Power and the President

Note:

The paper Strategy in the Human Pair Bond should be read first.

Aided by the technologies of birth control and DNA testing, humans can selectively override their biological gender imperatives. The result is a male-female relationship that is balanced in emotional and sexual power, paving the way for all other forms of gender equity.

In this document, the December 1998 debate on US President Clinton’s morality is framed within the context of power dynamics in the human pair bond. For the student of power dynamics in the pair bond, one issue leaps to the front. That issue is the contrast between a US President’s political power and a US President’s emotional and sexual power.

The President of the United States is described as the "Leader of the Free World." This term refers to the political, military and economic influence of the United States upon other countries that practice democracy. When one enters into a political negotiation with the US President, one enters into a negotiation with the array of political, military and economic forces that he represents on the world stage.

When the US President negotiates with a woman in an emotional or sexual context, he negotiates, like all other men, as one man against all of womankind. As a human male at the close of the 20^th century, he has learned not to talk to other men about male emotions and sexuality. The US President, like all men of this time period, is at an emotional disadvantage against the collective female wisdom available to a woman at the close of the 20^th century.

The path to spiritual development in the arena of male emotions and sexuality lies in talking to other men, not women, about those feelings. Which men should the US President talk to? As the "Leader of the Free World", he is obligated to not employ the political, military and economic influence of his office for personal gain. As homo sapiens, male, late 20^th century, in need of emotional support from other men, he needs to talk to someone.

There are few men surrounding the President of the United States who do not wield political, military or economic influence. If he accepts emotional support from anyone in a position of power, the support would be construed as having been requested as, "President, United States", rather than as, "Homo sapiens, male, late 20^th century". To obtain emotional counsel, the US President must find other males who know him, whom he trusts with highly personal information, and who have no political power.

The impossibility of this situation is clear. By virtue of the political power given to the US President, the primary developmental path for his male emotional power is blocked. If the US President speaks to anyone of his emotional and sexual problems, he will be viewed as employing the power of his office. Society’s inability to separate political power from male emotional and sexual power traps the US President in a position of silence.

The preceding discussion applies to a human male holding the office of US President in the late 20^th century. Consider now the situation of US President William Jefferson Clinton in 1998.

From the above analysis, President Clinton did both the manly thing and the honorable thing by not talking to anyone about his emotional and sexual issues. It was "manly" of him to try and find emotional growth without the help of others. It was "honorable" to not seek help from anyone in a position of power, which would have required the disclosure of his problem. Disclosure distributes the emotional burden among those to whom the problem is disclosed. Adult US males of the late 20^th century are expected to solve their sexual and emotional problems alone.

From the perspective of power dynamics in the human pair bond, US President Clinton was placed in an untenable situation on two fronts. As President, he was cut off from the emotional support of other males, which he could not draw upon without placing an enormous burden upon the males in question. As a human male of the late 20^th century, he negotiated at an emotional disadvantage, as all human males of this time period do, with a female who possessed the emotional resources of all of womankind, as all human females of this time period possess.

The seemingly trivial debate about President Clinton’s actions marks a turning point in the global recognition of women’s emotional power. The historical record will show that in the late 20^th century, it took only two women to shake the foundations of the office and institution of "Leader of the Free World". This was done by the interjection of legal and technological force into the unwritten trust relationship between the two women.

Consider the structural disadvantage of the President’s position in terms of male emotional power. The President’s possession of political power stripped him of all avenues of support for male emotional power. Concealment of his situation does not demonstrate an abuse of his political power, but his fervent attempts not to abuse his political power. It was impossible for him to seek male emotional support without compromising his office. Concealment was an attempt to be his own emotional counsel.

How can this situation be dealt with? The role of US President lies at the top of the global political food chain. From which community should his male emotional support structure be drawn, such that its members have no political influence? What if the US President was a woman, who relied upon an extensive female support structure prior to taking office? Should she disconnect herself from her female emotional support network, to avoid appearances of her abusing her political power? Should her personal conversations be admissible in court?

These are governance questions that must be answered for the sake of future generations. It may seem difficult for government to consider matters of gender dynamics, but these were addressed centuries ago in The Iroquois Constitution. The Iroquois specified that Lordship Titles were to be controlled by women, who then assigned them to men. They elegantly distributed power between men and women, a feat we have not yet matched.

As described in Strategy in the Human Pair Bond, social gender dynamics have been dramatically changed by the two technologies of birth control and DNA testing. Our legal and governance systems must evolve to represent a society where social orders are altered daily by technology.

Social evolution occurs imperceptibly relative to technological evolution. When intense conflict occurs around a seemingly insignificant event, it is often a precursor to the social equivalent of a geological earthquake. Many small technology innovations produce small social changes. One day, the mass of changes produces a large and unexpected social result, analogous to the sudden movement of geological plates.

We then emotionally confront the social consequences of a generation of technological change. The confusion we feel and the absence of historical guidance are not predictors of looming irrationality. They are signs that we have crossed a threshold of social awareness and can now create a language to navigate the new social landscape.

The 1998 US Presidential Crisis is a social earthquake that ushers in a new era of gender relations. Social trauma is the price we pay for the benefits we have accepted from the technology piper. There will be more to pay for future technology innovations, in forms that we cannot even conceive of today.

May our governments keep pace with our technologists.