The Psychology and Politics of Projection
For the first three years of Donald’s Trump’s presidency, armchair analysis of the man by psychiatrists has been discouraged by the American Psychiatric Association which invokes the Goldwater Rule. This “rule” stipulates that it is unethical for psychiatrists to offer a professional opinion about a public figure if they have not examined the figure in person and received consent to share information. Needless to say, although there has been a large number of defections, the Goldwater Rule is still theoretically on the books.
The rule seems to make sense on its face. I know from my experience and study — I am not a psychologist — that therapy can be a lengthy, difficult and at times a tumultuous affair. Therapy is intensely private and personal and is designed to reveal the unconscious complexes that bedevil one’s life. There is very likely all sorts of energy passed between therapist and patient. In Jungian terms, this flow of energy is referred to as transference and countertransference. This is a potentially fraught interaction and must be treated with respect.
The Goldwater affair grew out of an article written by “Fact” magazine in 1964, when Goldwater was running for President, based on questionnaires sent to a number of psychiatrists. The piece, “The Unconscious of a Conservative,” resulted in legal action by Goldwater who won a $75,000 award for defamation. The Goldwater Rule followed.
Since Trump’s election numerous psychiatrists and some organizations have said publicly that they have a responsibility to warn the country about what appeared to them obvious pathologies in the Trump temperament. But there is no consensus on the efficacy or ethics of such a decision.
Meanwhile, Trump’s ticks and kicks are on full display for everyone to see. There certainly is at times a comic overlay to this managed and frumpy theater. This appears to be the reason that Trump has so many rallies. This is his sweet spot, a riotous, sometimes bumbling language hack that rewards his listeners with vintage stuff straight from the unconscious. But the rallies are getting darker.
How does one explain aberrant behavior without the use of some psychological terms? I suppose the correct answer is: carefully. It is commonplace these days to see Trump referred to as a narcissist, either in Twitter or in the pages of the Atlantic. Recently I’ve noticed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who seems very careful with her language, responded to questions about Trump’s verbal attacks on her with the theory that Trump is simply projecting all that unresolved stuff in his unconscious onto her. His pre-impeachment vote letter to her seems to reek of such sentiment in almost clinical terms.
Pelosi response to Trump’s attacks struck me as purposeful; a careful, managed and may I say clinical answer to the torrent of abuse and nonsense that comes out of the President’s mouth. In this regard Pelosi seems to escape the trap that inevitably presents itself when Trump unloads his venom. In a real sense she is saying that this directed venom is the result of psychological issues that Trump has not dealt with.
One could argue that Pelosi is not qualified to make such statement. I would argue the contrary. A lot has happened since the Goldwater episode fifty-five years ago. Generally speaking, Americans are better educated and for decades have had the benefit of technology to advance learning. Tutorials on psychology are all over the Web. Words like narcissism, projection and others are no longer the province of a professional set. They are in the public square, even if used uncomfortably at times. If USA Today can run an article entitled “Understanding Donald Trump’s Twitter Rants Takes Freudian Psychology,” then the subject is indeed out in the open, though Freud is not much of a presence here and is in fact hardly necessary. The article underscores the point that Trump’s behavior is well-known and it is no longer instructive to simply point out that he’s lying. We simply need language and tools to describe his behavior and in turn take some of the carnival out of these episodes. Speaker Pelosi seems to have made the right calculation. The primal stuff the president is putting into the public square is projection, coming from unresolved issues within him. Given the tenor and tone of many of his utterances, it is not presumptuous to suggest that these outbursts are coming from some dark place within him or his unconscious.
It does seem appropriate to discuss the observable psychology of a man who has inundated us with verbal and electronic outbursts for the last three years, gaining unparalleled media attention. Journalists are doing a much better job of fact-checking him, but he still dominates the media landscape and is generally the first story of the day every day. At times papers like the NYT are fact-checking each paragraph. The Trump fatigue that is well-covered in the media has a lot to do, it seems to me, with the desire to find the appropriate frame or vehicle to handle these eruptions. The language of psychology is showing up more often in the text.
For obvious reasons George Orwell’s “1984” is getting renewed attention in this charged political climate. The parallels are striking, especially when is comes to an assault on fact, reason and evidence-based reality. Whether it’s Trump or the persona in the novel telling their followers to believe their leaders and not their own eyes, we are dead-center in the future Orwell feared, but not coming from some fascist system but from the birthplace of modern democracy. Of course, the situation in America might be considered more fraught than in Orwell’s fiction because technology has completely democratized, through the web and social media, our means of communication. Social media and the web are hotbeds of the dark undercurrents of the human psyche, awash with what Jung referred to as feeling-toned complexes, that unconscious reservoir of the dark, unresolved issues that haunt us. Is it any wonder foreign agents can populate our social pages with all manner of disruptive information?
If the Goldwater Rule has some lasting value, it might be a reminder not to jump to quickly into the psychological fray, without a full understanding of the terms we use. I should not proclaim the mote in someone else’s eye without checking my own eye first. Perhaps I should heed Plato’s advice and go to some lengths to know myself.
Perhaps understanding the role of projection, so vital to the game of politics, is a place to start. For Jung the projection of unconscious content is as natural and necessary as breathing. Projections are a vital part of our work, play, socializing, sexuality, and communication. After all, projections are about using our libidinal energies for creative, social purposes. So, projections, per se, are not wrong, evil or dangerous. Indeed, they are part of the very fabric of our lives and psyches.
Most of the time, these projections cause few problems. As we grow into adulthood, we usually develop checks and balances on our unruly selves. But, if a paranoid disturbance sets in and this libidinal energy is fueled and fed by the collective unconscious, that reservoir, in Jung’s words, of feeling-toned complexes that house our dark, shadowy, repressed selves, then we (and the recipient of this projected material), could be in real trouble. Jung writes that the only way to restore internal, psychological harmony in such an instance is through the conscious recognition of the projected content that in effect becomes weaponized and takes on a life of its own. We have to own up to what we’re putting out there. That is a task of a different order.
In its elementary form psychological projection is a way to cope with difficult emotions. What really troubles me is that I might project onto someone else, most likely someone close and in the same household. I might embrace other defense mechanisms from the same quiver, including denial, displacement, and repression.
And this is not rocket science. I usually know when I have acted like an asshole, especially when it involves someone I love. We deal with these psychological issues, large and small, on a daily basis. Sometimes therapy is required.
But what if the projection is large, structural, and deeply imbedded in the collective unconscious of an individual and is part of his or her very being, their modus operandi, their center of pleasure? What if this psychological presence, this feeling-toned complex becomes weaponized and takes on a life of its own? What if this force dominates social and traditional media and large, religious gatherings, is a threatening presence on White House letterhead, and the purveyor of tribalism across the land? What if this negative psychological force permeates the very fabric of our society? What if this force threatens to invoke mass hysteria? What if some segments of the population think this force is a god?
What then?
