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.
Those aren’t facts. Those are your projections.
I mean, unless you’re a bonafide prophet of God. Are you?
The facts about Romney, of which so many Republicans remain in denial, concern his record of liberalism and his obvious continued lying about it.
I’ve already proven to you a vote for Mitt is a vote for Obama. If you think Bush 43 was a failure wait until Mitt takes the reigns. He’ll be an even bigger failure.
I’m not voting for Obomney end of story. The elites, who are Leftists, made sure it would come down to Romney and Obama, both of which are Progressives. Why do I need to vote for either of these collectivists?
Just keep drinking the Flavor-Aid.
I think you are in denial or reality then. But, I think there may be a way to snap you out of it.
How about this:
- I’ll give you 1000 to 1 odds that either Obama or Romney will be the next president.
- I’ll give you $100 for each electoral vote you get if you’ll give me ten cents for every one you don’t.
Deal? Or am I closer to seeing reality than you?
I think you are in denial *of* reality then.
Personally, I’m sick of political bookie-ism. It’s a major part of why we’re in the mess we’re in.
Perhaps someday you might try simply doing the right thing and leaving the results to God.
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
-- Winston Churchill
The topic was denial, not bookie-ism, not whether you thought you were doing the right thing. The bet offers were just a check to see if you were in touch with reality.
Your response indicates you are.
My point is the reality is your efforts are not wisely directed and will have little to no effect. Your responses indicate you agree.
Doing the right thing does not necessarily exclude doing so wisely with regard to the results and outcome.
This, again, is my point.
I never did find my bit! Checking there next....
But the Obama or Romney routes are not possible for those who cannot in good conscience support evil.
So, the odds you proffer are moot.
Which means those of good conscience must find another way.
Are you aware of one other than the one I’m offering?
Fair enough. (You had to give me a source with a picture of that creepy Romney grin, didn't you, LOL)?
For some reason I can't get this link to work, so it will have to be copied and pasted. In effect, Romney said that Islam is not inherently violent and jihad is not a part of Islam.
Here we go again. Stop with the “not voting” meme. I will vote, but not for the person you think I should vote for.
You don’t need to give me Obama’s Marxist resume. I’ve been here the past four years, just like you. I know what he is. I also know that Romney is an abortion-enabling, homosexual-loving, gun-grabbing, tax-raising, global-warming supporting, socialized medicine-creating, lying, underhanded, vicious liberal. If I choose that for my nation’s leader, I am giving him my seal of approval.
The GOP Senate caucus in DC has loads of Weickers: McCain, Graham, Collins, Alexander, Nancyboy Kirk, Corker, Cornyn, McConnell, Murkowski, and many more. The only thing they would hold Romney to is the maximum squandering of money on their respective states and pals. You are kidding yourself.
We disagree on some fundamentals. Among them, I believe you underestimate the damage to the republic that the next Obama regime will do.
And you, likely, believe I underestimate the damage a Romney administration will do.
Based on this fundamental disagreement, you think you are doing what’s right, I think your actions - to the extent you are successful - increase harm; i.e., are wrong.
We disagree on this, and we disagree in that I don’t believe your disagreement constitutes a psychological defense mechanism, but rather an error or lack in knowledge and/or wisdom.
That’s a great article. I tip my hat to you, Sir or Madam!
Too many people think that good can be created from evil. Romney has no good in him and so he must be eliminated as an ingredient for good.
I trust God will show us a better way.
Can you point to even one piece of evidence that I "underestimate the damage to the republic that the next Obama regime will do"?
Refusal to support the most liberal governor in the history of the republic does not count.
I’m sorry to inform you that while you’ve assumed a lot, you have ‘proven’ nothing.
I think it a given we're talking about a relative factor: Romney vs. Obama. IF one thinks one or the other is a huge amount more harmful, the action becomes obvious. The less difference (in harm) one perceives, the opposite is true.
It's the difference that matters. If you see them as near equally harmful, one result and vice versa.
So we disagree on this gap. The gap can be increased in one of two ways. Either decrease the view of harm Romney will do or increase the harm Obama will do.
I believe the amount of harm Obama will do makes defeating him the most critical mission for the republic in this election. Obviously you don't. This is evidence, therefore, logically, you do not estimate the damage the same as I; and that would be in the underestimate direction - in my opinion.
The “gap” is the difference between a bullet to the brain and a bullet to the heart. So to speak.
As a moral conservative and a Christian, I don’t buy into utilitarian or morally relativistic arguments.
They’re the broad way to hell.
Most of us know that the Establishment has given us a lemon for a candidate. Romney is a political chamelion who has no core beliefs other than his own ambition. My home state has a primary on May 8 and I won’t be voting for him in the primary. I still haven’t given up on a brokered convention.
I think your statement here illustrates or exemplifies my point.
I don't argue for moral relativism as I believe it is a false position, philosophicalyl and metaphysically. Moral relativistism is a term with a quite different meaning than you use in this context; and I believe, is therefore a non sequitur in response to our debate here.
Your belief that one candidate’s obvious bad traits justify voting for another candidate with obviously bad traits, illustrates mine.
One other thing: I’ve been involved in campaigns for a couple of decades, and I can say with a high level of certainty that a candidate whose supporters have to admit every five seconds that he stinks to high heaven probably isn’t going to fare well in the election.
Which sort of moots your whole argument, you know?
Lesser of two evils arguments are the epitome of moral relativism.
No, look up moral relativism.
All things in relation to each other are relative. But moral relativism is quite a different meaning and concept.
I do not believe this free republic can possibly be saved until and unless conservatives return to a principled position, one based solely on the nation's founding moral premises, and refuse to any longer compromise them for anyone, or for any perceived politically expedient reasons.
-- George Washington
"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
-- George Washington
A vote for Mitt Romney is the exact opposite of that.
And it isn't just that it empowers that lying socialist. It's that it corrupts those who have compromised to support him.
With his impending nomination, we're already seeing that corruption showing up all over the place. Including FR.
Nutritionally you are what you eat. Politically you are who and what you endorse. There's no avoiding it.
A distinction without a difference. It amounts to exactly the same thing: the denial of self-evident truth, the destruction of reason, the abandonment of moral principle.
We did start a conservative party. It is the Republican Party. Help us get/keep control of it, and get more conservative candidates in the House and Senate (and various state offices), please.
Why is that?
Good luck with THIS!
Vote Mitt - he could always be worse.
So many vote their EMOTIONS instead of their LOGIC.
Just like Saturday horse race bettors.
This happens to me all the time.
Both as sender and recipient.
Until reply #235...
You have a bumper sticker here!
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.
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.