the disruptive force. The Democrats want to show the hypocrisy, moral instability, and internal inconsistency of the opposing party, thereby accentuating in contract their own strength and cohesiveness.

Psychological, as well, this intensity makes sense. We love to identify ourselves with a side of an issue and to take part in what is being played out on the public stages. We want our voice to be a part of the mix. We want to belong, to have a say. Even the arresting police officer became so personally involved when he found out he had just busted a United States senator that his questioning of Craig became intrusive and indignant. I think he saw Craig's alleged behavior as a form of betrayal. He was outraged that people had voted for the man, believing Craig to be the kind of man he really wasn't. The investigator clearly felt that Craig had an obligation to maintain a certain persona -- and he had failed at that. The cop expressed outrage and disbelief. The cop clearly took this personally.

And, in a way, so did we all. If a public official can lose control, are we also in danger of destroying our own lives? If his id can take over his well-constructed ego, could that happen to the rest of us? In this case the need to judge and to show power over those in power is an expression of our own personal fears. Thus, we double the reason to feel intensely involved in Senator Craig's personal crisis.

What about your own well-constructed ego structure? Are you always in fear of your base desires creeping in to destroy your well-ordered life? Are you afraid of losing control?

Please send your questions to me, Dr. Mona Ackerman, by posting them in the comments section below. I look forward to answering them and continuing our conversation!

Comments

[barrycourage]

"What about your own well-constructed ego structure? Are you always in fear of your base desires creeping in to destroy your well-ordered life? Are you afraid of losing control?"

I am in my mid forties and I have been out of the closet since I was 18 years old. I made my decision then to live my life honestly. So my "base desires" have been a healthy part of my "well-constructed ego structure."

But I am far from perfect. Eighteen years of being shamed into denying and hiding an essential part of my psyche have damaged it. So when people or circumstances have since intimidated me into hiding my sexual orientation (not preference, Dr.) and I have acquiesced, I lost control. That psychological damage is what now "destroys my well-ordered life."

I continually try to harmonize discrete expediency with my ego structure. I have learned it is best to support my gay identity and forego the expediency when harmony can't be achieved. When I let expediency trample my identity, the damage is painful. But I learn how to make choices that won't be destructive to my ego structure or disorder my life.

I will never understand the Larry Craigs of this world. Power or prestige or money or "community respect" could never compensate for an ego structure and life that are built from lies.

Craig chose the elements of his ego structure and the ordering of his life. If the whole resembles a wrecked car, he deserves it.

[prsfone]

Perhaps because many people here are educated, and many (perhaps especially progressives!) have experienced psychotherapy, readers here are quite familiar with concepts of repression and denial. That's all pretty obvious. Though you have suggested that your employment as a psychologist allows you special insight into someone like Craig, that's probably not the case. We all already had 'got it'.

We just don't see this as a psychological issue. Been there, done that---haven't we all, in some way? Yes. It's the hypocrisy that we object to. And it's the hypocrisy that the police officer appeared to object to, as well as Craig's attempt to intimidate him by showing his business card showing he was a senator. As we know, this act just disgusted the officer further.

The confusion may lie in the fact that different people have reacted against Craig for very, very different reasons. *There isn't one 'public reaction',* because there isn't 'one public.' I guess many social conservatives want him out because 1) they don't want someone gay in office 2) they don't like it that he cruised a bathroom. In contrast, surely no progressives care that he likes to have sex with men, and indeed many progressives don't care that he cruised a bathroom (I don't). Progressives just don't like it that he wants to have his cake---but doesn't want anyone else (like the soldiers fighting for his party's administration in Iraq and Afghanistan) to have it: the right to, in fact, have sex or want to have sex with his own gender. That's hypocrisy, selfishness, and deep, deep cowardice of the worst kind.

So much for serving his country and the citizens of Idaho--the gay ones, and the rest.

[MsLiz]

The pychoanalyzing of the police officer based upon his interrogation of Sen. Craig is absurd. When the commentator uses terms such as "clearly" it is because a conclusion is being leapt to which can not be justified. It is not clear. We don't know this officer and it is presumptious to think we can figure out what motivated him. I thought the officer's claim that Craig was disrespecting him by lying to him was an interrogation technique, intended to persuade Craig to admit what he was doing.

The comments about the public's fascination with the story were interesting, as was the speculation about how Senator Craig thinks. But seriously, does anyone talk about ids and egos in the Freudian sense anymore?

[Geoheymont]

Dr. Ackerman wrote: "Even the arresting police officer became so personally involved when he found out he had just busted a United States senator that his questioning of Craig became intrusive and indignant. I think he saw Craig's alleged behavior as a form of betrayal. He was outraged that people had voted for the man, believing Craig to be the kind of man he really wasn't. The investigator clearly felt that Craig had an obligation to maintain a certain persona -- and he had failed at that. The cop expressed outrage and disbelief. The cop clearly took this personally."

As a gay man, I disagree. My reaction was that the officer was incensed at Craig's bullying attempt to convince the cop that Craig was right and the cop's lying eyes were wrong. No matter what you think of entrapment procedures, this wasn't the first time the cop had arrested a perp, nor was it the first time he had heard someone struggle to argue his way out of the situation.

As an officer of the law who is sworn to uphold the law, having to listen to such crap coming out of the mouth of a lawmaker angered him and offended his sense of integrity.

The key here is that even if your job is to sit in a toilet stall and try to entrap men looking for sex, you can still maintain a certain amount of professional integrity while doing your job.

[philistine]

"As an officer of the law who is sworn to uphold the law, having to listen to such crap coming out of the mouth of a lawmaker angered him and offended his sense of integrity."
I agree with this assessment. Cops don't like it when people use their political clout to wiggle out of problems. If Craig had done this in N. Dakota, he no doubt would have walked, and the cop would have been incensed, but unable to do anything about it. In the worst case, he could have been fired. Since Craig did this where he had no pull, his attempts to pull rank were slapped down, as they should have been. Hypocrisy coupled with hubris makes an unpalatable combination.

[RaderBarbarian]

In my youth, I was an evangelical minister. On Sunday mornings I preached "hell and brimstone" with total sincerity. On Saturday afternoons after rehearsing the next day's sermon, I would fool around with a series of other men in the church's baptistry font.

Was I eaten up by guilt and personal conflict? Not in the least! Not for a minute! It never crossed my mind, the hypocrisy, the duplicity of how I was living my life - truly never bothered me one whit!

Schizophrenia (or whatever it may be called) is an amazing thing. I have no problem whatsoever in understanding how Larry Craig compartmentalizes his life with little or no internal conflict?

Is Larry Craig gay? Was I? I have no idea. It never was a consideration. There simply existed two of me.

I will leave it to the shrinks to figure it out, but there it is, folks.

[elion10]

The public obsession with the sexual acts of our politicians is twisted.. and I don't think its about some unexamined fear that we will all lose control..

The two reactions to Craig prove it- Most dems are outraged about the hypocracy- and most republicans are freakin out- cause he might be gay.. if public fear is at the root of these two responses- it is fear rooted in two very different places..

And it is not about our lurking fear that we too might lose control and give in to our hidden desires..

Perhaps it is the public hysteria over this stuff that should be examined.. not so much about some unexamined fear of losing control-- but about setting priorities.. truly- the reporting of it all is worse, more obscene, than the acts themselves..

[prochange]

It is so much easier to point out the fault of others than to look for our own shortcomings.
I have not met a flawless person in my life. Everybody has some shameful secret. There are those, who cheat on their spouses, those who abuse their spouses, children or elderly parents, those who had abortions or forced somebody else to have one. Those, who stole or lied for personal gain and those, who are dependent on drugs or alcohol and nobody knows about it. Those who prostitute themselves , I mean those who marry for money and pretend it to be love or those, who sell their professional skills to the highest bidder without questioning The doctors working for health insurances denying claims, the lawyers defending the guilty, the journalists reporting only what their bosses want them to report. The contractors, mechanics or repairmen shamelessly overcharging their customers. The priests and preachers extracting money from their followers in the name of fear. The list is endless.
Most of them go undetected and pass as being perfect citizens.

I am always appalled to see how the vultures descend on somebody in the public eye when their weaknesses are exposed. I hate tabloid journalism. A celebrity is a human being too. If they go through a divorce, have an illness or misstep somehow in their lives, they do not only have to deal with the consequences of that disaster in their lives, they always see it plastered all over the news, all the time.
We are a vulture society, certainly not compassionate human beings.

[trevorfsj]

I am not sure that it is simply a case of gay or not gay. There are many men who consider themselves bi-sexual. They are usually happily married with families and have no desire whatsoever to change that status. They simply like to have sex with both women and with men.

[SoulSistah]

That's the point Marc001 makes trevorfsj. Married men who are bi-sexual, and live the down low life like Craig, do not and will not admit to being gay. Check out some of E. Lynn Harris novels. He wrote the book on living the "down low" lifestyle.

Craig will not admit to being bi-sexual either because married men living the down low lifestyle feel that if they let the world know they are bi-sexual, this will lead people to think they are gay which in their mind they are not. Real schizophrenic wouldn't say Mona?

This discussion is so interesting. How many other married men are using women as their "beards"? Oh, and sometimes the wifey already knows about her hubby's secret lifestyle.

[cktirumalai]

I see this problem as having deep roots, going back to the classical (Greek and Roman) as well as the Biblical and Christian past, both of which I view as a twisting, two-stranded DNA spiral, charged with creative ambiguity. I know that is enigmatic and cryptic but this is not the occasion for a dissertation on the subject. I thought I would make the suggestion, however.

[jeskiley]

How about, Craig is under the influence of powers beyond his control...his constituents. He is a part of a whole. The powerful system he participates in, is a lifeline to the masses beneath him, the throbbing masses with needs. Change has needed to happen for a long time, gay citizens have steadily been telling their sides of the story, asking for equality, patiently waiting for change to occur, rights to be granted to them. A collective prayer has been in process for a l-o-o-o-n-n-g time. Perhaps Craig really couldn't fight the urges within him, except by giving in, just this once, or twice, God help him. He supports conservative views, carries forth the values of the church, represents His people. But, gay people are God's people too, and a crack in the conservative armor must be made. Citizen's rights can co-exist with marital rights. Please, somebody accept this change in the state before another Republican falls from grace. A change in the state, not the church. Separate the two once and for all.

"Is he gay? Is he gay? Is he one of us?"
Echo, echo, echo.

[philistine]

Considering the number of closeted gays in the Republican ranks, I suspect that much of the sturm und drang regarding gays among Republicans is entirely for public consumption. They possess some odd mindset which allows for such a vast disconnection between what is said and what is intended. It beggars hypocrisy.

[Scarabus]

As an academic at an enlightened institution, I live and work within a culture where straight, gay, lesbian, and bi- folks interact routinely and casually. Differences in sexual orientation are taken for granted.

From my point of view, then, the problem with Larry Craig personally is by no means his sexual orientation. No educated, enlightened person would give a rat's patootie about that! Rather, it's his consistent record of strongly pushing homophobic, gay-bashing legislation. To be gay is just a matter of genetic coding. But actively to discriminate against gays is a matter of choice.

I'm not a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, so I can't pretend fully to understand the mechanisms here. But to a lay person it sure looks as if Craig has been practicing a combination of two evils: (a) projecting his own self-loathing onto others like him and (b) pandering (possibly through self-denial) to an electorate governed by fear, ignorance, prejudice, and hate.

Barney Frank was "outed"; Barney Frank came out; and Barney Frank is still in office. The interesting questions for me are why Craig won't come out, and what would happen to him if he did.

[dadw5boys]

In this article they have layed out the design of the closet Craig lives in but have not focused on that uncontrolable need to have sex in public places with strangers.
This is a very dangerous behavior. He knew it could cost him his job, his respect, and possible his family.
Yet he risk it.
I feel sorry for him but I hate that behavior.
The article instead find focus in an attempt to defend his reskless behavior and blame the opposing political party.
He was the one risking everything. He had to know even if he hated his self for it. He could have sought out help at anytime but did not.

[Marc001]

Craig's bathroom episode isn't about an uncontrollable need for sex in public places; it is about finding a place to fulfill his gay urges that fit best with his schedule. My guess is he often checked out airport bathroom stalls on the way to meetings, etc. It's convenient and he could do it incognito. Did he solicit the cop? Of course he did. And while he technically didnt break a law by simply playing footsie, he found out what many married gay men find out: You can only try to balance your public (and political) persona with your real self for so long. As a gay men, I've met and been with many married guys. They all claim to "not be gay." It's easy to peg Craig as a hypocrite, but that might be the wrong word; he probably genuinely believes that gay is bad. And since he doesn't consider himself one, he had no moral reservations of supporting legislation against gays. It also is interesting that his wife and kids have given him full support. Proves, perhaps, that denial is something that runs in the family.