While the Republican contenders slug it out, someone must be working on strategies for the Presidential Election in the fall.
It will be hard for the Republican candidate to use the following two possibilities, in addition to all those offered up by their operatives. This is because each is best carried out by someone who has residual aspects of one-year-olds.* Nonetheless, they can be attempted.
The two strategies involve splitting. The idea would be to split the Democratic candidate’s followers and thus direct some of their energy away from him and perhaps to the GOP nominee. One possibility is to follow up on what Newt Gingrich touched on in one of the many debates. That is, to show how the underprivileged, whom Obama says he supports, have not been helped by his policies. Their unemployment rates are almost double those of whites, for example. He will counter, of course, but so will the Republican nominee. These points must be repeated and repeated until they gain traction–or evaporate. The internal polls with measure this.
The other area where splitting is a strong possibility is with the unions. If, after some research, the union bosses are found  to be living high on the hog at the expense of their membership, that membership just might not like it. It could be what tips the balance for them, as they struggle with their pleasure principle of  having a strong country and being first in most everything, and the reality principle of voting for the Obama who has kept so many union workers employed. The idea is merely to point out how Mr. Union Boss has a multimillion dollar home, takes lavish vacations, etc.–if they do. If done successfully, this could erode the enthusiasm of many union members for Obama.
*Splitting is a defense in adults. However, it derives from the normal pre two year old stage of life. Then, the infant considers anyone or anything providing gratification, i.e. giving him/her what they want, as good, and what frustrates their desires as bad. Ultimately, most of us mature and are able to tolerate ambivalence. That is, we consider people and things as both good and bad more or less simultaneously. We don’t get so upset when they frustrate us, and we don’t get so elated when they gratify us. People are good/bad, i.e. gratifying/frustrating. That is part of life. Those few of us who do not get that far really see frustrators as all bad and gratifiers as all good. In politics, those people are divisive. They have trouble working with the other side, as their venom is perceived and puts the other side off. I don’t have to point them out, as you and I know who they are in politics.

It is amazing how people can find irrelevant things to argue about. It is as if they really do not want to fight at all.
Take the Obama Healthcare Law. Much is made about its cost, which is important but not really on point. Much is also made about forcing people to buy something. Further from the point–these people must really want not to fight.
Look, the real problem with Obamacare is its path to a single payer system. That single payer is the federal government. The single payer part was stopped only with the election of Scott Brown. At that point, the bill could go no further. It was passed as is, i.e. without the single payer (government) feature.
Now, what exactly is the single payer/government feature, and why is it such a problem? Well, for one, the European and Canadian systems are single payer systems, and they have to ration healthcare. That’s because it would cost too much to pay for full healthcare.
What does rationing mean, you ask? Well, it means when a given hospital’s yearly allotment for pacemakers, or whatever, is met, e.g. in April, there are no more pacemakers. Tough luck if your parent is stuck in a hospital that has used up its allotment. If he or she is too sick to move to another hospital, forget pacing the heart–until next year.

Oh, you say, you’ll get a doctor and an ambulance and move your parent. Not so fast. Government’s are not that stupid. They know you’re pretty smart, so they just pass a law that you cannot do that.
Canadians solve the problem by buying American health insurance. They come to the U.S. to get their important health care. Like everything else in a free society, there is plenty. Like everything else in a controlled society, there is scarcity.

The British and the Germans and the French and, and, and–do the same, in one form or another. Those who can afford it opt out of the government healthcare system–and too bad for those who cannot.
It cannot happen in America, you say? Well, you don’t have to look any further than the VA system. Veterans get care, all right, but not good care. I personally have reviewed the records of many, many veterans. The records are thick. There are many healthcare providers, but few, really few, doctors. And the records cover almost everything but the actual clinical care the patients get.
Healthcare rationing is already here in the U.S. in the VA system.

If Obamacare is not repealed, people will adjust and accept it. Then, the next time there is a Congress and President sympathetic to it, nationalized/single payer healthcare will be added to Obamacare–and the healthcare system will deteriorate, for everyone, forever.

It will mean free healthcare, after taxes, that is. However, there is really no free healthcare, anymore than there is a free lunch. In the case of healthcare, when government takes it over, you get much less than you pay for.
And that’s the real problem with Obamacare.

It’s amazing how the Republicans still don’t get the why’s and wherefore’s of Obama. They rale that he’s ruining the country economically and militarily. They tear their hair out wondering why someone would do such things as spend the next generation into oblivion.

Some say he knows exactly what he is doing, that he is a Marxist/Socialist, hell bent on imploding America per various renditions of the Communist subversive tutorials. Others call him an angry black man, in step with his America-hating reverend Wright.

The problem, though, is that the Republicans, like most of us, cannot use the psychological technique of projection beyond a certain point. Projection is when one attributes to another what one is thinking or feeling or would think/feel if in the other person’s shoes. It is the best way to achieve empathy with another person. Only then can you really understand him.

For example, if law abiding people could really put themselves in the shoes of the criminal, they would understand why pro gun laws prevent crime. In case you are wondering how it works, try to imagine yourself as a criminal (hard, isn’t it?) who is casing a neighborhood of luscious houses to rob. How would your criminal mind rank houses, by the fancier cars in the driveway? By the likelihood of diamonds or Oriental rugs inside? Think. Feel. Just stop reading a minute and think/feel about it.

You are going to enter someone’s home, right? Wouldn’t you wonder first and foremost whether there is someone in there with a gun, ready to shoot you? Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you? Only then can you understand how the availability of guns deters crime.

Now let’s put ourselves in the position of the average voter. Not the educated, intellectual voter, but the voter who succumbs to tabloid exposes at the checkout counter, who buys on impulse. The voter who takes his child to unhealthy fast food restaurants, because it is too much trouble to ignore his pleas or because it’s easier and cheaper. That’s the average American, someone who succumbs to the pleasure principle too much and the reality principle too little. The ones whose kids grow up fat and grow down frail.

The average voter also likes it when someone gives him something for nothing. What pleasure. Forget the reality of no free lunch. Reality is for Republicans to worry about. The Democrats have figured it out years ago: Give. Even better, promise you’ll give. Then each one of us, not just those inferior, pleasure seeking, unrealistic voters, like it. Man, he just gave us lower tuition, or he says he will–he’ll try, anyway. He just gave us free birth control, or he says he will–he’ll try, anyway. He just gave us less taxes–or he says he will–he’ll try, anyway. Hmmm. OK, I’ll take it. I’ll vote for him, because he’ll give me stuff–or he says he will–he’ll try, anyway. After all, he said he will.

Get it, now, Republicans? Whatever else Obama is, he certainly is someone who gets the fact that if you promise something to people, they’ll believe you enough of the time. People don’t like to think of others as duping them.

Obama also gives concrete things, like money, while you Republicans give abstract, esoteric things like freedom. You get the value of each, but the average voter does not.

The Republicans of the 1990’s started to get it. That’s when they stopped ranting about overspending and got into the earmark game. Give ’em this. Give ’em that, and they’ll give you. . .votes. Looking at the big picture, when the Republicans stopped talking about not giving, they got. . .votes.

So, Republicans, you might focus on the perils of promises, but the average voter focuses on the possibilities of promises. Once you get it, you can deal with it. Get it?

That’s how it sounds, when the Right talks about supporting it. They sanctify it.
That’s how it sounds, when the Left talks about ignoring it. They are the secularists.
Once again, the extremes are being, well, extreme. The Constitution is, of course, not a bible. However, it is very, very important. This is because it presents a system of principles most people live by. It is a constant. To undermine it is to entertain chaos.

One thing the Constitution provides for is change of itself. If you don’t like it, you can change it. However, you’d better have very compelling reasons for doing so, because you’ll need to convince lots of people it’s worth the change. Yes, it is hard to change it, but it has been changed. Yes it’s hard to change it, but it will be changed in the future.

To ignore the Constitution, to devalue it, is a step toward tyranny. It is a giant step from the rule of law to the rule of, well, rulers. Not a good idea. Neither chaos nor totalitarianism is a good idea.

But it is not a bible. Bibles are not changeable by man. There is no need for the religious (with a small “r”) Right to worship the Constitution, and there is no need for the secular Left to undermine it.

Has Mitt Romney already started to self-destruct? Remember, I pointed out that he must have unconscious anxiety about beating his father. Everyone does. But Mitt?

Well, his “I’ll bet you $10,000” statement sounds like an example. Realize that Mitt Romney is a gentleman. He was not raised to be a street fighter. Now that he’s called upon to be one, he won’t do it well. Nobody does well at 50 or 60 what others have learned at 5 or 6. So, he’s a bit coarse.

More than likely, this gentleman has never bet anyone $1000. I bet he’s never bet anyone $100. So, why would he exclaim he’d bet, who was it, Rick Perry?, $10,000? Well, remember, he’s playing the big shot he never was. Bravado? Perhaps. More than likely a coarse effort at aggression and one ups man ship.

Another gaff: “I like to fire people.” Doubt it, Mitt. Surveys show the hardest thing CEO’s and managers say they have to do is fire people. Indeed, in my years of consulting to business and government, only one organization was guilty of firing people too soon. The rest fired people too late. That’s because it’s hard to inflict pain on someone, emotionally hard to fire people.

So, Mitt Romney, wherever you are, take it easy. You don’t have to beat your chest. Just be who you are. Well, you’ll have to be somewhat aggressive, but do it carefully. Remember, you’re just not good at it.

Much is being made about Newt Gingrich’s showing in the South Carolina debates. They say he was forceful, he delivered a knockout punch, etc.

Well, he did. But what actually did he do?

He scolded the liberal press. But why did that matter so, so much? The answer is that he allowed the expression of a suppressed emotion. That emotion was anger at the liberal media. By scolding them, at least the moderator, he justified that anger. That press is BAD, and we can thus not only feel, but express, that anger.

When someone allows people to express their unexpressed, i.e. suppressed, emotions, they want to be with him. He’ll let us express our anger. He says it’s OK. Man, I want to hear more from him. He let’s me do what I wanted to do all along, but could not.

So, what next? Well, once Gingrich does that enough, that emotion will have been ventilated. There will not be much left. He or someone will have to find another suppressed emotion, allow people to express it, and gain followers.

So, that’s what Gingrich did, and that’s what any of  the other candidates can do, too. Just figure out a suppressed emotion that is in sync with you, allow it to be expressed, and people will follow.

Mitt Romney has more personal talent than the vast, vast majority of us. He created a successful venture capital firm. When the fix was in for the Olympics, he repaired it.

Then why has he had such a tough time politically? Sure, there is the Mormon thing, whatever that is. There is also now the firing of people thing. However, these are only displacement “reasons”. That is, some people just don’t like him, so they site one or another deficit.

The question I ask as a psychiatrist begins where everyone else leaves off. We do ask why some people just don’t like him and why he has had such a tough time of it in politics. So let’s take a look at what is generally known, though not emphasized, about him.

Romney, like all of us, identified with his parents, especially his same sex parent, George Romney. George Romney was bigger than life. CEO of a major car manufacturer (American Motors), governor of Michigan, and would be Republican presidential nominee. Mitt Romney as a boy even campaigned door to door with his father.

Again, for all of us, there is some sense of failure, if we do not live up to our ideals. George Romney was an ideal. It would be a real surprise, if his mother did not admire Mitt’s father.

For anyone who remembers the Oedipal complex from college psychology, Romney seems a clear example. In the Oedipal complex, first described by Sigmund Freud, a little boy wants to marry his beloved mother. However, he fears his father’s revenge, if the father finds out what he is planning–to take the father’s place with Mom. Sometimes, he even wants to kill his father. The anxiety created by this internal conflict, between love and fear, is resolved best when the boy identifies even more with his father–in order to be what father is that makes him so attractive to Mom. That is, if he obtains the qualities in his father that his mother finds attractive, he, too, will be able to attract and marry a woman. The opposite is considered somewhat true for little girls.

The first part of this summarized in the Al Jolson song:

I want a girl, just like the girl, that married dear old Dad.

In any case, all that is buried in Romney’s unconscious. He, and all grown up little boys, would laugh or be horrified at the notion he ever wanted to marry his mother or kill his father.

Something else about Romney. He was a good little boy. While I don’t know this directly, I surmise it. I do so, because this aspect of his demeanor lingered into his adulthood. He was a proper member of his church, gave two years of his live to service, is a family man, and more, as we’ll soon see.

Just keep this in mind: If Mitt Romney was never a successful business man, he would feel a deep sense of failure. Also, if Mitt Romney was never a successful politician, he would feel a deep sense of failure. That failure runs deep, more deeply than for the average super successful person. This is because he would fail to live up to his identification figure, his Dad.

Fast forward. Romney achieves a major identification element. He leads a successful business. He also runs for political office. Here’s where the gentleman in him, the good little boy all grown up, got in his way. It happened in the 1994 debate with incumbent Massachusetts Senator, Ted Kennedy. The press was all about Ted’s fear of Mitt. When the debate began, it was clear the press was not just hyping it. Kennedy was visibly anxious, fearful. He was shaking. His hands and his voice trembled. At the debate proceeded, Kennedy interrupted Romney, and Romney did not retaliate. Kennedy did it again, with barbs, and again Romney did not retaliate. It happened over and over, until Kennedy gained confidence that he’d not suffer counter punches, or, in fact, any punches. Ultimately, the confidence Kennedy gained carried him to victory over the younger, smarter, yet good boy Mitt Romney.

Fast forward some more, to 2002. Romney, the Republican, was elected governor of Massachusetts, the Democrat. In order to do so, he could not be conservative at all. After all, he had to appeal to moderates and even some Democrats. That was behind his abortion stand and other positions he took, which some criticize as flip flopping. He had to, after all, because he had to fulfill his identity with his governor father, George.

Fast forward some more. In the 2008 Republican primary, his sense of good boy, sometimes seen as gentlemanliness, led him to back out of the race once it was clear John McCain would win. He would not be a divisive, bad boy Republican, like others who stayed in the race.

Fast forward to 2011. Romney, smart and competent as could be, learned. For the most part, he kept to the moderate stance that led to McCain’s being the nominee. This was a bit risky this time around, as the conservatives had coalesced into a movement, the Tea Party. In any case, he held to McCain’s strategy. In doing so, he also, likely unwittingly, used the phenomenon of duality to be the main moderate against a host of conservatives. In this way, he got 50% of the attention, from the press and the citizens. He also built an organization of skilled political operatives. Finally, he worked on and achieved important endorsements from popular Republican politicians.

However, he still was not taking off. Sure, the conservatives were shopping for an alternative. So was the press. They tried Bachmann, then Cain, then Gingrich. Romney crushed all of them. He had prepared for this with his giant superpac.

Next was Santorum, who benefited from the timing of a trial of him as a Romney alternative. That timing and hard work in Iowa was what got Santorum a near victory in there.

So, what was it about Romney that kept him from catching on, really firing up the Republicans. Well, one was his good boy self. He gave well organized, well thought out, fast thinking and fast talking answers to questions. . .and then he smiled. He was pleased with his performance. But that smile, that smile. Subtle, but perceptible. Some call it an SEG. He finished almost every response with it. It was an inappropriate smile.

Some candidates have an embarrassed smile, as if they are embarrassed at being thought worthy enough to be on the political stage. In any case, given Romney’s good boy persona, it seems his smile was a good boy smile. See? Look at me, I really did a good job–followed by a prideful, good boy, smile.

The problem with being a good boy is that leaders are seen by the electorate from their 3 year old selves, their unconscious. And the leader is seen as the parent. Parents, however, do not smile good boy or embarrassed smiles to their 3 year olds. They just say what they want to say. They don’t have to be embarrassed at being seen by the child as leader. After all, from our three year old perspective, they are omniscient and omnipotent. When we are good, they may give a kind, approving smile, but not a good boy or embarrassed smile.

And that is one reason Romney has not caught fire. He has this aspect of himself that voters pick up on, unconsciously. It is unparental to be like a good boy, and presidential candidates must not be unparental. We voters expect them not to be unparental.

Of course there are lots of other reasons voters make decisions. However, it is the unconscious reasons that have power–for the very reason that they are unconscious. That is, we are unaware of them. This is what is behind the political guru’s opinions that a candidate is not “presidential”. It is left at that by laymen, but psychiatrists only start there. What is it that makes on candidate be called unpresidential? One clear reason is that the candidate is unconsciously perceived as unparental.

That smile. That smile was a turn off. It was unparental and thus unpresidential. It was inappropriate for a parent and thus for a president.

Note that I said was a turn-off. This is because Mitt Romney, son of George Romney, has finally transitioned into his own man. He is no longer the gentlemanly, good boy from the Kennedy debates. He is no longer the inappropriate smiler of the early part of the Republican nomination process. Apparently, he has had to become a man, through and through.

This will likely be strengthened as he gains confidence from victories. He seems to have overcome his obstacles of having to be the good boy. In doing so, he has a chance of fulfilling his father’s ambition and gaining, unconsciously, the full attention and love from his mother.

With this, he will no longer have to struggle to find it. He can just sit back, use his competence, and run for President.

Why was the Tea Party called such bad names, and why are the Ron Paul folks called “dangerous”?

It’s not just political hyperbole. It is because ideologies come from shared personal values. Those values, deep within us, so deep we really don’t know just how we got them, form the fabric of our lives. When those values are challenged, the very fabric of our lives is challenged. It makes us uncomfortable, creates anxiety.

Now, what usually causes anxiety and fear in us are dangerous things, like oncoming cars, or bullies at school, or muggers in the street. Once again, emotions don’t follow logic. They are not reasonable–they are emotions. For people with little in the way of intellectualized defenses, i.e. those who can disagree on ideas without feeling much anxiety, the emotions control.

So, if the emotion is anxiety or fear, we assume those who do it are like incoming cars, or bullies at school, or muggers in the street.

Thus, the Tea Party and the Ron Paul folks are dangerous.

Rick Santorum was just in the right place at the right time. The question is how he got there–and whether he’ll stay.

The Republican Party’s conservative base has shopped conservative candidates all through the pre-primary season. They are like an apartment shopper or a car shopper or a mate shopper. There is a choice, Romney, but it’s not perfect. So, let’s just test drive or date some others.

Romney’s reputation is for competence. He can be charismatic, maybe. He is, however, not conservative enough for the real conservatives. So, they test drove/dated Bachmann. Not enough pep. Then it was Cain. Too much pep. Then Perry. Also not enough pep. Next it was Gingrich. Too much pepper. Then it was…Santorum, and the Iowa caucuses voted just then. So, Santorum was in the right place at the right time.

What will be of Rick Santorum? Well, if Romney is smart, he’ll not demolish him by uncovering his skeletons. That’s because Romney still needs someone to split the conservative vote, allowing him, with his moderate McCain strategy to stay out in front.

In New Hampshire, Romney won’t have to worry. However, in South Carolina, he needs someone to take votes from Gingrich–and Perry, if he stays in the race.

We’ll see.

Ron Paul has fought hard, both with logic and organization, to bring his ideology and his candidacy to the forefront.

From the perspective of PsychePolitics, he has had both conscious and pre-conscious obstacles, and he seems to have overcome all but one. His first obstacle was his age. He looks like a grandfather, not a father. Leaders must not look unparental. Nonetheless, unlike John McCain, who looked like a frail grandfather next to the more parental Barak Obama, Paul still looks alive. Barely, but alive. Anyway, it is an obstacle he overcame. He also overcame his attire. His suit jacket never fits. Saturday Night Live caught it, and so did the multitudes of viewers. Anyway he overcame it, too.

So, before getting to what he will likely not overcome, let’s look at how he achieved such success. First, he addressed suppressed issues in many Americans. They don’t like government either. He also addresses fiscal irresponsibility. All to many fiscally responsible Americans have had to suppress their value of this, as politicians of both sides stopped doing so years ago. So, in this sense, Ron Paul used populism to gain support.

But Paul did another thing, whether consciously or not. He used duality. As explained by PsychePolitics, duality is the way we humans think about problems, from the most simple to the most complex. We break things down into two’s. The press intuitively knows this, and it tends to present complex issues as a contrast, one versus the other. This was first seen in my lifetime in the 1960’s, when Congressman Pete McCloskey and four more senior members of the U.S. House went on a “fact finding” tour of Vietnam. The senior four expressed the same view. It’s not important what that view was. What is important is that McCloskey expressed a different view. Guess who appeared on the TV shows covering that visit: McCloskey and only one of the other four. In this way, McCloskey went from 20% (one fifth) of the attention to 50% (one half). Paul did this, too. His ideology got him noticed. It was Paul vs. 8 or so others. In fact, he went from one ninth to one half, or much closer to it than better healed, more virile and parental appearing other candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Now, however, push has come to shove. The Iowa caucuses will be held in two days. The media barrage has been intense. Here is where his Achilles heel will be a matter of focus. It is his military philosophy. He favors retreat. Non-involvement.

The issue will be debated at the conscious level, but it is of course at the unconscious level that so much of our decision-making occurs. The rest is rationalization. Here’ how it works:

In PsychePolitics, one can see how the unconscious difference between the two American Parties is not liberalism versus conservatism. That is only the surface. The difference is gender identification. The Democratic Party identifies with the mother of two generations ago, while the Republicans identify with the father of two generations ago. Despite the near equality of male and female in today’s world, the parties’ identifications and values were fixed in their minds when they were 2 or 3 years old. This will be explained in a separate post.

So, given the gender values of the two parties, let’s focus on Paul’s party, the Republicans. They have unconscious identifications with father. They value what fathers and men in general value. There are many such things, but let’s take military involvement. Men value it. Men de-value its opposite, and sometimes call it cowardice. Men are the first line protectors of the family. While they value nurturing, they value protecting and providing more. So, when Paul talks about retreat, it runs counter to something in men/father/Republicans. It makes them feel uneasy, uncomfortable, anxious. It runs counter to masculine values. In other words, men would feel, “As a man, I value fighting back, even war. Now you tell me fighting back and even war are unimportant, not to be valued?” Paul creates a disconnect, a dissonance, anxiety–and people don’t vote for someone who makes them anxious.

Now, Paul certainly does achieve duality with this anti-war stance. However, he fails at populism, which ultimately is the support of suppressed issues and values, allowing their emotions to be expressed. It is for this reason that he will fall short. One cannot achieve a large following in a party valuing action and courage, when what he seems to favor is retreat and cowardice. That is how he’s being perceived. To the extent that is really not true about him, Paul has not communicated it. Rather, he has communicated cowardice. His policies run counter to the Republican psyche, making them anxious. Again, people tend not to vote for someone who makes them anxious.

And that’s why he won’t win the Republican nomination for president.