Who's Your Daddy? The Psychology of Most People's Voting

American Thinker ^ | April 06, 2008 | Sam Sewell

[neverdem]

I don't know who played in the Super bowl this year. I don't even know when the Super bowl was or where it was. I once scheduled a seminar at a church for the Sunday evening of the Super bowl and didn't find out until the following day why no one showed up for our usually well-attended events. I almost never know who is playing in the World Series. When Brokeback Mountain star Heath Ledger's death made the headlines, I had never heard of him.

Football fans, baseball fans, and movie fans could scarcely imagine that there are millions of people who don't know anything about these three popular activities. Many more people keep up with the news about these activities than keep up with political news. Sure there are political "fans," but they are scarce compared to sports fans. Pew found that seventy eight percent knew who Payton Manning is (I don't) and 73% knew who Beyonce is (I don't). But only twenty one percent knew who Robert Gates is.   

Only about half of Americans can name the Vice President.  When asked a direct question only 37% of people know who their state governor is. That number increases to 65% when the correct name is given in a multiple choice question. Even fewer can name their U.S senator or congressman. When it comes to State Representatives the figure falls to about 20%. And name recognition is the American public's strong suit. Even if they could name their representative, when asked to identify two issues the politician stands for, the percentage drops to only 15%.

When they are asked if they know what political party their representative belongs to, a whopping 68% say they don't know or aren't sure. But wait, it gets worse; Three quarters of Americans can correctly identify two of Show White's seven dwarfs while only a quarter can name two Supreme Court Justices. According to the poll by Zogby International, 57 percent of Americans could identify J.K. Rowling's fictional boy wizard as Harry Potter, while only 27% could name both of their U.S. senators. Only 42 percent of those surveyed could list the three branches of our government. But seventy-five percent could name the Three Stooges. 

One reality TV show recently interviewed twenty-something models. They didn't know who Condoleezza Rice is and one of them thought George Bush was Vice-President.

All of these people are eligible to vote!

Most folks have no idea what issues are supported by the two major parties. Even when it comes time to vote they vote for the "person" and can not tell you what the platform of the party might be. People vote for whom they like. So, the conservative political "fans" are flabbergasted that someone like John McCain can be elected to represent the Republican Party.

A clue was presented that must have puzzled most political "fans." Remember when the electorate didn't react negatively to Rudy Giuliani's comments about illegal immigrants not being illegal? His numbers stayed at the top. Rudy's national polling numbers didn't change because people found out he favored gun control, gay rights, or dressed in drag. It wasn't until the public found out that he cheated on Mom, broke up the family, married the other woman, and his kids hated him, that his numbers went down. He was a bad Dad!

What is the human motivation that allows people to overlook "issues" but rather choose a politician for his personality traits?  A partial answer to that question was provided by Erich Fromm in his book Escape from Freedom.  Fromm received his PhD from Heidelberg in 1922 and began a career as a psychotherapist. He moved from Germany to the United States in 1938, giving witness to his love of freedom.  

Freud thought human personality was determined by conditioning having an effect on biology. Marx saw people's lives as determined by their social and economic systems.  Erich Fromm challenged these two reigning intellectual systems of his time with the idea of freedom. Fromm originally wrote Escape from Freedom in 1941 to explore the psychological reasons for the success of Nazism in Germany. If one were to pair this Fromm classic with Eric Hoffer's 1951 bestseller The True Believer, a rich understanding of human political behavior would emerge.  Fromm makes freedom of the individual a central characteristic of human nature.  Hoffer documents the evil that is endemic to mass movements.  One might think that these two concepts are held over against one another in antithesis, but they actually reinforce one another. 

A little bit of history is required to understand this.  One example of lack of individual freedom is represented by animals, and humans who have not transcended their animal nature and are controlled by a Freudian biological determinism.  Animals and unenlightened humans don't worry about freedom; instincts and conditioning are the determining factors. Such life forms accept what life offers and mostly adjust to whatever reality they inhabit.

An example of political and economic lack of individual freedom is the pre-Renaissance feudal society of the Middle Ages.  Personal freedom was not conceivable for most people in the Middle Ages.  Basically, if your father was a peasant, you'd be a peasant. If your father was a king, you would become a king. 

So for most of human history there was very little individual freedom and there were very few mass movements.   This simple life began to be transformed when people started to see individual humans as being important to the universal scheme of things.  First came the Renaissance, and then came the Reformation, which introduced the idea of each of us being individually responsible for our own soul's salvation behind the rallying cry "Every man his own Priest." And then came the overthrow of kings and democratic revolutions. 

Now we were expected to govern ourselves, and we all had a hand in determining our destiny and making collective policy.  So the idea of the individual, with individual thoughts, decision-making authority, personal emotions, moral conscience, freedom, and intimidating responsibility came into being. But with individuality came isolation, alienation, and bewilderment. Freedom is a difficult thing to have, and Fromm believed that when we can, we tend to flee from it. Escaping from freedom is now a primary motivating factor of our species.  Because the need to escape from individual freedom emerged in human consciousness, mass movements began to appear in human society.  Fromm sheds light on the dynamics with two thoughts:

"The person who gives up his individual self and becomes an automaton, identical with millions of other automatons around him, need not feel alone and anxious any more. But the price he pays, however, is high; it is the loss of his self."

And

"This loss of identity then makes it still more imperative to conform, it means that one can be sure of oneself only if one lives up to the expectations of others. If we do not live up to this picture, we not only risk disapproval and increased isolation, but we risk losing the identity of our personality, which means jeopardizing sanity."

Erich Fromm can tell us a lot about what is behind how most people vote. He makes the point that most people are terrified of being an on-their-own, take-care-of-themselves, free, adult human being. So, we attach ourselves to surrogate family units and surrogate parents to escape from our freedom. That translates to belonging to and becoming psychologically dependant organizations as diverse as the company for which we work and our boss, to the church we attend and its clergy, and the political party to which we belong and the parent figure who gets our vote.  Identifying with the group becomes our new collective identity, and we surrender our individual identity and freedom.

Ask any priest, pastor, rabbi, teacher, psychotherapist, supervisor, or elected official and they will be happy to confirm that the people they deal with are all trying to work out their childhood agendas on any available authority figure.

Some of us want a ‘sugar daddy' and a ‘sugar family' who takes care of us, and we cede our personal power and freedom to this Democrat Parent/Party who promises security. The details of politics and policy positions pale into insignificance when compared to the need to escape from personal freedom and responsibility.

Some of us want a ‘strong daddy' who will protect us from danger and who expects us to be strong as well, and we vote for a Republican Parent/Party. We need to belong to a strong family with a strong leader so we will be safe. And once again, the details don't really matter that much.

No matter whom we are voting for we are voting for our kind of family, and our kind of parent. Most folks look at the candidate for the qualities they want that will fill their psychological needs. The issues aren't nearly as important as the personal evaluation of the person's character. If they like the person and trust them to be "their kind of parent," they will vote for them.

Some voters still embrace their personal freedom and the responsibility that comes along with it.  They study the issues and they vote on the issues.  But sadly, they are a distinct minority. Don't expect the American people to vote on issues. They almost never do. My guess is that more people will vote on how the candidate looks than what the candidate thinks. They vote for whoever meets their personal psychological needs. Thus someone like John McCain can lead the Republican Party even though the "party's issues" run contrary to his thinking.

Most people don't like Hillary and can't imagine her as a parent figure, unless it is the ‘Mommy Dearest' type.

Obama isn't old enough to inspire parental psychological needs and the religious mass movement that is driving his campaign will probably falter because of weak faith.

McCain is a hero parent who will protect us from danger, and most people like him. Most Republican voters will overlook his policy positions, just like they overlooked strong and protective Rudy Giuliani's liberalness.  Unless McCain screws up and shows signs of being a bad Dad, McCain will probably win. 

Rev. Sam Sewell is an ordained Christian clergyman, a psychotherapist, a member of Mensa, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers.

[originalbuckeye]

From here on out, I'm going to ask my Leftist friends if they really want a Black supremacist for President. May as well call it like it is.

[spetznaz]

Interesting treatise. The parts that really jumped out were the ones that touch on the general level of ignorance/apathy among the general voting (and non-voting) public. At times that is why people who should be perfect candidates do not get the slightest chance, and why other candidates who seem like anathema-on-legs end up being ushered into elected positions like they were hawking Pixie dust.

[Verginius Rufus]

Who the heck is Show White?

Once upon a time, the correct answer to "Who is Vice President of the United States?" would have been "George Bush," but that was before the era of reality shows.

[JSDude1]

The biggest advice for all (myself included) is not to become to comfortable with life, and to “grow up” be and adult, trust in Christ (He’s the real Father of all), but in terms of Personal Responsibility: GROW UP (All in AMerica), and take responsibilty and give up your laziness/comfort/dependence upon the state, dad+mom, the banking system, corporations, etc..!

[Doctor Don]

Hussein Obama is not my “daddy”!

[VRWC For Truth]

Eliminate automatic withholding and the attention span will increase when they start writing checks to the feds once a month.

[matthew fuller]

One of the most intelligent commentaries on our society that I have read. I put American Thinker in my favorites list.

[billmor]

Wonderful article, thank you Mr. Sewell and thanks neverdem..

For another good article with a chuckle of a punchline at the end, read this from American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/the_only_way_to_save_the_democ.html

[KingofZion]

the solution is to bring back property requirements for voting. people without skin in the game don’t deserve to vote.

[Maelstorm]

Good article. It is hard to ignore that the drive for socialism is rooted in the need of some to become perpetual children and others who believe themselves to be the rightful parents to a world of lost children. Politicians who promise to take care of the citizen are taking on a parental role and draft others to take on such a role for their fellow citizens many who are perpetually slothful and lack ambition of their own. Here are Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on poverty and the poor which I think adds some light to this subject:

“For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. — I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? — On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.”

I think this insight is an example of how our founders truly understood human nature as it is. Franklin in particular was a self made man from a poor family. He understood the very simple truth that helping does not mean the absolute taking care of an individual. The ideas of social welfare and the programs that have been built on them have more and more cemented the feet of the poor so they are trapped never to be their own men and women. The desire for feudal like constructs where the government mandates the Wal-marts of the world provide their workers everything they need so they do not need to aspire to better themselves but can work their lives through to the end without complaint at the local department store. This is the American dream? Not for me and my children.

[LucyT]

Ping.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the quote.

[BossLady]

The psychology behind the ‘Who’s Your Daddy’ voter is pretty simple....many of these young voters either don’t know who their daddy is, where he is if they do know him, or hardly know him if he is around..... Talk about the ego looking for a father figure.......sheesh!!!! LOL!

[Philo-Junius]

The article doesn’t address why the Reformation and anomie are irreversible features of the human condition.

Is it really his notion that no one thought of himself as captain of his own soul before Martin Luther?

I think he’s missing a few important levels of analysis here.

[j. earl carter]

But seventy-five percent could name the Three Stooges

I gotta call this statistic pure BS. No way could 75% of the people name the 3 stooges.

I can't even name all of them myself. I can remember Curly, Moe, Larry, and Shemp; but I can't remember the other guy's name.(and, for all I know, there may have been more than five three stooges)

[2ndDivisionVet]

"...the solution is to bring back property requirements for voting. people without skin in the game don’t deserve to vote."

I agree, with one exception: Veterans. They've already put their posterior on the line, don't you agree? As a matter of fact, in "Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein, only veterans could vote, no other citizen had sufferage or could hold public office.

[neverdem]

But seventy-five percent could name the Three Stooges

"I gotta call this statistic pure BS. No way could 75% of the people name the 3 stooges."

Please!

"I can't even name all of them myself. I can remember Curly, Moe, Larry, and Shemp; but I can't remember the other guy's name.(and, for all I know, there may have been more than five three stooges)"

Joe Besser was number 5. Eliot Spitzer was number 9. I'm kidding. Spitzer just wanted to help the government, i.e. himself.

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

Don't forget Curly Joe DeRita. And at the very end of their career Emil Sitka was going to take Larry's place.