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
http://batr.org/autonomy/101412.html |
No comments:
Post a Comment