Back to the present day, friends of mine who previously showed little interest in the psychological underpinnings of human life have grabbed me and said, with some passion and desperation, "why would they do it?"

What is the "it" that so baffles and fascinates us? I don't think it's the sexual transgression per se-allegedly sending lewd pictures over the Internet to strangers, allegedly fathering babies out of wedlock and trying to hush it up, allegedly sexually assaulting a hotel maid. No the burning question on peoples' minds is not why these men would do these all too human (if very dumb and/or despicable things) but why would they throw away so much for so little?

Risking so much for so little. All the men recently in the news for sexual transgressions (Edwards, Schwarzenegger, Strauss-Kahn, Weiner, Spitzer a little while ago and Clinton before that) were either in the midst of positions of enormous power and influence, or poised on the brink (Weiner was talked about as possibly the next mayor of New York, and Strauss Kahn the next president of France).

I'd love to give you a psychoanalyst's interpretation of their actions, but alas I can't. Not only because I think it is unethical but also because I really can't know. When it comes to understanding a particular individual and the meanings behind his actions, psychoanalysis requires a certain kind of data-not just data derived from observation of the surface of things, but in depth clinical data that derives from meeting and talking with the actual person, in an atmosphere of perfect confidentiality, usually over some period of time. The understanding that comes from this approach is incredibly rich.

Years ago the issue of making statements about public figures became a cause celebre after FACT magazine published the opinions of thousands of psychiatrists surveyed on the subject of Senator Barry Goldwater's fitness for the office of President. Goldwater sued the magazine for libel and won. The basis of the decision in this landmark lawsuit was the lack of factual backup for the claims made and the authors' (publishers') reckless disregard for the veracity of their claims. In response to this event, both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association wrote planks into their ethics codes that advised their members to avoid making public comments about individuals they had not personally interviewed. At the same time, the American Psychoanalytic Association issued a statement by its then president Heinz Kohut. Dr. Kohut's arguments were of particular interest as they relied on an explanation of the origin of psychoanalytic knowledge. Kohut wrote,

Professional judgments regarding the mental stability of any person have to be based on carefully evaluated psychological data which must be secured through a detailed review of the life history and a thorough clinical examination. Such information is most reliable when obtained in a therapeutic relationship in which there is the expectation of confidentiality and the wish to be relieved from emotional suffering as a motivation for self-revelation. These conditions do not exist in a political campaign. (American Psychoanalytic Association, 1964)

Some feel these restrictions represent a type of overkill, and should be relaxed somewhat albeit in a responsible way.

But, I think I can actually prove why my colleagues and I cannot make accurate statements about a public figure, as much as we value and trust our own clinical judgment.

Let's imagine, just for example, that a very successful politician is on the brink of great success and national prominence. He has a beautiful family with a smart wife and 2 or 3 really cute kids. He is bringing fresh ideas to the country.

Next we find out that he has done something incredibly dumb-a sexual escapade that doesn't even strike the outsider as that significant, nor does it seem to be able to deliver the amount of pleasure that would make it worthwhile for our hero to risk everything. The dumb action wasn't worth the pain that will follow. Of course he is caught.

So now let's turn to the psychoanalyst, who is asked by friends, family and the occasional reporter "why would he do this?"

Here's why it's important to admit we don't know, and actually cannot know.

I could say our hero is narcissistic and grandiose and doesn't think the rules apply to him. That's a really solid psychoanalytic diagnosis.

Or, I could turn it around and say our hero is secretly insecure and frightened and bound to sabotage himself to avoid entering into a level of "play" that is too stimulating or overwhelming. Maybe he had a dominating father and he's afraid he'll be symbolically castrated if he engages in too much of a proud display, and he has to knock himself off his own pedestal.

Or, maybe he lives a double life, and has had to "split off" parts of his emotional life, particularly needs and dependency feelings, and hide them behind a wall, where they get urgent and distorted and make themselves manifest in inappropriate, obsessionally driven behaviors. This might be because the attachment to his mother was faulty, or he was not helped to develop good self-regulatory functions in early childhood.

Or maybe he feels horribly guilty over something he may not know (unconscious guilt), and we certainly don't know, and has to punish himself by being caught and publicly humiliated.

Or maybe secretly he has a masochistic character and is unconsciously attracted to suffering.

So far, I've employed the valid and well established psychoanalytic concepts of grandiosity, splitting of the self, masochism, guilt, castration anxiety, and ordinary anxiety. Anyone of them might explain our hero's behavior or might be irrelevant. Any combination of them could be operant. (Actually, there are 64 possible permutations of these six explanations, presuming one or more is true).  Any or none of these 64 explanations might be true. Or there may be innumerable other possible explanations.

For example, we can productively look at these transgressions-stupid or cruel or inane-as failures of executive functioning. Executive functions are those psychological processes that "run the business" of our personal enterprises. Executive functions include an appreciation of cause and effect, of action and consequences, of relationships between various entities, etc. Many biological conditions (as well as psychological ones) can interfere with executive functioning-the hypomanic or manic states of bipolar disorder being one main culprit, and many kinds of substance abuse another. As a matter of fact, my reading of Hamilton's biography raises the question of whether he might have suffered from bipolar disorder-thus his genius and his hyper-productivity, and his impulsive behavior and colossal errors in judgment.

Psychoanalysis is a depth psychology, and has found reliable tools to uncover unconscious meanings.

Sometimes we can do a useful job applying these techniques to social forces or the public psyche or group behaviors and or people in general and can arrive at some valuable hypotheses. But when it comes to the infinitely complex world of an individual, we can only "know" what we learn from an in-depth engagement-a personal connection, combining observation and verbal conversation, with another person. Otherwise we're throwing darts at the unconscious with our eyes blindfolded.