Psychology and State

The kind of government a person advocates says a lot about who he is

The great plethora of diverse political beliefs people have developed is a remarkable phenomenon. There must exist a hundred political parties in the United States alone. An abundance of websites with quizzes offering to determine your ideology reflect our fascination with them, though no simple quiz could possibly encompass the wide range of beliefs held by Americans.

If Einstein was right, most people develop their basic principles by age 18 and, as Francis Bacon once wrote, proceed to vehemently defend them with the support of all henceforth learning, or lack of it. Only a fraction of Americans vote and fewer still give the subject of political philosophy serious study. Topics such as current events and world politics seem completely disregarded by entire segments of the population. That is unfortunate, as the realm of politics affects us all; what could be more important than a learned understanding of the institutionalized use of violence in our society? Regardless, almost everyone has opinions regarding the proper role of the state as well as its proper constraints. The question is, why does an individual come to develop his particular political ideology?

Dr. George Lakoff, professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, offers an explanation in his book, Moral Politics. In it, he concludes from his studies in cognitive linguistics that the opposing political beliefs of conservatives and liberals represent the political manifestation of their respective views on the proper functioning of the family unit. It is his contention that whether one views the role of parents as nurturing caretakers or steadfast rule enforcers results in the dichotomy we observe between the nanny-state maternalism of the left (where he falls) and the big brother paternalism of the right. Yet the most compelling explanations of why we think the way we do are found not in linguistics, but rather in the rapidly expanding field of cognitive psychology.

Self Esteem

The study of self esteem has exploded over the past several decades, and so has the understanding of its tremendous importance in our lives. If the essence of man’s life on earth can be summarized into one principle, it is his struggle to overcome the environment towards the achievement of his happiness. Self esteem entirely encompasses this struggle in its two components, which are: first, a sense of self efficacy, meaning trusting in one’s own mind and judgment, and having confidence in one’s ability to cope with life’s challenges; second, a sense of self respect, meaning confidence in one’s rights to be successful, to experience happiness, and to achieve fulfillment.

Both components of self esteem have been extensively researched by Dr. Nathaniel Branden, a pioneer of the field and perhaps the world‘s foremost expert on the subject of self esteem. “The survival value of these two areas of confidence is obvious,” Branden explains, and “So is the danger when they are lacking.” A healthy (high) self esteem reveals one’s ability to trust ones own judgment, and one’s knowledge that they deserves happiness above all else. Without the achievement of both areas of confidence, one’s struggle to overcome hurdles and enjoy life becomes frustrated, impeded or completely thwarted.

The man who asserts his independence and seeks to live life on his own effort reveals a high self esteem. The man who fearfully trudges through life in the hope that he can survive on the contributions of others reveals a low self esteem. The man who insists that the fruits of his labor are his own, recognizing no higher purpose of his life than his own enjoyment reveals a high self esteem. The man who accepts the morality of self-sacrifice and subordination to others at the expense of his own achievement- accepting the morality of altruism- is a man of low self esteem.

It should be obvious which politico-economic systems are conducive to high and low self esteems. Laissez faire capitalism is the only market system in which men are permitted to act freely and on their own judgment in the unadulterated pursuit of their happiness. It is the man of ability, sound judgment and rational selfishness who will advocate nothing more from their government than for it to leave him alone. However, for the man who desires an omnipotent state to care of him, fearing a society in which men reap the rewards and, what is unbearably frightening for him, pay the consequences of their own labor and judgment, only democratic socialism or one of its many variants will do.

Any form of authoritarianism, including that which emerges in a nation of democratically elected leaders, inexorably attacks men of high self esteem who, trusting their own judgment, must be forced or intimidated to behave in a way they otherwise would not. Authoritarianism assails the first component of self esteem by preventing man from acting as he would in a state of total freedom, and assails the second component by requiring man to sacrifice the pursuit of his happiness to some other, higher beneficiary- sacrifice to god, to king, to country, to the people -- to anything but himself. Nothing could be more tyrannical.

Collectivism

Unlike self esteem, which is a uniquely human phenomenon, the herding behavior that stimulates collectivism is found even in lower animals. While the neocortex (in which all rational thought and conscious deliberation originates) is a highly advanced section of the brain found only in higher primates and humans, the limbic system is a brain structure that we inherit from, and share in common with, our evolutionary predecessors. The limbic system also represents a very useful tool for survival. It contains nerves that motivate a great deal of animal behavior regarding things such as fear, pleasure, greed, fighting, choosing a mate, breeding and other drives and instincts. This set of nerves is also responsible for the phenomena of schooling, herding and flocking seen in animals such as fish, ants, and birds.

Impulses from the limbic system drive individual animals, including humans, to align their knowledge and behavior with the group as a whole in what seems to be a drive to belong and be accepted. Herding helps to obtain food, defend against predators, and avoid death from one’s own kind due to perceived strangeness. Such impulses certainly influenced early humans, for whom tribes were the primary social unit. The legacy of these unconscious mechanisms continues today, where those who voice the majority opinion on any subject are respected, and “One who utters an opposing opinion is immediately punished by a chorus of deprecating smiles, cackles, mooing, snorting, nipping or outright hostility,” as socionomist Robert Prechter puts it. Deviating from the cultural norm can be painful experiences which most people dare not experience.

As Prechter writes in The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior, "The less that reality intrudes on the thinking of a group, the stronger is its collective conformity. Dependence most easily substitutes for rigorous reasoning when knowledge is lacking or logic irrelevant." In man, the tendency towards collective codependence is most pervasive in areas such as investing, where few are experts, or fashion, where conclusions are arbitrary. As Prechter observes, "Trends in such activities are steered not by the rational decisions of individual minds but by the peculiar collective sensibilities of the herd."

The realm of political philosophy seems to be another area in which “few are experts” and yet many have opinions. With little basis to base one’s own judgment, the best alternative for most is to assume the herd knows what it is doing. The danger of this methodology is disconcerting, however. Perhaps Paul Maclean, former head of the Laboratory for Brain Evolution at the National Institute of Mental Health, says it best; “It is one thing to have the anciently derived limbic system to assure us of the authenticity of such things as food or a mate, but where do we stand if we must depend on the mental emanations of this same system for belief in our ideas, concepts, and theories?” Herding behavior can be counterproductive when men choose to abdicate their rational capacities and defer their judgment to their peers.

Much herding behavior seen in humans is harmless, such as fads for pogo sticks or bellbottom pants. However, the mental contagion of the herding impulse, in all its unreasoned emotion, can be dangerous when it manifests itself politically, co-opting the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The witch crazes of the colonial period and the persecution of Jews in 1930s Germany are perfect examples of the social hysteria and violence that results when individuals surrender their judgment to the superorganism of "the people." Since man's rational faculties can override the herding impulse, it is those with a low self esteem- those who question the efficacy of their own rational faculties - who are most susceptible to collectivism and the violence it so often results in, and it is those with a high self esteem most likely to resist the tribe with all their might.

Aggression

What do the following have in common? A husband who beats his wife; a thug who robs a store clerk at gunpoint; a tribe that slaughters a rival tribe; and a state that invades another? According to Dr. Aaron T. Beck, who is widely considered the founder of cognitive therapy, the answer is that all forms of aggression, whether initiated by individuals or groups, are founded on the same cognitive distortions. As he writes in his book Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility and Violence, “In either case, the aggressor shows the same “thinking disorder”: construing the facts in his favor, exaggerating the supposed transgression, and attributing malice to the opposition.”

In Prisoners of Hate, Beck argues that aggressors always see themselves as victims while their actual victims are perceived as the Enemy. Consequently, groups of aggressors have a positive bias about themselves and a negative bias about the Enemy they are attacking. He criticizes such thought patterns as “primal,” representing a tendency that once served man a purpose, but is obsolete in modern civilization where animal predators and enemy tribes no longer threaten his daily life.

Cognitive distortions like those above never leave the initiators without a sense of righteousness and justice in their acts of aggression. As Beck explains, “Aggressive, manipulative people generally believe that their entitlements and rights override those of others. An aggressive nation operating under slogans like “The Need for Lebensraum” (living space) (Germany) or eminent domain (United States) views opposition by the weaker country in much the same way the aggressive driver views the slow driver: as interfering with its legitimate goals.” Violence, whether acted out by groups or individuals, is founded on the same motives- seeing the adversary as wrong or evil and the self as right or good.

Those prepared to willfully harm others as a deliberate strategy of achieving their wants can not be reasoned with and the management of their behavior relies on control and deterrence -- meeting strength with greater strength. That makes it all the more difficult to combat aggression when it is carried out by collectives or states rather than by relatively easy to overpower individuals. Yet Beck's research can be considered a victory for libertarians, who have so often pointed out that what we perceive as "crime" on an individual level is given the name "welfare" when carried out by righteously indignant collectives.

Collectivism only enhances the tendency towards violence as individual members surrender their judgment to the tribe or its leader, which can only be the product of their low self esteem. The most loyal members of the tribe (or its modern counterpart, the nation) are those who feel incompetent to judge on their own or to face the difficulties of reality alone. Experiments have shown that peer pressure can actually influence people to adjust their reports of perception to conform to the evaluations of other group members regarding matters as simple as stating observations of a stimulus. As Beck writers, "The subject would assume, for example, that her initial pinpointing of an object in space was wrong and change her judgment to conform to the judgment of others. Such collective thinking, often leading to clear cognitive distortions, helps to bind a group together."

In addition to surrendering his judgment to the group, Beck tells us that the member of a collective "not only subordinates his personal interests to those of the group but opposes the interests of out-group members unless they are compatible with the interests of his group" A low self esteem, a low intelligence, and a closed mind are the prerequisites for voluntary membership in such collectives, being the traits that make each member most susceptible to emotional contagion.

Conclusion

If capitalism embraces enlightened ideals such as rationalism and happiness, democracy is built upon foundations of irrationality, sacrifice and subjectivism. While laissez faire capitalism represents the system most conducive to rational thought and mental health, democratic socialism and its variants, in all their institutionalized violence, are most conducive to the advancement of the goals of those suffering from low self esteem, primitive brain functions, mindless collectivism and a proclivity for aggression -- everything that modern democracy truly represents.

If the process of civilization was a drive towards individual liberty and property rights, the advancement of democracy represents nothing more than regression to ancient tribalism and man's surrender to his savage impulses of greed and violence, where mere want of another man’s property becomes license to confiscate it. Democracy allows men to organize into competing pressure groups so that they may extract favors from each other by force with the state as their medium of attack. It is a system that punishes the rational and productive for the benefit of the indolent dullards, fools, and parasites. Democracy is nothing more than a return to the primal savagery of the vast majority of human history, best described as the subordination of man to men.

Ultimately, the kind of government we advocate depends on our self esteem; the extent to which we trust our own judgment, and the extent to which we consider ourselves the rightful beneficiaries of happiness. We need not be ruled by our primal impulses, as long as we take Nathaniel Branden’s advice and live consciously to the fullest extent possible, taking advantage of our rational faculties and remaining always aware of our motives and the consequences of our actions. And when it comes to politics, we must remember the importance of actually devoting ourselves to its study, always prepared to question our premises and to justify our principles on rational grounds. In a word, we do well to remember the advice in Ayn Rand’s book, Philosophy: Who Needs It. Her answer? Everyone.