The season is upon us, the kitchen’s getting mighty hot, and so now is obviously the time for some pretty serious political psychobiography. What do I mean by that? Looking at the lives and personalities of the presidential candidates for insights as to how they will lead this nation. It ain’t easy to do—politicians in this day and age are massively coached and tend to be skilled at “impression management” (even McCain’s so-called straight talk express is designed to produce a maverick, independent image). But it also ain’t impossible. For the best examples, check out the work of Alan Elms, David Winter, and Stanley Renshon. For my money, they are the best at what they do.

Recently several articles have addressed McCain’s anger. How will it impact his style of leadership? Is he truly a hothead? Has he addressed this tendency, as he claims? And if so, how exactly?

Then there is Hillary and her life with an intensely demanding and perfectionistic father. What effect does this kind of upbringing produce? Can its remnants be discerned in her psychology? Does it cripple her in certain respects? On a different note, does she really have a strong power motive, will she “say anything” to get elected?

Obama has come under intense scrutiny lately, for obvious reasons. A number of articles also have examined his early life—a father’s abandonment, a mother’s moral teachings, a childhood with grandparents. What can we learn from this? Is his pastor a sort of father-surrogate? Is that a reason for his inability to decisively reject what Wright says? I don’t know, but it’s a question worth exploring.

Most psychobiography is post-dictive; political psychobiography, however, is often predictive, and that is where its unique value lies. We can use it to uncover patterns, themes, tendencies, and motives that don’t just apply now, but also in the future. Character is an issue, chiefly because it is in part who we are. Character produces behavior, and behavior has consequences.