The Role of Intentionality in Political Behavior

May be, the difference between the politicians of the two major American political parties lies in the quantity of their testosterone? Or, may be, it is their psychological predisposition that makes one group aggressive and the other more peaceful? Can it be that as there are saber-toothed and regular tigers or mammoths and elephants (in different historical periods) there are also saber-toothed politicians or mammoths of belligerency (Neo-republicans) and, on the other hand, just mildly-toothed politicians or a relatively friendly elephants (Democrats)?

Why the Neo-republicans are always for war with erected banners and noisy hurrahs while democrats although, of course, also for war (war today is just commerce by other means), but as if reluctantly and willy-nilly? May be, the reason is the discrepancy in intensity and authenticity of patriotic feelings in these two categories of politicians: feeling of care about their country’s fighting glory or indifference toward this glory? Why Neo-republicans target their Democratic opponents as the enemies of their country while Democrats stay on the level of disagreement in political opinions and don’t reduce the political opponents into the enemies?

The cause of disagreement lies, it seems, in some other place than “philosophy” or world view or even the psychology of the members of the two groups. The cause lies in the different intentionality of the people in each party. Let’s, for our purposes here, define intentionality as a motivation located psychologically deeper than passion for any particular doctrine but not as deep as the person’s psychological roots (his/her childhood experiences). Intentionality in this sense can be formed by pre-Oedipal fixations but in the oedipal context (as a part of oedipal experiences).

The Neo-republicans and the Democrats have not only different but opposing intentionality. Neo-republicans fight for themselves and for people they identify with by similarity – the rich profit-makers. They are fierce fighters exactly because they fight for themselves and those like themselves. Democrats, on the other side, fight not for their or the interests of those they can identify with, but for the interests of people who are different from them – who are much poorer. By supporting the cause of the poorer and needy the Democrats work against their own interests as a privileged group. How can you expect from them to be more passionate fighters? For Neo-republicans to be passionate haters and blackmailers is easy, is natural – what can be more “natural” than to fight for your interests? But Democrats by their very democratic ideology fight for the people whose interests are different from theirs. How can you expect them to be as aggressive as Neo-conservatives?

The majority of American voters, on the other hand, like neo-conservatives, are motivated by their own interests (as they understand or misunderstand them)! But at least have a bit of mercy for those who fight for you in spite of the fact that their personal financial interests are contrary to yours. If Democrats fight for your interests poorly, just remember that yours interests are not theirs and that Democratic politicians belong to a social group that is much above of your financial situation. Appreciate that they are dedicated to your interests at all! So, “lazy or cowardly” fighters are all you have on your side.

Indeed, it is sad that the people has to rely (for representation of their interests) on those who make much more money than the majority – on Democrats, who are at loss between two motivations (to fight for their own financial interests and become like Neo-republicans who are positioned either to use and/or sacrifice the poor or to simply ignore their existence) or to fight for people – but it means against their own interests, with an inevitable loss of some enthusiasm.

But the masses, as we recently learned again, cannot rely on their own abilities to represent their interests on the level of (democratic) political process – because they are not able to translate their frustration and impulsivity into democratic political procedures! The lack of humanistic education and emotional development which only education can train us to achieve, make people who are not far away from or simply on the bottom of social pyramid prone to act inside the public realm in a totalitarian – over-emotional, sentimental and cruel manner. Here is the basic choice for the majority – either act through not too efficient Democratic representatives or to act in a totalitarian manner (moved by the illusion of closeness to the conservative rich two percent of the population suggested by the “right wing” political propaganda) and self-sacrificially self-destruct in the process as did the Russian poor while fighting for communist revolution or as did the German poor fighting for the Third Reich.