Forget the policy. Forget the promises. Forget the speeches, ads, videos, rallies. Forget black, white, man, woman, Oprah, Bill, Iraq, Iran. Instead, let's consider the final three candidates' psychological inventory and put a little pseudo-science into our understanding of the Supervisor, the Champion and the Promoter out there on the campaign trail.
Emily Yoffe at Slate magazine administered to herself three Myers-Briggs personality tests -- the same one you likely took at a job interview or in a college psychology class. Only she took each of the tests on behalf of the three front-running candidates, divining answers from their various biographies, interviews, etc. Lest you think she's full of it, check this out -- a description of the resulting personality type revealed for then future president George W. Bush:
"They are decisive and little bothered by second thoughts and
self-doubt." "Since [they] do not reflect very much on their errors or
analyze their mistakes to any great extent, it is difficult for them to
learn from their errors, and so they can become caught in a loop,
repeating their mistakes."
Such accuracy is encouraging. Let's start with Hillary.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (channeld through Yoffe) finds Clinton a Guardian. Specifically, in M-B-speak, an ESTJ or Supervisor. (Read here for more details on the whole Myers-Briggs enterprise).
Supervisors are ... steadfast, cautious, methodical. They are the reliable, detail-oriented
people without whom organizations and society fall apart—which is
something ESTJs won't hesitate to point out. ... self-esteem is greatest when they present
themselves as dependable, trustworthy or accountable in shouldering
their responsibilities." In other words, an ESTJ wants everyone to know
she's "ready to be president on Day 1."
ESTJs prefer sensible talk grounded in facts. Anything else is "fanciful." Hmmm, suddenly we can pinpoint the differences in the two Democratic candidates. ESTJs also don't deal well when things don't go as planned (losing Iowa anybody? Post-Super Tuesday?). They don't have the chops to win over others with their personality, only hard work. They see the world in terms of good people and bad people (or vast right-wing conspiracies? We get the picture).
Before we get to the personality of Barack Obama, Political Nanny will leave you with this little Guardian/ESTJ tidbit:
The Guardians' steadfast posture also applies to their marriages. ... [T]hey are "extremely loyal to their mates and feel
obliged to stand by them in times of trouble and help them straighten
up and fly right. As a result, Guardians more easily than any other
temperament can be hooked into becoming the rescuer of troubled mates."
Ooof. Loud and clear, Myers-Briggs, loud and clear.
Big surprise, Obama is an Idealist. More specifically, he's an ENFP or Champion, a type that is "filled with conviction that they can easily motivate those around
them." Champions work to "kindle, to rouse, to encourage, even to
inspire those close to them with their enthusiasm." Idealists "usually
have a tongue of silver" and are "gifted in seeing the possibilities"
of institutions and people.
Champions believe in "word magic," the ancient idea that words have the ability to
make things happen—saying makes it so." This is the basis of the
critique of Obama by his less-soaring opponents. Hillary complains that
people ask her to "give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and
then, you know, get everybody all whooped up." (As if she could.) Says
John McCain, "To encourage a country with only rhetoric is not a
promise of hope. It is a platitude."
ENFPs tend to be leaders of movements (MLK, Ghandi, Thomas Paine), not presidents (there's never been an ENFP U.S. president) and not even leaders of large corporations (only 1 percent, according to people who look into this stuff are ENFPs). Note that 30 percent of corporate leaders are Hillary Clinton's type.
John McCain is an Artisan (get out!), specifically, a Promoter or ESTP, which are "practical, optimistic, cynical, and focused on the here and now." Before you get too excited, please note: Bush is an ESTP too.
"Artisans need to be potent, to be felt as a strong presence and they
want to affect the course of events" ... They hunger to
"have a piece of the action," "to make something happen" whether "on
the battlefield" or "in the political arena." So many politicians are
Artisans because "politics allows not only for maneuvering, excitement,
and risk—but for powerful social impact."
They also have strong survival skills and the instincts to make it happen (POW? Dead campaign?).
Artisans "are not threatened by the possibility of failure in
themselves or others, so they are likely to take risks and encourage
others to do the same. ... They delight in putting
themselves in jeopardy, taking chances, facing hazards." (Does this
sound familiar? See: Iraq.) When times call for careful planning, or
consistent, long-term management, you don't call on the ESTP.
So forget party affiliation. Forget liberal and conservative. Instead, think about which four-letter combination you want running the country. Too many downsides to all of them? Quick, Slate, work up an inventory on Huckabee!
