|
Political
Partisan Psychological Disorders
Before one can understand the nature of partisan
or party politics, a correct comprehension of The Choice of Ideology is essential. "Contemporary Political Ideologies is a text book that has been around for
a long time. Many of the usual suspects are covered: Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Conservatism, Liberalism, Nationalism,
Marxism, Fascism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Feminism and Environmentalism. Since written, additional offshoots have come
to include: Neoconservatism, the Paleo versions of Conservatism and Libertarianism and what we will call "Inherit Populism".
These broad based viewpoints have distinctions, sometimes subtle, often dramatic.
The reason why partisan politics is a blood sport is that it is waged to achieve a false party line. BREAKING ALL THE RULES advocates a paleo-conservative philosophy based upon traditional values and moral principles. Consistent with the historic
legacy of the founding of this Nation is a lament that most inhabitants are oblivious to our ingenious heritage and purpose
of the American Revolution.
The article, Ideology Matters, But What
Is It?, clearly repudiates the destructive ideologies that result in the suicidal
course this country has taken, especially in the last century. "The
test for valid support is simple. The legacy of the New Deal to the Good Society has constructed a total reputation of American
ideals. To deny this reality, is to associate yourself with the cause of depravity. There is no room to compromise on this
axiom. The lines are clear, distinct and irrefutable. Career operatives rationalize their support for destructive policies
as the price for civility. The notion that getting along with the opposition that is bent upon the destruction of the Nation
is psychotic. When polls are cited that the public wants less ranker, leadership sinks into the cauldron of deceit and treachery
of our heritage. Those of us who advocate a State responsive and accountable to the citizen, are left with few champions to
carry the banner of limited government."
Rejecting
an artificial left/right template for a deeper analysis of the publically accepted nomenclature of liberal vs. conservative
is a constructive leap to appreciate the differences that are so prevalent among different factions within society. How individuals assess politics often rests upon their own personality and outlook. From
a report in Clinician's Digest, the following insights are useful.
"Personality differences are a leading candidate in the
race toward understanding the rift between political liberals and conservatives. Using data compiled from nearly 20,000 respondents,
Columbia University researcher Dana Carney and colleagues found that two common personality traits reliably differentiated
individuals with liberal or conservative identifications. Liberals reported greater openness, whereas conservatives reported
higher conscientiousness. This means that liberals (at least in their own estimation) saw themselves as more creative, flexible,
tolerant of ambiguity, and open to new ideas and experiences. Across the political personality divide, conservatives self-identified
as more persistent, orderly, moralistic, and methodical. Evidence suggests
that these personality differences between liberals and conservatives begin to emerge at an early age. A 20-year longitudinal
study by Jack and Jeanne Block showed that those who grew up to be liberals were originally assessed by their preschool teachers
as more emotionally expressive, gregarious, and impulsive when compared to those who became conservatives, who were considered
more inhibited, uncertain, and controlled. Liberals may show greater tolerance for diversity and creativity, but they may
also be more impulsive, indecisive, and irresponsible. On the flip side, conservatives may be organized, stable, and thrifty,
but also have stronger just-world beliefs (leading to a greater tolerance for inequality), and stronger fears of mortality
and ambiguity. Even recent neuroscience work published in Current Biology from University College London identifies fundamental
differences in the partisan brain. Brain scans revealed a larger amygdala in self-identified conservatives and a larger anterior
cingulate cortex in liberals, leading the researchers to conclude that conservatives may be more acute at detecting threats
around them, whereas liberals may be more adept at handling conflicting information and uncertainty."
Partisan party proponents, both Democrats and Republicans are practicing Statists. Mutual
lust to control the levers of government closes ranks, when an external threat comes from dissenting citizens. This background
brings us to examine the essay, Speaking Out Against Government
is a Mental Disorder, by Susanne Posel.
"According to the psychiatric manual, the DSM-IV-TR,
oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a mental disease wherein free thinkers, non-conformists, civil
disobedience supporters, those who question authority and are perceived as being hostile toward the government are labeled
mentally ill. Psychiatrists refer to this mental defect as "Mentality III".
This mental disorder is defined as: "a recurrent pattern of negativistic,
defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months."
Ms Posel continues: Symptoms of ODD include: ¦negativistic
and defiant behaviors are expressed by persistent stubbornness ¦resistance
to directions ¦unwillingness to compromise, give in,
or negotiate with adults or peers ¦defiance may also
include deliberate or persistent testing of limits, usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds ¦hostility can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately
annoying others or by verbal aggression (usually without the more serious physical aggression seen in Conduct Disorder)
If this alleged ailment has, any legitimate clinical application, it seems that
these warning signs, foremost apply to elected officials and party organizations. Reinforcing the practice of the partisan
political psychopathic art, John D. Mayer in Psychology Today asks two questions. The first is relevant while the
second is naive. "If members of Congress and the
executive branch extended genuine respect to one another, wouldn't they recognize that it is more important to vote for that
which is best for the country rather than for that which may promote their political party? If they truly respected one another,
wouldn't the best and brightest among them join in a thoughtful give-and-take to promote good legislation above partisanship?"
Where is the evidence that government has the objective of "doing what
is best for the country"? Frankly, the body of facts is so overwhelming that every successive administration builds
upon the treason of the last government, that only a faint memory of a constitutional Republic exists. The notion that power
hungry grabbers are capable of transcending partisan rhetoric for a good purpose is patently absurd. The only cooperation
that ever unites the party politics is to protect the despotism of the State. Daniel J. Flynn writes about Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind in The Psychology of Partisanship. "Haidt
helped devise a questionnaire that gauged moral views by eliciting test-taker responses to statements in five categories:
care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Haidt likens these moral groupings
to the five taste receptors of the tongue (sweet, sour, bitter, savory, salty). It turns out that liberal receptors failed
to engage on questions of loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Conservatives, on the other hand, reacted to all five moral categories
more or less equally. Haidt’s conclusion is that his fellow liberals are morally tone deaf. "Republicans understand
moral psychology," Haidt concedes. "Democrats don’t." It gets worse for liberals. Haidt and colleagues asked their subjects to answer their questionnaire as if they were
liberals, as if they were conservatives, and as themselves. Liberals don’t know their political adversaries nearly as
well as the right knows them. "The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate
in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially
those who described themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered
the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives." Liberals see caricatures when they see conservatives. The thesis may prove cathartic for Republican readers. But it’s more useful
to Democrats."
As long as partisan political
parties, ignore moral principles, and the "States Rights" framework of limited government the psychological
disorders of the ultimate Statist mental illness will spread. It is always amusing when partisan critics rant about the lack
of condemnation against opposing party foes, when their silence about the abuses of their patron party hacks goes unspoken. It is bad enough how ignorant the average voter is when they cast their ballot.
As long as people accept and tolerate the two party diatribes against viewpoints that challenge the establishment power cabal,
there are no viable prospects for elective solutions. As of this writing, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has, "Mitt Romney attracting support
from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate,
and four percent (4%) are undecided." How can any thinking
and responsible American vote for either candidate? Both are tyrannical teammates for the globalist franchise. Those who speak
out against the establishment order are not the ones with a mental illness. Those who vote for their own demise are one-step
removed from the infective treachery coming out of the federal government. Paleo-conservative ideology is the righteous political
philosophy for a Free People. What is the state of your own mental health? SARTRE – October 14, 2012
|
