Left-Wing Psyche

[Jagermeister]

From the Wall Street Journal - Opinion Journal - Best of the Web (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007701)

"A 2003 paper by Rutgers sociologist Ted Goertzel offers some interesting insight into the left-wing psyche:"



In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of "new left" radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions. . . .

The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures. Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line.

[Osborne Russel]

Truthfully, it is easier to blame America for starting a war when it is the truth.

[Norman Bernstein]

"A 2003 paper by Rutgers sociologist Ted Goertzel offers some interesting insight into the left-wing psyche:"
wow, that's a fairly sophisticated analysis.... Michael Savage's take is much simpler: 'liberalism is a mental disorder'... I believe I've heard Laura Ingraham say pretty much the same thing.

It's much easier to dismiss those who believe differently than you do by simply ascribing the difference to mental illness.

Of course, we COULD also psycho-analyze the neo-cons.... :D

Jager, do you really BELIEVE this utter horses#%t?

[ 12-19-2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I gotta' admit that if I was more extroverted I would be spending more time in the local singles bar and less hanging around here.
Can I sue Goertzel for taking potshots at my psyche?
Charlie

[High C]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...Michael Savage's take is much simpler: 'liberalism is a mental disorder'... I believe I've heard Laura Ingraham say pretty much the same thing...Nahh, they didn't say that. You're just being paranoid... ;)

[Norman Bernstein]

Considering recent news events, HighC, we ALL have a pretty damned good reason to be paranoid!

[Wild Wassa]

Jagermeister, I notice you have to use the words of others to say what you can't, and you claim the "new left radicals" lack self esteem ... you fraud.

You (and your ghost writer) left one thing out, the hard left (bugger the new left they are just pretenders) don't tolerate fools.

Warren.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Read longshoreman Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.

Not about the "left." Not about the "right."

Just about those unfortunate people whose necessary submission to the constraints of ANY irrational doctrine skews and distorts their seeing, their speaking, their doing, and their self-worth...

Alan

[Keith Wilson]

In the 1970s . . . to a large sample of "new left" radicals Hey guys, read carefully. The people they studied were 1970s New Left Radicals. I knew guys like that back in college. These were the folks that thought Mao was a serious political philospher. They are not liberals by any stretch of the imagination; they had nothing but contempt for liberals. I have never heard even a hint of an opinion that they'd agree with on this forum. (Well, maybe Meerkat at his most intemperate.)

The WSJ editorial page does it again. :rolleyes: You're better off reading The Onion.

[Victor]

Gosh I must be more right-wing than I thought. I thought that analysis by the Rutgers prof was pretty cogent, at least for the few lefties I've known. What he's saying in a nutshell is they tend to act like sheep. Baaaa aaaaa!

I also find it hard to believe anyone would NOT want our givernment to monitor every phone call to Afghanistan in the weeks following 911. If I were the Prez you can be damn sure I would! Nice to know they're doing SOMETHING besides hassling airline passengers and everyone who launches at Liberty State Park! But I might try to do it a little more legally.

All of a sudden everyone's howling about civil liberties, but they went down the toilet with the War On Drugs. Funny how all this is coming up now, when our civil liberties have been routinely violated for years.

[ 12-19-2005, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Gosh I must be more right-wing than I thought. I thought that analysis by the Rutgers prof was pretty cogent, at least for the few lefties I've known. What he's saying in a nutshell is they tend to act like sheep. Baaaa aaaaa! Hmmm..would you be offended if I observed that conservatives tend to act like fascists?

I'm not making that observation... I'm just wondering if it offends you.

[High C]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
..would you be offended if I observed that conservatives tend to act like fascists?Well, I really like opera, and Italian food, so... no offense. :D

[Norman Bernstein]

I also find it hard to believe anyone would NOT want our givernment to monitor every phone call to Afghanistan in the weeks following 911. Terrific. It's not a bad idea. So, what to do? Simply decide that he objects to existing law and decides to ignore it?

He broke the law.

What's the penalty for breaking the law?

[Keith Wilson]

Don't confuse radical leftists with liberals. It's much like confusing feces with chocolate. The center-right and the center-left (which describes almost everybody on the left who posts here) have FAR more in common with each other than with either extreme, despite Rove and Company's attempts to persuade us otherwise.

[Alan D. Hyde]

The extremes are both driven, Keith, by the factors that Hoffer outlined...

Alan

[Keith Wilson]

Alan, I quite agree. I no more agree with those folks I knew in college than I do with Ann Coulter.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:

Just about those unfortunate people whose necessary submission to the constraints of ANY irrational doctrine skews and distorts their seeing, their speaking, their doing, and their self-worth...

AlanHave you looked in a mirror lately? You can't claim any "centerist" position, given what you post!

[Jagermeister]

Norman asks:
Would you be offended if I observed that conservatives tend to act like fascists?Norman, that observation gets made daily on the forum, in one manner or another. So to whatever degree I would be offended, I already have been offended. smile.gif

In any case, no matter now active I (and the few others of my stripe) are on the forum, our contributions are but a drop in the bucket compared to the other stuff that posted. This snippet was pretty tame, all things considered.

To all who are offended - get a life! You don't have to identify with the portrayal if you don't want, and it's just one sociologist's opinion. If you haven't heard similar observations from your therapist, you're possibly O.K. :D

[High C]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...He broke the law...The US Attorney General and numerous other officials disagree with you. Congress was briefed several times about this. They had no objection, and they wrote the law in question.

Amateur legal pronouncements are just that....

[Donn]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...He broke the law...Amateur legal pronouncements are just that....</font>[/QUOTE]Dew process.

[Norman Bernstein]

In any case, no matter now active I (and the few others of my stripe) are on the forum, our contributions are but a drop in the bucket compared to the other stuff that posted. This snippet was pretty tame, all things considered.
Actually, I wasn't offended at all. Anyone who generalizes and paints large segments of the population with a cartoonish stereotype doesn't deserve to be noticed, much less read.

There are a large number of conservatives who I know and respect highly, and I do NOT believe that all conservatives behave like fascists... any more than I believe that the ludicrous stereotyping of 'leftists' is valid, either.

It is convenient for extremists of both ends of the spectrum to characterize and stereotype the other side.... it's the reason that right wing radio talk show hosts equate EVERY opponent to Michael Moore and Howard Dean....

it's just stupidity and prejudice.

[ 12-19-2005, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Norman Bernstein]

The US Attorney General and numerous other officials disagree with you. Congress was briefed several times about this. They had no objection, and they wrote the law in question.
you're right, I'm no lawyer.

I HAVE read the FISA Act, the 1972 Supreme Court decision, and the Fourth Ammendment. Those three documents, taken together, are plain and clear.

Gonsales' argument, from what I've heard, is that Bush has an intrinsic right to do what he did as Commander in Chief.... derived, in part, from the Senate resolution which gave him the authority to use force against Iraq. Nowhere in that resolution does it say that the President is given permission to ignore existing law.

All judgments about 'law breaking' are opinion.... even Gonsales' judgment is an opinion. Opinions end when the Supreme Court weighs in, as it may indeed do....

Until then, I have an opinion.... and I'm entitled to it.

He broke the law.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
...He broke the law...The US Attorney General and numerous other officials disagree with you. Congress was briefed several times about this. They had no objection, and they wrote the law in question.
</font>[/QUOTE]"Numerous officals" - of an administration that's higly partisan? PLEASE! :D

As for what was briefed to Congress, there's some question as reported by the media and containing interviews with those allegedly briefed as to exactly was briefed.

[Donn]

More unsupported innuendo from meerkat. Got a cite for these supposed interviews? Are you saying that the administration is lying about briefing Congress "a dozen" times? Can you support that idea?

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by High C:
The US Attorney General and numerous other officials ........ Congress ....But not a court. No warrants shall issue except on probable cause.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Donn:
More unsupported innuendo from meerkat. Got a cite for these supposed interviews? Are you saying that the administration is lying about briefing Congress "a dozen" times? Can you support that idea?Here for starters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233.html

This administration lies about many things on an ongoing basis. One more should not come as any surprise.

BTW, where did you get that "dozen" number? The news reports say FOUR.

[High C]

Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
...But not a court. No warrants shall issue except on probable cause.Do you consult with a court before doing something you and your lawyer believe is legal?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
...But not a court. No warrants shall issue except on probable cause.Do you consult with a court before doing something you and your lawyer believe is legal?</font>[/QUOTE]Nope, but how does the president sue for malpractice, especially when he's surrounded himself with yes men? ;)

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
"Numerous officals" - of an administration that's higly partisan? PLEASE!I know this is cherry picking, but I don't believe it means anything else out of context.

"Highly partisan?" You mean, unlike all those administrations who packed their political appointee list with members of the opposition party and others who disagreed with the president's philosophy of governing? Let's make a list of presidents who have surrounded themselves with their political enemies. I can't think of any, so you'll have to start, Meer:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

I think you meant to write, "that ******* Bush packed his administration with people I disagree with!"

[ 12-19-2005, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Rick Tyler ]

[Victor]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Could Bush's people argue that correspondence is not covered by this?

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Victor:
Could Bush's people argue that correspondence is not covered by this?Interesting question. I wonder if any court has ruled that email, in particular, is not protected by implied privacy rights since you are voluntarily sending those electrons all over the world? I can see someone making that argument. I don't think I'd buy it, but I can see some superficial validity to it.

[Jagermeister]

"Unreasonable" and "Probable" give enough leeway to employ an army of lawyers for hundreds of years. At least since 1787.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Rick Tyler:

I think you meant to write, "that ******* Bush packed his administration with people I disagree with!"No, I think I meant to suggest that not all presidents have packed their administrations with people that put the president and their party above the law and the constitution. At least not as completely as this one seems to have done.

[Victor]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Gosh I must be more right-wing than I thought. I thought that analysis by the Rutgers prof was pretty cogent, at least for the few lefties I've known. What he's saying in a nutshell is they tend to act like sheep. Baaaa aaaaa! Hmmm..would you be offended if I observed that conservatives tend to act like fascists?

I'm not making that observation... I'm just wondering if it offends you.</font>[/QUOTE]Course not, I agree with you. But I think this Rutgers prof was referring to Socialist Workers Party types, not just people with leftist ideas. Communists everywhere were notorious for eating each other as soon as they were done eating their political enemies. Read any histories of the reds in New York in the thirties? It's pretty funny, really, how they spent most of their time browbeating each other. It seems they were more interested in primal dominance rituals than in enacting any kind of policy. No wonder they took their lead from Stalin - without him there'd be no policy at all, since you can't put two commies in a room together without them spending all their time trying to dominate each other.

So it was pretty natural that their members would be submissive types. Anyone who thought for himself would get out, as many did, or get kicked out.

[ 12-19-2005, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[High C]

Originally posted by Victor:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Could Bush's people argue that correspondence is not covered by this?That would be a good question to ask of those who wrote the law, not of those who are attempting to abide by it.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Victor:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Could Bush's people argue that correspondence is not covered by this?That would be a good question to ask of those who wrote the law, not of those who are attempting to abide by it.</font>[/QUOTE]Firstly, it's not a law, it's a constitutional amendment. There's a difference.

Secondly, and I know this will come as a shock to you, but I think that any interpretation of the constitution must be conservative: if it could be prohibited by the constitution, then that is the position the government must take!

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
...Firstly, it's not a law, it's a constitutional amendment...I was refering to the law that Jager posted, not the amendment:

"Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court"

[Victor]

Dream on, Meer. It's open to all kinds of interpretations. Why do you think it matters so much who's on the Supreme Court? Someone pointed out that it was regularly cited in support of slavery. Slaves are property, and property rights were heavily protected, but the Constitution does not specifically ban slavery.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Victor:
the Constitution does not specifically ban slavery.I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand what Victor wrote. Until the ratification of the 13th Amendment, the Constitution did not ban slavery. Since ratification of the 13th in 1865, slavery has been banned by the Constitution.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Victor:
Dream on, Meer. It's open to all kinds of interpretations. Why do you think it matters so much who's on the Supreme Court? Someone pointed out that it was regularly cited in support of slavery. Slaves are property, and property rights were heavily protected, but the Constitution does not specifically ban slavery.You can thank John Jay for why it's so important as to who's on the Supreme Court. In 1803 his court (he was Chief Justice) found that the USSC had the power of judicial review, something that was considered by the founding fathers and NOT added to the constitution. Heh.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by High C:
Do you consult with a court before doing something you and your lawyer believe is legal?No lawyer would recommend a warrantless search if a warrant could be obtained. That would be malpractice and possibly criminal.

I wouldn't hire a flack for a lawyer, though. I want the straight dope, not an image consultant. The last thing I would need would be a lawyer telling me what he thought I wanted to hear, especially if I were President.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Jagermeister:
"Unreasonable" and "Probable" give enough leeway to employ an army of lawyers for hundreds of years. At least since 1787.Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

[Jagermeister]

Osborne wrote:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.I agree with you completely on that. Which is why, when the President ordered this, there are review and investigations and Congressional oversight, and news papers, and now, on-line forums. We are performing the function of "Eternal vigilance" by debating this. Either Bush's action will be vindicated, and he'll continue, or he'll be found in violation, and suffer the consequences.

At the risk of offending our America bashers, at least this story is getting a hearing, and although the leakers might face consequences, the press won't. If this were Britain, the whole bunch could be locked up under the Official Secrets Act without even a "by your leave", and the French would probably have planted a limpet mine under the New York Times. And we all know what would happen in China or a host of other countries where this goes on routinely without a breath of opposition.

Is this a great country, or what?

[Osborne Russel]

Sho nuff.

[Keith Wilson]

Well, Jagermeister, I have to agree. It would be better if we didn’t need to debate this, but it could be a lot worse. As soon as it warms up a bit I’m going to put both of these on my car:

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004021920_Display-35.gif

http://www.carryabigsticker.com/images/impeach_bush_500.gif

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.Yes, take for instance my whole country, which is politically quite left of the Democratic party in the US. We seem to be stuck at the top. :D

Sweden, Denmark, and a whole host of other nation's must be in the same boat. How tragic for us. tongue.gif

[George Jung]

Nicely said; this has been an interesting thread. And it will be interesting how this plays out.

[Meerkat]

How come we get THE unmannerly Canadian? tongue.gif

[Jagermeister]

Keith says:
Impeach Bush Based on our earlier discussion, and the discovery of my mistake (regarding the difference between impeachment and conviction) don't you want a bumper sticker that says,:

CONVICT BUSH!

? :cool:

[ 12-20-2005, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
How tragic for us.I know! How do you stand it?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

We'll rough it out. ;)

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Why this interest in the poor girl's left wing?

IIRC, her boyfriend had the wings, rather than her. ;)

[Ian McColgin]

The Rothman-Lichter studies were discredited at the time given their very poor approach to mass psychologizing. Many of their subjects are now, thirty years later, neo-cons anyway so what's that tell us.

I was unable to open the WSJ bit and could not find among Goertzel's stuff a reference such as that quoted by WSJ that also, in it's context, meant that R-L were both correct then and correct, or even relevant, now.

Given that, we can see that this bit of WSJ tripe is psychobabbelistic garbage. It may comfort the forces or repression but it subtracts from their understanding of reality.

The New Left of the latter '60's into the '70's was an interestingly diverse collection. Most importantly, we had broken from the doctrinaire dialectics of the more traditionally communist influenced "Old Left." As the incredibly dense prose of the old Vanguard showed, there was plenty of intellectual pretense, as there is in any generation. But the profounder new lefties were, still are, deeply democratic, able to compromise, tack into the wind rather than just point up and stall. They are what led to the wave of democratic organizing in communities, like what ACORN does, and in unions, like SEIU.

Some new lefties, like Jerry Rubin, sold out. Some became neo-cons. Most of us are still vigorous enough to resist evil with good.

[Tristan]

For starters, the TAT is a highly subjective "test" the results of which are variable, depending on the test giver . I would hate to have to testify before a court a to the validity of TAT test results or the validity of "injured narcissism," etc. because I'd be ripped to shreds by another pscyhologist who understood validity and reliability. Unfortunately there are too many dimwits who, because they have an undergratute degree in sociology or psychology, or who have read a few books, think they are experts.

[ 12-20-2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

[Leon m]

Every time a bell rings an angel gets its wings... tongue.gif smile.gif