The Psychology of Gangsters & Politicians

[celtic_crippler]

I was watching a former gang member being interviewed on the television series “Gangland” when he made a comment that I found interesting.

It was in reference to why it was so hard for former gang members to reform. I don’t recall what he said verbatim, but it was along the lines of the feeling of power they derive from it was so addictive that it made living a “normal” life almost unbearable.

He cited examples of how “the dope man” gave him free weed and how women did whatever he wanted. He spoke of how powerful it made him feel knowing people in the neighborhood feared him.

That got me to thinking about our politicians and wondering if this was indeed the same psychology behind their actions. I thought“…this would explain a lot,” so I started digging. (I discovered that there is actually an interdisciplinary off-shoot of Psychology that’s dedicated to studying why politicians do what they do… fascinating.)

As I dug, I found some stunning similarities between the two:

• The importance they attach to status
• Their levels of moral disengagement
• The lack of personal responsibility and a propensity to blame others
• The use of euphemism to disguise otherwise unfavorable actions
• The addiction to power and control

What separates them, then? Why does one become a gangster and the other a politician? Is there really a difference other than what side of the “law” you happen to be find yourself?

I thought the obvious answer was socio-economic; the family they were born into, their family’s social status, and the related environment they are raised in (including availability of education and networking ability.)

But that’s not applicable in every case. There are examples of those who overcame adversity to come to political power. There are examples of kids who come from upper-middle class homes with good families that join gangs.

But when I thought on that further, it did nothing to discount the psychology behind it, if anything it added proof that these people are exactly the same when it comes to brain chemistry.

Therefore, I concluded that the psychology of gangsters and politicians is likely the same.

Just trying to make some sense of the world as I have way too much time on my hands these days and thought this would make for an interesting conversation.

Your thoughts?

 

[Steve]

Might be something to it. I've heard from several of my LEO friends that a lot of really good cops could point to one or two significant people or incidences in their youth that turned them toward law enforcement and away from delinquency. They say that good cops would also, if they chose, be great criminals.

So, I can see what you're talking about, although it seems to me that there are some pretty negative, potentially untrue presumtpions that a direct comparison makes. What I'm getting at is that there are some fundamental differences between a politician and a gang member. A politician isn't necessarily a criminal, for example. Particularly where a gang member is likely to be a murderer, drug dealer, or guilty of any number of heinous crimes.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Might be something to it. I've heard from several of my LEO friends that a lot of really good cops could point to one or two significant people or incidences in their youth that turned them toward law enforcement and away from delinquency. They say that good cops would also, if they chose, be great criminals.

So, I can see what you're talking about, although it seems to me that there are some pretty negative, potentially untrue presumtpions that a direct comparison makes. What I'm getting at is that there are some fundamental differences between a politician and a gang member. A politician isn't necessarily a criminal, for example. Particularly where a gang member is likely to be a murderer, drug dealer, or guilty of any number of heinous crimes.

But aren't they? Perhaps even worse because they're on the "right side of the law." Politicians have the ability to decide who it's okay to kill and what drugs are legal to take.

Our government routinely murders, as pointed out in the "Meanwhile in Pakistan and Yemen" thread where our drone strikes have killed many women and children. They even torture; remember the waterboarding hoopla? I'm sure those who were tortured consider that pretty heinous.

And in regards to drug dealing, the Pharmaceutical Lobby is firmly embedded in D.C. and politicians recieve all kinds of "favors" for supporting them. How's that really much different from a high level drug king-pin? The problems with addiction and abuse are not restricted to illegal drugs. Not to mention that many "legal" drugs have worse side effects and/or are more addictive than some "illegal" drugs.

I would assert that the only real difference is the level of control and power they have as well as to the scope of effects their actions have.

What are your thoughts regarding the bullet points I made concerning their mindset? Do you find any that you feel aren't true?

 

[celtic_crippler]

Afterthought:

How is Eric Holder selling guns to Mexican Drug Cartels any different than T-Bone selling guns out of the trunk of his car to 14 year old gang-bangers?

 

[Big Don]

Afterthought:

How is Eric Holder selling guns to Mexican Drug Cartels any different than T-Bone selling guns out of the trunk of his car to 14 year old gang-bangers?

If T-Bone gets caught, he'll get in legal trouble for it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

There's a bit of what I see a flaw in your reasoning. Your base assumption regarding politicians is, essentially, that they are corrupt people, in the ways you've described, while offering no proof of those statements. At the same time, you are saying that due to your assumption, and the assumption that gangsters are corrupt in similar ways, that the conclusion is that they have similar psyches. However, since you do not provide any proof that your assumption is a valid one (and it's not a 'common sense' assumption, since some people, like myself, would disagree with it) any conclusion you draw would be invalid as well. If you could prove that assumption, then the logic would make sense, but until then the conclusion that the psychology of the two groups is similar and/or the same isn't valid

 

[Steve]

But aren't they? Perhaps even worse because they're on the "right side of the law." Politicians have the ability to decide who it's okay to kill and what drugs are legal to take.

Our government routinely murders, as pointed out in the "Meanwhile in Pakistan and Yemen" thread where our drone strikes have killed many women and children. They even torture; remember the waterboarding hoopla? I'm sure those who were tortured consider that pretty heinous.

And in regards to drug dealing, the Pharmaceutical Lobby is firmly embedded in D.C. and politicians recieve all kinds of "favors" for supporting them. How's that really much different from a high level drug king-pin? The problems with addiction and abuse are not restricted to illegal drugs. Not to mention that many "legal" drugs have worse side effects and/or are more addictive than some "illegal" drugs.

I would assert that the only real difference is the level of control and power they have as well as to the scope of effects their actions have.

What are your thoughts regarding the bullet points I made concerning their mindset? Do you find any that you feel aren't true?

I think you're reacting to a negative caricature of politicians. Some may certainly fit your profile. I don't believe that most do, however. And by definition, if they are n the right side of the law, they cannot also be on the wrong side of it.

As I said, you make a few interesting points, but ultimately, it reveals more about your views on government and politics than anything profound regarding politicians or gangsters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steve]

There's a bit of what I see a flaw in your reasoning. Your base assumption regarding politicians is, essentially, that they are corrupt people, in the ways you've described, while offering no proof of those statements. At the same time, you are saying that due to your assumption, and the assumption that gangsters are corrupt in similar ways, that the conclusion is that they have similar psyches. However, since you do not provide any proof that your assumption is a valid one (and it's not a 'common sense' assumption, since some people, like myself, would disagree with it) any conclusion you draw would be invalid as well. If you could prove that assumption, then the logic would make sense, but until then the conclusion that the psychology of the two groups is similar and/or the same isn't valid

Exactly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[oftheherd1]

Might be something to it. I've heard from several of my LEO friends that a lot of really good cops could point to one or two significant people or incidences in their youth that turned them toward law enforcement and away from delinquency. They say that good cops would also, if they chose, be great criminals.

So, I can see what you're talking about, although it seems to me that there are some pretty negative, potentially untrue presumtpions that a direct comparison makes. What I'm getting at is that there are some fundamental differences between a politician and a gang member. A politician isn't necessarily a criminal, for example. Particularly where a gang member is likely to be a murderer, drug dealer, or guilty of any number of heinous crimes.

Nor is a criminal necessarily a politician, but may take an active interest in local community affairs. :uhyeah:

However, I agree that politicians should not be considered criminals just because they are in fact, politicians. It is my personal opinion that many politicians become such in order to feel like they are doing some civic service. The realities of current US political affairs may easily corrupt them, some muchly, others only a little. I do think that some are influenced by power. Consider the position of US President. Considering their monetary pay for what they are supposed to do, why in the world would one want a second term. Yet most of them do.

But aren't they? Perhaps even worse because they're on the "right side of the law." Politicians have the ability to decide who it's okay to kill and what drugs are legal to take.

Our government routinely murders, as pointed out in the "Meanwhile in Pakistan and Yemen" thread where our drone strikes have killed many women and children. They even torture; remember the waterboarding hoopla? I'm sure those who were tortured consider that pretty heinous.

And in regards to drug dealing, the Pharmaceutical Lobby is firmly embedded in D.C. and politicians recieve all kinds of "favors" for supporting them. How's that really much different from a high level drug king-pin? The problems with addiction and abuse are not restricted to illegal drugs. Not to mention that many "legal" drugs have worse side effects and/or are more addictive than some "illegal" drugs.

I would assert that the only real difference is the level of control and power they have as well as to the scope of effects their actions have.

What are your thoughts regarding the bullet points I made concerning their mindset? Do you find any that you feel aren't true?

I'm not sure how much of this relates to the OP, but I couldn't let it go. I think one has to be very careful to say that terrorists who choose to live with their families as a part of their culture, when they are targeted, make the US murderers. Of course they wish to make us appear so as part of their wish to safely use their families as shields. I think it despicable for them to put their families at risk that way.

There's a bit of what I see a flaw in your reasoning. Your base assumption regarding politicians is, essentially, that they are corrupt people, in the ways you've described, while offering no proof of those statements. At the same time, you are saying that due to your assumption, and the assumption that gangsters are corrupt in similar ways, that the conclusion is that they have similar psyches. However, since you do not provide any proof that your assumption is a valid one (and it's not a 'common sense' assumption, since some people, like myself, would disagree with it) any conclusion you draw would be invalid as well. If you could prove that assumption, then the logic would make sense, but until then the conclusion that the psychology of the two groups is similar and/or the same isn't valid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee might show a kind of proof. Consider the function of political pacs. Most are for the benefit of politicans. That benefit is a financial benefit. It is only for the politicians, not the country as a whole. The politicians get monetary benefit; something for personal gain. Look also, for curiosity, at those politicians who have been fined, not prosecuted, because of the self-serving laws made by our politicians.

Looking up corruption at wikipedia, you find the following:

In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Government, or 'political', corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for his or her own personal gain.

Mind you, I certainly do not intend to lable every politician as corrupt, and without ideals or morals. But I fear there may be many that would fit that description, and if so, the rest aren't doing anything to change that.