A new book revisits Freud’s analysis of Woodrow Wilson to ask: how much do leaders’ psychologies shape our politics?
Woodrow Wilson, despite not being the maniac his title suggests, was one of the most psychologically complex U.S. presidents. Often viewed as an idealist by the public, his tenure was marked by profound contradictions. Wilson was celebrated for his “Fourteen Points,” a peace proposal to end the First World War, which promised self-determination to oppressed peoples. At the war’s close, when Germany sought an armistice in 1918, it was Wilson, not other Allied leaders, that they hoped would show mercy. His internationalist ideals won him global admiration, and crowds cheered his arrival in European capitals, showering him with flowers.
However, behind his grand ideals lay a man tortured by internal struggles. Wilson’s obsession with establishing the League of Nations as a platform for global peace bordered on mania. His single-minded dedication to this cause ultimately contributed to his physical decline. Despite his efforts, the U.S. Senate rejected the treaty, unwilling to commit to the League. Wilson’s health rapidly deteriorated, yet he continued to promote the peace agreement through an exhausting nationwide speaking tour, a pursuit that only exacerbated his physical fragility. Three weeks into the tour, he suffered a massive stroke, leading to his partial incapacitation for the remainder of his presidency.
Wilson’s collapse, both physically and politically, highlights how leaders’ personal and psychological battles can shape their political legacies. His inability to negotiate with his own government on the League of Nations, paired with his obsessive drive to push through an idealistic foreign policy at all costs, raises the question of how much a leader’s psyche influences national politics. As Wilson’s story shows, the mental and emotional health of a president can dramatically affect not just their effectiveness, but the direction of an entire nation’s future.
This exploration into Wilson’s psyche through the lens of Freud’s analysis offers a fresh perspective on the often-overlooked psychological dimensions of leadership. It suggests that personal turmoil and psychological strain, especially in such high-stakes roles, can have far-reaching implications on political decisions and, by extension, on history itself. While Wilson is remembered for his vision of a more peaceful world, the toll his internal struggles took on him and his presidency invites us to consider how deeply personal flaws and traumas can shape the fate of nations.
The analysis of Wilson’s mental state is a reminder that the public personas of leaders may not fully reflect the personal battles they face. Their decisions, influenced by deep psychological forces, reverberate through time, affecting not only their legacy but also the trajectory of global affairs. This complex interplay between psyche and politics demands further reflection as we evaluate contemporary leaders and their own mental health challenges.
