How Do I Hate Thee? Let Me Count The Ways.....
Vast left-wing conspiracy invents Clinton complex
The wing conspirators are at it again, but this time it's the left demonizing the right. Make that "Freudinizing."
Apr 10, 2002
by Kathleen Parker
The wing conspirators are at it again, but this time it's the left demonizing the right. Make that "Freudinizing." In two recent instances, spokespersons on the left have opined that the right's "hatred" of former President Bill Clinton is a function of "Freudian projection." That is, those who hate Clinton really hate themselves. Both Paul Begala, former Clinton adviser and now one-fourth of CNN's "Crossfire," and David Brock, journalist and erstwhile right-wing conspirator, have used the same language - psychological projection - to describe Clinton's opponents. Mere coincidence? Or the outlines of a vast left-wing conspiracy? I first noticed the suggestion that Clinton-hating is really a psychological pathology while reading a Barnes and Noble interview with Brock following publication of his latest confessional, "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative." The B&N interviewer (www.bn.com) asked Brock why he thought conservatives hated (and still hate) liberals such as Bill and Hillary Clinton. Brock: "Clinton-hating is a complex phenomenon, more an emotional aversion than an intellectual one." (Translation: too hard for ignoramuses on the right to understand.) Also: "Clinton-hating is a psychological phenomenon: They see in the Clintons the very qualities that they hate in themselves."
The wing conspirators are at it again, but this time it's the left demonizing the right. Make that "Freudinizing."
Apr 10, 2002
by Kathleen Parker
The wing conspirators are at it again, but this time it's the left demonizing the right. Make that "Freudinizing." In two recent instances, spokespersons on the left have opined that the right's "hatred" of former President Bill Clinton is a function of "Freudian projection." That is, those who hate Clinton really hate themselves. Both Paul Begala, former Clinton adviser and now one-fourth of CNN's "Crossfire," and David Brock, journalist and erstwhile right-wing conspirator, have used the same language - psychological projection - to describe Clinton's opponents. Mere coincidence? Or the outlines of a vast left-wing conspiracy? I first noticed the suggestion that Clinton-hating is really a psychological pathology while reading a Barnes and Noble interview with Brock following publication of his latest confessional, "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative." The B&N interviewer (www.bn.com) asked Brock why he thought conservatives hated (and still hate) liberals such as Bill and Hillary Clinton. Brock: "Clinton-hating is a complex phenomenon, more an emotional aversion than an intellectual one." (Translation: too hard for ignoramuses on the right to understand.) Also: "Clinton-hating is a psychological phenomenon: They see in the Clintons the very qualities that they hate in themselves."
posted by BigBubba at 7:45 PM
![[Link to THOMAS Home Page]](http://thomas.loc.gov/images/link.gif)
9 Comments:
Hey, the entire "New Left" is built upon Neo-Freudian Marcusian concepts. That's what lets them get around the issue of negative liberty without experiencing "feelings of guilt" for imposing positive law on others.
That the Clinton haters "project" their right hemisphere "ego ideals" upon the CINC and find him "wanting" is no surprise, all people subject their leaders to that same test. It only that Conservatives have more highly developed left (reason) brain septal nuclei connections than liberals, who's septal nuclei connections are right (intuition) brain dominant (making the conservatives better at rationally and consciously controlling and repressing their own natural instincts and emotions via the ego itself over the id and liberals more susceptible to the unconscious repressive dictates of the right hemisphere's "dominant" Superego itself and id).
But hey, that's only one man's "Freudian" opinion based upon the latest experimental neurological discoveries and neurophilosophy.
Projection, we all do it. That's what the right hemisphere does. Only conservatives can more easily "consciously" choose to overide it and liberals have a harder time. For conservatives hold themselves and their own conduct to a "different" (derived from one's father ego-ideal) standard than the current social "group" norm (derived from the mother ego-ideal). Their ego's are also more "dominant" over Id (will). Liberal's egos are more "subordinant" concerning Id relations. That's what makes conservatives better "leaders" in critical situations where reason is vital and instincts and emotions are better repressed (ie -war).
;-}
-FJ
As for self-hate, that is what every one calls the unconscious repressive forces of the right brained ego-ideal (Thanatos), Unfortunately for liberals, they are much more "susceptible" and therefore less "conscious" of it. They are simply much more "over-riddled with unconscious feelings of guilt" and being less able to control themselves, and have a greater need to emote and commisurate with fellow "victims of power", as opposed to those who ARE able to exercise self-control and look for logical "reasons" that explain the victim's condition.
That's why their political movements have had to attack conservative morality and embrace moral relativism... to diminish the social standards by which they can be held accountable and criticized and "naturalize" the human distortion known as the "civilized" state.
Liberals have a harder time subduing their natural physical instincts and desires (emotions) and must constantly seek outlets for them [sublimation (creative) or indulgence (non-creative)]. The effects of sublimation frequently express themselves as a perversion of the prevalent social norm.
But in order to not feel the severe repressive feelings of guilt, and not being in control of themselves, they must constantly seek to lower the social standards by which they measure themselves [instead of attempting the harder task of generating more amour de soi (earned feelings of self-worth)].
Conservatives are much better able to rationalize and consciously subdue feelings of guilt. They have much higher feelings of self worth. And they very seldom suffer the same intense feelings of "righteous indignation" that liberals do.
For neocons actually have done an inductive dialectic (as opposed to a deductive probablistic based meta level analysis), as evidenced by the fact that the "know themselves" and exercise the discipline of virtue, which tames the "relative" measures of physical and mental pleasure inherent in physical sensory processing (by practicing the principle of "nothing to excess").
mr ducky thinks that nothing can be known. He does not "know himself", which is perhaps the ONLY thing that CAN be actually known for certain before applying the INDUCTIVE dialectic. Meta analysis is way to "probablistic" making it inherently "unknowable" by definition.
;-)
-FJ
Duck, you allude to dignity and poverty (Catholic Worker philosophy) yet you curse like a drunken sailor and brag about wealth. Doesn't make any sense to me.
mr ducky,
If you notice, I did not speak in "absolutes", only general tendencies. Righties can be VERY passionate about their sports, their sex, their drinking, their pleasures, their money, ad nauseum. But usually, their sex and natural instincts express themselves as rather rote "system blessed" missionary-type and generally socially accepted stuff. The whips, chains, prosthetics, etc. usually don't actually "materialize", but stay "sublimated"... in other words, under a willfull "control" and repression, for the primary sex instinct has an accepted and generally healthful and "generative" physical "outlet". And the sublimated remaining aspects of instincts (death/ destruction) express themselves, as "Marcuse" INCORRECTLY intimated, as "work" or "sports" or other forms of "competition" and CANNOT be simply channeled into more "Eros", for Eros HAS an outlet, Thanatos does NOT have a direct one (unless we're at war). Civilized Western nations do NOT desire wars as an outlet for Thanatos, but WILL engage in them when "threatened".
And righties do tend to have more self-worth, for "real" self-worth (amour de soi) is derived from actual accomplishments that come from hard work and not the "false" form we typically call self-esteem that comes from others "deferring to" (aka - hereditary nobles/ students/ audience applause) or otherwise "praising" you for mediocrity or expected performance (ie - the modern American educational practice).
And my social standards ARE based upon dogma and a belief system. There can be no other kind. The difference between us is that MY standards lead to "growth" and "health" and "future viability", yours to "decay" and "sickness" and "extinction".
You may hate the thought of dogma or sharia, but your kidding yourself if you believe your own values aren't a form of it too.
And you're also kidding yourself if you think that all values are simply "relative" or will have an "equal" result. The difference between us is that we've "realistically" thought out and "time tested" the "consequences" of ours.
You've "idealized" yours based upon impractical and completely untested moral "wants".
But in this "cycle" of civilizational decay, your views are likely to prevail for some time to come. It's "natures way" of dealing with human overpopulation.
But in the end, I'll win since I've actually successfully reproduced and raised children in my "tradition", and your genes will have dissappeared (unless my kids or their descendents get seduced by your values). And so there you have the answer to your question...what have I "done" and not simply "thought".
And people don't "deserve" (moral distinction) to be poor. But their are real REASONS WHY some people are poor (rational distinction). They may be physically disabled. They may be less intelligent. They may be "uncivilized" (never "broken" as children to the standard set of norms and values upon which their particular "system" runs). Or they might mistakenly embrace DEGENERATE values or practices that lead to unhealthy conditions for the physical existance of the human organism (ie - Like not working or trying to do one's best because they can sit at home and collect "welfare").
And my "conservative" (classically liberal, "enlightened") values come from the classically adapted American Revolution and Constitution.
That you claim heritage for your values from the "Catholic" Workers Movement, I have no doubts. But I do know one thing about your values. They are not completely "Catholic" for they advocate the use of force. In that regard, they're much more "worker" inspired... which means "oriented towards doing less work" (Marxist resentment towards ALL hereditary aristocrats - even those with amour de soi and not amour propre).
And perhaps Those are the primary differences between a Marxist and a priest. Both minister to the poor, but one believes that the use of force will aid him in achieving his end (of not doing any work).
And I'm not a born again. My sister (who is) and I constantly argue over the Bible (she is a "strict" literalist). I'm technically no longer even a Christian, even though I was raised, baptised and "confirmed at 14" in the Lutheran faith. Perhaps the most appropriate "label" for me would be "Deist" or perhaps even "Platonist".
And I try my best to uphold those Platonic ideals but will occassionally and infrequently indulge in a "Dionysia". More often though, I fail to strike and retaliate against those who injure me. I guess I've adapted my behavior to suit some of those much despised "Christian" values in our legal system and societal norms which prevent it. They prevent me from becoming a true Platonist. Is that evidence of a certain "pragmatism"?
And if you want some useless and naive "labels" let me hand you a few modern ones. Racist. Homophobe. Sexist. Progressive. Bigot. Intolerant. Internationalist. Multicultural. Social Justice. World Peace.
-FJ
Speaking of racist as a label.
BB,
I'm surprised they didn't charge Joan with the crime of "hate speech".
-FJ
Farmer John, did you read the article? It seems twenty (twenty?) listeners called in about the show. A few callers objected to some crude language Rivers used, but they mostly supported her tirade.
BB,
I was thinking of the BBC interviewers. PC to the Max.
-FJ
FJ,
Too bad! A brain discussion, and I missed it.
No mention of crossing the corpus callosum?
Also, FJ, I attended a concert last Sunday. Definitely not right-brained, so to speak. I don't want to say too much here or at my own blog because the musician might read what I'm saying (I'm missing Neptune's Blog these days). You can always reach me by using the email address posted in my blog profile.
Post a Comment
<< Home