The psychology of the president and the voters is increasingly interesting. If both are into denail and projection, and doing so because there is no obvious path to a more nuanced reality, then we are in trouble. In a schoolyard fight, the one winning usually gets the approval of the onlookers. In a complex world, being the bully is probaably not a good response. I say "probably" because sometimes "winning" is essential. Is the current situation of the west, the US, the ME and Islam such a situation? Much on my mond. So, pieces....
The political scientist David Barber (Strong Democracy) has died. Unfortunate. Too young.
James D. Barber Remembered
Margalit Fox writes James D. Barber's obituary in the New York Times today.
"Dr. Barber's best-known book, 'The Presidential Character,' published in 1972, argued that a president's psychological makeup, established early in life, could predict his performance in office.
" 'The lives of presidents past and of the one still with us show, I think, how a start from character makes possible a realistic estimate of what will endure into a man's White House years,' Dr. Barber wrote. . . .
"Analyzing presidential character, Dr. Barber focused on two criteria: whether a president was active or passive, and whether he viewed his job in positive or negative terms.
"In combination, the criteria formed four distinct personality types. Active-positive presidents, who brought energy and enjoyment to their work, included Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, Dr. Barber wrote. Passive-positives, like William Howard Taft, were compliant and superficially cheerful. Passive-negatives, like Calvin Coolidge and Dwight D. Eisenhower, were sullen and withdrawn, viewing the office as a burden.
"The most dangerous type, Dr. Barber wrote, was the active-negative. Though energetic, such men were also joyless, inflexible, compulsive and domineering, with 'a strong bent for digging their own graves.' In this category he listed Lyndon B. Johnson and [Richard] Nixon."
