by delano
October 29, 1997
The Presidential Character
The Presidency
James David Barber
Recap:
A new technique comes into the light in this paper. Barber approaches the presidency by psychoanalyzing the personality types. He claims that by profiling their behaviors, we will be able to predict(not entirely accurate, but in the ballpark) how they will do during their presidency. He goes into depth with the following sections, personality shapes performance, the pattern of character, world view, and style, the power situation and "climate of expectations," predicting presidents, and the four types of presidential character.
Analysis:
Barber successfully tackles the topic, the role of the president, in an observant view, taking his eyes to the sidelines and analyzing how the president reacts to the public and how the public reacts to the president. And Barber is so right when he says that the president isn't just playing the executive chief of the country, but instead, he is an icon, the most important and significant icon all the time. The spotlight never leaves him, and that makes the pressure weigh on his shoulders more than anyone else in Washington. People look to the president for answers, and become hypercritical when he does not do what they expect him to do. In other words, everything falls under an overly-exaggerated eye, so when he does something right, it is made clear that it is very right, and possibly more right than it is, and when he does something wrong, it becomes more wrong than it really is. Both ways, whatever the result will either muddy his reputation or polish it.
Behavior reflects personality. The actions of an individual project his or her emotions. Internal events will always take place with the external actions. And this goes for everyone, including presidents. When Nixon lied to the people, it told us that he was a dishonest person, with intentions driven by selfishness and the lust for power. When Roosevelt passed all those legislations(alphabet bills) in the first Hundred Days, it showed that he was concerned for the well-being of the nation. It labeled him as an altruistic and compassionate person. It also said that Roosevelt knew how to take action, that he was prepared and he was cautious, and conscious of the problems that surrounded the country. This meant that he was a leader, and that he was willing to endure through this with his people. So what does it come down to, when trying to see the personality of the president? Observations of his reactions and actions will show what kind of a person he is. If people start to understand how to read presidential candidates, they will be more likely to make wiser decisions at the voting booths.
The four presidential characteristic types introduced by Barber in this article is an effective way to categorize the past presidents that we've had, since it teaches us still, so much about how history associates with the behaviors of the people. Perhaps when we learn more, and educate the people about this, we, as a nation, will overall, be more careful in choosing the figures who will represent us. What turns out to be the most important characteristic of a president? With the four types, it is obviously the Active-Positive type. A president who is active during his term in office(active meaning he is serving the progressive cause by using his energy), and who is also positive(positive meaning he is enjoying the work he is doing). But let's put more focus into the analyzation. What characteristics do active-positive types possess? And which ones are the most critical? An active-positive president chooses to act. But, in order to act, one must be able to prepare, which means one must be able to contemplate creative and strategic ideas. So, it is the contemplative life plus the active life. They must compromise. Because if one just has thoughts and refuses to act upon them, nothing is accomplished. "Actions speak louder than words." Roosevelt's words still ring true today. So, perhaps confidence and initiation are the more contributing factors to an active-positive type.
There seems to be some controversy about the Active-Negative type. Woodrow Wilson, and Lyndon Johnson would fall under the Active-Negative type. They were both active in office, but during office, they felt uncomfortable in their position. Wilson had the strain of the first World War, and the situation with the peace treaty. He looked at being the president as a lot of responsibility, so much that it was a burden. Johnson had the Vietnam War. Under a lot of stress, and suffering from indecision, Johnson also felt that his position was burdening. But then there's Nixon, who's activeness was for the wrong intentions, which also classifies him as an active-negative type. Surely, you cannot put these three presidents in the same category. Wilson and Johnson both had good intentions, they just felt uncomfortable and trapped, whereas Nixon had obviously bad intentions. To fix this, it would probably mean making the system a little more complex. Johnson and Wilson both dealt with "Negative Reinforcement" where they felt that their responsibilities were a punishment, while the active-positive presidents dealt with "Positive Reinforcement" where they found their responsibilities rewarding. Then again, this is contradicting, because Nixon would be found as associating with "Postive Reinforcement" because he was obviously finding rewards in his actions. (hmm..)You may find this redundant. Forget anything was mentioned at all.
In conclusion, there is a lot of psychology behind the role of a president, and categorizing them by their behaviors will teach us more on how to read the candidates that come up in the future. Perhaps we could supply a personality screening test before people can run(just keeping the mind running! I know it wouldn't work...).