- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
This seventh –and final— post as an alleged authority on the subject of “Success Without Distress,” comes close on the heels of my sixth post for a simple reason. The response to my last post convinced me that I erred in using the case of Sarah Palin to illustrate how women who have “love & work” in their lives are, in many ways, psychologically stronger than both women with “love” and no vocational stimulation, and men in general. My error was in failing to anticipate that I would catch partisan flack as a consequence. I was either horrendously naïve or asleep-at-the-wheel. In either case, I learned a lesson that spurred me to write this farewell post which addresses a political issue with both eyes open: Why, in contrast to CEOs and other (e.g. military) leaders, most American political leaders lack authentic strength of character.
Is this a broad generalization? Categorically. Nevertheless, the route to political success in our nation is fraught with potholes that punish some phenomenally gifted people and reward others who are far less worthy of the status they gain. For my entire career I have studied how success that is not hard earned, contingent upon the competent execution of difficult behaviors, and achieved in a manner that few can duplicate, causes myriad psychological problems. In contrast, contingent success based on merit alone –I offer Peter Drucker as Exhibit A— generates a well-tolerated noblesse oblige that we should demand, but do not get, in our political leaders. Leaders of this nation should have a surfeit of the feeling that they are obligated to help the less fortunate and serve the society as a whole. Instead, our political leaders are self- or special-interest-group obsessed.
St. Luke made a similar observation – “To whom much is given, much will be expected” – that I have taken exception to in many of my writings. A minor, but crucial aspect, of St. Luke’s directive accounts for the overwhelming failure of U.S. politicians to help others, and society, in the manner that Drucker did in his lifetime. You see, success that is “given” –as, for example, in the manner of children who inherit wealth— does nothing good for a person’s self-image. In fact (witness the suffering that the children and grandchildren of Joseph Patrick "Joe" Kennedy, Sr. have endured), being born with a “silver spoon” in one’s mouth often wreaks havoc in a person’s life.
The key to occupying a vaunted political status and doing good vs. doing ill, lies in the process of getting there. Regrettably, for most American politicians, getting to the top is usually a function of “image manipulation” rather than achieving success the old-fashioned way –by earning it.
Were I a preacher, this is the point when I would segue to Scriptures and refer to the section of Proverbs that warns against using image manipulation to achieve success:
People are more impressed with our sincerity if we act on our beliefs than if we merely talk about them.
Since I am not a man of the cloth, let me make my point using the lingua franca of our times: “By your deeds shall ye be known.” The corollary to this point is, “If you lack authentic deeds to back-up your B.S., watch out.”
No campaign for the U.S. Presidency that I can recall demonstrates our national penchant for endorsing “style-over-substance” more blatantly than the current one. While I can remember my father lamenting –in words I won’t repeat—that Adlai Stevenson was “too smart” for the electorate who needed a hero (cf. Freud’s Moses and Monotheism), believing that this same issue was what derailed Rhodes Scholar (and N.Y. Knick star), Senator Bill Bradley, in his bid for the White House, and being aghast that (according to many pundits) Michael Dukakis lost an election because a photograph of him (in a tank wearing a helmet that made him look like Rocky The Flying Squirrel) created the impression that Bush-the-elder was the “stronger leader.” In these instances, negative images derailed potential leaders with both ability and good character. Today, what we are seeing are faux heroes being embraced by the electorate solely on the basis of image.
In America, most of people attain political office owing to style over substance for one simple reason: All it takes for someone to rise like cream in the esteem of the nation is to become his or her party’s nominee for a prestigious elective office. The transformative power of this one outcome is so powerful, it can (hypothetically speaking), convert a man known to be a pathological liar, someone whose only talent is seducing people (for votes and/or sex), into a man perceived as brilliant and wise. Should a person win an election, the power of this transformative effect is sextupled. Anyone who walks to a podium while “Hail to The Chief” is being played is judged heroic irrespective of what he or she did –or did not do— en route to winning office.
Psychological research demonstrated that the cause of this transformation (from zero to hero) is a function of what is known as the “halo effect:” The tendency for positive trait ratings of individuals in a favorable role to show a higher inter-correlation than would be shown by objective measurement. In everyday terms, a halo effect explains why grandmothers whose grandchildren graduate college Phi Beta Kappa but still live at home, unemployed, and totally dependent upon their parents, ask them: “If you’re so smart, how come you’re not rich?” Or, to steal a line from Fiddler on the Roof (used by Tevye to rationalize asking the Lord to make him a rich man); “When you’re rich they think you really know.”
Is the halo effect operative in the current race for the White House? Let’s look at some data:
● Sarah Palin, who two weeks ago had no national reputation, today has higher favorability ratings (according to many polls), than Barak Obama OR John McCain. Why? One speech. ONE SPEECH! Forgive me, but I am absolutely certain that Morgan Freeman or Dennis Haysbert (who stars in Allstate Insurance commercials and, as Jonas Blane, in the TV show The Unit) could deliver a better presentation than Sarah Palin did.
● John McCain endured a hellish imprisonment in Viet Nam that few men could. He also manifested strength of character that is astounding by any standard when he refused an early release from captivity to remain with, and supportive of, his fellow prisoners of war. But do these attributes translate into the leadership acumen needed to help our nation deal with an impending economic disaster coupled with the fact that we live in a time when international relations are threatening to destroy us? Can “grit and guts” solve these problems? I don’t know, but if it were up to me, given the exigencies we face today, I would draft Paul Krugman, a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University (who is also an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times) into public service and demand that he lead us. Dr. Krugman earned his B.A. from Yale and his Ph.D. from MIT, and countless awards and commendations for his contributions to economic knowledge.
● Barak Obama, a man with academic credentials arguably as impressive as Krugman’s, earned them while pursuing a degree in law. Regrettably, I am absolutely certain that not 10% of his supporters back him because of his brains. In my view –an opinion advanced by many others as well— Obama’s “hero status” is born of his skill at public speaking and charisma, attributes I again claim, are held by Morgan Freeman and Dennis Haysbert in equal (or greater) supply. Who concurs with my claim that Obama is valued for sizzle not steak? The avowed liberal Paul Krugman who said as much in a very recent New York Times Op-Ed: “…the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters [are] the candidate’s high-flown eloquence [and] his coolness factor.”
The reason I am so distressed by the fact that Americans choose political leaders owing to halo effects is because the vast majority of successes “obtained” in this manner precipitate negative psychological outcomes. When you rise to the top of a heap primarily as a result of image rather than substance, you feel it in your bones and long to eradicate the sense of being a “pretender to the throne.” That longing will, on rare occasions, motivate authentically heroic deeds (e.g. the healthy noblesse oblige of John F. Kennedy who knew that he owed his success to his father’s money). But JFK is the exception. Most “pretenders” act-out: They wield their questionably obtained power like a cudgel. This is the reason why most legislation affecting our economic viability is strewn with “pork barrel” initiatives, and overt corruption is the norm in Washington, D. C.
Is this a broad generalization? Categorically. Nevertheless, the route to political success in our nation is fraught with potholes that punish some phenomenally gifted people and reward others who are far less worthy of the status they gain. For my entire career I have studied how success that is not hard earned, contingent upon the competent execution of difficult behaviors, and achieved in a manner that few can duplicate, causes myriad psychological problems. In contrast, contingent success based on merit alone –I offer Peter Drucker as Exhibit A— generates a well-tolerated noblesse oblige that we should demand, but do not get, in our political leaders. Leaders of this nation should have a surfeit of the feeling that they are obligated to help the less fortunate and serve the society as a whole. Instead, our political leaders are self- or special-interest-group obsessed.
St. Luke made a similar observation – “To whom much is given, much will be expected” – that I have taken exception to in many of my writings. A minor, but crucial aspect, of St. Luke’s directive accounts for the overwhelming failure of U.S. politicians to help others, and society, in the manner that Drucker did in his lifetime. You see, success that is “given” –as, for example, in the manner of children who inherit wealth— does nothing good for a person’s self-image. In fact (witness the suffering that the children and grandchildren of Joseph Patrick "Joe" Kennedy, Sr. have endured), being born with a “silver spoon” in one’s mouth often wreaks havoc in a person’s life.
The key to occupying a vaunted political status and doing good vs. doing ill, lies in the process of getting there. Regrettably, for most American politicians, getting to the top is usually a function of “image manipulation” rather than achieving success the old-fashioned way –by earning it.
Were I a preacher, this is the point when I would segue to Scriptures and refer to the section of Proverbs that warns against using image manipulation to achieve success:
People are more impressed with our sincerity if we act on our beliefs than if we merely talk about them.
Since I am not a man of the cloth, let me make my point using the lingua franca of our times: “By your deeds shall ye be known.” The corollary to this point is, “If you lack authentic deeds to back-up your B.S., watch out.”
No campaign for the U.S. Presidency that I can recall demonstrates our national penchant for endorsing “style-over-substance” more blatantly than the current one. While I can remember my father lamenting –in words I won’t repeat—that Adlai Stevenson was “too smart” for the electorate who needed a hero (cf. Freud’s Moses and Monotheism), believing that this same issue was what derailed Rhodes Scholar (and N.Y. Knick star), Senator Bill Bradley, in his bid for the White House, and being aghast that (according to many pundits) Michael Dukakis lost an election because a photograph of him (in a tank wearing a helmet that made him look like Rocky The Flying Squirrel) created the impression that Bush-the-elder was the “stronger leader.” In these instances, negative images derailed potential leaders with both ability and good character. Today, what we are seeing are faux heroes being embraced by the electorate solely on the basis of image.
In America, most of people attain political office owing to style over substance for one simple reason: All it takes for someone to rise like cream in the esteem of the nation is to become his or her party’s nominee for a prestigious elective office. The transformative power of this one outcome is so powerful, it can (hypothetically speaking), convert a man known to be a pathological liar, someone whose only talent is seducing people (for votes and/or sex), into a man perceived as brilliant and wise. Should a person win an election, the power of this transformative effect is sextupled. Anyone who walks to a podium while “Hail to The Chief” is being played is judged heroic irrespective of what he or she did –or did not do— en route to winning office.
Psychological research demonstrated that the cause of this transformation (from zero to hero) is a function of what is known as the “halo effect:” The tendency for positive trait ratings of individuals in a favorable role to show a higher inter-correlation than would be shown by objective measurement. In everyday terms, a halo effect explains why grandmothers whose grandchildren graduate college Phi Beta Kappa but still live at home, unemployed, and totally dependent upon their parents, ask them: “If you’re so smart, how come you’re not rich?” Or, to steal a line from Fiddler on the Roof (used by Tevye to rationalize asking the Lord to make him a rich man); “When you’re rich they think you really know.”
Is the halo effect operative in the current race for the White House? Let’s look at some data:
● Sarah Palin, who two weeks ago had no national reputation, today has higher favorability ratings (according to many polls), than Barak Obama OR John McCain. Why? One speech. ONE SPEECH! Forgive me, but I am absolutely certain that Morgan Freeman or Dennis Haysbert (who stars in Allstate Insurance commercials and, as Jonas Blane, in the TV show The Unit) could deliver a better presentation than Sarah Palin did.
● John McCain endured a hellish imprisonment in Viet Nam that few men could. He also manifested strength of character that is astounding by any standard when he refused an early release from captivity to remain with, and supportive of, his fellow prisoners of war. But do these attributes translate into the leadership acumen needed to help our nation deal with an impending economic disaster coupled with the fact that we live in a time when international relations are threatening to destroy us? Can “grit and guts” solve these problems? I don’t know, but if it were up to me, given the exigencies we face today, I would draft Paul Krugman, a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University (who is also an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times) into public service and demand that he lead us. Dr. Krugman earned his B.A. from Yale and his Ph.D. from MIT, and countless awards and commendations for his contributions to economic knowledge.
● Barak Obama, a man with academic credentials arguably as impressive as Krugman’s, earned them while pursuing a degree in law. Regrettably, I am absolutely certain that not 10% of his supporters back him because of his brains. In my view –an opinion advanced by many others as well— Obama’s “hero status” is born of his skill at public speaking and charisma, attributes I again claim, are held by Morgan Freeman and Dennis Haysbert in equal (or greater) supply. Who concurs with my claim that Obama is valued for sizzle not steak? The avowed liberal Paul Krugman who said as much in a very recent New York Times Op-Ed: “…the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters [are] the candidate’s high-flown eloquence [and] his coolness factor.”
The reason I am so distressed by the fact that Americans choose political leaders owing to halo effects is because the vast majority of successes “obtained” in this manner precipitate negative psychological outcomes. When you rise to the top of a heap primarily as a result of image rather than substance, you feel it in your bones and long to eradicate the sense of being a “pretender to the throne.” That longing will, on rare occasions, motivate authentically heroic deeds (e.g. the healthy noblesse oblige of John F. Kennedy who knew that he owed his success to his father’s money). But JFK is the exception. Most “pretenders” act-out: They wield their questionably obtained power like a cudgel. This is the reason why most legislation affecting our economic viability is strewn with “pork barrel” initiatives, and overt corruption is the norm in Washington, D. C.
