Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Innisfree

You might try reading Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals", and Horowitz's "Politics of Bad Faith", for at least an attempt at some insight into the psychology of Lieberals.

I doubt if any actual psychologist would attempt it, though - that would involve admitting that Lieberalism is a psychological "condition" of some sort, rather than just a "normal" state of mind - which would in turn require (a) some objectivity, and (b) introspection, on the part of the psychologist, since he/she/it would in 99% of cases already be a doctrinaire Lieberal. (They've attempted plenty of analyses of "conservatives", though, of curse...)

An oversimplified (but maybe not much) assessment claims that Lieberals are basically overgrown children who can't cope with life, are usually mad at the world, and are alternately either trying to get their surrogate Mommy/Daddy the Government to take care of them, or rebelling against it as the manifestation of a parental authority figure...


18 posted on 10/10/2004 1:01:47 AM PDT by fire_eye (Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: fire_eye
I would not so much say that Leftist politics is a psychological disease. Rather I would say that Leftist politics has at its core a "bad idea", a confusion as to the natural order of all that is.

It just so happens that psychologically weak are far more likely to fall prey to this confusion and the bad teachings and institutions that based on this confusion.

The weak, the irresponsible, the confused, are always with us. Sometimes even I have been such myself. Leftist politics is a political malformity that preys on such weak.

The stunning increase in our scientific, technical, industrial and now (computing + information + communication) abilities over the last few centuries has created new breeding grounds for the loss of faith, leading many to think that "we know better now - that old time religion is for old time fogies."

There are some essentials not covered by science, such as truth, morality, beauty, integrity, responsibility. Nothing wrong with science and technology - they are wonderous blessings in many ways. It's just that there is more to life.

Too many think humans know better now - that we can build a better heaven right here on Earth. This is the "bad idea" mentioned above.

Ironic that the very thing on which the weak pour the greatest scorn, faith in a higher Truth, is the source of the strength they need but cannot find.

The essential reason they hate Bush with such venom is that he is a man of Faith. They can smell that a mile away.

Leftist politics is not a psychological sickness, but rather a political sickness, born of a bad idea, that preys on people suffering from a variety of psychological and spiritual ailments.

Not everyone so suffering is a Leftist. But pretty much every Leftist is so suffering.

26 posted on 10/10/2004 2:37:44 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (I was humble, before I was born. -- J Frondeur Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: fire_eye
Great tagline, fire eye. I'm sure that the clear-eyed psychologist we need is a member of an endangered species. The APA is a corrupt, pseudoscientific organization, which often functions as nothing more than a handmaiden of the court system.

I like your analysis. As I see it, the liberal opposition to the concept of absolute principle and necessary conflict does not stem from reason, but from resentment and a pathological mental attitude. I think perhaps at an early age future liberals reject their parents and the Heavenly authority they represent. B/c they reject the parents and never fully bond with them, they cannot later separate completely, so they spend their lives in a neurotic dance between dependency and rebellion---as you suggested. They rebel against the surrogate, governmental authority b/c their parents are too frightening to challenge. Without love and belief in God, there is no courage.

In line with that I heard someone on a talk radio program propose that the unreasoning, liberal opposition to war may derive from a pathological fear of violence and conflict. It never occurred to me that NYT journalists, for example, reject the war out of simple fear of terrorist retribution, but it makes sense. They long, not for peace, but for the appearance of peace, with all of the real conflict submerged and growing more violent.

I suppose what I am describing is a form of narcissism, but I really don't know the appropriate label. Socialist ideas are certainly a good balm for feelings of inferiority, since they allow one to attribute personal failure to failures of the social system. As the poet says, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity..."

33 posted on 10/10/2004 4:57:16 PM PDT by Innisfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson