Skip to comments.Liberalism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Posted on 07/25/2006 9:18:04 PM PDT by Philistone
Despite the fact that I live in the Bay Area, I've never been a big fan of Michael Savage. However, I have increasingly become convinced that his conclusion that "liberalism is a mental disease" is correct. In what follows, I go one step further and attempt to show specifically WHICH mental disease it is.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition (henceforth "DSM-IV") describes the clinical criteria necessary for a diagnosis of "Narcissistic Personality Disorder". In what follows, the clinical diagnostic criteria of DSM-IV are given in bold with my comments following in plain text:
Diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
How often have we seen this, not only among liberal politicians (Ted Kennedy is an NPD poster boi) but among FR trolls: the idea that since they have gone to college everyone should take their word as Gospel. And has anyone exaggerated their achievements and talents more than John Kerry and Joseph Wilson?
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Nothing turns me off faster than some petty little liberal who believes that he holds the future of the Earth in his hand because he doesn't eat animals, or recycles his cans, or bikes to work. Liberals (to quote my best friend) want to "carve their initials in the universe".
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Examples are left as an exercise for the reader...
(4) requires excessive admiration
Yes. Requires that one admire his politically correct stance on issues regardless of the actual concrete results of following his prescriptions...
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
Like Nietzsche, I think I have the ability to smell whiners. And no one whines more than a liberal. They all whine about how the world doesn't take them seriously and how they should have a higher place in the world than the one they actually occupy.
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
There is perhaps nothing that separates liberals from conservatives more than this: that conservatives will weigh the means to achieving an end and reject certain of them on the basis of "fair play" (despite the fact that the end might not be achieved) whereas for liberals it is the end that counts and any means are acceptable (including lying, exaggerating, eco-terrorism, or REAL terrorism for that matter...)
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
Whereas the DSM-III put the clinical emphasis for NPD on the idea of "grandiosity", the "DSM-IV Revised" rightly places the emphasis here. Empathy is not sympathy. Empathy is the ability to see or perceive that others are different. Others have different life experiences and different goals. That liberals literally can't understand this leads to two typical liberal responses:
For those who really are different (Islamofascists, neo-communists, dictators), the idea that "They really are just like us! If only we could get Osama and Kim Jung-Il over for a game of pool and a coupla beers, we could work this whole thing out!"
And for those who should be like us (ie the "red states"): That we are being willfully ignorant or evil. After all, the truth is self evident (and I am the judge). So if another American disagrees with me it MUST be because he hasn't been enlightened (most likely because the capitalist media has brainwashed him) or because he willfully ignores the truth to pursue his own evil agenda (nothing is more fun that watching liberals swim back and forth between the idea that Bush is an ignorant chimp and that he is the master of a global cabal to rule the world!)
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
No comment necessary.
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
None here neither.
Please feel free to revise and extend my remarks!
Tammy Bruce wrote two books on the very same thesis. There is another thesis that posits that the over educated sacrificed emotional IQ by dedicating critical maturation time to further education.
Certainly, there are many who hold advanced degrees that are not adult children, but aren't there a lot of stunted liberals?
Why immediately distance yourself from Savage?
Uhm... because it's true? I don't listen to talk radio generally, and I find his shows (when I do listen to them) full of more heat than light...
Yup, by golly, I think you've nailed it!
You saved the best for last! Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have seen libs call Bush "stupid," "genius" and back to "stupid" in an 8-hour news day!
I can't stop laughing!
Sounds like Muhammad ;)
There is nothing wrong with this. The root of 'conservative' must be to 'conserve' unless one is deceptive.
I could easily be mistaken for a lib in this regard.
Problem is, this misnomer is so entrenched in the drive-by media even Rush can't swing at it.
I recycle everything, on my own time and expense. Not because I'm a lib, but rather I like to conserve.
The left has hijacked this topic for decades, falsely. And the right is even more pathetic for not fighting back.
Interesting. I've always observed a profound lack of common sense a core symptom of liberalism.
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
The point is not the act (whatever that may be) but that an individual can, qua individual and by his own acts, determine the course and future of something as large as the earth.
By all means, conserve if you wish, but make no mistake that your actions will never have more than a miniscule effect on the planet; even if you manage to get the other 6,999,999,999 people on the planet to follow your lead.
The sin of pride is insidious...
bump for later
I'm bookmarking this.
Where are the words when I need them? This is as blunt as it can be said.
A morbid, craddle-to-grave fascination with human mortality that just won't quit.
I just saw the documentary Grizzlyman on Discovery.
It was a textbook case of liberal dementia.
He imagined himself some sort of special guardian of nature, even though the only thing he did was annoy (and eventually get et by) bears.
He'd hide when he saw other people and cry when something with a cute face died of something besides old age.
That is what I say to my husband all the time, liberals just have no common sense and no logic. I think it's a right brain left brain thing. Conservatives are left brain dominant...
Left Brain: Logical, Sequential, Rational, Analytical, Objective, Looks at parts
Right Brain: Random, Intuitive, Holistic, Synthesizing, Subjective, Looks at wholes,
Liberals are sympathetic with totalitarianism in all its guises because they are themselves bent toward totalitarianism.
Conservatism in its most extreme form is anarchy; Liberalism in its extreme form is totalitarianism.
Liberals want expanded government; higher taxes, wealth redistribution, socialized medicine, entitlement programs from social security to welfare and a host of other government cure-alls. Ronald Reagan identified government as the problem and realized that freedom is expanded when the size of the federal government is reduced. Liberalism stands in stark opposition to this principle and is constantly attempting to increase government control over the lives of its citizens...just like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Pol Pot, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, The Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi, Castro, Hezbollah, Hamas and Assad have done and are doing. They are all LEFTISTS and find sympathizers within the ranks of the global left. How else can one explain the almost knee-jerk condemnation of Israel among the extreme elements within the Democrat Party, the media, the UN and Europe's socialist governments when she is attacked by Islamofascists and stands to defend herself?
There is no equivalent extremist right-wing example to give. No politically viable movement has emerged to attempt the spawning of anarchic societies...global support for anarchy is minimal, almost non-existent.
Yet liberals insist on calling Hitler and Mussolini "right-wing dictators." It's because they can't bear to allow anyone come to realistic conclusions about politics...when that happens, they lose support...and because they are averse to the truth. They have to rewrite history and lie about current events to stay viable.
They want to deny this fact: There isn't a hair's breadth of difference between Fascism and National Socialism and Communism and Socialism...and between Hitler and Hezbollah. President Bush nailed it in a State Of The Union Speech, and I could hear chairs squeaking from liberal squirming all over the country when he identified America's enemy as totalitarianism...he nailed 'em good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.