The Psychology of Politics

I am planning an article for next month's column on the psychology of politics. A lot has been written about the personality, etc of D. Trump, and I have already written a column about the psychology of populism (mobilizing fear, anger, hatred) See: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17718035/The%20Power%20of%20the%20Shout.docx

 I have thought about doing something on the polarization of political points of view. Much of this phenomenon is a psychological way of dealing with the human inability to deal comfortably with ambiguity, and a need for certainty. At least this accounts for some strongly held political stances.
Racist/non-racist, pro-abortion/pro-rights, for and against gay marriage, etc. are examples. I am not the first person to write about how there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, so I want to think about the psychology of politics from a fresh point of view.
 For quite awhile I have wanted to write about " Are We Smarter Than Our Congressmen?", but there is not much objective material , for example, on the IQ's of individual congressmen. I would start with the fact that the general population believes strongly in climate change, yet congress has repeatedly refused to take any action. I suppose much of the entrenchment is political response to lobbyists, and the need for individual congressmen/women to engage in "political speak" which might be different than what they privately believe. Is there a psychological issue here? I mean the two-minds theory which gets them off the hook. They can't really be that dumb about climate change, can they? But this issue may have to wait. I could not get my local former congressman to respond.
  So what is a focus of psychology of politics which is current? It changes every day. If I go with the polarization issue, there is some new TED talk stuff on tolerance for the "other" point of view, but it doesn't seem to plow much ground. I like the idea of facing our own inner (and maybe unacknowledged ) need for black-white thinking, but where to take it? I don't want to just moralize. Psychology, as a discipline, should be more factual, and observe, for example, psychological development of the person's participation in a democratic process. Yet it can't be too theoretical, and for the majority of the readership of the column, probably needs to be a little bit "pop" psychology, as an article on "Are We Smarter....." would be.
   Maybe something like,"Your Vote and Mine: Are We at Odds?" or "Voting as a Human Act: Are There Any Grey Areas?

 


,

Psychology of Populism

 “Populist Psychology in American History”

As I looked at the play of American political history, I learned some things about how surges of populist psychology have shaped our country. That is, mass, usually unnamed movements, powered by something that clicks in the mind of otherwise diverse people. Corrective movements and policies have emerged out of times of upheaval. The democratic process seems to “naturally” involve expression of emotion, both good and bad. It turns out that the corrective forces are not all rational, and do not all come from so-called reformers in government. Often there is a disconnect between rational discussion of social needs and the strong emotional movements that eventually changed things. I mean things that we now take for granted, such as Social Security, anti-trust laws, and the 8-hour workday. Often, in an historical look-back, following a surge of people power activity, the creative part (if there was one!) of the movement gets channeled into social reforms that eventually benefit not only the disaffected, but also their children and grandchildren. Us.

An example is the presidential campaign of William Jennings Bryant in 1896. He mobilized the farmers of the Midwest who had felt trampled and ignored by bankers and industrialists in the East. Some say that the story of the Wizard of Oz was written to allegorically portray the powerful forces in that election. Bryan’s party was actually called the Populist Party. He lost to William McKinley, but the reforms he argued for became national policy during the next forty years of American history.

Another example was the surge of white supremacy following the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves. Whites, especially in the South thought they were being sold out, and formed their own populist groups in the manner of the psychological development I have described. The Klu Klux Klan is one of those groups that survives to today, and captures the strong and bigoted racial emotions lurking in some of our good citizens. It is hard to see the benefit of such a populist movement, but perhaps it gives a contemporary voice to those who can’t otherwise express themselves.

At the same time the story of Huey Long, governor of Louisiana in 1924, and later a U. S. Senator is also a story of the South. When he saw the plight of persons in the Great Depression, he set out to get them relief, pushing for a tax on Louisiana’s Big Oil to fund social programs. Unlike right-wing populism of William Jennings Bryan, this seemed to be leftist oriented populism.

Occupy Wall Street, and, to some extent, Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign against the one-percenters is an example of a more left leaning populism.  

“Populist Psychology and the AuthoritarianPersonality”

Appearing in Vox digital news commentary, an article by Amanda Taub has put out some apparently well-researched data about the authoritarian personality. Conclusions from the data show the aspects of people whose personalities tend toward the authoritarian. Authoritarianism is explained by Taub as a current behaviorally-measured psychological attitude that explains the “popularity “ of Donald Trump’s style of politics. Naming the phenomenon as authoritarianism, she shows why it is surging as a political movement, generally unnamed, and a form of right-wing populism. Moreover, this sweeping political movement is explained in terms of the specific psychological elements involved in authoritarianism.

 Persons who feel threatened by “outsiders” (like immigrants, terrorists, or gays) will show their desire for a strong protector/leader who is seen as someone able to “protect them from the changes they fear”. The desire for order in a confusing and alien world around them will propel them to look to a strong leader.  This is termed an authoritarian attitude, characterized by the need for respect of authority, traditional values, and punitive response to offenders.

 She cites political science theorists who have done some survey research, much of it based on the National Election Survey data which has been collected in every national election since 1992. Taub summarizes the psychological profile of the type of people willing to give their power to a leader who has simple and strict answers, and who can allay the fears “with force”. Some of those who fit the profile are already considered authoritarian personalities; others respond similarly to emotional threat when things are more stressful.