Please don't change the world

Following the Myrtle Beach debate among Republican presidential candidates, I’m wondering what kind of person really wants to be a leader.

I don’t have the Myrtle Beach debate’s transcript in front of me, but I’ve noticed that many of these controlled political food-fights involve the word “I.”

To be a candidate is to brag.

Brag about yourself and belittle others.

The candidates want to change the world, and they try to convince us to let them do it.

Which is worse – when would-be voters start to believe the candidates’ public-relations campaigns, or when candidates start to believe their own PR?

Maybe our political situation is worse when both happen at the same time.

Some psychological research suggests that the most engaging, charismatic leaders are less likely to be stable.

In other words, the more appealing a leader is, the more likely he’ll be crazy.

(Yes, that’s the male pronoun, because in most cases, devastating political and religious leaders have been men.)

Len Oakes, a psychologist and cult survivor, has researched so-called “charismatic” personalities. Following a path carved by sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), Oakes sees this puzzling, underlying quality called “charisma” behind many religious and political leaders.

In his 1997 book Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities, Oakes writes about research conducted by psychologist Heinz Kohut.

“Kohut studied a difficult class of disturbed patients with what is known as narcissistic disorders. As he studied them, he noticed similarities between them and charismatic leaders. Kohut spoke of charismatic personalities rather than leaders because most of his patients were not leaders — indeed, some were barely able to function — but they possessed many of the traits of charismatic leaders.”

So crazy people and charismatic leaders have something in common. Lucky us – you know, us non-leaders.

My use of that quotation, isolated from the rest of the book, isn’t entirely fair. Charismatic politicians have the ability to “arouse the passions of the followers” and “channel them toward good or evil ends,” Oakes writes. His political examples include Churchill and Gandhi as well as Hitler.

However, as Oakes continues to summarize Kohut’s research, I find it hard not to think of some politicians in America today.

“What was it among his narcissistic patients that made Kohut think of charismatic leaders? He initially noticed that when they presented for therapy, they showed grandiose self-confidence and – unlike most patients – an extraordinary lack of self-doubt.”

Self-doubt is a tricky subject for political leadership. After all, a bold vision isn’t a bad thing, and the Republican candidates at least are trying to convince us of their bold visions.

John F. Kennedy is presented as a strong, visionary leader in an Autumn 2010 Personnel Psychology article by Benjamin Galvin, David Waldman, and Pierre Balthazard.

“For an example of a bold vision, we can identify President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1962 address before a joint session of Congress of the United States, in which he proclaimed his vision of how the United States should put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Such a vision was very much in line with the bold qualities described earlier and has been called ‘one of the boldest initiatives ever uttered by a national leader’ (Jordan, 2003, p. 209). Specifically, it was grand and unfettered by existing doubts and constraints. It was also motivational in its appeals to American values of exploration and technological advancement. Further… it was extremely bold, it was also likely perceived by most people to be at least within the realm of possibility, thus making the vision to be at least somewhat realistic and tangible...”

Nothing wrong with that. Arguably, JFK changed the world for the better.

What motivated him to do that? What drove him? We can’t easily know.

What we can know is why some people are attracted to charismatic leaders.

As Oakes explains, old-time sociologist Weber thought that Western civilization was becoming increasingly ruled by rational processes. This created a kind of “iron cage” for the human soul, “turning daily existence into an alienated, mechanical, meaningless routine.”

“But Weber also believed that ideas – especially religious ideas – can profoundly influence society, and that they cannot simply be dismissed as a function of underlying social processes,” Oakes writes. “One source of new ideas is the periodic emergence of charismatic prophets.”

In a sense, we want charismatic leaders. We want them to bring renewed – or rediscovered – meaning to our lives. We want them to tell us the world can change.

We just don’t want those charismatic leaders to be crazy, to lead us into suicide or genocide.

The trouble, especially in politics and religion, is the level of commitment to a leader. I think people tend to place more trust – and more actual heart-felt hopes -- in political and religious leaders than any other type of leader. This opens followers to heartache, maybe even tragedy.

Perhaps some people who involved themselves with politics and religion really want to influence the world with ideas and convictions bigger than themselves.

Perhaps some people are just wired to serve and put others first.

But considering the work of Oakes and others, I’m going to be wary of those who are eager to lead.

Sometimes that eagerness is just plain craziness.

-Colin Foote Burch

Comments

[Tripp Reade]

I like how you bring Weber and his iron cage comment into your article, Colin. Thoughtfully written.

[Colin]

Thanks Tripp! Greatly appreciated!

[Colin Foote Burch]

Readers, here's a footnote to the above column: An article about Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. The article seems to fit much of what I wrote last week. Read the article:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/rachel-aviv/religion-grrrr
All the best,
Colin