Walker - The case of clinton

STEPHEN WALKER looks at personality in US presidential politics and analyses the complex psychology of Bill Clinton

Every four years the American voters elect a leader after the contenders complete a grueling marathon of campaigning first for the nomination and then for the office of president of the United States. At the end of the day does it matter who wins the election? If so, how and why and to whom does it matter?

On the one hand, disaffected radicals on the left and right extremes of the American political spectrum tend to view as relatively insignificant the differences in the two parties and by extension who is elected president. This view emphasizes the operation of societal forces and institutional constraints that make it unlikely individual differences in leader personalities will make any significant differences in policies. On the other hand, mainstream Republicans and Democrats emphasize differences in the policy positions of their parties and also differences in the leadership styles of their respective candidates. Their argument is that it takes electing the “right” man or woman to translate their policy positions into effective political decisions.

If the mainstream argument is correct, then it would seem that leadership matters. If effective leadership is a function of a leader’s personality traits, then personality also matters in modern US politics. Therefore the merits of studying personality in politics seem obvious. Given a close link between personality and effective leadership, then it should be a relatively straightforward task for the voters to identify which candidate will make the most effective leader and choose one that agrees with their policy views.

However, there are two contextual obstacles to this scenario. One is the difficulty of ascertaining the “real” policy views of the candidates who often try to present their positions as ambiguously as possible in order to attract a majority of voters and thereby win the election. This problem is contextual, built-in by the “winner take all” rule governing the presidential election. The other is the difficulty of identifying personality traits associated with effective leadership. This problem is also contextual, in that different historical moments and conditions may call for different personal qualities as antecedents of effective leadership.

A common difficulty in ascertaining both the policy views and the personalities of US presidential candidates is the problem of access, which plagues both voters and scholars. It is often presidential historians with the benefit of hindsight who eventually penetrate the veil that masks who presidents really were and what they represented. Investigative journalists may also provide insights as conduits of behind-the-scenes observations from insiders close to the candidates.

A third approach to the problem of access is the study of leaders with unobtrusive observations of the elites “at a distance” via methods that parallel the study of the masses with public opinion surveys. Is it possible to detect what a leader is thinking from what he is saying and how she says it? Can one identify a candidate’s personality from public speeches and interviews and then extrapolate the individual’s likely leadership style? Some scholars in the transdiscipline of political psychology are betting that the answer to these questions is “yes”.

With the advent of the worldwide web and modern computer programs it is possible to retrieve the public statements of candidates in a digital format and subject them to an automated content analysis with sophisticated computer software. These technological innovations allow scholars to probe more easily the views and attitudes that reveal the personalities of leaders. What used to be a laborious process by hand is now often accomplished over night with the aid of software that identifies the parts of speech (nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions) in a leader’s public statements, classifies them into a dictionary, and computes indices of their relative frequency, direction, and intensity.

These observations offer important clues regarding the speaker’s latent leadership style in a variety of ways. The ego defence mechanisms, motivations, beliefs, and cognitive style expressed in these public statements suggest how a leader is likely to diagnose situations, think about options, select and organize advisors, and choose ends and means that guide political decisions. A leader’s scores on these indices as high or low over time and compared with other US presidents provide a basis for checking the prominence and influence of these personality characteristics in his or her decision making.

An example of this approach is Walter Weintraub’s study of President William Jefferson Clinton’s ego defence mechanisms. He reports that Clinton’s use of the pronoun I is the highest and his use of the pronoun we is the lowest of post-World War II presidents. This ratio suggests that he thinks of himself primarily as his own person and not as the representative of a cause or group. His use of qualifiers (maybe, kind of) and retractors (however, nevertheless) is moderate, suggesting that he can both make and reconsider decisions easily. He is not impulsive in making decisions, a trait that usually accompanies a high retractor score. Indicators of his character include a high passivity score (ratio of I/me references) compared to other presidents, which suggests he would assume a victim’s role when aggressively challenged about unethical behavior, and a high negatives score (not, never, nothing) that suggests he would tend to deny unpleasant realities about his behavior.

Another study by David Winter compares the motivational imagery of Clinton the candidate with Clinton the president regarding his needs for power, affiliation, and achievement. The indicators of each motivation are thematic references to achievement (concern for excellence, success in competition), affiliation (warm, positive feelings for others, friendly, nurturing acts), and power (controlling or regulating others, images of prestige or reputation) in the public speech announcing his candidacy for president and in the inaugural address for his first term.

Clinton the candidate scored “a little above average in achievement and affiliation and a little below average in power” compared to the other major candidates for president in 1992. However, in his inaugural address Clinton the president scored much higher in his need for power than his need for affiliation compared to either Clinton the candidate or the average US president. He also maintained his higher need for achievement compared to the other two motivations.

The consistently higher need for achievement and lower needs for power and affiliation predict that Bill Clinton will pursue ambitious goals and make decisions based on risks and results rather than the influence of others or for the continued enjoyment of the exercise of power. They indicate a leadership style characterized by reliance for advice on experts rather than old cronies or political consultants. They suggest that Clinton is likely to exhibit a cooperative, problem-solving style rather than an erratic, defensive style or an exploitative, aggressive style in the conduct of negotiations. He is also some one who may use dishonest means to reach a goal when frustrated by others.

Bill Clinton’s belief system and cognitive style are consistent with his personality profile. According to a study of his public speeches by Stephen Walker, Mark Schafer, and Michael Young, he tends to diagnose the political universe as generally friendly and relatively unpredictable; however, he believes that his ability to control historical development is relatively higher than other actors in the political universe. His strategic approach to goals is marked by a high propensity to choose cooperative tactics marked by the use of rewards, promises, and appeals rather than punishments, threats, and defiance.

Peter Suedfeld and Philip Tetlock find that Mr Clinton’s cognitive style is marked by relatively low levels of integrative complexity in his public statements as a candidate and an elected president. A low level of integrative complexity indicates a one-sided view of the issues under consideration rather than a more nuanced, multi-faceted analysis. Although this low level is not unusual in the campaign speeches of other presidents, the continuation of this pattern in office places him (along with George H.W. Bush) at a lower level of complexity than any previous sitting president except for Ronald Reagan. This pattern of decline in the integrative complexity of recent presidents may reflect the polarization of political rhetoric in recent times rather than a personality trait.

The influence of personality and cognitive characteristics on presidential decision making may be mitigated or modified, depending on the president’s advisory system. A leader’s personality characteristics helps to shape the advisory system by influencing who is selected as an advisor and how the president uses his advisors to process information, define situations, identify and choose among different policy options.

Margaret Hermann reports that different combinations of personality traits influence a leader’s tendency to challenge constraints (need for power, belief in control over events) and the tendency to be open to contextual information (self-confidence, conceptual complexity) in the political environment. President Clinton’s combinations of these traits indicate that he is moderate in his propensity to challenge constraints and relatively open to information from the environment compared to other US leaders. These tendencies suggest that he is relatively willing to listen to advisors and then use the information provided by them. As noted earlier, his relatively high need for achievement inclines him to select advisors who are technical experts and likely to provide information rather than expressions of support or political bromides.

This series of examples with a common focus on President Bill Clinton illustrates the potential for studying modern US presidents “at a distance” with modern social science methods. It is possible with such techniques to profile both candidates and officials systematically in “real time” rather than relying solely on the anecdotal reports of contemporary journalists or waiting for the verdict of archival analyses by historians long after the leader’s term in office has ended.

The automated content analysis of the public statements of modern leaders parallels the ability of survey instruments to track the evolution of mass public opinion. It is possible to determine which personality traits are aroused in a speaker’s psyche as they make public statements and infer what beliefs may be driving their decision-making processes. It is also possible to see if they exhibit consistency in these personality traits across issues, whether they exhibit cognitive learning (changes in beliefs) over time, and whether the complexity of their thought processes as they reach and announce decisions is relatively dogmatic or pragmatic. The results may also reveal glimpses and insights into presidential character as well as the capacity for making good judgments about situations and the propensity for taking risks in choosing among alternative policies.

Stephen Walker is professor emeritus of political science at Arizona State University. He is the author of numerous books and articles, including “The Psychology of Presidential Decision Making” in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of the American Presidency.