What is "Projection"?

How Politicians Divert Attention From Their Greatest Weakness

As described in Wikipedia, “projection” is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing interpersonal damage. Projection incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping.

Political strategist Carl Rove was often referred to as “Bush’s Brain” because former president W. Bush’s political success could be attributed to Rove’s strategies, from his defeat of a popular incumbent governor in 1994 to his thumping of a decorated veteran presidential challenger in 2004. Analyses of his strategies have revealed 15 tactics that lead to his successes. Tactic #3 is summarized as “Accuse Your Opponent of What He/She is Going to Accuse You Of“

Projection is not a new concept. Indeed, Jesus indirectly addresses and condemns it in Matthew 7:3-5

“3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (NIV)

In other words, don’t call attention to another person’s very small issue when you yourself have a far more concerning variation of that same issue.

In politics, candidates sometimes accuse opponents of corruption, dishonesty, or incompetence, traits that they themselves possess. If the candidate struggles with economic policy, they project economic incompetence onto the opposition, diverting attention from themselves. This not only muddies the political discourse but also creates a polarized environment where objective analysis is nearly impossible. By projecting these characteristics onto their rivals, they undermine their credibility and shift scrutiny away from their own actions. This tactic can be highly effective in shaping voter perceptions and influencing election outcomes.

In their rise to economic and political power, Nazis claimed that Jews around the world were conspiring to gain economic and political power. They falsely accused Jews of causing Germany’s revolution and its loss in World War I. They charged that loss allowed them to rapidly take control of the country’s economy, culture, and press. They promoted old stereotypes of Jews as criminals, dishonest businessmen, and enemies of Christianity. Many Germans were already afraid of communism and exploitative finance capitalism so the Nazis claimed that those polar opposite philosophies were simultaneously tools of Jewish domination. Nazis used these projections while they themselves were conspiring to gain economic and political power, rapidly seizing control of the country’s economy, culture, and press.

Closer to home and recent history, we’ve heard one candidate paint his opponents as “Lyin’ Ted”, “Crooked Hillary”, or “Crazy Bernie”. He accused one opponent of being “a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future”. He criticized another opponent for not releasing ALL of his tax returns. He berated an incumbent president for playing too much golf, watching too much TV, and using Air Force One for “politics and play”. He accused another incumbent president of nepotism. Meanwhile, he has been proven to have publicly lied more than 30,000 times during his first term in office alone, while referring to every source that documents his lies as “fake news” (Hitler used the term “Lügenpresse“ - “Lying Press”). He appointed his own children and in-laws to powerful government and political positions, refused to release ANY of his tax returns, used Air Force One for more golf and political trips than all previous presidents in history combined, famously watched the January 6 insurrection unfold on TV while doing nothing about it, and committed so many crimes while in office that he was impeached twice and convicted of 34 felonies, and was indicted for nearly 60 more where he avoided prison only through the delaying action of justices he appointed, until the next election. Additionally, he was civilly found liable for sexual assault, a term in common parlance used interchangeably with “rape”. Most recently, hundreds of thousands of “Hands Off” protestors have been declared to be “paid protesters”. Seems pretty dishonest, “crooked”, and “crazy” to me.

Dr. Lance Dodes, a noted psychoanalyst and psychiatrist notes that the current president bypasses engaging with his opponents at the level of logical argumentation, which would involve some sort of background knowledge on a topic. Preparation would then be necessary in order to make a reasoned or persuasive case about his favored positions and/or why he is being treated unfairly. His use of projection is surprisingly effective at discrediting his opponents.

Often missed in any discussion of propaganda or projection is the fact that it’s an indication or prediction of the accusers behavior. At the very minimum, it suggests that the listener needs to consider whether or not it’s an admission of something new. “Paid protesters” comes to mind most recently, but over a longer period of time, accusations of criminal behavior, bigotry, exclusion, and discrimination are also worthy of careful evaluation.

On a personal note, I’ve long considered any new accusation to be an admission of his own wrongdoing until proven otherwise. I find this attitude to be mind opening and worth sharing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

https://www.scribd.com/document/42851950/Carl-Rove-Campaign-Tactics

https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/propaganda/1918-1933/revloutionizing-election-campaigning-hitler-over-germany

https://analytic-room.com/essays/projection-as-a-political-weapon-chris-bell-gary-senecal/