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.
Many of the Perot voters were new to politics and many were’t regular voters before he came on the scene and wouldn’t have voted at all if he hadn’t. They mostly stayed active and helped the 1994 landslide happen when it became clear that Clinton was pushing leftist policies. It’s one of the reasons that Clinton reversed course in 1995 and usually avoided iedological conflict during the rest of his Presidency.
No, voting for more liberalism in congress results in more liberalism. Voting for more conservatives in congress results in more conservatives. This is what I'm advocating.
By the way, your posts continue to prove the point made by the original article at the top of the thread.
I think ascribing psychological problems to those who disagree with your political strategies shows a weakness of argument.
I believe your actions will not have the result you desire; they will have unintended consequences harmful to the republic. I believe I have described why and would be willing to discuss further on this aspect.
It would be quite lame of me to say you're crazy; and, I think it pointless to deflect a political debate into a psych analysis. It becomes name-calling silliness. Rather than a reasoned analysis of the political process, elections, strategy and methodology.
In general, that's my criticism of third party folks. Most seem unwilling to look at the results of their actions in political consequences. Wisdom requires we take responsibility for the results of our actions, or that we consider them at the very least. We cannot maintain we are doing "good" when the result is, predictably, not good - more harm than if we had not acted at all.
I thank you for the cogent parts of our discussion.
I’m sorry, I’m really not sure I completely understand your reply to me.
Do you mean you will consider and negotiate “furthering the chance of the Obama regime maintaining power”? Is this still on the table for you?
DJ, with all due respect, your hypothetical, Perotless 1992 presidential election map is not based on reality. Exit polls showed that Perot voters preferred Bush over Clinton by about 55%-40%. And many of the Perot voters who preferred Clinton over Bush were kids who probably would have stayed home had Perot not been on the ballot. Had Perot not been on the ballot (e.g., had he not returned after dropping out due to supposed “Republican dirty tricks”), Bush would have seen a net gain versus Clinton in every state. A simplistic way to predict how each state would have voted in a Perotless 1992 election would be to have Bush net 25% of the Perot vote. However, one would expect Bush to net a higher percentage in conservative states and a lower percentage in liberal states, so the analysis needs to be more nuanced than that.
My analysis of the electoral results from 1992 leads me to conclude that, in a race without Perot, turnout (as a percentage of the 18+ population) would have been around the same as in 1988, Clinton would have won the national popular vote by not more than 1%, and that Clinton would have won at least 264 electoral votes, Bush at least 255 (the 18 states Bush won in the three-man race, plus GA, MT, CO, NV, OH, WI, NH, NJ and KY), 19 EVs (CT, ME and IA) would be toss-ups leaning towards Clinton. Thus, Clinton would most likely win by 283-255 in the Electoral College, but had Bush been able to win CT and IA he would have eked out a victory.
BTW, the analysis for 1996 would be far different, with Perot voters being far likelier to vote for Dole than for Clinton (if you didn’t vote for Clinton in 1996, you were unlikely to do so just because Perot wasn’t ilon the ballot). I think that in a Perotless 1996 race Dole would have lost both nationally and in PA by about 1%, but had Dole carried PA he would have gotten exactly 270 EVs.
In agreement with you, I am not willing to sacrifice everything because my candidate is out of the race. For me this election is about removing Obama - first and foremost. I think the idea of a third party or a write in is as ill fated as voting for Ross Perot. I am firm that we have to do something about the beltway/media alliance. But, I think we have to accept reality and realize that winning (or losing) this battle is a precursor to the outcome of the war for our republic.
Thanks very much for clarifying; I’m a bit slowww today.
FReegards..
Belize
and Hands off Scott Brown!
The lone “north of Kentucky” vote against Kagan.
My fault for not being clear. I am having the same argument you are and although I agree in principle with EV and JH, I can’t see their way on tactics. Not when our future hangs in the balance as it does now.
I used a number of factors to come up with the map, my gut feeling, looking at which candidate was closer to a majority in a given state, guesstimating what % of Perot voters would go which way and recalling the direction on how some of the Congressional races went. All conjecture, of course. Clearly, Bush was going to underperform 1988, but I believe some states would’ve already left our column (perhaps for the forseeable future with respect to Presidential races) as we see what passes for reliable GOP Presidential states today.
1992 also happens to be the first race I was able to legally cast a vote in, so I remember it fairly well, and it was a bad feeling (my state went for Clinton, if only because he picked the then-supposedly popular Gore). At the time, I didn’t even want to imagine that execrable ticket could even win, but it showed the degree to which Bush, Sr. had completely lost touch with a majority of the electorate.
Where you and I disagree is to what degree Clinton would’ve carried the EC, though you & I appear to agree that Bush would’ve lost (albeit by a closer margin).
Your prediction:
“Bush at least 255 (the 18 states Bush won in the three-man race, plus GA, MT, CO, NV, OH, WI, NH, NJ and KY),”
I moved GA & MT to the Bush win, but the others I couldn’t. CO seemed Dem-leaning (electing Ben Nighthorse Campbell before his switch), NV seemed too marginal not to go Dem, OH was a bellwether (and hence, would’ve gone Dem, as so many of the House races did there); WI moved away from us by then; NH was where Buchanan embarrassed Bush, and I think Clinton would’ve carried it; NJ was too gone, too, and even with a massively unpopular Dem Governor at the time, still wouldn’t have changed that. KY, unfortunately, also would vote similarly to TN, and they (sadly) liked Bubba-Gore there. The Dems romped in the House races there and Wendell Ford won in a landslide.
“19 EVs (CT, ME and IA) would be toss-ups leaning towards Clinton.”
To me, it was a no-brainer those would all go to Clinton. IA was already performing poorly for the GOP in the ‘80s, and CT & ME had just simply moved away.
“BTW, the analysis for 1996 would be far different, with Perot voters being far likelier to vote for Dole than for Clinton (if you didn’t vote for Clinton in 1996, you were unlikely to do so just because Perot wasn’t ilon the ballot). I think that in a Perotless 1996 race Dole would have lost both nationally and in PA by about 1%, but had Dole carried PA he would have gotten exactly 270 EVs.”
I didn’t throw in a Perotless ‘96, but clearly had they broken for Dole, he would’ve improved his standing. TN & KY would’ve gone for him, which would’ve foretold of Gore’s eventual bust in 2000, which I had a feeling for by then. I think if Dole had been a more aggressive campaigner, he could’ve gotten a narrow win and rid the country of Bubba. I know Dole gets bashed around here, but he was certainly a far better man. Other than he, I don’t know whom we could’ve recruited to run in ‘96 where the outcome would’ve resulted in a blowout (Colin Powell seemed presentable, but ultimately would’ve been a disaster as a liberal). Frightening to think Slick Willard, had he beaten Ted Kennedy, would’ve jumped right into the Presidential contest, and probably would’ve won outright without nearly the scrutiny he has gotten since (unfortunately). That would’ve been even worse than a Powell Presidency (hell, he probably would’ve picked him as a VP).
Here in Illinois, we have mere public skewel teachers, getting pensions that exceed annual salaries at the end of careers by far, some in the $200,000 to $250,000 range. Then there are school superintendents making as much as $300,000 per year but retiring or being fired by multiple school districts and getting extreme pensions from each employer. We have teachers' union officials (employed only by the pension-paying unions until ONE DAY before retirement) who go to work for that ONE DAY as substitute teachers and get full teacher's pensions as well (by actual state statute) as though they had worked as long as teachers as they had on the union payroll and had earned teachers' pensions accordingly. Double dipping and then they whine about not being eligible for Social Security, poor dears! They pay (to the extent that they pay anything at all) only the pension premium for the ONE DAY. These sweetheart deals abound all over Illinois. In the City of Joliet, a recent survey showed average HOUSEHOLD income of $48,000 but that each municipal employee (many of whom marry each other) getting pay and perks worth an average of $125,000 per year. Then they do even better when they stop working (if ever they actually did anything fairly called work) and start collecting those golden pensions and perfect medical coverage and get replaced by the next generation of spoiled brats. How long can this last??? The Demonrats are funded lavishly by the government employee unions. The House Speaker is Michael Madigan of Chicago whose total corruption and 40 year tenure as a state rep, most as Speaker, have given Illinois its nickname: Madiganistan. He is a rarity in avoiding indictment for that long. The Senate Demonrat leader John Cullerton is also from Chicago. The governor of the moment, pending any likely future indictment, is Pat Quinn, an ummmm, confirmed bachelor from (where else? Chicago) who eagerly signed the "gay marriage" bill and makes Dannell Malloy look like a tight-fisted taxpayers' pal while making Forrest Gump look like a nuclear physicist by comparison. Did I mention that Obozo is from Chicago as is Moochelle, that Rahm Emmanuel (aka Tiny Dancer) is Mayor of Chicago and is actually calling for reductions in public spending an indicating that the apocalypse must soon arrive. As Redd Foxx used to say: It won't be long now, mama! I know that former governor George Lyin' Ryan (R-Kankakee) is in federal prison, and former governor Rod "Elvis" Blagojevich (D-Chicago) is in federal prison for 14 years, and that former governors Otto Kerner (D) (3 years in federal hoosegow and had to resign his federal judgeship) and Walkin' Dan Walker (D) (sentenced to 3 hears and served 18 months for bank looting) did stretches in the federal hoosegow. I only wish that Lowell Weicker had been governor of Illinois instead of being prosecutorily ignored as governor of Connecticut. It would have been so nice to see him off to federal prison for the rest of his days. Ahhhh, but how do I really feel about LoLo???
So much for the entertainment portion of our program. Now, down to business. I have one positive suggestion as I am sure you will agree whether you do what I ask or not. Do whatever you can to help Len Suzio in his re-election bid for State Senator in his Meriden-based district. He is a good friend and a very fine man and has already made a mark on the Connecticut State Senate by lowering one of your gas taxes over Dannell's nearly dead body and Martin Looney's and Chris Donovan's. Money, volunteer time, organizing, whatever you can do. Probably meet Tom Scott in the process. Tell Len I suggested that you help. If he tells you my actual name, keep it to yourself.
Second, and more controversial. I quite agree that Romney will never carry Connecticut unless the Demonrat convention nominates Charles Manson instead of Obozo in which case it would be cliff hanger. Why vote for Romney? Vote for a 3rd Party conservative candidate, keeping your conscience intact and let the party know you are fed up with corruption as usual. And, of course, vote for any conservative on the underticket. I am not going to nag you on that one. We all have free will and must use it each in his/her own way.
BTW, in what area of CT do you live?
BTW, nothing I have posted to you, whatever it may sound like, is a criticism of you. I just have a tendency toward sarcasm without it being personal. Judge me accordingly.
I am actually less cynical than I sound and than you may think. I suspect that we are of similar age since I graduated college the year you arrived in CT. Whatever you decide, God bless you and yours!
Ahhh...
Does reading MORMON 'scripture' REALLY have that effect on you??
I guess WHORES are bad for breakfasts.
Who knew?
(But then again; I don't know any Secret Service fellows...)
But HE does leave them when they CONTINUE to do evil...
AMEN!
>>Does reading MORMON ‘scripture’ REALLY have that effect on you??<<
LOLLOLOL!!!!
A glace at someone’s profile page can prevent faux pas.
I’m Catholic, never read a Mormon scripture in my life, unless it was thrown up by some idiot FReeper to belittle a fellow poster.
Have a Blessed Sunday. I’m off to a Classic Parish Downtown where my girls will sing with their Latin Choir.
Thanks for showing your true colors.
At least you are honest enough to admit that you despise Tea Partiers. As does Romney.
You actually....seriesly.....be honest.....you actually think Romney will stand up to the rabid Commie Libs in The RAT Party and their bloodsucking tics in Big Media WITHOUT all by himself??? Without Tea Partiers???
HA!
Suckahhhhhh!
you actually think Romney will stand up to the rabid Commie Libs in The RAT Party and their bloodsucking tics in Big Media all by himself???
The "Fundamentalist" vote, for example, was at one time solidly Democrat. The Black vote was solidly Republican. The Democrats were the party of segregation.
The great dichotomy in political thought, American Style, is the paired-question ,
The election of Obama by a popular majority in 2008 gave us a very powerful example of the majority's answer to that question.
The RINO Equation is to tell people "WE, i.e., that's US, folks, can take better care of you more efficiently than those spendthrift Democrats with their weak, queer-loving family values, and we're more patriotic. The public's answer to that is often,
"Well, we might as get a Real Democrat!"
Enter you guys. Your job is not to convince me of your excellent Conservative bona fides, but to answer my question,
If Romney becomes the nominee, and can get the vote of the stupid to get The Mombasa MF out, more power to him. I'll do my damndest to surround him with Conservatives in Congress. The cure to this Depression, and the Socialist Damage wrought by Team Obama is going to take one hell of a lot more than one election to fix; elections that must be won.
Spare me apocalyptic "Shiite" conservatism. You ain't gonna fix anything by blowing up the system ... or what's worse ... Third Partying Obama back into public housing.
The lesson of Bill Buckley:
"Conservative" Constitutional ideology is indeed the province of the Thinking Person. We persons rarely number enough to win an election, and most often have scant luck attracting the less intelligent to the cause of voting with enlightened self interest .... well, because they are not enlightened, perhaps even incapable of achieving it. YTet they have the franchise.
So what can Conservatives do to influence the government policies of those candidates who do win elections? Bill's answer was to have us fight for Congressional Representation, and perhaps more important, to fight for every local and state post. The other battlefield is the courtroom.
Democracy means (and has always meant) the electorate's choice of the better (or lesser) of two evils ... which hopefully coincides with my (or your) idea ... especially our brand of democracy, which btw, no one said was guaranteed to last forever. And before you chime in with "But we're a Republic!" Just remember that we chose to become one by democratic means.
Shoot, you can't even get the votes of the base of the Republican Party for this socialist pro-choice democrat and you're worried about Obama voters?
Typical Romney Republican thinking.
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.