Skip to comments.Denial ain't just a river in Egypt - Republican conservatives can't handle the truth about Romney
Posted on 04/27/2012 6:57:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
April 27, 2012
I deal on a regular daily basis with self-identified conservatives all across America who are addicted to the Republican Party. And when it comes to the impending nomination by their party of the most liberal governor in U.S. history, Mitt Romney, their reactions are overwhelmingly in line with the classic symptoms described below. We can't make them face reality, of course. All we can do is to keep pointing it out to them, in the sincere hope that they will recover in time to help save the country.
From Wikipedia :
Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may use:
The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Where denial occurs in mature minds, it is most often associated with death, dying and rape.
In this form of denial, someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as "yessing" behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies to avoid facts they think may be painful to themselves or others.
This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by:
Someone using denial of responsibility is usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.
For example: Troy breaks up with his girlfriend because he is unable to control his anger, and then blames her for everything that ever happened.
Denial of impact involves a person's avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms of his or her behavior has caused to self or others, i.e. denial of the consequences. Doing this enables that person to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent him or her from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.
This type of denial is best discussed by looking at the concept of state dependent learning. People using this type of denial will avoid pain and harm by stating they were in a different state of awareness (such as alcohol or drug intoxication or on occasion mental health related). This type of denial often overlaps with denial of responsibility.
Many who use this type of denial will say things such as, "it just happened". Denial of cycle is where a person avoids looking at their decisions leading up to an event or does not consider their pattern of decision making and how harmful behavior is repeated. The pain and harm being avoided by this type of denial is more of the effort needed to change the focus from a singular event to looking at preceding events. It can also serve as a way to blame or justify behavior (see above).
This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify with in themselves, but is a major barrier to changing hurtful behaviors. Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviors which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behavior. This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion. Denial at this level can have significant consequences both personally and at a societal level.
Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.
DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim and Offender.
Psychologist Jennifer Freyd writes:
...I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.
If you can’t win an election, how do you plan on winning a revolution?
Sorry, EV, but this is not a new venture. This candidacy has been mentioned for some time now. There is no really good explanation why it isn’t on your website already.
Kiss up is not the same as BEING.
You said it yourself quoting another poster!
“There is rightful angst about his history in liberal Massachusetts but, I think some folks are going overboard. One post here says he is “the most liberal governor ever”.”
Hello, McFly! Liberalism is also known as Leftism, collectivism, communism, fascism, socialism, etc.
Why do you think that poster said that? What was Obamacare modeled on? Romneycare! And what is Romneycare??? It is collectivised health care. And have you seen how Romneycare is destroying the budget year after year is Massachusetts? It is so over budget it isn’t even funny.
Why do you think they call Massachusetts, Taxachusetts? Is it because they keep taxes low?
Did you know that Romney’s father had dealings with Saul Alinsky? Ever heard of Alinsky?
That would be a Pyrrhic victory:
A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat. At a purely technical level someone who wins a "Pyrrhic victory" has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy cost involved in winning and/or the unpleasant consequences which follow completely destroy any sense of achievement or profit. There is therefore no reason for celebration.
So half of the Republicans vote for 24 little splinter groups, or write in Porky Pig or Minnie Mouse. Obama wins, but you get to say "Ha ha ha, Obama, most people didn't vote for you, neener neener." Meanwhile, the Obama administration emerges intact, with Eric Holder still lying about Operation Fast and Furious, Janet Napolitano still declaring that our border with Mexico is safer than ever, and Obama's policies like catch and release for illegal aliens still in effect. Celebrate your big Pyrrhic victory as Obama adds several more trillions to our debt and writes his own legislation through Executive Orders and departmental decrees. Boy, you sure defeated Obama, didn't you?
Sure there is. It’s a question of priorities, in a campaign that is 100% grassroots and volunteer.
We don’t have hundreds of paid hacks like the opposition.
And we don’t focus on personalities. We focus on principle.
But, in any case, unlike my opponents, I’ve made myself available for more than four years, at least twice a week, for any American to ask me any question they want. So the idea that something is “anonymous” just doesn’t line up with reality.
You are simply not at home in a Two-Party System. No thinking man could be. That's why are European cousins have 5-6-8 parties and coalition governments, which aren't much good, either.
However, it's what we've got. Conservatives MUST NOT, IMNSVHO, fall into a "Shiite" ideology. That is, we probably ought not to court Armageddon, so we can rebuild anew in a purified Constitutional America.
The Romney creature has built a superior ground organization right across the country that has ... at HIS great cost and expense ... crushed, I say crushed ... several people whose ideas for restructure appeal far more to me than his. So, it looks as if he will be the nominee.
If that nomination comes to pass, back the silly SOB in the general election with your whole heart and soul, while working like the dickens to restore the House and Senate to some semblance of Constitutional order.
If we go off on some Third Party Wank right now, one might as well concede the next 25 years to the Democrat Party. The restoration of a constitutional republic, if it is to occur at all, will take 10 years at least ... 5 mid-term elections... and maybe 2 Presidents.
>>Boy, you sure defeated Obama, didn’t you? <<
But at least there won’t be any gays in the WH...
I don't like the idea of national health care. But, the Massachusetts plan was not national. I also understand that what was passed has been changed a lot by the liberal state legislature. Romney says health care taken on by states is their right and privilege and he doesn't support a national effort.
I think that's a good idea. States that want a health care plan can create it and then people who want to move there or leave there have the opportunity to do so. A national plan would be a disaster because of the whims of future congresses. I think Romney has said the same thing.
Did you notice what's happened to our Foreign Policy, Immigration Policy and Energy Policy while people were arguing about birth control pills?
You Sir, belong in missionary work, not politics. I daresay everyone on this site, myself included, agrees with your principles. However, principles without a personality to attract those less well mentally endowed will get you precisely nowhere. Ask Steve Forbes.
Do you also propose an IQ test for voters?
Ask Tom Birmingham (former Democrat president of the MA senate) who HE believes was responsible for socialized medicine in Massachusetts. He will tell you it was the Democratic legislature. Birmingham doesn't want Romney getting credit for what he considers a marvelous accomplishment by the Democrats in MA.
Romney was a figurehead. The permanent fixtures at the state house (IOW the legislative ruling class that watches while governors come and go) will tell you that his main focus was running for president during the time he was governor.
Exactly. The idea that all we need is for society to totally collapse and then we can be assured that everyone will suddenly agree with us is to fly in the face of both recent history and the facts of the entire history of civilization.
We know we are at the tipping point where a majority or close to it pays no taxes and apparently believes in the Santa Claus theory of gov't goodies.
And we are supposed to trust that they will re-create the American Republic if we burn down the one we have?
I disagree, EV. Basic information about the candidate is a valid expectation.
What if, for example, you were accused of being a securities and exchange felon.
How would I determine the veracity of such a thing?
....yet this idea apparently is animating many Conservatives. "Let the guilt fall on Obma's head," they say, as they plan on staying home rather than vote for Romney or equivalent. This, when in many areas .... such as the Supreme Court .... we are one appointment away from the collapse of the Republic.
Hello, McFly! RomneyCare did go national. It’s called ObamaCare. You might not have heard. If you want to educate yourself as to what collectivist non-health care is going to do to this country just look at the UK’s NHS or the Canadian version. RomneyCare on a national level would be a disaster according to Romney? It’s been a disaster for the state of Massachusetts! Hello, McFly!
Have you been taking stupid pills or are you just dense due to your ignorance about Romney? Are you from Rio Linda by any chance?
I’m gonna tell you a secret. Massachusetts is one of the most Leftist states in the union. Have Jimmy Carter or Jerry Brown push for collectivised health care?
No. Just a constitutional test, and consistent accountability to the principles of our republic, for all leaders and candidates.
We're building a political culture of principle, as opposed to what the GOP has become, a culture of total compromise of principle.
Or, I could stop paying attention to what I know the Lord is telling me to do and take instruction from you.
Not going to happen.
We live in the age of the internet. You could verify something like that in about five seconds. So I don’t understand your point at all.
Again, am I speaking in a foreign language here? Is there a general problem with reading comprehension? I understand my choices. I have made mine.
Funny how we as conservatives love talking about God, but when it comes down to a hard, unpopular decision, suddenly standing with Him becomes “naive”, a “fantasy.” That’s very interesting to me.
You’re free to align yourself with an abortionist-homosexual lover. Don’t try to tell me I must,