Verified by 
Lula "blowing the whistle" at a Global Anti-Hunger Campaign
We fantasize our government as a caring parent. This election year what kind of parenting do U.S. citizens want?
I attended a recent meeting of the Psychohistory Forum in New York on the subject of presidential leadership. Psychohistory is thinking about history and politics through a psychological lens. Our discussion compared the psychology of President Barack Obama with former Brazilian President Lula da Silva (incumbent 2002-2010). Many ideas were inspired by Ted Goertzel's new biography, Brazil's Lula: The Most Popular Politician on Earth, (Brown Walker, 2011).
Obama has admiringly called Lula "the most popular politician on Earth," a fitting epithet for someone who finished eight years as president with popularity ratings over 80%. While in office Lula overcame ideological divides between the ruling elite and those of lesser means. He enhanced his country's self-esteem with a growing economy and one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios. Since the mid-1990s, Brazil has minimized poverty and inequality, curtailed hyperinflation, and nurtured their economy despite widespread financial crises elsewhere in the world.
Are there lessons here for the U.S. in how to successfully overcome partisan divides and reestablish fiscal stability? Why was Lula more successful than Obama in this respect? How are their leadership styles a product of their own childrearing?
Both Obama and Lula were raised by single mothers and in the shadow of absent and abusive fathers. They identified closely with their mothers, incorporating many of their values. Yet Obama spent long periods of childhood separated from his mother, often residing in the care of his maternal grandparents. While clearly many of his ideals are connected to his mother's values, he also distanced himself from Ann Dunham (a white woman), particularly as he claimed his own identity as a black man.
In terms of how sibling relations defined the family environment, Lula was the seventh of eight children and received copious care from his older sisters. Obama, by contrast, was an only child for much of his life, living in Indonesian with his sister, Maya, only several years in later childhood.
Both leaders embody stories of personal achievement. This is the case more dramatically for Lula who grew up in extreme poverty, coming from a Brazilian dirt-farmer family. He shined shoes on the street as a youngster, then went to work in a factory at age 14 and eventually became a lathe mechanic by trade. He rose through the ranks to become a respected union leader who empowered steelworkers at a time when a military junta ruled Brazil. Lula was the first president of Brazil without a college education or military training.
Lula after hoping to host the 2016 Summer Olympics
Lula's personal style is characterized by frank emotional expression and the open communication of feelings. He freely shares tender sentiments and breaks into tears during public events. Goertzel suggests that through his close relationship with his mother he learned this trait, as well as empathy with others, problem solving and practical skills in human relations. As a personality, he is very different from "no drama Obama" who is more opaque emotionally. Psychohistorian Paul H. Elovitz suggests Obama's inability to fully acknowledge American anger over the 2007-08 financial crisis has contributed to the development of right wing rage and the rise of the Tea Party.
Lula, like Obama, was elected on a platform of "hope" and "change." Yet Goertzel argues that Lula successfully "forged a new leadership style emphasizing consensus and contrasting sharply with that of many populist Latin American leaders." Despite the persistent corruption in his country, Lula worked to create a model of leadership that prioritized building democracy in a developing society.
In a 2010 campaign speech, Lula stated that his is a "maternal" method of leadership:
"The best example I can give of the art of governing is the art of being a mother. Governing is nothing more than acting like a mother taking care of her family, assuring everyone the right to have opportunities. Incidentally the word 'govern' is really wrong... it should be 'to care for' [cuidar]."
The word "govern" implies enforcing rules that exercise control and power over others. This, Goertzel says, "is a stereotypically masculine approach to life, ingrained in the legal and military training of most of Brazil's past presidents... Lula is very much a feminist, the opposite of a 'macho' Latin American. He is a feminist, not just in ideology but in his personal style. It is altogether appropriate that he passed on the presidential sash to Brazil's first woman president, Dilma Rousseff."
How parenting styles inform America's two-party political system is a question taken up by cognitive linguist George Lakoff. Lakoff argues that "strict parenting" is often the trait of Republican candidates today. This style of caregiving is more hierarchical and authoritarian. It often employs religious imagery to instill fear and elicit obedience. For the "strict parent" incentives for good behavior are given through a system of external threats and rewards. Such caregiving is permeated by binary thinking, a black and white mentality mostly devoid of shades of grey.
Rick Santorum
During the Republican debate in late January, Rick Santorum in speaking of his family said: "If my wife and I have learned one thing from our seven children, it is that children are not born good." This is the statement of a "strict parent" type.
Alternatively, Lakoff writes of the "nurturing parent" which usually infuses the Democratic viewpoint and its values of equality, reciprocity, and social responsibility. This style of caregiving expresses belief in one, or many, compassionate and holistic God(s). The nurturing example appropriately describes Lula. It is further echoed in the leadership of his fellow countryman, Jaime Lerner, former governor of Paraná, a state in southern Brazil.
Lerner found creative ways to nurture the cities through urban renewal while also constraining spending. A friend described to me one of his projects that utilized shepherds with goats to keep the park grass "trimmed." Another offered the poor a sack of food in exchange for every bag of debris they collected from the slums. While the city could purchase food in bulk from local farmers less expensively, it was also necessary that the trash be gathered from the shantytowns in order to be hauled away. The poor, in addition to needing food, required a feeling of dignity through their contribution to the city's welfare.
__________________
Follow me: http://www.twitter.com/mollycastelloe
