THE POLITICS OF SELF-ACTUALIZING PEOPLE

Suppose we start from the premises of Self-Actualization Psychology that created Theory Y of leadership and management. Suppose we start from Maslow’s picture of human beings who not only have lower-level needs as do the animals, but also have the higher-level needs that distinguishes us as humans (the theme of the books Unleashed! Self-Actualization Psychology, and Unleashing Leadership). If we start from that place, then what would our politics be?

Maslow would say first and foremost that human beings innately have the capacity for self- government. And what explains this capacity? Several sub-capacities, namely, the capacity to learn, to understanding, to make choices, to be a responsible human being, to care about values, to be courageous, to discipline oneself, to learn self-leadership, etc.

Until recently I didn’t understand why George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and others described the beginning of the United States as “an experiment in self-government.” I had read that phrase in their speeches, but I really didn’t comprehend what they were getting at. Now after a couple of years of study in their writings and in political science, I am beginning to understand. It goes back to what was occurring back in the eighteen century. Back then, there were no democratic countries. None, zero, nada. Instead, every country in the world was a Monarchy or a Dictatorship. They created that form of government because it was thought “the people” could not handle a democracy or a republic. They would argue, fight, debate, split, and then go to war and divide into smaller countries. The thought at that time was that government is best left to those who are educated and those who have had experience in government.

The colonists of the first thirteen colonies in the new world had a different idea. A new one. One revived from the ancient Greeks and Romans. They imagined an experiment wherein a republican form of government would be set up with sufficient checks and balances so that political and governmental “power” would be distributed and held accountable to the people they were representing. That was the original idea behind the new form of government created by the Founding Fathers of the United States. The question before them was a simple question, yet one that they didn’t know what the answer would be: Could a people form a union in which the government would be “of the people, by the people, and for the people?” Could a nation operate by the principle of self-government?

Eighty-seven years later Lincoln answered these questions and proposed a new question. He said that this was the only country founded on the principle that men would and could govern themselves.

“[T]he central idea pervading this struggle (the Civil War) is the necessity that is upon us,

of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.” (Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, p. 585)

The years since the beginning of the country had demonstrated that self-government is possible. We have done that. But the new question is this: Can a constitutional republic or democracy—a government of the people and by the people maintain itself and its territorial integrity? Can self-government last and be sustained?

I write all of this as a preamble for explaining another idea of the founding fathers of the American experiment. They sought to create as small a government as possible. They wanted the government to take on as few responsibilities as possible, and none of the individual responsibilities. They wanted the new government to be as little paternal and/or socialistic as possible. And why?

Using Self-Actualization Psychology, because growing, maturing, and actualizing humans don’t want it. Self-actualizing people do not want or need to be dependent on others for doing that they can do. When people experience the characteristics of self-actualization and begin living a self- actualizing lives, they are not content with being taken care of, giving up their responsibilities for making a living, pursuing visionary goals, conforming to fit in and avoid standing out from everyone else, putting up with mediocrity, etc.

The more a government thinks of people as children who need to be taken care of and themselves as the Parents, the more that government needs people to stay immature, un-developed, under- developed, irresponsible, and needy. The more it offers “goodies” to its people (welfare checks, unemployment checks, “free” food, transportation, etc.), the more people become dependent on government, the larger government grows, and the more freedoms are taken away from people.

What a paternalistic or socialistic kind of government does not handle well are self-actualizing people. After all, these are the people who want and need to be independent, hard working, and ethical. They want to create businesses and make money (since that’s where governments get its money). And actually, government needs a portion of the population to be like that, yet not too many. Certainly not enough to effect elections. Such people are dangerous to governments and politicians who want larger government. Such people think and ask hard questions and do not buy the status quo what is politically correct simply because it is popular or in vogue. They are independent thinkers who by critical thinking cut through propaganda and the political spin.

As a Self-Actualization Psychologist, I’m for people learning, growing, and developing their potentials. I’m for them becoming entrepreneurs or intrepreneurs and taking personal responsibility for their own financial well-being, health well-being, etc. I’m for them asking hard questions and exploring the assumptions behind the political spin and holding politicians accountable to a high moral and ethical stance. There is just something wrong about “public servants”—people who want to contribute to the overall well-fare of a society—getting rich in that service. I’m all for government functioning in those areas where individuals cannot handle something and providing freedom in all those areas where individuals are better equipped than government.