Presidential Character by James Barber

Presidential Character by James Barber

Barber, James. The Presidential Character. New York: Prentice Hall, 1992.

Given the recent election of our nation's next president, speculation naturally abounds as to what his administration will resemble, and how his personal governing style will affect the future of America. Does he have the necessary emotional tools to deal with crisis management? Reading the Presidential Character by James Barber as an intriguing work of both psychoanalysis and history is thus especially illuminating at this time. Barber classifies the nation's chief executives into different personality types or classifications, both positive and negative. According to Barber the candidate's character predicts how he will behave in office, if elected, his attitude towards the exercise of power, and attitude towards presidential leadership. Success and failure is just as dependant upon character as experience, even intelligence. Even someone who disagrees with such a psychological approach to history cannot help but find Barber's analysis fascinating, as he takes such a unique point-of-view when examining some of the most over-analyzed major presidential administrations in history.

Barber first divides presidential characters into two categories, that of adaptive and passive, or what might be called different levels of 'energy.' How much physical and emotional energy does the individual invest in the presidency? Does he micromanage, and spend his entire day enthusiastically working, or does he delegate and have a low level of personal energy? Does he primarily act or react? Then he defines presidential characters into two other distinct character categories of positive or negative, which defines the level of joy, enthusiasm, and personal satisfaction the individual derives from governing. Does the president experience grim satisfaction in using his power or delight at exercising authority to enact social change?

For under the first category, the "adaptive-positive type," Barber cites presidents who get great joy from being active, and this joy translates into being extroverted, optimistic, and able to suit their own personal style to the needs of the moment. Thomas Jefferson, Theodore and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Gerald Ford might all be seen as examples of this type of governing style. The one detriment to this leadership style (although Barber does not seem to see many) is that they may be too eager to get things done and have an overly flexible attitude towards democratic institutions, as evidenced in FDR's attempt to 'pack' the U.S. Supreme Court with new justices and change the constitution, when he experienced opposition for his New Deal.

In contrast, "adaptive-negative" types are psychologically darker individuals, and use power as a means of self-justification, often to exorcise personal demons. The more they do, the less they feel satisfied. Barber paints these types of presidents as the 'tragic heroes' of the American presidency, and their administrations often have dangerous and unexpected consequences because of the fact these presidents are ill-suited for the role of governing. They are duty-bound because of their psychological hang-ups and always have the feeling of never being able to enjoy what they do. They are haunted by failure and low self-esteem and have difficulty compromising with others. They are rigid, pessimistic and may have problems with aggression. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon are perhaps the most paradigmatic examples of these types of presidential personalities, Although John Adams and even Abraham Lincoln, and Jimmy Carter can be seen as showing some of these traits. (it should be noted that Barber suggests that these traits predispose some administrations to fail, not that possessing an adaptive-negative personality means an administration will automatically be as paranoid Nixon's or as ineffectual as Hoover's).

Passive-positive" types have low self-esteem like "adaptive-negative" types but seek to gain approval and build their self-esteem through optimism. They are more needy and reactive than adaptive-positive types, and may be more easily manipulated. James Madison, William Howard Taft,

William Harding, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton might all be seen as examples of this type. Although they are not first-movers like "adaptive-positive" presidents they too are extroverts who want to be liked by their staff and the masses, but they are too needy in terms of the way they govern, and thus derive less joy from governing. They may rely too much upon their staff, or strive to please too many people.

Passive-negative" presidents are more withdrawn in terms of advocating their policies than passive-positive types and may even avoid exercising power. They do not really enjoy being in politics, and try to delegate authority and use procedures to govern -- they may have been pressured to serve like war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example, or called upon by their party to run for office like George Washington, or Calvin Coolidge. Like "passive-adaptive" presidents they are also motivated by a sense of duty and compulsion, but their compulsion is more external than internal/

The reader might be apt to exclaim -- enough with focusing on Presidential personalities, focus on the issues! While there is some validity to this cliche, Barber would respond that the American presidency is much more than an institution in charge of governing the nation, that feelings drive people's election of the president, and understanding the president in terms of our feeling about the person and his own emotional view of the office is thus acceptable in analyzing the institution, as is understanding the emotional make-up of the person we as a nation are electing. Even people who know nothing about the government often know something about the president's psychology and personality. The president is a symbolic as well as a real figure of American power and character, and the perception of his character is often strongly linked to how America is viewed abroad.

Moreover, beyond issues and rhetoric it can be difficult to figure out who to vote for on Election Day. It is a gamble, a guess. More so than stances on issues, which can change with world events, character is often the best way for a voter to predict how the president will behave in office. Character is the way the president orients himself toward others and confronts the unexpected, which will influence the ways he deals with congress and shapes the judiciary through appointments. A president with good policies like Wilson may fall afoul of Congress if he is too rigid in marshalling support for his ideas, as was the case with Wilson and his creation of the League of Nations, when Congress refused to approve the United States' membership within the organization that was Wilson's brainchild.

While examples of active and negative individuals exist in all categories, overall Barber sees active-positive types as the best type of individuals to have in office, and cites the example of Richard Nixon and the uncompromising Woodrow Wilson as to why active-negative types are most dangerous, if not the worst presidents. However, Barber's categories are not strictly defined, and there are effective and ineffective presidents in all categories. No candidate perfectly fits into a schema. Eisenhower did occasionally take active stances, like his management of the Korean War and his final speech about the military-industrial complex. Truman could show negative traits regarding his personal insecurity about being a less educated man from Missouri and a successor to the titanic FDR, and would show some negative traits during his presidency in his dealings with those who disagreed with him. In fact, all presidents to varying degrees show aspects of all different types, the question is what preponderant type to they show throughout their time in office.