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.
I got it straight from the horse’s mouth...
It's along way to Nov 6th.
I don't know why I haven't thought of it before now, but reading your post suddenly reminded me of all those Conservative Christians who signed the Manhatten Declaration -A Call for Christian Conscience who are now endorsing Romney for President. So far as I know Jim Robinson is the only national leader who stuck to his guns.
Personally, I rejected that document, first and foremost because it contained a blatant lie about how "gay marriage" was instituted in Massachusetts.
Besides, the PR flack running the whole thing was and is a major Romney funder and supporter. It appears to me that all they were doing was collecting names for the Romney lists.
>>Why is that?<<
Because the rude, sarcastic, unChristian posts from you and the rest of the “flying imams” are classless and make me regurgitate my breakfast. I like my breakfast and want to keep it.
Most of you, I have blocked. You, however can be clever on other threads so I just ignore your Anti-Mormon delight.
This of course, has become a truism; a cliché. No matter what Washington said then, we live in a Two-Party System now, and indeed have since 1860 and earlier. How do you propose to end it?
The "independent" voters have been chanting the mantra for years. "I vote for the man, not the party!" Of course, those who are elected by taking the "independent" vote immediately join with, support, and vote with a political party ... usually the Democrat Party!
Washington's Constitution has been amended. For instance the runner-up in national elections no longer becomes VP. Senators are popularly elected (One of the great tragedies of the Constitutional History of the country, IMNSVHO)
I think also that it is too easy for the anti-Obama camps to merely tell us how bad Obama is, w/o offering their own tactical PROGRAM, and the PLAN to IMPLEMENT IT, and the LEADERSHIP necessary to get agreement to it. This is true of EVERY candidate so far, and you are no exception.
So, while I may agree with your ideological platform, I find it far from pragmatic. You are nobly seeking Leadership by offering systemic reform in one election. But the first challenge is getting elected without a Program and Plan. In fact, this is one election removed from the 53% victory of the Democrats with Obama, and they still hold the Senate.
I'm not sure there is a candidate without some bad traits. My point here is we vary greatly on the difference between Romney and Obama. I believe, with the right congress, we undo some of the great harm of Obama and avoid even greater harm. That's a 'good' thing.
Ross Perot. The Man Who Gave Us The Clintons. He red and smelly enough for you?
We have a choice of evil or evil. Wake up AMERICA!
I disagree. Voting for candidates based on their relative merits and demerits has nothing to do with self-evident truths, absolute values - moral relativism. Nor is it anti-reason.
Again, we agree on goals, we differ on strategy and tactics. I don't think your efforts are wise or further our shared goals.
Nutritionally you are what you eat.
The republic can't stomach another helping of Obama pie.
thanks for your replies.
This begs the quuestion of "Why"? I came to the conclusion that it is to destroy the Conservative movement in the Republican Party. Again, why? Because the Republican Elite hate Conservatives more than the Democrats hate Republicans [The Democrats do not differentiate between sects of Republicans, they hate them all equally] The Elite Republicans have deluded themselves into believeing that if they would only divest themselves of the pesky Conservatives, the Democrats would love them once more.
Therefore, they devised a plan that will, in their minds at least, bring that to fruitation. The plan? Eliminate the Conservative candidates and anoint the most unelectable one of their own ot oppose obama. With the slogan[s], "It is time to unite behind one candidate", "It is our guy or obama". And this guilt trip goes out to the Conservatives, "If you do not vote for our guy and obama wins, it will be your fault if obama wins".
As evidenced by this forum, it is working. But,come what may, I will not vote for their man. But, I understand that there are those what will as they rationalize why they will to themselves.
Well, some of us have some non-negotiables.
Romney Republicans don’t. Abject fear overrides everything else.
God never leaves His people in a position where they must do evil. Ever.
The problem is, you're now going to have a Congress full of Obama Democrats and Romney Republicans.
That's the fruit of your actions.