George Bush and Donald Trump: Contrasting Profiles in Hope

Over the past few weeks, Americans witnessed countless reflections on the legacy of George H.W. Bush. My own interest in the Bush saga derives from a work in progress, a book on the last 11 elected presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Donald Trump. My approach to the presidency is based on from three decades of research on hope. Napoleon, among others, declared that a leader is a “dealer in hope.” As a psychologist, I concur and go further.

Hope is a complex emotion, possessing greater richness and depth than simple, sheer optimism. There are two ways to understand hope, as a process (of hoping), and as a character strength (hopefulness). In either form, hope encompasses four elements: attachment, mastery, survival, and spirituality. We hope for love and connection, achievement or gain, safety or recovery, grounding or transcendence. These are the elements of hoping.

As a character strength, the presence and quality of these four elements define an individual’s “hope profile.” Individuals are low or high in openness and trust, ambition and ideals, perspective taking and problem-solving, idealism and vision.

We can extend “hope profiles” to explore presidential character. Hope profiles extracted from the first inaugural address provide a surprisingly accurate two-way mirror. The profiles reflect developmental gains or delays, advances or disruptions, in attachment, mastery, survival, and spirituality. They also foreshadow policy priorities and decision-making. In the light of history, certain hope profiles appear more predictive of greatness while others spell disaster.

I began researching U.S. presidents several years ago. It is painstaking work. Two to four research assistants score each inauguration, an equal number of liberal and conservative raters. I assess each potential rater on four dimensions of the political spectrum. We score 12 hope themes. The four elements of hope (attachment through spirituality) are each broken down into three smaller units to permit a fine-grained, microanalysis, a “hope speech MRI”. We perform statistical analyses to check inter-rater agreement and redo any work that looks unreliable. We scored the inaugural address of George Bush several years ago for an academic conference. In 2017, we scored the inaugural address of Donald Trump.

Members of the media commented on how difficult it was to ignore the “stark differences” between the late president and the current occupant of the White House. I can offer a few insights about Bush and Trump, in terms of their respective hope profiles.

On the basis of our research, we can rank each president from one to eleven on attachment, mastery, survival, spirituality, and total hope. Bush ranked ninth in attachment hope, fifth in mastery hope, eighth in survival hope, fourth in spiritual hope, and seventh in total hope.

These rankings tell only part of the story because each major theme contains multiple sub-themes. For example, more than 75% of Bush’s attachment score derives from promises to nurture trust (vs. claims of openness or presence). In mastery hope, Bush had three references to collective or shared purposes for each nod to the pursuit of individual goals.

Bush injected few planning themes, less than half the number provided by his successor, Bill Clinton. This is consistent with Bush’s overall hope profile, which I label “collectivist hope”. Bush received praise the past few weeks for his decency, civility, and ability to get along with Congress. Readers may recall phrases such as “a thousand points of light” and “coalition diplomacy.” Critics of Bush point to a “vision vacuum,” an inability to articulate a personal desired future for the country.

Donald Trump ranked seventh in attachment, tenth in mastery, fourth in survival, first in spirituality, and sixth in total hope. In attachment hope, Trump scored ninth in trust, just ahead of Bill Clinton. Trump’s history foreshadows his hope profile, revealing trust and attachment deficits, power rather than achievement concerns, and an extrinsic, calculated spirituality combining elements of Peale’s power of positive thinking with darker aspects of the evangelical prosperity gospel.

A micro-level comparison between Trump and Bush expands the narrative of differences. On attachment, Bush promoted trust whereas Trump promises presence and openness (via Twitter?). In mastery, Bush ranked first in collective progress, Trump ranked ninth. In survival, Bush promised fear reduction while Trump stood for resilience. In spirituality, Bush was fourth, Trump was first.

President Donald Trump Essential Reads

Is Trump Using Psychological Biases in His Cabinet Picks?

Why Voters Support Trump Despite His Alleged Misdeeds

I also did a cluster analysis of hope profiles, spanning Eisenhower to Trump. How similar or dissimilar are the presidents? Bush was remarkably similar to Lyndon Johnson as well as Jimmy Carter. Departing from his predecessor Ronald Reagan, “team player” Bush resisted further tax cuts, reduced the deficit, promoted business reforms, added climate protections, and restored educational programs. Trump’s profile is relatively unique. The most similar profile is Eisenhower but the variance with Trump is about five times greater, as compared with Bush vs. either Johnson or Carter. Trump’s agenda is also quite different from Bush. Trump pushed for more tax cuts. He appears less concerned about debts or deficits. He hopes to roll back business and environmental regulations. His 2019 budget proposal included cuts in education and the EPA. Bush was a former diplomat who tried to build bridges at home and abroad. Trump largest proposed cuts were to the State Department (29%). Trump’s behavior as candidate and president align with our evaluation of his inaugural address, which reveals a “nostalgic hope” profile.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC was at a loss to explain how some Republicans can eulogize Bush and also support Trump. CNN’s Chris Cillizza added, “Trump ran as much against the Republican Party of Bush as the past eight years of Obama.” Both statements lead to a larger question. How does one explain the extra-rational appeal of Trump, who seems neither diplomatic nor willing to build on the previous gains of either party? My analyses point again and again to hope and nostalgia. In a changing America, Trump appeals to those who possess a primal fear of perceived economic and existential threats, a future where self and nation will acquire a new look, and the only alternative is to hope against hope for a reset to yesterday.