Political Motivation: An Essay

Motivation Analysis is looking for a few good minds

New - an essay discussing basic problems of world cultures: "The Combative Dominance Syndrome"

First, a disclaimer: This little essay is not based on scientific research.

Like a lot of other non professional political analyses, this analysis is based on general life observations, news reports, pundit proclamations, discussions (arguments) with friends and relatives, and other types of everyday communications. However, we will attempt to analyze political motivation from a psychological point of view that does have a strong research basis (see Synchronic Motivation System).

The theoretical framework we will be working in describes human motivation as having three basic dimensions. These three dimensions are called the Combative Dimension, the Personal-Social Dimension, and the Competitive Dimension. Below is a brief review of the functions and definitions of these three motivational dimensions (more detail may be found in the web pages underlined above).

People act in the combative dimension more frequently than in either of the other two dimensions, though they may not be aware of the combative nature of their actions. Most of our actions are unconsciously motivated and this is particularly true of combative behavior. Combative actions are ones where we assert our will and use our power to obtain a goal. Most combative actions are mild e.g., purchasing an item in a store by using our money power to obtain what we want. More obvious examples of combativeness include fighting, arguing, threatening, harassing, pressuring, punishing, seducing, robbing, raping, and otherwise using power to forcefully obtain what is wanted.

We operate in the non combative area (the opposite end of the combative dimension) when we try to avoid conflict by withdrawal, conciliation, deference, reasoning, "working things out", surrender, submission, and any other means we can use to soften or avoid conflict. Although most people are negative toward combative actions, most people also recognize that there are times when the use of power and force are necessary for self protection and to fight for a just cause. At those times, combativeness is seen as showing admirable courage and conviction.

Due to the nature of their work, politicians must operate most often in the combative area of the combative dimension. They are frequent flyers in the use of power. They make the laws that we must obey and the punishments we receive when we don't obey them. They decide who gets money raised by the taxes they legislate. The collection and spending of money provides politicians with a great deal of power.

In our political system, the public can oust politicians who incur their disapproval. This is a safeguard against unfair use of political power. However, it is not always an effective safeguard because politicians can create a lot of smoke and manipulate many mirrors to maintain power.

Because political power is often viewed with fear, distrust, and cynicism, most politicians would prefer to be thought of as benevolent helpers rather than as power operators. They therefore cultivate an image of caring and sympathetic concern (they kiss babies and remember your name). These actions are designed to represent the personal-social area of the motivation system. There are politicians who sincerely do have concerns about the general well-being of others. "Good" politicians (the ones we vote for, of course) do use their power for what they perceive as the public good. Still - the reality is that the primary functions of politicians involve the exercise of power.

Because of common verbal usage, the terms combative and competitive are often confused and used to indicate similar or the same behavior (see Competitive Dimension). The competitive dimension has to do with developing knowledge and skills that will enable us to attain goals by work and ability rather than by power and force. Competitors strive to attain symbolic rewards such as grades, titles, blue ribbons, etc. Combatants strive for material rewards or controlling powers that provide access to material rewards (land, money, custody, etc.).

Politicians need to master legal processes (many are lawyers by background) and it is helpful to their image if they competitively use their legal skills and knowledge in their political activities. However, once they gain a political position, they are seldom personally involved in competitive endeavors. As with business executives, politicians can hire people to do their "technical" work.

In the following motivational analysis, political moderation on both the conservative and liberal sides will not be addressed. Moderates overlap in their interests and agendas to the extent that significant motivational distinctions are hard to make. Also, smaller political movements such as the Reform, Socialist, and Green parties will not be included for the sake of simplicity.

The characterization of conservatives as being "right wing" and liberals as "left wing" has a metaphorical basis in the fact that for most people the right arm is stronger than the left. Conservatives prefer to be "right wing" because they emphasize strength and power more than do liberals. The stronger the conservatism the greater the emphasis on strength and power. One might say that the fundamental motivation of conservatives is to conserve personal power. This motivation indicates that conservatives are most active in the combative area of the combative motivation dimension.

In contrast to conservatives, liberals are more concerned with liberating or freeing people from oppression and misfortune. One might say that the fundamental motivation of liberals is to free people from oppression and misfortune. Liberals thus identify with underdogs whereas conservatives identify with alpha dogs. This motivational emphasis indicates that liberals are more active in the personal-social area of the personal-social dimension than conservatives. It is important to remember, however, that all politicians must operate primarily in the combative dimension in their political roles.

The present analysis is restricted to political operations in the United States. Many of the conservative-liberal conflict areas chosen for discussion are interrelated.

Perhaps at the top of the list of conservative-liberal conflicts is the role of the federal government in our lives. Conservatives see the federal government as a basic threat to their desire to conserve personal power. Their concern about government power is concentrated on the federal government because they can more easily defend and assert their personal power at state and local government levels. In fact, they sometimes see local government as an ally against their battles with the federal government (e.g., states' rights). Business executives (usually politically conservative) are highly opposed to federal government regulation which they rightly perceive as limiting their business power and thus their personal power.

The only branch of the federal government conservatives have warm feelings about is the military. Their positive regard for the military is reciprocated. The military is in the business of protecting our power with the understanding that it is under civilian (traditionally conservative) oversight and control. For conservatives, the military provides a friendly and subservient safeguard against the aggression of hostile foreign powers ("Star Wars" and missile defense system). When we are not directly threatened, conservatives prefer to use our military power only when our power interests (such as our need for foreign oil) are threatened (the Gulf War) but are not enthusiastic about "being the world's policeman" to protect victims of persecution in foreign countries (the Bosnian conflict).

Concern over loss of power to foreign forces was extremely active before the demise of the Soviet Union. To be "soft on communism" was a constant conservative criticism of liberals during those times. Other communist threats (atheism, human atrocities, dictatorial powers, etc., were also used to exhort anti Soviet Union sentiments but there were other regimes that had these same evils that were largely ignored because they did not seriously threaten conservative personal power. It should be noted that there were some on the extreme left who did find things to admire about the Soviet Union as there were some on the right who found things to admire about Hitler and the Third Reich.

Liberals see the federal government as providing an effective means for helping the downtrodden and unfortunate. The Social Security System, Medicaid, Medicare, and other welfare bureaucracies were established by liberals within the federal government to help the less fortunate. Attempts by liberals to provide universal medical care via the federal government were hoped for extensions of these welfare programs. In recent years, liberals have been forced to admit that too much "welfare" creates unhealthy dependency. Liberals have been more willing than conservatives to "interfere" in foreign affairs to protect victims of persecution, even if United States interests are not immediately threatened.

Taxes are, of course a part of the "big government" concern of conservatives. Taxes transfer the power of money from individuals to the government. One can hold power without large amounts of money (a police officer has life and death power in crisis situations). However, money can buy a lot of power and influence. Therefore, conservatives are strongly against taxes that take away their money. Liberals are less unhappy about taxes if the tax money is used to help social causes such as Medicaid, unemployment compensation, helping impoverished areas, etc. Liberals see taxes as a way of redistributing wealth and power from the rich to the poor. Of course, both sides see that taxes are necessary for some benefits such as military defense and highway development, but, in general, conservatives wish to reduce taxes to conserve their personal power whereas liberals see taxation as a way to provide general benefits and to free people from oppression and misfortune.

In the United States, religious conservatives with political power are primarily Christian in faith. Some of their strongest concerns are about family integrity and abortion. These concerns are shared by many liberals but from a somewhat different motivational perspective. Adults' power in personal relationships does not extend much past the family. Thus, within their own family, conservatives have considerable power and control but outside their own family their power and control is sharply diminished. They would very much like to extend their family values and personal power to society in general. Thus, any challenge to their own family values causes a strong reaction among conservatives. Past and current family control issues such as hair and dress style, musical tastes, parental discipline, and above all sexual activities, are seen by conservatives as threats to their power in personal relationships. Abortion is the most powerful issue in parental control. The issue is often stated by conservatives as a "thou shalt not kill" commandment to protect the lives of the helpless unborn but many conservatives' opposition to human killing by humans does not extend to capital punishment where the killing is applied to adults who threaten and defy social controls.

Liberals often appear confused about issues such as family integrity and abortion. Their concerns about abortion are focused more on the pregnant mother than the fetus. Thus, they wish to free women from the misfortune of their unwanted pregnancy by their "right to choose." Liberals tend to be more accepting of innovation in their relationships within the family and in society. They allow their children (and society) more freedom in religious and political beliefs and social mores than do conservatives, usually with hopes (sometimes not fulfilled) that the children will find their own responsible way as they mature. Their personal and social "liberalism" is partly a reaction against their opposition to oppression and external control.

Liberals have been blamed by conservatives for increases in family breakups, unmarried pregnancies, delinquency, and numerous other social ills. Liberals defend themselves by blaming these social problems on conservative repression, bigotry, rigidity, and lack of generosity and compassion in dealing with social problems. The conservative George W. Bush administration has attempted to co-opt the liberal personal-social programs by proclaiming "compassionate conservatism" to be a part of the new conservative agenda.

It is not surprising that the issue of gun control creates a strong conflict between conservatives and liberals. Perhaps this is due in part to our frontier and "wild west" cowboy traditions. In those times and places, when there were few or no dependable law enforcement agencies,a gun was a great equalizer and insurer of personal power. Besides wishing to conserve traditions, conservatives still see "the right to bear arms" as a critical defense against perceived governmental threats to their personal freedom and power. As a reason to license gun possession, liberals point to the large number of innocent people who are maimed or killed by gun carriers every year. Liberals do not seem to be as highly concerned as conservatives with the possibility of a sinister governmental take over.

Problems with the welfare and treatment of minorities create considerable contention between conservatives and liberals. White males have traditionally held the most power in the United States and conservatives tend to identify with these power holders even when the conservatives are not white males. Almost all non white male groups (including white females) have, at one time or another, been perceived as threats to white male personal power and supremacy. The Civil War was fought basically to maintain the right and power of white males to enslave blacks. Liberals of those times (abolitionists and Republicans such as Lincoln) worked and fought to free the slaves from the oppression and degradation of their status.

Slavery has been abolished (as has segregation) but the actions of groups (including women) seeking a greater share of freedom, power, and equal acceptance still arouse conservative resistance. "Affirmative action" was a liberal political move that was perceived by conservatives as infringing on their personal power. It is not surprising that blacks voted heavily against the George W. Bush administration in the year 2000 election even though conservatives have recently made a point of offering some concessions to ethnic minorities. In contrast to conservatives, liberals have consistently worked to free minorities from discrimination and oppression. Our present situation may be described (as it often is) as: "We have come a long way but still have a long way to go."

Differences in environmental policies between conservatives and liberals are most pronounced for the extractive and polluting industries. Western conservatives protest almost all restrictions on their "rights" to cut timber, graze cattle, and conduct mining operations on federal land. Liberals see our national parks and wilderness areas as providing beauty, ecological benefits, and sanctuaries for endangered species. Liberals feel that these environmental benefits should be preserved for present and future generations - especially those who cannot afford spacious scenic estates of their own.

Industrial pollution is another hot issue between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives see controls on industrial pollution as a threat to corporate profits which translates readily to a threat to their personal power (since the heads of most industries and largest stock holders are usually conservatives). Liberals see pollution as a threat to health and the environment that should be eliminated to protect lives, especially the lives of the underprivileged who are often the greatest victims of industrial pollution.

Conservatives have come to see educational improvements as important to their personal interests since large corporations (especially high tech companies) have begun to realize that better educated workers are necessary for profitable operation. (It hasn't been too long ago that conservatives wished to eliminate the Federal Department of Education.) Liberals have traditionally seen education as providing the ladder by which the underprivileged could escape from the economic pit in which they are entrapped.

Although both conservatives and liberals now extol the virtues of education, they have different ideas about how education should be improved. Conservatives definitely oppose greater federal funding for public education as a further big governmental threat to their personal power. Liberals have always championed public education as the best and most democratic way to educate people, particularly those who cannot afford private education who live in poverty areas that have poor educational services. However, almost every one agrees that our present public education system needs fixing. Both sides believe in greater accountability in the teaching and administration of public education but conservatives lean toward privatizing poorly performing schools while liberals feel that this would further handicap public education by draining its financial resources. Also, problems of separation between the state and religion enter into the conservative voucher solution if vouchers are used to subsidize education in religious settings.

A radical solution, that would probably not appeal to either conservatives or liberals, borrows from both conservatism and liberalism. This proposal would have the government pay for the immediate retirement of incompetent teachers and administrators. Golden parachutes (properly scaled down from those provided corporate executives) would be provided. It would be important to insure that replacements were improvements over those recognized as occupying the bottom of the scale. The cost would probably not be greater than other government plans that have been (and will be) unsuccessfully tried. Liberals could not complain that teachers and education administrators were unfeelingly thrown out of their lifetime vocation. Conservatives could take satisfaction in a policy that replaces the unfit with the capable.

Conflicts between conservatives and liberals over labor policies go back a long way. Business conservatives have naturally been reluctant to give benefits to labor. They feel such benefits reduce their profits and power (although some liberal economists have pointed out that more money in the hands of workers leads to business benefits in the long run). Liberals have traditionally been sympathetic to ordinary workers whom they see as victims of economic battles where they are individually powerless. The formation of labor unions has been resisted by conservatives. Liberals are somewhat dismayed that the success (and power) of some unions has resulted in labor union scandals and corruption (power does tend to corrupt). Battles continue over raising the minimum wage and laws that require employers to provide health insurance for employees. In general, liberals are for labor welfare and conservatives are for corporate welfare.

There are many other areas of conflict between conservatives and liberals besides the ones we have addressed but our hope is that the examples we have chosen make a convincing case that:

1. The primary motive of conservatives is to conserve their personal power by operating politically in the combative motivation dimension.

2. The primary motive of liberals is to free people from oppression and misfortune by operating politically in the personal-social motivation dimension.

Can things be improved? There is considerable evidence that people with well balanced three dimensional motivational systems (combative, personal-social,and competitive) deal more effectively with life than those with unbalanced motivational structures (see PIT Publications). Maybe if we could elect politicians with better balanced motivational systems, it would improve our political system. This can only occur if people become aware of the importance and power of motivation in every day life and become better able to recognize the motivational basis for their own actions and the actions of others.

Below are a couple of mini case studies to illustrate the role of balanced and unbalanced motivation systems in politicians.

It is not hard to think of politicians who have been strong in one or two motivational dimensions but who had serious weaknesses in the other dimension or dimensions. A recent example of a politician who functioned well in two dimensions but had fatal flaws in the third is Bill Clinton. Clinton was effective in the combative and competitive dimensions but has had lifelong problems associated with his personal-social dimension. It isn't necessary to go into detail about his personal-social dimension problems. His opponents have done a good combative job of publicizing these defects. It is interesting to note, however, that the general public has been able to distinguish between his combative and competitive dimension functions (the important dimensions for his presidential duties) and his personal dimension deficiencies. His poll ratings on job performance were consistently high while his ratings on personal character qualities were consistently low. His one-dimensional combative opponents seemed unable or unwilling to make this distinction.

Abraham Lincoln is perhaps the best example of a motivationally well balanced politician. Lincoln had a lifelong history of personal losses. His mother died when he was nine years old. He was devoted to her and credits her with his passionate desire for knowledge and his strong ambitions. His wife had serious personality, emotional, and mental problems. Two young sons died. Despite all his personal trials and tribulations, Lincoln could be humorous and engaging with friends and acquaintances and, except for his political enemies, he was popular and well liked. He was a loyal and caring husband and father. He had compassionate concerns for the unfortunate, particularly those enslaved. These qualities indicate a strong personal-social dimension.

Lincoln worked hard to compensate for his almost total lack of formal education. He developed a mastery of the English language that produced some of the most memorable and the most frequently quoted speeches and writings in our political history. He became a proficient and widely sought lawyer and legal consultant. His legal skills opened doors for him to his political career. While he was in politics he still maintained his practice of seeking and absorbing knowledge. He wrote his own speeches, read broadly, and personally researched the problems he confronted. These practices and qualities indicate a very strong competitive dimension.

As a politician, Lincoln had to be effective in combative activities where a strong will and an intuitive understanding of effective aggression and defense is necessary. Perhaps no other president had to respond to and endure more verbal, political, and military assault than did Lincoln. Throughout the long and bloody Civil War, Lincoln showed the courage and determination that carried him and the country through disheartening defeats to final triumph and the realization of his goals to maintain the union and emancipate the slaves. He did, indeed, have a strong combative dimension.

Lincoln may be our best example of a motivationally well balanced three dimensional politician.

The Picture Identification Test (PIT) is a psychological instrument based on the Murray need system. The PIT uses multidimensional scaling to provide an analysis of needs (motives). It indicates needs that are being met or expressed ineffectively. The PIT can be administered to subjects ages twelve and older.

• Motivation Analysis - Theory developed from Picture Identification Test research and from the general systems point of view.
• Essays - Observations and thoughts about motivation, beliefs, values, purpose and meaning.
• Needs (Motives) - Discussion of 22 Murray based needs as they relate to three major motivation dimensions.

For further information about the Picture Identification Test contact
Jay L. Chambers, PhD: ibis@kalexres.kendal.org
160 Kendal Drive Apartment #205
Lexington, Virginia 24450
Phone: 540.462.3874

The Motivation Analysis web site has three sections:

Motivation Analysis: General Systems Point of View | Combative Dimension | Personal Social Dimension | Competitve Dimension | PIT Scores | PIT Publications | PIT Dissertations | Motivation System Target Model | Target Model Reliability | GPA Predications | Need & Cluster Definitions | Links

Essays: Combative Dominance Syndrome (new) | Political Motivation | Mental Sets | Symbolic Thinking, Values, Motivation & Religion | Needs, Values, Philosophy & Religion

Needs (Motives): Abasement | Achievement | Affiliation | Aggression | Autonomy | Blame Avoidance | Counteraction | Defendance | Deference | Dominance | Exhibition | Gratitude | Harm Avoidance | Inferiority Avoidance | Nurturance | Order | Play | Rejection | Sentience | Sex | Succorance | Understanding

URL: http://www.overbooked.org/motivation/essays/politicalmotivation.html

Hosted by Overbooked (Book Links) on Central Virginia's Community Online.
Overbooked is a volunteer project undertaken by Ann Chambers Theis,
Collection Management Administrator, Chesterfield County (VA) Public Library
P.O. Box 297, Chesterfield, VA, 23832. Phone: 804.748.1760.