Leftists: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

[White_Male_Canada]

The Liberal Mind: The psychological causes of political madness

Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., forensic psychiatrist

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.

As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes. The nature of these failures is detailed below. Among their consequences are the liberal mind’s relentless efforts to misrepresent human nature and to deny certain indispensable requirements for human relating. In his efforts to construct a grand collectivist utopia—to live what Jacques Barzun has called “the unconditioned life” in which “everybody should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways”—the radical liberal attempts to actualize in the real world an idealized fiction that will mitigate all hardship and heal all wounds. (Barzun 2000). He acts out this fiction, essentially a Marxist morality play, in various theaters of human relatedness, most often on the world’s economic, social and political stages. But the play repeatedly folds. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, the radical liberal’s attempts to create a brave new socialist world have invariably failed. At the dawn of the Twenty-first Century his attempts continue to fail in the stagnant economies, moral decay and social turmoil now widespread in Europe. An increasingly bankrupt welfare society is putting the U.S. on track for the same fate if liberalism is not cured there. Because the liberal agenda’s principles violate the rules of ordered liberty, his most determined efforts to realize its visionary fantasies must inevitably fall short. Yet, despite all the evidence against it, the modern liberal mind believes his agenda is good social science. It is, in fact, bad science fiction. He persists in this agenda despite its madness.

Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD is the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army. He is currently in private practice in the Chicago area.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/L...itical_madness

[White_Male_Canada]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ezed]

Relax the longwinded posts. "Politicians" be they liberal or conservative are out for their self interest. Or what their closest advisors tell them is their own self interest. And they advise them based on what's in the advisors self interest. So the politicians, when they start out, step up to the roulette table. Do I want to be red (republican) or black (democrat). They could give a fuck what the platform of either is. They go with what they think will win. Once they pic a color, their stuck with it. They can switch to green (independant) but they are then a longshoot.

Lieberman switch to green and lucked out to stay even. But now to keep playing he has to chose red or black. No politician totally believes the shit they spout. They are betting on what they think the masses want to hear. And then they're stuck with that color. It's sort of like the stock market.

Will all the ranting and raving change what they do...no....they'll go with their best shot for improving their position whether it's wealth or ego.

[LG]

Are you mental?

Oops, turns out you might be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...017546,00.html

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

And before you say that the Guardian is a left-wing paper, read on for a press release on UC Berkeley's website:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...politics.shtml

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

Yep, this is real science, not the ramblings of a single former army psychiatrist getting his (allegedly) non-fiction book mentioned on a conservative website.

Read it all here:
http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf

I think it's silly to argue on this, anyway. I think to suggest that half the world (either half of it) is mad is stupid (or perhaps, mad). To suggest that some neo-cons have deep lying neuroses, however, is pretty reasonable I think.



As for ezed's post: Good points and a well thought out post.

[White_Male_Canada]

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".


And before you say that the Guardian is a left-wing paper, read on for a press release on UC Berkeley's website:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...politics.shtml

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism...

It`s like a pinata of panywaist pomposity, just swing and a festival of the inane comes spilling out !

First of Hitler and Mussolini were NOT conservative.

Mussolini you`ll find written in his own words and spoken,''You think you can turn me out, but you will find I shall come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones.''

Hitler ,same deal, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

No surprise these leftists began with their answer and worked backwards from the point of cognative closure.

What is interesting are professionals and academia who see "conservatism" as abonormal and publish "studies". It`s these very people who deserve carefull study, not one man`s non-scientific opinion.

Are you getting it now? You`ve been caught out, just like the other leftists.

[LG]

WMC said:

Are you getting it now? You`ve been caught out, just like the other leftists.

Shows just how little you know about European politics.

From Encarta:

The outbreak of World War I (1914-191 occasioned Mussolini’s official break with socialism. At first Italy stayed out of the war. Most socialists, including Mussolini at the time, wanted the country to remain neutral on the grounds that the war was imperialistic and contrary to workers’ interests. However, in 1915 the Italian government decided to enter the war after the Allied Powers of Britain, France, and Russia promised Italy significant territorial gains in the Treaty of London. As Italy prepared for war, Mussolini also shifted his position, and began to support Italy’s entrance into the war. He justified his reversal by contending that wartime chaos would bring about revolution and that inaction would only isolate the socialists. Mussolini also foresaw that war would raise nationalistic passions in Italy—passions on which he could capitalize. To socialist party leaders, this turnaround smacked of pure opportunism, and they dismissed him from Avanti! He subsequently founded a new newspaper, Il Popolo d'Italia (The People of Italy), which later became the organ of the Fascist movement. When the socialists learned that the newspaper was financed by the French, who wanted Italy to enter the war, and by industrialists, who wanted to split the socialist movement, they expelled him from the Italian Socialist Party.

Italy entered the war in May 1915 and Mussolini was drafted into the army in September. He was severely wounded in February 1917 when a grenade launcher he was firing exploded, and he was released from the army in June. The time he spent under arms only made him a more convinced nationalist, completing his break with the socialist movement.

In power but not yet dictator, Mussolini continued to exploit conservative fears that he was the only alternative to political chaos or, even worse, a socialist revolution. He pushed through a new electoral law that virtually guaranteed the Fascists a two-thirds majority in parliament following the 1924 elections. When opponents protested, he intimidated them with violence. After a high-placed gang of Black Shirts kidnapped and murdered outspoken socialist member of parliament Giacomo Matteotti in June 1924, widespread outrage almost toppled Mussolini from power. However, the opposition was in disarray and the king was unwilling to remove him. Faced with the choice between standing behind his Black Shirts or losing their loyalty, Mussolini acted decisively. Speaking before parliament in January 1925, he took full, personal responsibility for the actions of the Black Shirts—including all violence and murders committed in the name of Fascism—and affirmed that he alone could bring order to Italy.

On Hitler- don't try to rewrite history. Hitler's brand of socialism had as much to do with true socialism as the Spanish Inquisition had to do with the actual teachings of Christ.

And Hitler also said:

Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. To-day, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

If Hitler was a true sociaist, why he attack the Soviets? Hitler was known to be an anticommunist and was also know to oppose liberals and liberalism (and you can find all the quotes you want on this). His way of governing Germany clashes with everything Marx ever taught and with every brand of true socialism. His nationalistic ideas were never embraced by socialists. He took some ideas from socialism initially to make his own brand of ideology but the name "National Socialist" is a misnomer. As for Mussolini, he was unashamedly fascist and he admitted so many times (a fascist is defined as an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views- look it up).

WMC also said:

What is interesting are professionals and academia who see "conservatism" as abonormal and publish "studies". It`s these very people who deserve carefull study, not one man`s non-scientific opinion.

So you agree that the study you quoted was unscientific and not worth looking at seriously. And, furthermore, you're now dismissing a study by four well-respected scientists and saying they need their heads examined because you don't like what they say? No, actually, what is interesting is that you are so eager to dismiss everything that doesn't agree with your point of view.

As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes.

Exactly. Somewhere along the line, most of these people stopped developing psychologically. I posted this quite some time ago.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...=asc&start=120

[Quinn]

I posted this quite some time ago.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...=asc&start=120

It's been a while since I've seen that thread, which rates as one of my five favorite on HA. Smashing anti-Semites and over opinionated, undereducated Scots during the first nine pages was terribly fun. How strange that we haven’t heard from that egomaniac Macsreach since his drubbing. LMFAO…………………

-Quinn