Barack Obama finally clinched the desired amount of delegates to win the Democratic Party nomination. I searched the internet and tried to locate a speech or a statement in which Obama declares why he decided to enter the presidential race. I couldn’t find it — and I’d thank the readers if they could refer me to such an instance. Yes, he’s constantly declaring why he’d be a better president than the other candidates, but it’s not the same as revealing your personal motives for hopping into the political swamp.
Yesterday I took upon myself to map the possible motives that drive people into the political arena, arranging these motives within three categories: Pragmatic Reasons, Psychological Deficiencies, and Moral Imperatives. Today I want to cover the remaining two categories….
B. The Psychological Deficiencies that haunt politicians:
1) Frank (fictional name) had a difficult mom. She was always disappointed of him. Later in life, he felt intimidated around successful people. See, Frank has issues of self esteem. So he took an intimate oath to prove the world he’s worth more than it seems at first glance. No less important, he needs to prove to himself that he’s a man, that he can achieve something major in life. At night he dreams how he looks down at his former classmates and say to them “Look at me now! You didn’t believe I’d make it this far, did you?”. Well, what signifies success better than being a top-rank politician?
2) Margaret (Frank’s fictional colleague) dislikes uncertainty. In fact, she can’t stand it. She always has a pesky need to know “what’s happening”, and “who’s playing against whom”. In other words, Margaret is a control-freak. She doesn’t like to take directives from others, and she’d be infuriated if you leave her “out of the loop”. Her psychiatrist claims she has trust issues, but she doesn’t trust his diagnosis. She ventured into politics because everyone else is so inept, and it’s about time things would be done her way.
C. Finally, some politicians do what they do not because they want to, but because they feel obliged to help other people:
1) Obama (a fictional character?) looks around him and feels a great discontent with the way things are being done at the present. Many people are suffering, and he dreams of making a difference. He’s an idealist, and couldn’t be idly sitting by when action needs to be taken. He doesn’t like to get his hands dirty, but whenever he tried in the past to avoid being socially and politically involved, he quickly became restless and anguished with feelings of guilt. Can he turn his back to all these children, crying out his name for help?
…Nevertheless, his critics accuse him of having the same condition as Margaret. At least she doesn’t cover up her need for control with delusional thoughts.
2) Bush (a real-life phenomenon) has a calling. God sent him on a mission to save humanity. His church leaders urged him to spread their values across the country and in the lands of the infidels. He’s doing what he has to do, merely executing what’s been asked of him. Along the way, he’s also securing his place in heaven above.
Unfortunately, Moral Imperatives are the worst of the Psychological Deficiencies politicians can have.
Do I have a conclusion? Yes – Choose your candidate on the basis of his platform. Whatever drives him to put forth a certain platform doesn’t really matter, as long as his psychological/moral/financial needs go hand in hand with our political agenda.