I think that this proves that Richard Nixon really was Ti-ESTp:
- from The New Psychohistory (Lloyd deMause, Editor); pp. 307-309 [CHAPTER 10 – Psychohistory and Psychotherapy by Lloyd deMause]: During the long summer of 1973, as the Watergate hearings began to reveal the full extent of the illegal activities of Richard M. Nixon, I would often have lunch with associates in the mental health field, and invariably our discussions turned to the personality of Nixon. Surprisingly, my friends each described for me quite similar profiles of his character. Previously, they said, it had seemed that Nixon was a typical obsessive-compulsive personality, reasonably well integrated, warding off a great deal of repressed hostility through typical defense mechanisms, chiefly overcontrol of himself and others, and through a variety of over-moralistic projects. In short, he had seemed little different than, say, the average compulsive businessman who was so frequently seen in psychotherapy.
But, with Watergate, it was becoming more and more evident that this appraisal of Nixon was superficial, that his compulsive traits were only protective coloration which allowed him to blend in with the pre-dominant American personality-type. Instead, it was becoming apparent that he was closer to the psychopathic personality-type, making paranoid lists of enemies and ordering their illegal surveillance and persecution, tape-recording secretly on a wholesale basis, and so on down the familiar list of Nixon-directed activities. Every one of the character-traits familiar to those who regularly treat psychopathic personalities began to be revealed: the shifting moral standards and patchy superego, the continuous confusion between what is right and what is narcissistically needed, the paranoid insecurity and compensatory grandiosity, the shallow inter-personal attachments, the lack of the capacity for guilt or even regret, the overcontrol combined with an increasingly unpredictable impulsivity.
Sometimes our lunch-table discussions went further, and we would speculate on whether a real analysis of Nixon’s childhood would confirm this diagnosis, since psychopathic personalities generally could be traced to a great deal of emotional abandonment and even violence in the family, whereas the family patterns of obsessive-compulsive personalities usually centered more on the problem of parental overcontrol and excessive demands. But regardless of the different turns our discussion took, we usually ended our luncheon with a weak joke, which usually ran something like: “Well, with all these awful things now coming out about Nixon, I sure hope he doesn’t feel he has to show he still has balls by pushing the little red button or something!”
Since at that time I had just started a scholarly journal of psychohistory, I made it a point to ask each of these psychotherapists if they would write up some of their professional opinions for publication, including the possibility that there was a danger of Nixon, like other psychopathic personalities, reacting to exposure and ridicule by having to prove his potency, and that this might take the form of precipitating an international nuclear crisis solely for personal interpsychic reasons. As you might suspect, all of my friends refused to commit their opinions to writing. It was not just that they were reluctant personally to state their opinions; beyond this, they appeared to believe that psychotherapists should not be allowed to express professional opinions on political problems, that somehow the professional status of the psychotherapist prohibited him or her from analyzing political behavior. “I’m a specialist,” was the feeling. “Let the social scientists handle political events.”
A few months later, on October 23, 1973, what we joked about, what we most feared, happened. Using as a pretext a completely insignificant political event, the Russian demand that they be allowed to include some Soviet troops in the U.N. Middle-East peace-keeping force, Nixon pushed the Red Alert Button, and two million American soldiers went into a state of war-time readiness, including the arming of 15,000 nuclear bombs. I don’t know what your personal response to this Red Alert was, but my own reaction was to go home, put my family and dogs into our car, and head north toward Canada. Luckily, as in the Cuban missile crisis, the Russian leaders recognized a case of machismo as well as my psychoanalytic friends did. They quickly backed off on their demand, and for a second time in a decade we all narrowly escaped being blown off the face of the earth.
The reaction of my friends in psychotherapy to the October Red Alert, like the reaction of the rest of the country, was a studied silence. Their analysis of Nixon’s personality and his need to prove his potency had been proved spectacularly accurate, to the extent of achieving that much-desired scientific goal of prediction. Yet, unbelievably, I now found I could no longer get anyone to discuss anything about Nixon’s personality, nor about the Red Alert. It was if an unspoken agreement existed which considered the topic “bad manners,” “unprofessional” in the extreme. Now when a gap in logic appears in the thinking patterns of a patient undergoing psychoanalysis, the therapist is trained to suspect the existence of a powerful unconscious fantasy. Let us call a shared fantasy of similar effect a “Group-fantasy,” and, further, let us call that Group-fantasy shared by the mental health community which strenuously denies the direct application of the insights of psychotherapy to history “The Group-fantasy of Specialization.”
This Group-fantasy of Specialization has at least three subordinate beliefs. The first is that there exists a separate group of individuals called “social scientists” who have a body of knowledge somehow beyond psychology which better explains an individual’s public behavior than depth psychology does. The second belief is that there exist entities called “social structures” and “political institutions” which are something over and above the individual psychological mechanisms which psychotherapists are used to dealing with in their patients. And the third belief is that there exist places called “universities” which house these “social science” specialists, who are alone qualified to describe and explain these “social structures” and “institutions.”
Now, let us for a moment imagine that, through a process similar to that of the lifting of repression in individual psychotherapy, this Group fantasy of Specialization were one day to be rationally examined, and, like all infantile fantasies, to disappear, and psychotherapists were all to realize that their psychological science and their ability to explain, weigh and predict the motivations and behavior of individuals is identical to that science which the "social scientists" had long dreamed of constructing. Let us suppose that psychotherapists were suddenly to realize that the 75-year split between the academic and the mental health community was in fact a reflection of two opposing attitudes, one admitting and one rejecting the existence of unconscious mental activity; that psychoanalytic psychology had been minimally tried and then vigorously rejected by every department in the university over the past four decades; and that, further, most of the theories of the “social sciences” have been motivated by a flight from psychology, a vast defensive response to the growing discoveries of depth psychology.
The concrete result of such a destruction of the Group-fantasy of Specialization, I would argue, would be for every unit within the mental health field to set up a psychohistory section. This psychohistory section would assume an obligation to accomplish research toward the construction of a new science of psychohistory, which would include everything from political psychology and group psychohistory to the history of childhood and psychobiography. One of these new psychohistory sections might want to reach out into the community and construct a taxology of family types, with generalizations on the kinds of personal and political behavior which result from childhood in differing kinds of families; a third might attempt to reconstruct the Watergate hearings as a kind of group-process, examining its group-unconscious determinants, and so on.
Here is a link: