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.
Or MA or CT or NY or VT or...
(as far as POTUS goes that is)
I agree that a narrow Clinton victory would have been the likeliest result in both 92 and 96 had Perot not been on the ballot, but Bush would have had a chance at victory in 1992 because IA, CT and ME would have been very close and had Bush won the first two he would have gotten 270 EVs. BTW, even without Perot, TN would have voted for Clinton in 92, but would have gone for Dole in 96.
Excellent post! Unfortunately, most of the MittWits have convinced themselves that they MUST vote for a lying, backstabbing, abortionist gun-grabber, because he’s “the lesser of two evils”. Our country falls into further decline when good people continue to sacrifice conservative principles for the illusion that they’re doing something good. It’s like the alcoholic who convinces himself that “I’m only going to do this ONE MORE TIME, and after that everything will be OK.”
And the paid RomneyBots are in full force here on FreeRepublic, trying to frighten conservatives into voting for their boy, because they know he’s a loser.
Because of the 2010 election results, I think that the Republican will easily win Ohio. In 2010, OH elected a new U.S. senator, a Republican. A democrat governor ran for re-election and lost. 4 of Ohio’s 18 U.S. reps. are in their first terms, and all four of them are Republicans.
Because of the 2010 elections, I think that Illinois is a swing state. IL elected a new republican U.S. Senator, to replace a retiring Democrat. IL Republicans got a net gain of four members, in the U.S. House. Republicans gained seats in the state senate and state house.
Anyone who will vote for someone like that is not a conservative, and any self-identifying conservative who is willing to overlook those things is a damned fool.
Does no one ever wonder how a freshman congressman arrives penniless in DC, to leave 6 years later a multi-millionaire or better? (3 terms apparently being the magic swag number and the minimum for the outrageous Congressional Pension scheme...Boehner, Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Lugar etc on the Republican side, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Clinton, and about 5000 other Democrats on the other.)
Congress has become a huge insider trading operation, with the members uniquely poised to make enormous sums from every piece of legislation, no matter how insignificant it may appear to us rubes out here in voter-land. Talking just the House here. The Senate spoils are exponentially greater! On the state level, nest-feathering can be even more crude and blatant. Howie Carr's columns ring true in every state. Democracy inevitably becomes Kleptocracy as officeholders use their ability to reward their friends and to stay in perpetual power.
This is not, in case you haven't noticed (which I doubt)... an ideologically driven country. Except for the Far Left Marxists, who are driven by nothing else, Americans are by and large, pragmatists. They are struggling with a basic question:
Your suggestions are very good ones and may become possible through Social Media ... right now, the way people have their thinking done for them is through the MSM and hideously expensive advertising.
The latest primary season is a hopeful example of your direction, though ... the "conservatives" at the very least got on the radar. Next mid-term could be the charm.
However, not one "conservative" from Newt, to Rick, Perry, to Paul ... bothered to come up with a a PROGRAM, A PLAN to implement it, or enough LEADERSHIP to get it sold.
As far as the electorate goes, use the "Reader's Digest" paradigm. It was originally written at the 8th Grade reading level. Pick up an old issue from the 1950's and compare it to the last edition. In 1950's terms, that new edition is nearer the 3rd Grade Reading Level. I have no doubt that we still have our Native Intelligence, but us natives are dumber than ever. Conservatives might want to figure out how to somehow awaken that Native Intelligence and use it to even ....gasp ... win an election.
The Republicans fulfill the same role for the Democrats...that the Washington Generals do for the Harlem Globetrotters.
Anyway, my children, believe what you must about Ross Perot, but our internal numbers showed him taking votes from the Republican side of the equation, NOT from Billie-Boy.
GHWB? Wimp? Who knows? Just an AWFUL STUPID LACKADAISICAL CAMPAIGN ... maybe blame Matalin and Karl Rove. Among the many things I will never forgive Bush AND Rove for is the Rodney King Debacle in LA ... an ounce of toughness there just might have won him CA! If ever the peasants needed "a whiff of grape..." that was it. (Napoleon said that, FYI)
If you went by 1994 Clinton would have lost all 50 states.
And Osama is lot more popular around here than the Greek loser who lost to Kirk.
I wonder when we would have gotten Congress if he had won. 98 if a rat won in 96?
I might as well chime in with another one of my “electoral reforms that BillyBoy thinks is a good idea but will never happen” posts.
If it were up to me, all states would enact the Maine-Nebraska system of distributing their electoral votes based on how their congressional districts vote, rather than the current system of “winner take all” used in 48 states. The Constitution is silent as to what method states use to distribute their electoral votes, so its perfectly constitutional AND a far better idea than the Orwellian “Popular Vote Compact” being pushed by Jim Edgar, Fred Thompson, and some other misguided Republicans (what’s the point of having your state in the Presidential election if just decided to cast your electoral votes for the NATIONAL winner even if 100% of your state’s citizens OPPOSED him?)
If electoral votes were distributed based on how the state’s congressional districts voted for President, there would be a hell of a LOT more competitive states than just the 12 or so that decide the election now. Democrats would be able to win electoral votes in states like Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee, Republicans would be able to win electoral votes in states like California, Illinois, and Maryland. The GOP still wouldn’t bother competing in my district and my vote for President STILL wouldn’t count (I’m in Bobby Rush’s district in Crook County, Illinois), but you’d see GOP candidates spend time and money campaigning in downstate Illinois and the collar counties trying to pick up electoral votes there. Even with the 20102 remap designed to reverse the 2010 gains and give the RATs total control of the states, Republican Bill Brady won 10 out 18 of Illinois’ “new” congressional districts, so there’s definitely room for Republican Presidential candidates to be competitive in Illinois when it’s not winner-take-all and Crook County deciding how the whole state will vote.
Someone did a study of how the raw numbers of the votes cast in the 2000 election would have changed if electoral votes were distributed by congressional district, and Bush would STILL beaten Gore because Bush won a lot more Democrat-leaning districts that year than Gore won GOP-leaning districts.
Interestingly enough, I think both Maine and Nebraska have had their system in effect for decades, but it never changed the results until 2008. That was the first and only election thus far where the number of electoral votes was different than it would have been if they had used a winner-take-all system. Obama won NE-1, based around the city of Omaha (yes, Omaha for Obama) so he got 1 electoral vote out of a usually safe GOP state. Had it been winner-take-all, he would have gotten 0. Oh well. Now only if the Republican state legislators in RAT majority states were smart enough to introduce this so they don’t have to sit on the sidelines every Presidential election. It’s really depressing thinking the people of 38 states or so have absolutely no effect on deciding the President, simply because of what state they live in.
In Oct. 2004, I used the 2002 election results to predict that, in IL, Kerry would win 57% of the vote. A month later, I was correct. I agree that, in IL, Barack is more popular than Alexi, but that’s not saying much. Alexi got about 47% of the vote.
I was 18 in 1992 and didn’t want to fathom the country electing my odious Senator as VP and the creepy philanderer from across Big Muddy as President. You can obviously attest to the fact it was one of the worst-run campaigns for reelection. In hindsight, it’s almost as though he just didn’t want to win. If that was the case, he should’ve stepped down and had someone else step in (though probably not Quayle).
With respect to the statement of Perot taking more votes from Bush, the question is whether how many of them ultimately would’ve voted for him in a two-person race. I think enough would’ve not voted for him (as in not voting or just voting downballot), or voted for Bubba in a fit of pique for my above scenario to play out. IIRC, after Perot first pulled out (when it appeared he was in first place, and frankly, I don’t think he wanted to be President), that’s about when Clinton went ahead in the polls and never lost his lead.
As for the Rodney King debacle, I almost ended up in the middle of it. I was on a long cross-country business trip with my parents this time 20 years ago in California. We were in San Diego for about a week and went to Tijuana for the day (4/29/92). It wasn’t until late in the evening we learned what happened. If we left a day earlier, our next destination was Los Angeles, and we would’ve been driving right through the middle of the fun zone when the $hit hit the fan. Scary stuff.
I’d go so far as to say that from a cultural standpoint, the Rodney King thing was the “end” of the Reagan 1980s and marked the beginning of the national deterioration that has never really abated since (although I’d trace its actual start to around 1963-65, Reagan gave us a decade-long reprieve).
Well, Clinton would’ve lost in 1994 to “Generic Republican.” But whom would that have been ?
Bush’s reelection would’ve all but guaranteed continued Democrat domination of Congress. At best, we might’ve gotten to 190 in the House (our maxing-out point from the ‘50s) and perhaps mid to high 40s in the Senate. Depending upon the Democrat who might win in 1996 and what the national situation was by 1998. One other problem the GOP faced for being in the minority so long is that you didn’t have people who would or could do what was necessary to win a majority. Gingrich at least deserves credit for changing that equation.
You’re right, a lot of the kids who claimed to be for Perot switched to Clinton after Perot dropped out the first time (citing “Republican dirty tricks”). But that’s the point, they had already switched to Clinton. Had Perot not been on the ballot in November, no way would half of the 19% that ended up voting for Perot have voted for Clinton; I’d guess that over half of Perot voters who told exit pollsters that Clinton was their second choice would have stayed home had Perot not been on the ballot.
“Bush’s reelection would’ve all but guaranteed continued Democrat domination of Congress. At best, we might’ve gotten to 190 in the House (our maxing-out point from the ‘50s) and perhaps mid to high 40s in the Senate.”
I think the GOP would have regained the Senate in 1994 even had Bush been reelected, and that the House would have either gone GOP or at least had more Republicans than at any point in the last few decades. The GOP was just *due*. Just like it is likely that the Democrats would have won the House and Senate in 2006 even had Kerry beaten Bush in 2004, and that the Democrats were due to suffer hefty losses in 2010 even had McCain beaten Obama in 2008, I don’t think the results of the 1994 elections were attributable solely to Clinton’s overreaching.
The overriding factor here is that it would’ve been a 6th year election, and almost inevitably, it is a disaster for the administration. Given the counterbalance of scandals from the Democrats, at best, we might’ve seen it end in a wash (a la 1990), but I cannot see any way in which it would’ve ended in a majority for the GOP. Clinton’s election almost promised GOP gains, and his overreach and out-of-touch(ness) made it an absolute guarantee with national repercussions.
Actually, had Senate Democrats not retired in 1994, we might not have even won that (come close, yes). Some of those Democrats might not have even chosen to retire under Bush, and hence, they would’ve held it (David Boren, George Mitchell, Don Riegle) and Shelby & Campbell wouldn’t have switched parties with a GOP minority. We’d also probably have lost seats (Bill Roth in DE, the open Durenberger seat in MN, possibly the open Danforth’s in MO, Slade Gorton in WA), all 4 of which are now in Dem hands today, and hence would’ve resulted in a net loss of seats. Clinton really did cause that much of a game changer, as did Zero for his first two years.
BTW, I also disagree that Congress would’ve changed hands if Kerry had won in 2004. He would’ve been as viscerally unpopular, and add to that the shenanigans of his VP, Edwards. Virtually all our Senate wins from 2000 would’ve been preserved and we’d clearly have gained Governorships (Granholm would’ve been bounced in MI, ditto Napolitano in AZ, Vilsack in IA, Gilligan-Sebelius in KS, et al, and conversely, Bob Ehrlich in MD would’ve been saved).
O, I dunno. Everyone in South Cacrolina who voted Democrat, whose Daddy, Grandaddy, and Great Grandaddy voted Democrat? Who believe in God, and go to a church, who fly the flag on the 4th of July, place their sons and daughters in the military, etc.? Maybe your relatives during the Depression?
Although perhaps an endangered species, many otherwise good conservative people WERE traditionally Democrats .... i.e. Southern Baptists, Blue Collar Catholics, etc, etc..
Waddayou, one of these holier-than-moi nouveaux conservatives who don't recognize or acknowledge people in the other party in the Two Party System?
Maybe this will refresh your memory: those Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan by the millions. Ignore them at your peril in your quest for elected office.
This is what you are skating past in your analysis of various political scenarios: The Two Party System includes people in both parties who disagree ... and agree ...with you and me. You want to be in a political party in which everyone agrees with you? OK, then! Move to France or Italy.
Now let me straighten you out about me and Slick Willard. I dislike the SOB for the standard conservative reasons. HOWEVAH ... if said SOB is the GOP Nominee, I will not only hold my nose and vote for the SOB, I will campaign for him, and woe betide any "Conservative" whom I catch on the couch in the trailer park on Election Day.
BTW, I have actually won elected local offices several times on the Republican ticket; see that you do the same. It means getting the votes of people with whom you disagree ... and who disagree with you! Figure it out.
Well, my son, I'll say this for you: you are a more logical writer than my child who was also 18 in 1992!
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.