The Natural Function of a Political Leader

A political leader such as The President of the United States is a person whose natural executive function is increasingly becoming unclear. This is because the rational, core function of politics which is the science of governing people, is being confused with irrational expectations and needs of a clueless, emotionally sick public.

Examples of rational, core executive functions include safeguarding people’s independence, freedom and responsibility. Examples of irrational, destructive executive functions include catering to the public’s pathological helplessness and dependency needs which,in effect, is a self-serving, “political” tactic. The political left has perfected the art of welfare politics. Having nothing better to offer, the right is quickly learning to playing catch up. The focus of looking for political solutions is the reason that politicians are losing people’s respect.

But politics can never be the answer. Knowledge of people’s underlying socio-political character structure is essential because it helps to distinguish between the primary, rational functions that people can expect from their political leaders versus their own irrational, secondary, destructive drives and need to be taken care of which they project onto them. This crucial distinction is obscured by the endless ideological battles between the political left and the right. This is a manifestation of social armor.

Without making this distinction, politics degenerates into “socio-politics,” a spectacle that we are witnessing in today’s election year. The cluelessness of the politician regarding his natural function as political leader is a symptom of the same cluelessness of the public that elects him.

In selecting a president, the key question becomes: Is there a candidate that protects the functions of independence, freedom, and responsibility of the American people?

The Young and the Clueless

In “The Young and the Economically Clueless,” (Wall Street Journal February 20-21, 2016) regarding the overwhelming political support of young people for Bernie Sanders, Daniel Arbess asks: “Why are young people voting against their own interests?”

The writer cannot answer the contradiction posed by his question because it is outside the economic realm. He is unfamiliar with two important sociological facts that are discussed in my last book, “Neither Left Nor Right”:
1. The primary determinant of an individual’s social and political thinking and behavior is his socio-political character structure.
2. The anti-authoritarian transformation of Western civilization that occurred around 1960.

This transformation, the result of the so-called ‘sexual revolution,’ was accompanied by the almost complete destruction of the authoritarian family and, with this, a dramatic shift to the left in the political thinking of mainstream Americans. This culminated, in 2008, with the presidential election of a full-fledged, pseudo/liberal communist, Barack Obama.

The clueless young were not in a position to have learned anything about the destructiveness of Obama’s or Bernie Sander’s socialism because, as the writer notes, the eldest of these young people were in elementary school when the Soviet Union collapsed. Moreover, they are generally clueless about the significance of historical events.

More importantly, these children are the product of the baby boomer generation that were growing up during the 60’s. Many of these were the product of broken homes and therefore had little or no parental, authoritative guidance in their development. What many of these offspring experienced was just the opposite, brattiness and rebelliousness in their parents.

Bernie Sanders, a self-claimed socialist, is the ideal role model as a leader for these helpless, clueless young people. Incapable of caring for themselves, Sanders becomes the all giving,”free lunch” father that, in their clueless eyes, will take care of them. The economic stresses that these young people face in today’s times merely intensifies their anxieties about the future, justifies their anger at the world and increases Sander’s attractiveness to them.

Apropos of Donald Trump

Individual and socio-political character are the primary determinants of an individual’s, including politician’s, thinking and behavior. For example, is presidential candidate, Donald Trump simply a shrewd, controlling bully in full charge of himself regarding his bid for the presidency or is he just a loose cannon and a blowhard? This distinction depends on whether he is simply a phallic narcissistic character with an oral unsatisfied block, a manic depressive (“bi-polar”) character or a sociopathic character.

In the first case his judgment would be intact and would not detrimentally affect his job as president. In the second and third cases he would be a disaster. We need to know more about his decision making process and his past history in order to determine his capacity for good judgement.

The Sexual Misery of the Arab World

An article with the same title appeared in the Sunday, February 12 edition of The New York Times. The author, Kamel Daoud, writes about the extreme authoritarianism in the Arab World, it’s degradation of women and the destructive emotional,including sexual, consequences on the people. He alludes to the destabilizing effects of the Arab media. Influenced by the West’s media they peddle the promise of unattainable bodies of Lebanese singers and dancers and impossible sex to Arab youths. The Internet and religious TV shows have taken monstrous forms often devolving into the undisguised expression of the secondary, destructive layer of armored humans, a kind of porno-Islamism.

The writer, intuitively understands that the driving force behind suicide bombers originates from their frustrated sexual longing. Suicide is equated with the fantasied orgastic release.

The social breakdown that is currently happening in Middle East countries first started in the West around 1960, when Western society transformed from authoritarian to anti-authoritarian. This was heralded as the “sexual revolution.” When in 2011 it spread to the Middle East as the Arab Spring, it was hoped to bring freedom and happiness to the Arab world. In fact, it did exactly the opposite. It resulted in the hell on earth that we see today. This is a vivid example that armored people are incapable of living with the amount of freedom that they mystically long to be given to them by their leaders. To the degree that they are individually armored they need their armored social conditions to survive. The sexual chaos that is occurring in the Arab World is qualitatively the same but quantitatively worse than that which is happening in the West.

Before any real progress can happen in the Middle East and elsewhere, a distinction must be made between people’s feelings of genuine love that move outward unimpeded by armor from their biological core (“healthy sex”) and people’s incapacity to experience these feelings because of their armored condition (“sick sex”). Without making this distinction and dealing with its consequences, all “freedom movements” where ever they originate from will fail.

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 139 other subscribers
  • Follow Charles Konia, M.D.’s Tweets on Twitter

  • See Charles Konia, M.D. on Amazon

  • See Charles Konia, M.D. on Facebook

  • American College of Orgonomy