51吃瓜

It is highly unlikely that Donald Trump or any of the other extremist candidates pose any real threat of being elected in America.

We just can鈥檛 figure out Donald Trump. Watching pundits try to explain his success in the polls鈥攄espite his appalling public statements鈥攊s even more spectacular than watching聽the man聽himself.

Part of the difficulty is that we tend to look at such things rather superficially, without looking at the deeper psychological dynamics that are in play. A psychological study of the democratic聽process is in order.

Fortunately, the British psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott provided such a study in an article entitled聽鈥�,鈥� in which he asks, what is the proportion of a population that must be healthy鈥攖hat is, emotionally mature鈥攖o sustain a democracy? (Or conversely, 鈥淲hat proportion of anti-social individuals can a society contain without submergence of innate democratic tendency?鈥�)

The question is important because, as Winnicott writes, 鈥淭he vote [by an individual] expresses the outcome of the struggle within oneself, the external scene having been internalized and so brought into association with the interplay of forces in one鈥檚 own personal inner world.鈥� Thus, the political domain聽becomes an aggregate of the inner worlds of the voters.

Winnicott creates a framework for answering his own question by defining four聽distinct segments of a population:

1) Healthy members: Those who are mature (particularly in an emotional sense) according聽to their chronological age and social setting;

2) Anti-socials: Winnicott doesn鈥檛 define this term, but the DSM-5 description of 鈥渁nti-social personality disorder鈥� includes such attributes as manipulativeness, deceitfulness, callousness, hostility, irresponsibility, impulsiveness and risk-taking;

3) 鈥淗idden anti-socials鈥�: Those who react to inner insecurity not by rejecting authority (e.g., society or the state), but by identifying with it;

4) Indeterminates: Those who fit into none of the above categories, the psychological equivalent of 鈥渟wing voters.鈥�

For several years, I have been interested in developing a set of proxy indicators that would provide a psychometric鈥攐r 鈥渆go demographic鈥濃�攑rofile of a given population. By 鈥渆go demographic,鈥� I am referring to the population-level application of Jane Loevinger鈥檚 eight stages of ego development that I described in聽聽for an international development audience. (These proxy indicators would help international nongovernmental organizations tailor their strategies and communications to the social psychology of the population with whom they are working, which is often misleadingly termed 鈥渃ulture.鈥�) While I haven鈥檛 systematically mapped Winnicott鈥檚 categories to Loevinger鈥檚 ego stages, it is clear that the two maps pertain to the same territory.

For the US, I propose that the presidential polling numbers can be used to create such a psychometric profile by sorting the population (in a general sense) into Winnicott鈥檚聽categories, and potentially into Loevinger鈥檚 stages as well, particularly early on in the election cycle before 鈥渆lectability鈥� becomes the principal concern.

The Donald鈥檚 Chances

Since an individual vote reflects 鈥渢he聽interplay of forces in one鈥檚 own personal inner world,鈥� supporters of psychologically healthy candidates indicate their own psychological health through that support. Supporters of candidates who exhibit callousness, hostility or impulsiveness indicate that those traits are resident within themselves. Some voters are anti-social, rejecting society in favor of the individual, while others represent the 鈥渉idden anti-social鈥� tendency by rejecting the individual in favor of society.

What conclusions can we draw from this analysis?

First, without a major change in America鈥檚 circumstances between now and November 2016, it is highly unlikely that Donald Trump or any of the other extremist candidates pose any real threat of actually being elected. It is unlikely that a political campaign could move a significant segment of the population from healthy to anti-social (hidden or otherwise).

Thus, it is reasonable to believe that鈥攊f the nation鈥檚 circumstances do not change appreciably鈥擳rump鈥檚 polling numbers have essentially peaked.

However, any wise democracy will still be wary of such candidates, since they stand at the ready to jump in should some sort of national catastrophe occur, raising fears among the general population to an intolerable level. This is frequently the mechanism by which democracy fails. It is here that those psychological 鈥渟wing voters鈥� come in, deciding if the nation will follow a path toward health or toward decay.

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.

Photo Credit: 听/听

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your聽donation聽is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a聽sponsor.