Through the Electoral Looking Glass: How the Presidential Election Affects Us
There is no doubt that the American people are in the midst of a presidential campaign like none other in memory -- marked by polarizing personalities, raucous discourse, hyperbolic tone and bare-knuckled tactics. Everywhere we turn, the candidates and their surrogates are splashed across digital, broadcast and print media, having an unsettling effect on the American public. People are ambivalent about who to vote for, harbor strong feelings for or against the candidates, are fearful of the election's outcome should the wrong candidate win and worry about the viability of the political process. Collectively, this election is causing much stress and anxiety to the voting public. Thirty-eight percent of adults considered the presidential election a significant source of stress, regardless of political affiliation, according to the American Psychological Association's Stress in America survey.
As a psychiatrist, I understand how events can affect emotions and am concerned how the shocking electoral experience is roiling the nation's psyche. However, it is something increasingly heard in the cacophony of the present election that I find particularly troubling: "I don't like either candidate; it's a choice between the lesser of two evils." This statement has ominous portents of a psychological scenario that reflects something deeper than transient anxiety. Let me explain.
Although it's commonly believed that people vote for candidates based on their political ideologies (conservative or liberal) and positions on issues (e.g. economy, defense, taxes, health care), the reality is that the more important dynamic determining who they'll support is the electorate's reaction to and identification with the candidate. In other words, people are inclined to vote for the candidate with whom they can connect and best relate.
[See: 11 Simple, Proven Ways to Optimize Your Mental Health.]
This first became apparent in the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Nixon, the sitting vice president, was heavily favored. Kennedy was inexperienced and a Catholic -- a novelty in American politics at the time -- but he was also young and handsome. And then came the first televised presidential debate in history. Kennedy appeared polished and sophisticated, while Nixon was boring, swarthy and sweated.
Another example is Ronald Reagan, who epitomized charismatic appeal in presidential politics. A combination of his movie star looks, folksy manner, rhetorical skill and storybook marriage helped him attain an iconic status that vastly exceeded his electoral victories and policy achievements. Voters want as their president someone in whom they can see themselves or can relate -- and people had a psychological resonance with Reagan that outweighed any shared ideological affinity. This phenomenon is multifaceted and takes many forms. In appraising candidates, voters may see a person with whom they can identify (someone who they would like to be), respect and trust -- someone who is parental, protective and compassionate. This mechanism is known as projective identification.
Projective identification is attributing some quality or aspect of ourselves that we like or dislike to another person with whom we are connected in some way. This occurs commonly in psychotherapy. For example, a patient who is overly critical and unsympathetic will lack awareness of this aspect of their character, but accuse their therapist of these qualities. This perceptual distortion (transference) then becomes grist for the mill of therapy. However, a presidential election is not therapy and there is no therapist to correct public perceptions.
[See: 10 Ways to Break a Bad Mood.]
Another example is Vanessa, a working mother who values gender equality and independence. She'll likely identify with Hillary Clinton not because she advocates such policies but because she exemplifies them. However, it can work both ways. If Vanessa is a stay-at-home mom who gave up a career to assume the domestic responsibilities in favor of her husband's career, and justifies the decision to herself by believing she values her marriage and children more than work -- even though she is really angry and guilty about this sacrifice -- she might see Clinton, who made the choice of career over family, as critical of her judgment. Where things can get complicated is if, in the context of the first scenario, Vanessa comes from an observant religious background and places higher priority on character over social issues. So now she has a lifestyle role model who doesn't fit her moral criteria. Identification dynamics are clearly complex and often take place unconsciously and inside an individual's mind.
The same (and more) applies to Donald Trump. Enough said.
People are predisposed to see candidates in positive terms -- through rose-colored glasses. However, when voters are faced with extreme incongruity or serious flaws in their choices, and the lesser-of-two-evils rationale fails as an electoral coping device, they become frustrated and dispirited. While this contributes to the cumulative stress of voters, it also breeds cynicism and leads people to question the electoral process: Are these the best candidates we can find? Is our political system broken? The corrosive by-product of our faith being shaken in the external political reality is the production of feelings of alienation, shame and demoralization. In this context, the locus of responsibility, or blame, extends from the government and political system to ourselves.
[See: How to Find the Best Mental Health Professional for You.]
There are many quotes about the political process that are by turns amusing and rueful. As Winston Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for every alternative." But the one which may best reflect our current situation was uttered by Alexis de Toqueville: "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve," and this scares the heck out me. It's like we have looked into the electoral looking glass and we neither recognize nor like what we see. Our projective identification finds no easy fit, and the consequence is dissonance. We do not see ourselves, they are not us, but if these are our candidates they must be us, or extreme elements of the voting public, or the parts of ourselves we don't like or weren't willing to face.
In psychotherapy, our reaction to a painful realization or insight can lead to good and bad outcomes -- and to the growth or regression of a person. From my vantage point as a psychiatrist, it is my hope that this election will serve as a learning opportunity, lead to our growth as a nation and encourage us to adopt this attitude as a coping strategy, if not a harbinger of the future.
8 Ways Meditation Can Improve Your Life
Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, is a nationally-renowned psychiatrist at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, where he is the Lawrence E. Kolb professor and chairman of the Department of Psychiatry -- the largest department of psychiatry in the United States. He also directs the New York State Psychiatric Institute and is psychiatrist-in-chief of the New York Presbyterian Hospital. Dr. Lieberman is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association and is a member of numerous scientific organizations. In 2000, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. He is the author of "Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry" (Little Brown & Company, March 2015). The opinions expressed here are his own.
