>Tea Party Psychoanalysis

>Well, this was certainly interesting.


Filed under psychoanalysis, Tea Party

27 responses to “>Tea Party Psychoanalysis

  1. >I gave it a quick scan. I didn't see the part where he makes it clear that the difference between his paranoid patients and the T-bags is that there isn't a cadre of professional liars ginning up the fears of his patients.

  2. >You can only empathize with those with whom you have something in common.

  3. >demo:"For new tea-party members, however, the drift toward paranoia is facilitated by the right-wing media machine that offers several ready-made narratives perfectly designed to help its consumers clear up their confusion, understand their helplessness, absolve them of any blame, and offer a way out. The conspiratorial alliance of business and government, a growing tyranny intended to disenfranchise, disarm, and exploit ordinary citizens, secret pacts to overthrow the constitution, etc. all currently led by an un-American, godless, colored, elitist, contemptuous, foreigner–Barack Hussein Obama. A grim and frightening picture of the world to be sure."

  4. >autoegocrat – are you implying that the author must also be paranoid? If so, perhaps you were thinking of sympathy. Empathy is generally considered to be the state or ability to feel what someone else is feeling; sympathy is effectively having the same feeling.Understanding someone else's psychiatric state doesn't mean that you have the same affliction.

  5. Jim

    >I like how he starts out stating how he hates the Tea Partiers.

  6. >At least he's being honest, not presenting himself as something he's not.

  7. Jim

    >So you are ok with the hate?

  8. >As I was reading this, I thought about how this is applicable to a lot of other backlash movements. You could substitute Militant Islam, National Socialist (Nazi), and Christian Militias for Tea Partiers. Since they feel helpless to effect change in their lives, something malevolent must be pulling the strings to keep them down. The new ideology offers both answers and comradeship. Shared discovery of "the answer" is a powerful bond.

  9. >southernfemalelawyer:Thanks, I found it on the second pass. I run into folks that have all sorts of crazy beliefs that are based on nothing more than watching people like Beck and O'Reilly and listening to Limbaugh. It is sad.Jim:Why that writer chose the word "hate" is a puzzler. It's pretty obvious he doesn't hate anyone he's talking about in the article. Now, them teabaggers otoh, they really do HATE a lot of things and people.

  10. >I think Ariando has a good point – that this is something common to all backlash movements – i.e, people who had power, then had it taken away. The anti-feminist movement for example. The mental illness, I suppose, seems to have its genesis in injured narcissism or superiority complex, which then seizes on a logically flawed argument to "explain" the negative feelings.

  11. Jim

    >"It's pretty obvious he doesn't hate anyone he's talking about in the article."I would have to disagree. He plainly states he "hates" them. Why question his actual words?

  12. >Um, Jim:There you go again, being deliberately obtuse.Yes, he does use the word, "hate" at the beginning of his piece. He then goes on to say that he (and those who are not as crazy as shithouse rats in a thermometer factory) should empathize with those people. I'm no shrink, but I think that is not just impossible to sympathize with people you hate, but also pretty hard to empathize with them. If you dislike what folks do, sometimes you say "I hate–fill in the blank". This is something otherwise reasonable people do from time to time.Now, if you want to make a lot out of the words. How about all them GOPeabaggers saying that Obama is a commie, a marxist, a Kenyan, a muslim or any of the other things they call him. Oh, wait, they apparently actually BELIEVE that shit. My bad, sorry, poor comparison.So let's look at the KKKristian reichwingers. They say things like "Hate the sin, love the sinner.". Anybody who witnesses the depradations they commit on a daily basis against teh GAY, pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant to term–for whatever reason–or folks whose religious (or non-religious)views are anti-thetical to theirs then the, "Hate the sin, love the sinner" rings a little hollow.I love this stuff""15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves."describes, to a tee, the sort of demagogues that are currently the darlings of the teabaggers.Now, I don't "hate" teabaggers. I dio think they're stupid and credulous, but hate them? Nah, I reserve that for REAL assholes. I'll get a list together when I get a chance.

  13. Jim

    >So you went with the "but look what they do" arguement to diffuse the hate from this guy?

  14. >Jim – you asked dc if he was okay "with the hate." dc not only answered your question, he explained why. I believe now is when you clutch your pearls, point your finger, and scream "HYPOCRITE!!!" Lesson for those who persist in thinking that you are "winning" by asserting that liberals are inherent hypocrites: I can condemn intolerance and hatred when those emotions/actions are being used to attempt to infringe upon the basic rights of others. In doing so, I do not somehow waive the right to ever express anger over such actions. I am not barred from refusing to tolerate bigotry. I do not have to "love" every action that every human takes. Because – and follow this closely – I do not believe that anyone has the right to take/keep basic rights from others. And I am under NO obligation to "tolerate" anyone's desire to do so. And yes, I am fully entitled to "hate" things that are evil and fundamentally offensive. The key point is that I am not advocating for the infringement of rights. I am not trying to economically harm other people.Just because some people like to fan their egos with the notion that conservatives are strong, brave patriots whereas liberals are pansy-assed weaklings who preach love and tolerance, that does not mean that this is reality.In fact, I would suggest it is a false narrative that certain people tell themselves in order to justify stances/opinions that they know are morally wrong.

  15. >"Jim said…So you went with the "but look what they do" arguement to diffuse the hate from this guy?"Really, I did? Where? Please, Jim, if you're going to argue something like that, you gotta show the work, dude.

  16. >So you are ok with the hate?Yep, in fact Demo and SoBeale are big fans of it. Remember, hate, intolerance and bigotry are OK, as long as it's coming from the Left.

  17. >I can condemn intolerance and hatred when those emotions/actions are being used to attempt to infringe upon the basic rights of others.And yet Demo and SoBeale do it regularly on this site and you fail to condemn it.

  18. >mikey:citations needed, as usual. You do so much yelping about how unfair everybody is. I think I know why you turned out the way you did. It was the schooyard wedgies, wasn't it?You and Karlkins Rove, like peas in a pod.

  19. >Reading comprehension is fundamental big boy!I didn't say anything was "unfair," but hey, keep on diggin'

  20. >Oh, excuse me, mikey. This whining screed:"Remember, hate, intolerance and bigotry are OK, as long as it's coming from the Left."isn't about unfairness? So, what is it, you think it's fair but you just don't like it.You need to really think about hate, intolerance and bigotry being an exclusively "Left" thing. Oh, wait, you're a libertarian like that idiot Ron Paul (he like white supremacists' money) or that other idiot Rand Paul (he had a white supremacist on his staff for a while). Do you mean like that. Or do you mean like the Willie Horton thing? Or maybe the Harold Ford thing? Yowsuh, the lefties really have a monopoly on hate, intolerance and bigotry.

  21. >You need to really think about hate, intolerance and bigotry being an exclusively "Left" thing.Again, reading is fundamental. Nowhere did I say the left had a monopoly on those things.My comment was sarcastic, because lefties rail about "right wing hate/bigotry" and act like their shit doesn't stink while they themselves are actively engaged in the very same intolerance, hate and bigotry. Just pointing out your blatant hypocrisy as usual.I really have to wonder about the cognitive abilities of someone who gets "the left has a monopoly on hate/intolerance/bigotry" out of my original comment.

  22. >The points in his last paragraph weren't bad.

  23. >i have libertarian and republican friends. i empathize with them. mostly, their pain stems from being in the closet, but those are just my friends. i guess other right wing types have different reasons for feeling fear and pain all the time, and lashing out at whatever they're told to by the teevee. but it's still a choice, and i don't have to like people who make it.this author is in the business, so i guess it's no surprise he'd conclude with "let's get them all on a couch, stat!" and that would be nice. but it's not going to happen, and i'll point out that a lot of people don't respond well to talk therapy, nor does it ever help them. i would bet a lot of teabaggers would be indifferent if not openly hostile to theraputic advice. he's also leaving out the fact that some people *like* being racist, sexist homophobes. those folks can't be reasoned with, or converted, even if you get them to admit the reason why they like being that way. i have no interest in talking to people like that.

  24. >Poor, poor, pitiful mikey:He says something stupid (a steady state with his comments) and then he attempts to extricate himself by saying others miscontrue his meaning.It's sort of like when mikey said he supports gay rights as much as he supports gun rights.

  25. >How am I attempting to extricate myself? It's not my fault you can't read plain english.Sometimes I wonder if you read before responding at all.

  26. >Demo reads the pictures!

  27. >mikey and weer'dy:Why is it that when you boys are in over your heads you ask the lifeguard to toss you an anvil?weer'dy has a total of one comment on this thread, that has nothing to do with the matter being discussed.