Over the past couple of decades, the major difference between the American political parties has been their political philosophies of Liberal for the Democrats and Conservative for the Republicans.

This was not always the case. Over the scores of years since 1776, the major two parties have differed in a variety of ways. In the beginning it was Nationalism vs Federalism. That is, the struggle was between those wanting a strong national government and those wanting political control to remain with the states.

Then there was slavery, and war, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Now it’s Liberal vs. Conservative. Freeing things up vs. keeping them the same.

At least that’s how it seems. Listening to politics with the third ear, reading between the lines, focusing on what is not said, and following free associations–all things psychiatrists do–gives us a glimpse of what is going on under the surface. Way under the surface. So far under the surface that we are unaware of it. Yet what we find there, in the unconscious political mind, explains how the pieces fit together. The why will be left for another post. For now, let’s just look at the how, that is how the two parties really differ today.

First, let’s list the fundamental issues that the two parties stand for and fight for, what is in their guts. First, the Democrats: Clean Environment, Inclusion of the disenfranchised and weak, Government can take care of things, Military is not as important as other things, Domestic issues.

Now, let’s take the Republicans: Spend less, Minimal government, Keep what you earn (less taxes), Strong military, Independence, The Constitution.

One thing that pops out is that the opposite of each issue is not exactly found in the other party. It is not as if the Republicans are for a dirty environment or that the Democrats are for a weak military. So how does it all add up?

Well, the answer lies paradoxically in the unconscious notion of the family of two generations ago, when the current leaders were forming their unconscious minds. The 50’s, basically. The pre-60’s, if one thinks of the 60’s as a turning point in American society.

What was the so-called typical American family like back then? What was it in our minds, if not in reality? It was husband and wife and kids. Husband went outside the house and brought back money. Wife stayed at home and took care of the kids and the house. We’re looking at the big picture, of course, because the details are so different. We must find the common perspective, the common denominators, in order to comment on the bulk of the people, i.e. to make reasonable generalizations.

So, the wife, being focused on the home (nest), didn’t like it when the husband tracked dirt into the house. She liked it clean, nice, tidy. Big picture, anyway. It wasn’t as if the husband liked dirty, of course. He just wasn’t that concerned. After all, he went outside the house, got his hands dirty. He took care of the car and the yard, with all that grime and dirt. Of course he’d track it into the house. “OK. OK. It’s just a little dirt. We’ll clean it up. What’s the problem?”

Also, the wife focused on the weak, the disenfranchised. She did not want the victim to be ignored. This focus on the weakest is actually quite normal for humans. It is part of our nurturing drive, to take care of the most helpless, the one who hurts most. While men do it, too, in the traditional American family of the 50’s, it was the woman’s focus.

One aspect of the nurturing drive is the helping reflex. This latter term is my own, while all, or nearly all, other psychological terms I use are standard, right out of the textbook. Nothing revolutionary. And there is really nothing revolutionary about calling the tendency to help the weakest a reflex.

Now, the nurturance drive and helping reflex were designed for raising the next generation. Without the pleasure we get from carrying them out, there would be no next generation, or rather not as good a next generation. It works well and is necessary within the family. It gets misused outside the family, however, and sometimes inside it.

Anyway, no doubt in anyone’s mind who in the 1950’s nuclear family focuses more on the weakest, is there? Mom, that’s who. So, when one party says, “We just have to take care of all those poor uninsured people” and the other party says, “It costs too much”, who’s talking in each case? Democrat and Republican? Or mother and father. The mother is focused on her role of taking care of the weak. The father is focused on his role of bringing home the money. Each cares about the weakest in the family, and each cares that the bread winner wins some bread. It’s just a matter of focus, and it parallels the concept of husband and wife in the 1950’s–or at least the pre-1960’s.

Let’s look at strength, military in the political sense. Does Mom care about strength? Not so much. It’s the guys whose role depended on physical strength. So, when one party Democrat, says we spend too much on the military and should shift some of it to healthcare or the environment, the guys get nervous. Isn’t physical strength important? Do you want other countries to think of us as weak or not caring that much about strength?

Remember, it wasn’t long after the U.S. reduced its military strength that the Japanese thought they could get away with bombing us. It wasn’t long after we did not give air cover to the Cubans when they tried to take Cuba back from Castro, that the Soviets thought they could get away with putting nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from our shores.

What’s left. Oh, the Constitution. Well, studies from the 1930’s (pre-1960’s, right) show that men valued rules more highly than women, while women valued taking care of the weakest and relationships most highly.

Those Mom’s of two generations ago didn’t care all that much about rules. Can you imagine what would happen in the family if they did? Remember, biologically, women bear the children, and over the centuries did the raising when they were little. Well, little children don’t even know what the rules are, let alone have the ability or inclination to follow them.

Again, it’s not that the 50’s Moms didn’t care about rules. It’s just that taking care of the kids was more important. Dads saw it a bit differently. Dads were seen as the disciplinarians–though the reality is a bit different. Nonetheless, Moms, at the point of desperation, would tend to say something like, “Wait ’til your father hears about that!” as a way of using fear (anxiety) to curtail misbehavior.

So, Dads were the rules enforcers. Any wonder why I say the party cherishing the ultimate rulebook, the Constitution, is the Republican/Dad? Let’s take it a step closer to the obvious. Conservative means to stick to what we’ve been accustomed to. Liberals free it up, or at least don’t care that much about sticking to the norms of society. Again, it’s not as if pre-1960 Moms did not care about rules, or that Dads didn’t care about being flexible in raising the children. It’s a matter of focus, of priority. The Democrats/Moms don’t care so much about rules, while the Republicans/Dads do. They are out in society, where individuals are old enough to know the rules and live accordingly. That makes for stability. Inside the family, rules are broken all the time. Get used to it, young man, when you are ready to marry!

In any case, Dads valued keeping to the rules, the laws, the Constitution. Moms, well, so what if Johnny misbehaved? It happens. It’s not all that important.

What about dependence. Dads biologically needed to be comfortable with independence, as they foraged in the wilderness to find food. Moms, on the other hand, had to be comfortable with being dependent, or they’d be awfully nervous just sitting home waiting for Dad bring home his kill. This translated into Dad making money, and Mom getting it from him for their kids. It was a division of labor programmed into the human species. Of course, we humans are so flexible, either gender can assume the other’s role. That’s the reality in today’s American life and in many lands over the centuries. Not all that true pre-1960, however.

I could go on and on. However, paradoxically, at the same time that in American the two genders are more equal than ever, the two political parties are acting as if they are the Mom and Dad of yesteryear, with different, though not always opposing, priorities.

So, when political commentators tear their hair out over what the other party does, as in, “How can they do that!?!”, just tell them why. Once what’s in the unconscious is uncovered, once we become aware of what we were unaware of, it all makes sense. Only then can we approach problems in a more adult, modern way.

In a future post, I’ll cover why the two parties differ in the ways they do.

With the coalition built by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democratic party in America began a run that has endured to this day. He built that coalition with the outs, the have-nots, the poor, the disadvantaged, the discriminated. This was summed up in one big term: The Little Guy.

Anyone who did not feel all that successful or prosperous could identify with that term. And, after all, how many people really walk around thinking of themselves as The Big Guy. Really, it was people who felt OK vs those who did not. The latter will always make up a larger part of a population, so he won, and won, and won. . .and won.

It’s not so surprising that that coalition survived. They were the beneficiaries of the New Deal. Government was going to give them what they could not otherwise get. Why wouldn’t they continue to vote for the Democrats?

It’s also not surprising the Democratic politicians continue to support the focus on the oh so numerous little guys. Many have said they pay for votes with taxpayer money. So far, there is nothing profound here.

What is surprising and generally unexplained is who the other Democrats are. That is, who are the Democrats who do not benefit from little guy votes, who are not little guys, and who are not even developers and other large contributors who directly benefit from government deals.

These other Democrats are academics, entertainers, some successful financiers and business executives, and comfortable suburbanites. It is these who make the difference, at least in recent elections. So, what draws them to the Democrats? They even have something to lose in terms of taxes, which they will not get back in benefits. In short, they seem to be acting against their own self interest.

Some proportion of them consists of Democrats by inheritance. They likely grew up in Democratic households and, identified with their parents, maintained their allegiance to their parents’ political persuasion.

But there must be something else at play for people to act against their own self interest, and there is. Remember, the balance between self interest and other interest that began in childhood continues throughout life. Depending on the situation, one or the other governs our decisions. Certainly in times of plenty, people feel comfortable giving to others. In times of scarcity, people tend not to do so.

This is all at the conscious level. It is the unconscious reasons that create the unexplained. In addition to those big guys whose identification with their little guy parents is stronger than their self interest, there is the helping reflex. The helping reflex is part of the nurturing drive, which is part of the drive to reproduce. There is pleasure at each of these levels. Pleasure at reproducing, pleasure at nurturing, and pleasure at helping.

It is only when the pain of too much giving is strong enough to outweigh the pleasure of helping, that this changes. The reality principle makes it evident that pleasurable behavior must be curtailed. However, if and when there is plenty again, the pleasure principle rules, and the other Democrats return.

At least in the “other Democrats”.

Genetically speaking, women should be attracted to men who can bring home the bacon, right? I mean, the evolutionists would say this. When our genes were selected, there was not all that much food to go around. Men were hunter/gatherers, while women stayed home, bore and raised the children. The more the hunters killed or the more the  gatherers gathered, the more food for the female mate and the offspring. The more food, the longer life and better health. The longer life and better health, the more offspring. The more offspring, the more the basic human drives of survival and reproduction could be fulfilled. As fulfilling the basic drives feels good, the more women would find good hunters and good gatherers attractive and want to mate/have offspring with them–and like them.

Of course, good hunters/gatherers knew this and could thus choose women who would be good mothers for their children. That is, it worked both ways. In the end, the genes of both good hunters/gatherers and good mothers became more numerous in the population. That’s how evolution is explained.

So, the good hunter/gatherers would have more sex than the bad ones–because they were more attractive to women. In an uncivilized world, where there are few rules about mating/marriage, the really good hunter/gatherers would have more than one woman, because those second in line would be confident these guys could provide for them and their offspring, too.

It isn’t hard to see how this translates into civilized society. In civilized society, what is hunted and gathered is not so much kill or. . .whatever it is that gatherers gather. Instead it is money. It is money, because one can buy what hunters kill and  gatherers gather. Same thing. Thus, a man who earned more money would be as attractive as a good hunter/gatherer.

But wait. Not so fast. We all know there are other things besides money that are, at the most basic level, attractive to women. Strong men or physically well built men are also attractive at this basic level, likely because these are characteristics of good hunter/gatherers–and also of good hunter/gatherers who can protect their bounty from those inferior hunter/gatherers who might steal their prey or gathering before it can be eaten by the women and offspring.

OK. Well, what about good looking. . .faces. Well, faces don’t correlate with hunting or gathering, so what’s a good looking face in one culture is not the same in another. That is, the element of sexual attractiveness that relates to good looking faces is learned, not genetic.

OK. OK. Now, what about other fundamental, shall I say genetic, aspects of sexual attractiveness. Well, in many species, the attractive male is the dominant one. In many such species, he becomes the only one available to the pack of females. To be dominant over other males, then, is selected for, evolutionarily. That is what drives many males in a variety of species, even when it no longer is selected for, or at least highly selected for. That is, because genes leading to dominant behavior are widespread in a variety of species, dominant behavior persists.

OK. But what males are so dominant they eliminate the other males and have the rest of the female herd/harem for themselves? Not many. Rather, dominant male behavior involves having males who do their bidding, so that together the group can dominate, take over neighboring fertile ground from other groups, etc.

But how is this relevant today? Well, leaders of men are attractive to women. Not true, you say. Well, the captain of the football team is more attractive to women than the bench  rider. Sorry, bench riders. Leaders become attractive, because the characteristics of leadership are related to the characteristics of good hunter/gatherers. In the same way that currently meaningless characteristics like good biceps and pecs are meaningless genetically, they still are attractive at a very basic level. Other characteristics associated with good hunting/gathering/loot-protecting males are, too, and one big one is leadership.

Now, is there any question why men, traditionally at least, have been drawn to politics?

If you understood this post, you guessed the answer even before the question, right?

So, is it all money, politics, and sex? No. it is money and sex, and it is politics and sex. You don’t have to be rich to attract women. You could be a political leader, instead.

Political commentators say it’s power that drives men to enter politics. Men who enter politics say it’s service. I say it’s much deeper. It’s the fundamental drive to be attractive!

In another post, I’ll talk about what drives women to enter politics.