"The Psychology of Political Participation"
from Political Participation in the United States
by Margaret Conway
Recap:
A diverse take on the view of politics in America. Using statistics of the past and psychological methods, the author of this writing evaluates the actions and reactions of American Political History. Including several charts and presenting several studies, the author concludes as to why the people act the way they do. The author applies Freud's theories and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, to politics and is able to clarify the behaviors of the American people.
Analysis:
This paper triggered several thoughts which branched out to several other topics(felt like a tree). So much information was included that it's mind-blowing. The first thing that comes to mind, is the importance of psychology; in life, human behavior has always been wondered about, and has been studied by establishers such as Sigmund Freud, Abraham Maslow, Carl Jung, B.F. Skinner, & Carl Rogers(etc..etc..). At this point a confession has to be made(if you don't mind the sudden proposition), applying psychology to politics sounded like a time bomb(...), until this paper was read.
To combine a topic so complex(politics), with another topic so in theory(psychology) would seem overly exhaustive. However, it is as simple as humble pie. For the politician, in the world of politics, the most important psychological trait in his behavior, is intent. What does he want to do? Why does he want to do it? What are his ideas for the future? And, how is this going to effect the American people, as well as himself? For presidents, we have had many great examples, self-proved martyrs who will remain praised and honored in history forever. Some, are terrible, overcome by greed and pride, and the rest of the seven sins that remain. Presidents of good character with good intentions come to mind in no particular order: Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as several others. The presidents who have earned themselves particularly bad reputations would be Ulysses S. Grant, Lyndon B. Johnson, and of course(!!) Richard M. Nixon. Where did these few presidents go wrong? What was in their behavior, that was particularly (gasp) flawed? Grant lacked self-control and was a drunk during most of his days spent in office. Nixon was overcome with selfishness, power-tripping, and greed. But Johnson, what happened with him? He was a man who was well-known in Washington. A good man with a lot of connections, and an excellent reputation. Perhaps, some of the presidents in the past, shouldn't have been president in the first place. Johnson's biggest struggle was Vietnam. It got so severe that his reputation plumaged(i.e. when the kids started chanting, "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?") to the ground. In the situation, Johnson was ruled by fear; fear of losing. Johnson was driven by his patriotism and pride. These men had the wrong intentions for the people. They were still struggling with maintaining good character, how were they supposed to be expected to take care of the rest of the country?
The good presidents all had great intentions. They wanted to serve the people, to provide the people with a more improved America. Wilson's ideology may have seemed farfetched back in the Progressive Era, and even now, Wilson's ideas have not all been fulfilled. Nevertheless, we today, are still influenced by his words, and continue to push and progress. Unfortunately, intention is not the only factor, when it comes to creating an excellent president. A president that shouldn't have been president was James Madison. He was an excellent man, with good character, and great intentions. But he was not a poster boy. He was not a great speaker, and in public, did not show enthusiasm nor confidence. The same situation with Herbert Hoover, a good Samaritan, but a lousy president. So what chooses these men as presidents? What glues them to their seats?
The psychology of the people is highly critical in choosing the president. They are the ones who choose the president, they are the ones who perpetually seek a better lifestyle, a better government, a better society, and a better dependency. However, a lot of the time it isn't the man running for presidency, but the events occurring during the time of election. During the time of extremes, the people will choose to be very strong about their opinions(i.e. the '60's.). At other times, when things are fairly balanced and not as controversial, opinions die down, and the people are not particularly interested in involvement(i.e.. nowadays.) of who will be the face to look at for the next four years.
An interesting thing to observe is the continuing war between the two parties, the Democrats & the Republicans. The behaviors of the people can be well-monitored here. Why did Wilson win the 1912 election? Sure, if Roosevelt had been the Republican candidate, Wilson would've definitely lost. But Roosevelt ran on a third party, and the people who weren't too involved weren't interested in a third party, but decided to stick with the two big parties that they were more familiar with. Why did the Democrats beat out the Republicans? Because after four years of Taft, the people didn't want to see him anymore. Taft was never on the whole, too appealing, but what made him even more unattractive was the fact that he went into office after an excellent president, Roosevelt. Thus, he was compared more, and they didn't like what they saw. So, seeking a new face, after having been under the Republican reign for the whole start of the century, the people decided to go for the Democratic candidate, which simply happened to be Wilson. In other words, a lot of the time, presidents are voted, not because of who they are, but for what they represent. If the last president failed to represent his party well, than the people may feel impelled to seek the other party. This happens many times throughout the course of history.
Something laughed at at the end of this article was the personality theory that the author projected. She went on to evaluate the personality types of certain presidents, the Roosevelts, Kennedy, and Truman being "active-positive," Hoover, Wilson, Johnson, and Nixon being "active-negative," Taft and Harding being, "passive-positive," and Coolidge being "passive-negative." This compels a sudden evaluation of the groups of presidents in the same order: 1) Who will be gung-ho on the job, 2) Who will sweat on the job, 3) Who will sleep on the job, and 4)Who will sleep uncomfortably on the job.
In conclusion, psychology plays a critical role in politics, and in our lives as well. Perhaps some sort of research should be conducted(if there isn't one already) and should some how develop a program that deals with politics psychologically, and play an influential role in the political world.