Skip to main content


It’s almost fifty years since I made the interpretation of the meaning of cultural expressions the focus of my explorations.  I spent the last two of my undergraduate years at Harvard interpreting the meanings of the paranoid fantasies of the radical right, the evolution of religious symbolism and, for my undergraduate thesis, “The Psychology of Heroic Tragedy.”  I then went to begin graduate study with the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago, having applied to pursue “the psychology and sociology of literature, religion, and politics.”

The insight, from depth psychology, that we humans are often far from fully aware of where we’re really coming from and what we’re expressing in what we say and do seemed to me crucial to understanding the human world.

Life soon took me in other directions (as I discovered that powerful destructive forces are at work in civilized systems), but that perspective has remained one of my interests and one of my tools in the years since.  In this era in which a good share of America has lost touch with reality in the political sphere, that’s been useful.  And it seems to me that the substantial erosion in our culture, in the past fifty years, of that depth-psychology insight – indeed in the whole concept of the unconscious – is quite likely related to a precipitous drop in our times in what might be called the “sanity” of American culture, in particular American political culture.

What occasions these thoughts is the spectacle this week of what seems to me a strangely misguided outpouring, from the American press, of disrespect onto President Obama for how he’s dealt with Syria.  It is those expressions that don’t make good objective sense that serve as clues to psychological forces operating beneath the surface.

Here’s how I see what’s going on.

To what I’ve already written about why "Obama's Syrian Moves Deserve More Respect than They're Getting," I’ll just add this idea:  good decision-making as includes, wherever practicable, adapting to new developments in a flexible way.  Better to be a guided missile, that can change course in mid-flight, than a bullet whose course is determined the second it leaves the barrel.  As my father, an economist used to say, “In times of uncertainty, maintain maximum flexibility.”  I think President Obama has done this pretty well, even if he's fumbled some. (And the outcome is likely to be a good deal better than the kind of arrogant, “I know everything I need to know” approach that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld followed as they created the disaster in Iraq.)

But much of the press has characterized Obama’s flexibility – his unwillingness to act precipitously in a dangerous situation without clearly good options, his adaptation to changing circumstances —- as weakness.  Adapting to events is condemned as passivity.  Sharing the stage with another, not altogether friendly geo-political power, indispensable to any non-violent resolution of the crisis, is denigrated as a failure to lead.

The press speaks as if it sees all this clearly, of course.  But I think they’re unaware of what they’re really expressing.

I bet that the press would see these same Syria moves very differently if they were made by a president whom the press didn’t already perceive as passive and weak and failing to lead.  I can imagine the press praising such a president for his being careful, thoughtful, able to seize and create opportunities, not so trigger-happy as some we’ve seen as commander-in-chief, aware of the big picture, etc.

But not Obama.  Why?

The central fact of American politics right now, as most Americans experience it, is that the system is not working.  This Congress is accomplishing less than any Congress in modern times.  We have challenges, and we’re not meeting them.  Most Americans have been losing ground economically, and nothing is being done to remedy it (indeed, the gulf of economic inequality is reportedly still widening).  The government is paralyzed. (The main exception of its paralysis is in its apparent inclination to create altogether new problems with government shut-downs and defauting on the debt.)

The Democrats sit back, knowing that it’s the Republicans who are to blame, and knowing that much of the public despises the Republicans for their obstructionism.  

But this isn’t the whole of how Americans see  this paralysis and dysfunction.

If the political system is broken, what is the president doing to fix it?  “The buck stops here” is a general phenomenon in America politics:  the president is the one who’s supposed to take responsibility to see that the ship of state sails to where it needs to get.  It’s the president who is supposed to lead.

If the system is being crippled by enemies of the public interest, it’s the president’s job to go after them.

When the president sits back and seems to accept –- that is, does not actively and determinedly fight to alter -— a situation that the American people find Unacceptable, he will be seen as passive, as weak, as failing to lead.

So now, when the President pursues a policy that might have been praised under other circumstances, the press pounces on him, attributing to him in the Syrian situation the very qualities that he’s been showing in an altogether different realm. (This is an example of the “halo effect.”*)

The press is right that we need from Mr. Obama stronger, more active, more aggressive leadership.  They’ve just misidentified the area where it’s been lacking.  (It is often the case in human groups that important messages get delivered indirectly, or in coded form.)

So what might this more active and stronger leadership look like?  President Obama could be actively pressing the battle against the obstructionism of the Republicans.  

If the Republicans in the House can vote to repeal Obamacare 40 times, why can’t the President propose his jobs bill every week until it gets enacted?  That’s the kind of measure the polls show the American people want.  Keep the spotlight on the problem that must be addressed, on his insistence on solving it, and on the Republicans’ failure to serve the American people.

Why can’t the President hold a press conference every week, beginning each with a statement that challenges the Republicans in the Congress to pass measures that clear majorities of the public want (some by overwhelming margins), like the universal background checks on guns, or immigration reform?

Why can’t the President challenge the Republicans to a series of regular debates on a series of issues on which the public wants action, going on television with or without a Republican champion to come into the arena to defend the indefensible?

The more the president highlights what the Republicans are doing, and are failing to do, while he fights for what the public wants, the more he will be seen as a strong leader.  And the more the pressure will build on the Republicans.

That pressure on the Republicans is important.

Consider the issue du jour: the inability of Speaker of the House John Boehner to get his Republican caucus to fund the government.  Boehner is loath to disregard the infamous “Hastert Rule” and, with less than a majority of his obstreperous Republicans, to bring to the House floor a measure that, with the help of the Democrats, could get a majority of the total Congress to support it.  

The President, by pressing the battle, could change the field of forces on the Republicans. The more the public pressure on the Republicans to do the people's business, the more the incentive for sane Republicans to create a working majority that includes Democrats. For Boehner, that becomes less dangerous than trying to keep his Teahadist Republicans behind him.

President Obama has not used the power of his office nearly as effectively as it can be used.  It’s not that he’s been weak as commander-in-chief, but as the leader of the nation.  

His pulpit has not been nearly as bully as it can be.  He has not taken nearly as active a role in leading the political process as he could.  He’s not been nearly as aggressive in going after a disgraceful opposition as the nation needs for him to be.

On all this, the press has been mostly mute.  But now this major unspoken truth is coming out but in displaced and distorted form, faulting the president in a different fight.  

I doubt the press is aware of just what they are expressing and why.

The nation would be best served, I believe, if the President would remain careful on Syria and become bolder in addressing his opponents in Congress.

•    From Wikipedia: ”The halo effect or halo error is a cognitive bias in which one's judgments of a person’s character can be influenced by one's overall impression of him or her. It can be found in a range of situations from the courtroom to the classroom and in everyday interactions.”

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hi Andy, good writing. One bit of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eglantine

    engagement though. Do you recall the gun legislation that the President tried to get through Congress?

    If you recall, he went all around the country campaigning on it. He spoke about it at the State of the Union Address, he spoke about this legislation for days and days and days.... And even though the public agreed with his argument, which was seen in public public opinion polls, with approval rating of 90 plus percent. The Republicans voted it down.

    My question is, and would love to hear your opinion, does this not indicate that there is a lot more involved here, that really has to do with the public allowing the Republicans  to getaway with obstructing them, more so than the President's campaigning?

    For it appears that the President can campaign until the cows come home, but Republicans will still obstruct him, and there will be a lot more criticism of the President, as somehow failing, than of the Republicans for obstructing him.

    •  Proactive vs. reactive use of the bully pulpit (0+ / 0-)

      Is the difference in many cases, I think.

      Obama has tended more towards the latter, imo.

      If Obama hadn't assumed Republicans were acting in good faith for such an extended period of time, in the name of "bipartisanship," and instead came out swinging a lot earlier on, he'd have had better results in the long term, I think.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:34:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you've got a point, but still... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      viral

      He has indeed campaigned for that issue, and sometimes for others.  But can it be said that he's gone after the people who killed that gun provision --that if I recall more than 90 % of the public wanted enacted-- with anything like the zeal that the Republicans in the House keep repealing Obamacare?

      After it was killed, did he keep the spotlight on how the Republicans oppose sanity on guns, doing the bidding of the NRA?

      This Republican force is really unprecedented in American history.  The nation has never seen anything like this in a major party, in more than two centuries.  

      I have believed the rise of this thing on the right to be the biggest story in American political history, one more dangerous than any political development with the possible exception of the battle over slavery in the 1850s.

      The biggest story of our times, for sure, yet the media do not treat it as such.  Nor does the president.

      You're right that the Republicans "get away" with their abominations to a great degree.  But it is the President's job --and I figure that if he won't do it it's our job-- to do everything possible to make sure they don't get away with it, that they're seen by the American people for what they are.

      This Obama has not done.  In spite of their treating him worse probably than any major party in Congress has ever treated a president, he has not roused himself to match their determination to destroy him with an equal determination to drive the force that animates them into oblivion.

      •  Well, one thing we agree on 100% is this: (0+ / 0-)
        I have believed the rise of this thing on the right to be the biggest story in American political history, one more dangerous than any political development with the possible exception of the battle over slavery in the 1850s.
        I couldn't agree with you more here, absolutely 100%. And the fact that the media isn't discussing it is an absolute travesty.
        •  what can be done about this? (0+ / 0-)

          For nine years, full time, including two years as a candidate for Congress, I've been working to get this Huge Story into the national consciousness, NedSparks.  More and more people may see that something is amiss, but the enormity of this crisis --the depth of the darkness and destructiveness besetting the nation-- still goes largely unacknowledged.

          Can you envision a scenario by which this most vital reality becomes more fully comprehended by our national consciousness?

  •  After a certain point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jlb1972

    One can't help but wonder if he really wants to use the bully pulpit more forcefully on some of these issues of importance to people.

    I mean, he has it in him — he's done it before — but it oftentimes seems to happen after he's practically forced into doing it. By that time, it's too late for it to have any impact.

    Many have said recently, "If only the president had fought for [issue] as hard as he tried to get support for a military intervention in Syria."

    I must say, it's hard for me to disagree with that observation.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:15:55 PM PDT

  •  Mostly OK. (0+ / 0-)

    FDR showed the way to beat Republican obstructionism: do things that will actually benefit people if roadblocks are cleared,  then call attention to the people putting up the roadblocks.

    That's how he won a filibuster-proof Senate majority in the 1934 midterm elections.  Take the losses if you have to, and bank good will for election day.

    Syria's a different issue.  He's screwed up royally there.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:58:39 PM PDT

  •  There's not much to interpret. The press is bad (0+ / 0-)

    because reporters are lazy and wait to be fed stuff they can print. And then they make errors of fact and resent being corrected.
    Our mistake is in believing what we like to read/hear and disbelieving what we don't like.
    The press running with the story that the SoS answering a question from the press initiated a new strategy is a matter of the press preening in self-importance. Accordint to a person who was employed in the White House, the suggestion about Syria's chemical weapons was proposed to Putin a year ago and repeated this year at the G-20 meeting.
    So, somebody was thinking ahead. But, the press doesn't like that kind of story because the press itself, in reporting (carrying the news again), is constrained to be an after-the-event actor. The press would like to be an instigator of action. That's what propaganda is about. But, it doesn't often work, unless what is being instigated is what the instigated want. Unlike a light switch, people aren't easy to turn on and off.
    The Obama administration is promoting the handling of Syria as typical diplomacy -- using the threat of force to coerce more acceptable, if not good, behavior. That's actually wrong. Syria is an example of bad behavior, which deserves punishment, being met with restraint and the threat of punishment if the behavior does not improve. That is, the issue is restraint and whether it is to be self-imposed or coerced. If the object is to rid the earth of this particular cache of poisons, then self-restraint is likely to be more effective because coercive action prompts evasion.
    Is it wrong to promise rewards if bad behavior is reformed? Whether it is right or wrong, punitive measures prompt resistance, not good behavior. Of course, the sadists among us don't appreciate that. What they want is for their punitive impulses to be justified.
    Humans don't just deceive other people; they also deceive themselves. "This hurts me more than it hurts you."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site