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.