Conservative psychosis

WASHINGTON -- This just in: Conservatism often is symptomatic of a psychological syndrome. It can involve fear, aggression, uncertainty avoidance, intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatic dislike of equality, irrational nostalgia and need for ``cognitive closure,'' all aspects of the authoritarian personality.

Actually, this theory has been floating around academic psychology for half a century. It is reprised in ``Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,'' written by four professors for Psychological Bulletin.

``Motivated social cognition'' refers to the ``motivational underpinnings'' of ideas, the ``situational as well as dispositional variables'' that foster particular beliefs. Notice: situations and dispositions -- not reasons. Professors have reasons for their beliefs. Other people, particularly conservatives, have social and psychological explanations for their beliefs. ``Motivated cognition'' involves ways of seeing and reasoning about the world that are unreasonable because they arise from emotional, psychological needs.

The professors note, ``The practice of singling out political conservatives for special study began ... (with a 1950) study of authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality.'' The industry of studying the sad psychology of conservatism is booming. It began with a European mixture of Marxism and Freudianism. It often involves a hash of unhistorical judgments, including the supposedly scientific, value-free judgment that conservatives are authoritarians, and that fascists -- e.g., the socialist Mussolini, and Hitler, the National Socialist who wanted to conserve nothing -- were conservatives.

The four professors now contribute ``theories of epistemic and existential needs, and socio-political theories of ideology as individual and collective rationalizations'' and ``defensive motivations'' -- defenses against fear of uncertainty and resentment of equality. The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses.

``In the post-Freudian world, the ancient dichotomy between reason and passion is blurred,'' say the professors, who do not say that their judgments arise from social situations or emotional needs rather than reason. The professors usefully survey the vast literature churned out by the legions of academics who have searched for the unsavory or pathological origins of conservatism (fear of death? harsh parenting? the ``authoritarian personality''?).

But it is difficult to take the professors' seriousness seriously when they say, in an essay responding to a critique of their paper, that Ronald Reagan's ``chief accomplishment, in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal and the 1960s.'' His ``accomplishment''? So that is why Social Security and Medicare disappeared.

The professors write, ``One is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives ... because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form.'' Until the professors give examples of political people who do not favor or condone equality in any form, it is fair to conclude that, for all their pretensions to scientific rigor, they are remarkably imprecise. And they are very political people, who would be unlikely ever to begin a sentence: ``One is justified in referring to Stalin, Mao, Franklin Roosevelt and the editors of The New York Times as left-wing liberals because ...''

The professors acknowledge that ``the same motives may underlie different beliefs.'' And ``different motives may underlie the same beliefs.'' And ``motivational and informational influences on belief formation are not incompatible.'' And no reasoning occurs in a ``motivational vacuum.'' And ``virtually all belief systems'' are embraced because they ``satisfy some psychological needs.'' And all this ``does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false.''

Not necessarily. What a relief. But there is no comparable academic industry devoted to studying the psychological underpinnings of liberalism. Liberals, you see, embrace liberalism for an obvious and uncomplicated reason -- liberalism is self-evidently true. But conservatives embrace conservatism for reasons that must be excavated from their inner turmoils, many of them pitiable or disreputable.

``Conservatism is a demanding mistress and is giving me a migraine.'' -- George F. Will

A ``mistress'' who is ``demanding''? Freud, call your office. The epigraph is from ``Bunts,'' a book of baseball essays, from an essay concerning what conservatives should think about the designated hitter. Will probably thought he was being lighthearted. Silly him. Actually, he was struggling with fear of ambiguity and the need for cognitive closure.

Conservatives, in the crippling grip of motivated social cognition, think they oppose the DH because it makes the game less interesting by reducing managers' strategic choices. But they really oppose that innovation because mental rigidity makes them phobic about change and intolerant of the ambiguous status of the DH. And because Mussolini would have opposed the DH.

It began with a European mixture of Marxism and Freudianism. It often involves a hash of unhistorical judgments, including the supposedly scientific, value-free judgment that conservatives are authoritarians, and that fascists -- e.g., the socialist Mussolini, and Hitler, the National Socialist who wanted to conserve nothing -- were conservatives.

e) The American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, July, 1998, Volume 124, No. 1, pp 22-53 is preparing the way for the normalization of pedophilia. One of the writers of an article entitled "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples", Dr. Robert Bauserman of the University of Michigan, earlier wrote an article for the Journal of Homosexuality (a special 1990 double issue) devoted to adult-child sex. Conclusion: pedophiles believe they are born that way and cannot change. A professor of social science at the State University of New York said he looks forward to the day when Americans will 'get over their hysteria about child abuse' and child pornography. In a memo from Dr. Joe Nicolosi to Dr. Laura Schlessinger: "Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has already set the state for this same transition-in the case of pedophilia-by quietly redefining it. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM-IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the 'psychologically normal' pedophile." For further information on the latest attempt to declare pedophilia normal check Dr. Laura Schlessinger's web site at www.drlaura.com. Kathleen Parker's observation: "Why is it that if you viscerally abhor the thought of a grown man having sex with your young son, you're a right-wing sex hater? Why aren't you a normal adult who understands that children need protection from adults who haven't matured sufficiently to find a partner their own age?" The [Colorado Springs] Gazette, March 30, 1999.

f) "A study on pedophilia that claims child sexual abuse does not cause lasting psychological harm to its victims has set off a furor on the Internet and talk radio. The angry public reaction, fueled by Internet reports and conservative activists, comes nine months after the study was first released by the influential American Psychological Association. Sex between adults and willing minors should be described in more positive terms, the study suggests. 'A willing encounter...would be labeled simply "adult-child sex," a value-neutral term, the authors advised. 'A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with positive reactions...would be labeled scientifically as "adult-adolescent sex."' The report titled 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Sample,' is a compilation of 59 studies on how college students cope with child sexual abuse. The article was written by Bruce Rind, a psychology professor at Temple University in Pennsylvania, Philip Tromovitch of the University of Pennsylvania graduate school of education and Robert Bauserman, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan. Mr. Bauserman was also a contributor to a special issue of sex between men and boys published in 1990 by the Journal of Homosexuality. In that Journal he questioned the 'taboo' against man-boy sexual relationships. Laura Schlessinger, also known as Dr. Laura, one of the nation's top-rated talk-show hosts, with up to 18 million listeners, blasted the 31-page report. She said the study, published in July (1998) in the APA's bimonthly Psychological Bulletin, was proof the 155,000 member organization had 'gone soft' on child molesters." The Washington Times, March 23, 1999, p. l.

g) "A controversial academic study of pedophilia was roundly condemned by several congressmen, who chastised the American Psychological Association for publishing its findings. 'We as a society are not shocked by anything anymore,' Mr. Salmon [of Ariz] said. 'And now we have a so-called credible psychological organization in this country that purports to say that maybe sex with children isn't so bad.' Published last July in the APA's Psychological Bulletin...was roasted by members of Congress and conservative activists for suggesting lowering legal standards for sexual abuse of children. 'The lack of judgment shown by the APA in publishing it absolutely confounds me,' said Mr. Tom DeLay. 'I will not equivocate on this issue. Sexual activity between an adult and a child is criminal all the time and in all cases.' He challenged the APA to admit it erred in publishing the article, 'and do it publicly,' he added, 'so that subscribers to the North American Man/Boy Love Association Web page and their defense attorneys won't quote your journal in their closing arguments.'
"NAMBLA, a pedophile group, has touted the report as 'good news' in a press release and refers to it twice on its Web site. That has caused headaches for the APA...The APA released a statement from the authors of the study, Bruce Rind, a psychology professor at Temple University; Philip Tromovitch, a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania; and Robert Bauserman, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan. 'If adverse childhood events are found to be less psychologically harmful than previous thought, or in some cases not measurably harmful at all, researchers have an ethical duty to report this,' they wrote." The Washington Times, May 13, 1999, p. A4.

g) "The New York Times questioned the ethics of psychiatrists' making a diagnosis of someone they have never met, because the American Psychiatric Association prohibits this conduct. The ethical standard at issue is the 'Goldwater rule,' adopted after the 1964 presidential election. During that campaign, many psychiatrists responded to a one-page questionnaire devised by a magazine. The results were summarized in a full front-page headline-'1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to be President.'' Herb Kutchins and Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy-DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders, p. 3.

l) "Let's take individualism, because it's one ideal psychologists are targeting aggressively. Psychologists, psychiatrists and all behaviorist educators agree that American children-indeed, all children-must forego romanticized, glorified, outmoded ethics like rugged individualism, and all the underlying 'values' and 'attitudes' that are critical to sustaining that ethic, such as self-sufficiency, independence (including financial independence), and ambition." B. K. Eakman, p. 203. Marxism and American Society

In addition to the ascendancy of biological determinism, an important step in legitimizing the killing of the weak, the infirm, the terminally ill, and the incompetent was the shift in ethos among medical doctors and psychiatrists several decades prior to WWII. Historian Robert Proctor has argued persuasively that the Nazi experiment was rooted in pre-1933 thinking about the essence of personhood, racial hygienics and survival economics and that physicians were instrumental both in pioneering research and in carrying out this program. In fact, Proctor is adamant that scientists and physicians were pioneers and not pawns in this process. By 1933, however, when political power was consolidated by National Socialists, resistance within the medical community was too late. Proctor notes, for example, that most of the fifteen-odd journals devoted to racial hygienics were established long before the rise of National Socialism. Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

For a long time, notwithstanding the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, I accepted the conventional wisdom that Communism and Nazism were opposites - one on the extreme left, the other on the extreme right.

Perhaps enough time has passed to permit examination in realistic terms of these approaches to social organization, concentrating on essential characteristics and demonstrated aspirations as opposed to clichés. Decades of observation, as well as ceaseless consideration given to the core issues, compel me to look upon these seemingly opposite systems as mirror images, aspiring to a similar outcome, applying identical methods, achieving comparable subjugation of people under their control, spreading the same hopelessness in their paths. While such conclusions have certainly been reached by others, it may be less obvious that Fascism (Nazism) and Communism (Bolshevism) all share their philosophical foundations as well.

Gleichschaltung operated at once on structural and cultural levels. Structurally, the first victim was federalism: within days of Hitler's accession, the states had to cede authority to the central government. Next, the leadership and membership of every kind of organization had to become politically and racially correct. With the task of implementing structural changes assigned to a variety of agencies, as early as March 1933, a separate Cabinet Department was created for Josef Goebbels to oversee every aspect of the cultural scene, making certain that it was politically correct. Specific terms aside, the reality of all these regimes is the great flattening which is in full progress from day one. Since it is not possible to raise anyone's natural level by fiat, the alternative is to force everyone down.

It is astonishing and frightening how little time it took both in Russia and in Germany to accomplish this task. Indeed, it should be noted that demolishing what centuries had built does not require even a single generation.

The next ingredient had to do with groups. While it may appear contradictory to identify groups in a society having just experienced Gleichschaltung, contradictions do not represent obstacles in a totalitarian structure. The identity of groups was as necessary as the levelling had been in order to maintain positive and negative imaging. This constant dichotomy of egalitarianism and group hatred provided a manipulative tool as simple as it was ingenious. Hitler used race and nationality, Lenin and Stalin mostly class - the outcome was the same. Gleichschaltung

American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Pedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses May 19th, 2003 in San Francisco

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.