Psychoanalytic Assessments of Character and PerformancePredictions of individuals require a knowledge of the psychologi-
cal frames into which this person might best fit. However, it also
requires knowledge of the unique constellation of elements, the char-
acterological and psychological strengths and weakness, that define
this person. Individuals with substantial levels of ambition and the
necessarily talent, along with the focused persistence to reach the
top, are more likely to be successful. And, having achieved success
because of their past behavior, they are more likely to persist in the
patterns they have developed.
However, predicting the behavior of shrewd, intelligent, and
highly functioning individuals, who are acutely aware of their cir-
cumstances and what may be needed to surmount them, is a very
tricky undertaking. It is possible that, in spite of their own psycho-
logical inclinations, such persons will overcome any adverse
impulses, if not alone, then certainly with the help of many advisers
whose only occupational purpose is to help the leader succeed. This
just adds one more layer to the hurdles that must be overcome if
character or type is to carry the burden of prediction.
Lasswell (1930, 38—64) argues that building political typologies
is a useful route for developing and refining theories of political lead-
ership. But Barber's (Barber [1972] 1992) efforts suggest the limits
of these efforts for predicting the behavior of presidents.^7
If we compare the logic of political typologies to the more specific
formulations of individual leaders we can discern some paradoxical
features. By sacrificing specificity for generalization, a focus on the
former undercuts their rationale vis-a-vis the latter. That is, more
but not wholly accurate generalization may wind up being pur-
chased at the expense of better understanding and thus, in the par-
ticular case, better prediction.
The Analysis of Consistency
Psychoanalytically framed studies of presidential biography and per-
formance face daunting problems in trying to develop confidence in
their theories and procedures. Many strategies available in the social
sciences more generally are not possible for them. They cannot, for
example, make use of large or multiple samples for establishing reli-
able probability estimates. The confidence that psychoanalytic for-
mulations earn is ultimately a function of their being critical in