A POLITICAL MATURITY SCALE: Off the Right/Left Axis and Outside the Boxes
Is Going to War Politically Immature?
"The world we have made, as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far, creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of thinking at which we created them." - ALBERT EINSTEIN
Our “Malignant Spiral of Hostile Interaction”(Mort Deutsch)
We are being dragged into simultaneous national and international spirals of escalating hostility. Right/left polarized US political dynamics fuel a frenzy that provokes mass hysteria domestically which drive momentum in foreign policies that begin, deepen and expand wars that obscenely enrich few although unwanted by most.
Relentless mutual provocation generates what is known in systems theory as positive feedback loops. Family therapist Lynn Hoffman called these “deviation amplifying mutual causal processes.”
“Deviation amplifying mutual causal processes reinforce change in either direction, as “when a child’s behavior steadily improves with praise or deteriorates with blame” (p. 203). Davidson (1983) also describes how a viable system can be destroyed by feeding back inaccurate and misinformation, as in biased journalism. The nuclear arms race and the escalation of terrorism are examples of destructive positive feedback spirals. Perlman, Diane,” Intersubjective Dimensions of Terrorism and Its Transcendence”(2002)
I wish to reframe these dualistic destructive dynamics to a dimension of political maturity as a way off the right/left axis and out of the Republican and Democratic boxes.[1]
Post Partisan – Not Bipartisan, Trans-partisan or Nonpartisan
As I wrote in Imagine There’s No Parties:
The US two-party system fuels simplistic, black-and-white, us/them, right/left, dualistic thinking. You agree to live in one of two boxes which automatically pits you against people in the other box. You adopt attitudes, beliefs and policy positions that the party has assigned to your box, with no need to think each one through. You feel you know all there is to know about what people in the other box believe - and you may be right - so there is no need for dialogue.
Although the right/left axis is very compelling and seems to be a self-evident reality, I find living life within one category opposed to another to be destructive and self-limiting. It produces inevitable, endless conflict with no endgame except destruction. It encourages mindlessness and artificial psychological boundaries that shape and constrain identity and beliefs in ways that influence relationships inside and outside one’s box and can hinder authentic connections and spontaneity.
Note: Although I do not support Trump, I find RFK, Jr.’s concept of a Unity Party in which people with different political orientations can work together for goals they agree upon a doable way out of the duality. No need for black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. I don’t like MAGA but I love MAHA, Make America Healthy Again, and even more I love MAHAHA, Make America Happy and Healthy Again, suggested by none other than my friend, Steve Bhaerman, AKA the Cosmic Comic Swami Beyondananda.
Reframing as Political Maturity
In 2003 I was struggling to reframe these categories in a way that was descriptive and operational. I arrived at Political Maturity. I chose it over political intelligence as more accurate and useful. Intelligent people can be immature. Also, it is possible for people to evolve to become more mature, conscious, and wiser.
Here is my attempt at a post partisan political maturity scale as it relates to addressing conflict. Hence, PMACS – The Political Maturity in Addressing Conflict Scale.
I just revised it again and welcome input for changes and additions and ideas for use in research or rating politicians or other applications beyond my skill set.
Following the scale is my exploration about going to war as politically immature.
THE POLITICAL MATURITY SCALE: BEYOND RIGHT-LEFT POLITICS by Diane Perlman, Ph.D. © 2003, written around the predictably cataclysmic US led invasion of Iraq, revised 2024
POLITICAL MATURITY IN ADDRESSING CONFLICT SCALE (PMACS)
Items for
Cognitive Maturity
Emotional Maturity
Relational Maturity
Strategic Maturity
Politically Immature vs. Politically Mature
Cognitive Maturity
Simplistic black & white thinking vs. Complex, multidimensional, nuanced thinking
Dichotomous vs. Transcendent approach
Immediate, here and now focus vs. Long-range thinking
Superficiality vs. Depth
Rigidity vs. Flexibility
Linearity vs. Multidimensionality
Gripped by right & wrong vs. Focus on improvement, problem-solving
Theory driven, self-justifying vs. Data driven, objective observation
Need to intensely hold certain beliefs vs. Willingness to change attitudes and beliefs based on new information
Misperceives cues vs. Perceives cues accurately, intended meaning
Compartmentalized, fragmented view vs. Interactive, integrated understanding
Static vs. Dynamic understanding
Focus on one dimension at a time vs. ability to focus on more than one dimension (Piaget)
Dishonest vs. Truthful
Acausality, ignorance of causal conditions, factors and forces vs. Causality, understanding cause and effect
Ahistorical, acontextual vs. Understanding of context
See events as unrelated vs. seeing effects of one’s actions (Heisenberg principle)
All-or-nothing thinking vs. Capacity to tolerate ambiguity
Justify previous intentions vs. learning from experience
Poor reality testing, perceptions dominated by emotions and false beliefs vs. Objectivity, seeing patterns
Denial vs. Recognition
Immature, physical hero vs. Mature moral hero
Primitive, archetypal imagery vs. humanized, mature understanding
Identify with ingroup vs. Identification with humanity balanced with one’s group identities
Confirmation bias vs. Openness to disconfirming alternatives
Negativity bias vs. Neutrality and giving balanced weight to positive and negative
Dunning-Kruger Effect, overestimation of one’s abilities vs. accurate recognition of one’s abilities compared to others
Ultimate attribution error (attribute others’ negative behavior to personality traits, character and group stereotypes and one’s own group’s negative behaviors to external, situational causes) vs. Recognizing situational causes of others’ behavior
Emotional Maturity
Ego Driven vs. (Higher) Self Originating
Bravado, arrogance vs. Humility, sensitivity
Identity shaped by opposition to other (sex, race, party) vs. Freedom to develop identity according to one’s inner dictates
Concrete, physical vs. Psychological, dynamic understanding
Me and my people are always right vs. ability to criticize oneself and one’s group when warranted
Invulnerability vs. Vulnerability
Overconfidence vs. Capacity for doubt, uncertainty
Externalization, blame vs. Self-awareness, responsibility
Gripped, consumed by emotional forces vs. objective thinking, withstanding challenges
Denial of death, desire to master death vs. Awareness of mortality and vulnerability
Emotional Rigidity vs. Adaptability, flexibility
Proud vs. Humble
Ruthless, cold expedience vs. Compassion, empathy
Susceptibility of propaganda and psychological manipulation vs. Ability to recognize manipulation, motives and perceive underlying truth, know when being lied to
Cowardice vs. Courage
Relational Maturity
Self-absorption vs ability to take perspective of the Other
Projection onto others vs. Consciousness, self-criticism, integration of one’s shadow
Stereotyped, primitive enemy imaging vs. Understanding the Other
Dehumanization of Other vs. Empathy for the enemy
Zero sum (win – lose) vs. Non-Zero sum thinking (win – win)
Blaming vs. Understanding, curiosity, responsibility
Spiteful vs. Yielding
Controlling, dominating vs. Empowering and sharing power
Paranoid style (possibly self-fulfilling) vs. Reassuring style
Submission to authority, following orders vs. Willingness to challenge authority
Conformity vs. Thinking for oneself, individuated, autonomous
Humiliate others vs. Dignify others, treat with respect
Strategic Maturity
Reactive vs. Proactive
Tension-increasing vs. tension-reducing
Increasing fear vs. Decreasing fear
Provocative vs. Calming
Destructive vs. constructive
Vengeful vs. Problem-solving, Healing
Polarizing vs. Collaborative, Synergistic
Punitive Justice vs. Reparative and restorative Justice
Violent force vs. Higher “Metaforce” (political, economic, social, educational, moral forms of nonviolent force)
Foreclosing options vs. Generating options
Ends justify means vs. Integrity of ends and means
Misrepresent intentions vs. Communicate sincere intentions
Undermine trust vs. Build trust
Creating enemies vs. De-enmification, transforming enmity
Engendering moral outrage vs Engendering calmness
Coercion vs. Diplomacy
Sanctions vs. Incentives
Deterrence vs. Reassurance
Mutually assured destruction vs. Mutually assured survival
Political Maturity Ratings
1 Destructive Dictators & Despots
2 Dangerous Unconsciously Impulsive
3 Harmful Immature
4 Colluding Neutral
5 Helpful Mature
6 Constructive Wise
7 Creative Transcendent – Visionary, Transformative. Courageous
In family therapy I also learned about First Order Change, addressing the symptoms versus Second Order Change, addressing the relationship systems which I applied to the nuclear arms race.
When Going to War is Politically Immature: Beyond Left - Right Politics (written in 2003 before the US led invasion of Iraq, which I failed to prevent, slightly revised in 2024)
Introducing the Concept of Political Maturity
This is an attempt to reframe the simplistic, dualistic right-left, liberal - conservative categories in public discourse according to the dimension of “Political Maturity." Right/Left categories can be used to reduce, dismiss, and demonize those with opposing views in ways that stop thinking and foreclose dialogue. By being descriptive, issues can be raised more accurately, intelligently, and with greater maturity. We will focus on discourse about war and conflict with an emphasis on consequences of rhetoric.
Is Going to War Politically Immature?
You don’t need a degree in psychology to understand the arguments for war in terms of Political Maturity. It is an illusion to believe that war will simply destroy Saddam (2014 update - or Assad, ISIS, Osama, Qadafi) (2024 update Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran) without fueling more hatred and rage, unleashing escalation of chaos, terrorism, death and environmental destruction, including US targets. Strategies of “going after bad guys” are shortsighted, simplistic, egocentric, concrete, dangerous, psychologically ignorant and politically immature.
As my colleagues and I predicted in 2002-3, the “Global War on Terror” launched after 9/11/01, had the opposite effect of provoking a many fold increase in terrorism. Our policies were met with decentralization and proliferation of terrorist groups. The GWOT increased recruitment and the development of counter-measures in response to so called “counter-terrorism (CT)” which is an oxymoron. CT goes after the symptom, not the cause. It inevitably requires a war on the war on terror.
We are in a new age of global terrorism, a form of asymmetrical warfare, proliferating weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as well as conventional weapons. It is naive to believe that that the US can still use threats of violence to dominate and control the world without provoking retaliation. A war would not be “preemptive” or “preventive”, as we are seduced into believing, but provocative. The expectation of clean preemption is an example of what psychotherapists call "poor reality testing.”
The fantasy that we can conduct a "war on terrorism" by killing terrorists and physically destroying infrastructures, while we are simultaneously provoking more recruits and more terrorism, now more decentralized, hidden, creative and clever. It shows a lack of insight into the nature of terrorism and a failure of intuition.
Ego-Based Politics
The refusal to recognize and address the root causes that drive terrorism, to work to remedy the suffering, injustice, humiliation, and just grievances is a manifestation of ego-based politics which reinforces escalating spirals of violence. Ego politics splits the world into us and them, right and wrong, good and evil. It is preoccupied with anger and revenge. It aims to win in a lose-lose scenario at the expense of strategies that reduce tension and violence. The obsession with “not letting the terrorists win” clouds thinking about wise strategies. One always gets to be right and good, but fuels cycles of violence and retaliation. There is no way to win anymore in this world of WMDs and asymmetrical warfare.
Transcendent Politics
A higher level political consciousness is required to transcend terrorism and replace war with a healthy way of responding to conflict. There are bodies of knowledge of proven, effective methods in tension reduction, conflict transformation and violence prevention that are virtually absent in politics, the media and public discourse.
If people were aware of their existence, and were educated and trained, we could raise consciousness of and support for mature, problem-solving, wise strategies that would increase global security.
This scale is a work in progress, designed to illuminate the underlying maturity of political phenomena in response to conflicts. It can be placed in the field of conflict studies as well as developmental, cognitive, and political psychology, political science and international relations.
PMACS is consistent and isomorphic with developmental models and scales including: Loevinger’s scale of ego development, Piagetian cognitive, social and moral development, Kohlberg’s moral development, Gilligan’s moral orientations of justice and mercy, Erikson’s Eight Stages of Man (trust versus mistrust), Kleinian psychological positions of paranoid schizoid position and depressive position.
Conflict is a charged field easily predisposed to automatic emotional reactions that require maturity to transcend. As Carl Jung said, consciousness is a work against nature.
This model can be applied to political speeches, spontaneous comments and interviews, slogans, articles, policies, strategies and media that address conflict situations, that are intended to influence public opinion with regard to "us and them" and potential for violence.
Maturity is based on simultaneous aspects of inner psychological, emotional and cognitive organization as well as external interpersonal, social, political and military orientations in response to rhetoric, such as in inciting violence or reducing hostility.
This scale can function as a tool that provides an objective measure to rate candidates, political speeches and their consequences in a scientific way. We should consider whether a speech is written or spontaneous, as speech writers may be at a higher level, while spontaneous remarks may reveal one's level of maturity more accurately.
We can compare some historical samples of speeches that provoked consequences – positive and negative - and rate them, and/or compare speeches from Gandhi, Mandela, JFK’s speech at American University, Hitler’.
This scale is an attempt to replace the simplistic, reductive, thought-stopping right-left categorization of people and ideas.
Research ideas -1 - to study relationship between PMACS & violence in history
2 - to rate political candidates and strategies for maturity
[1] I recognize that these divisions are also driven by what my friend, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern calls MICIMATT, the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academic Think Tank Complex, including visible and hidden forces, the deep state and conflicts of interest, globalists, huge profits, domination and control. Here I will address public discourse and collective consciousness and maturity required to challenge these forces rather than feeding them.
"Left" used to mean something that I could feel good about. I was Left because I didn't want to wage wars to protect Capital. I was Left because in the struggle between workers and business, I was on the side of workers. I was Left because it meant freedom of speech and freedom from arbitrary rules made by self-righteous busybodies.
The words "Left" and "Liberal" have been stolen from us. Now that Kamala Harris is denounced by Trumpsters as a "communist" while she has the enthusiastic support of Dick Cheney -- what can it possibly mean to be "Left" today?
Sensible, deep, real, as is all you write, Diane ... My thoughts on this moment and MAHA (or MAHAHA, that's great :) ), are that the first name on the Republican presidential ticket is a man who often speaks impulsively (or so it seems), and has a brash immaturity that naturally turns many people off, and has also been exaggerated and exploited to turn as many people as possible into TDS-zombies, incapable of curiosity.
I'd surely rather a President Kennedy than President Trump. But, the DNC-aligned blob made that impossible, so, here we are.
And surrounding Trump, whose character it's hard to even really know at this point, with all the media manipulation, but who, yes, has said obnoxious things - are so many people of such deep, admirable, amazing maturity. Some are only aligned with Trump because at this point its the only way through, given what the party of mandates, censorship, prosecution of heroic doctors, and endless war, has done.
And the TDS mindset is locked in to focus on the obvious immature qualities of one man, amplified immensely by media gaslighting and things that are not even true at all ("very fine people on both sides" completely out of context, for one of many examples),
And they are so afraid of him, hate him so, so much ... that they refuse to be curious about people like the wonderful souls who spoke at Ron Johnson's hearing on Monday, about restoring health to soils, people, and the scientific process. ...