Understanding US Politics 101
Retrieving order from the chaos
Joining the puzzled ranks of Americans who are interested enough in the politics unfolding around us, MeanMesa also finds contemporary politics quite confounding. One need not be Werner von Braun or Sigmund Freud to wonder what, exactly, is happening to the national mentality.
There has always been the alluring possibility that all this strange behavior might actually be both quantifiable and traceable back to some comprehensible origin. MeanMesa has long sought this -- "unifying thread" -- perhaps more than one -- which, when applied to what we see, would provide a coherent model which might help in describing the unusual functioning of the national electorate.
Since it is election time, what would have normally been no more than a "passing curiosity" with regard to this becomes, at least psychologically, a much more immediate priority. MeanMesa finds it rather challenging to sit quietly and comfortably in the back seat of this car while its clearly tipsy driver, still defiantly confident after being prankishly blindfolded by those attending the party in the front seat, careens along with one wheel dangling over the cliff.
While we search through a literal myriad of more visible "potential suspects" as we seek the cause of this historically unusual behavior, one particular possibility seems worth exploring a bit. This post considers the possibility that the US population has begun -- en masse -- to display an unsettling number of the characteristic traits usually suggesting codependency.
The author of this informative article agrees -- as a family counselling therapist, but MeanMesa, as usual, intends to suggest that the same traits are currently major influences in determining the nation's politics, too. Have a quick look at a "conveniently short" summary describing some of the fairly well accepted signs of codependency.
Symptoms of Codependency
The term codependency has been around for almost four decades. Although it originally applied to spouses of alcoholics, first called co-alcoholics, researchers revealed that the characteristics of codependents were much more prevalent in the general population than had been imagined. In fact, they found that if you were raised in a dysfunctional family or had an ill parent, you’re likely codependent.
Don’t feel bad if that includes you. Most American families are dysfunctional. You’re in the majority!
Researchers also found that codependent symptoms got worse if left untreated. The good news is that they’re reversible.
Following is a list of symptoms of codependents. You needn’t have them all to qualify as codependent.
Low self-esteem.
Feeling that you’re not good enough or comparing yourself to others are signs of low self-esteem. The tricky thing about self-esteem is that some people think highly of themselves, but it’s only a disguise — they actually feel unlovable or inadequate. Underneath, usually hidden from consciousness, are feelings of shame.Guilt and perfectionism often go along with low self-esteem. If everything is perfect, you don’t feel bad about yourself.
People-pleasing.
It’s fine to want to please someone you care about, but codependents usually don’t think they have a choice. Saying “No” causes them anxiety. Some codependents have a hard time saying “No” to anyone. They go out of their way and sacrifice their own needs to accommodate other people.
Poor boundaries.
Boundaries are sort of an imaginary line between you and others. It divides up what’s yours and somebody else’s, and that applies not only to your body, money, and belongings, but also to your feelings, thoughts and needs. That’s especially where codependents get into trouble. They have blurry or weak boundaries. They feel responsible for other people’s feelings and problems or blame their own on someone else.Some codependents have rigid boundaries.
They are closed off and withdrawn, making it hard for other people to get close to them. Sometimes, people flip back and forth between having weak boundaries and having rigid ones.
Reactivity.
A consequence of poor boundaries is that you react to everyone’s thoughts and feelings. If someone says something you disagree with, you either believe it or become defensive. You absorb their words, because there’s no boundary. With a boundary, you’d realize it was just their opinion and not a reflection of you and not feel threatened by disagreements.
Caretaking.
Another effect of poor boundaries is that if someone else has a problem, you want to help them to the point that you give up yourself. It’s natural to feel empathy and sympathy for someone, but codependents start putting other people ahead of themselves. In fact, they need to help and might feel rejected if another person doesn’t want help. Moreover, they keep trying to help and fix the other person, even when that person clearly isn’t taking their advice.
Control.
Control helps codependents feel safe and secure. Everyone needs some control over events in their life. You wouldn’t want to live in constant uncertainty and chaos, but for codependents, control limits their ability to take risks and share their feelings. Sometimes they have an addiction that either helps them loosen up, like alcoholism, or helps them hold their feelings down, like workaholism, so that they don’t feel out of control.Codependents also need to control those close to them, because they need other people to behave in a certain way to feel okay. In fact, people-pleasing and care-taking can be used to control and manipulate people. Alternatively, codependents are bossy and tell you what you should or shouldn’t do. This is a violation of someone else’s boundary.
Dysfunctional communication.
Codependents have trouble when it comes to communicating their thoughts, feelings and needs. Of course, if you don’t know what you think, feel or need, this becomes a problem. Other times, you know, but you won’t own up to your truth. You’re afraid to be truthful, because you don’t want to upset someone else. Instead of saying, “I don’t like that,” you might pretend that it’s okay or tell someone what to do. Communication becomes dishonest and confusing when you try to manipulate the other person out of fear.
Obsessions.
Codependents have a tendency to spend their time thinking about other people or relationships. This is caused by their dependency and anxieties and fears. They can also become obsessed when they think they’ve made or might make a “mistake.”Sometimes you can lapse into fantasy about how you’d like things to be or about someone you love as a way to avoid the pain of the present. This is one way to stay in denial, discussed below, but it keeps you from living your life.
Dependency.
Codependents need other people to like them to feel okay about themselves. They’re afraid of being rejected or abandoned, even if they can function on their own. Others need always to be in a relationship, because they feel depressed or lonely when they’re by themselves for too long. This trait makes it hard for them to end a relationship, even when the relationship is painful or abusive. They end up feeling trapped.
Denial.
One of the problems people face in getting help for codependency is that they’re in denial about it, meaning that they don’t face their problem. Usually they think the problem is someone else or the situation. They either keep complaining or trying to fix the other person, or go from one relationship or job to another and never own up the fact that they have a problem.Codependents also deny their feelings and needs. Often, they don’t know what they’re feeling and are instead focused on what others are feeling. The same thing goes for their needs. They pay attention to other people’s needs and not their own. They might be in denial of their need for space and autonomy. Although some codependents seem needy, others act like they’re self-sufficient when it comes to needing help. They won’t reach out and have trouble receiving. They are in denial of their vulnerability and need for love and intimacy.
Problems with intimacy.
By this I’m not referring to sex, although sexual dysfunction often is a reflection of an intimacy problem. I’m talking about being open and close with someone in an intimate relationship. Because of the shame and weak boundaries, you might fear that you’ll be judged, rejected, or left. On the other hand, you may fear being smothered in a relationship and losing your autonomy. You might deny your need for closeness and feel that your partner wants too much of your time; your partner complains that you’re unavailable, but he or she is denying his or her need for separateness.
Painful emotions.
Codependency creates stress and leads to painful emotions. Shame and low self-esteem create anxiety and fear about being judged, rejected or abandoned; making mistakes; being a failure; feeling trapped by being close or being alone. The other symptoms lead to feelings of anger and resentment, depression, hopelessness, and despair. When the feelings are too much, you can feel numb.
There is help for recovery and change. The first step is getting guidance and support. These symptoms are deeply ingrained habits and difficult to identify and change on your own. Join a 12-Step program, such as Codependents Anonymous or seek counselling. Work on becoming more assertive and building your self-esteem.
They are closed off and withdrawn, making it hard for other people to get close to them. Sometimes, people flip back and forth between having weak boundaries and having rigid ones.
Reactivity.
A consequence of poor boundaries is that you react to everyone’s thoughts and feelings. If someone says something you disagree with, you either believe it or become defensive. You absorb their words, because there’s no boundary. With a boundary, you’d realize it was just their opinion and not a reflection of you and not feel threatened by disagreements.
Caretaking.
Another effect of poor boundaries is that if someone else has a problem, you want to help them to the point that you give up yourself. It’s natural to feel empathy and sympathy for someone, but codependents start putting other people ahead of themselves. In fact, they need to help and might feel rejected if another person doesn’t want help. Moreover, they keep trying to help and fix the other person, even when that person clearly isn’t taking their advice.
Control.
Control helps codependents feel safe and secure. Everyone needs some control over events in their life. You wouldn’t want to live in constant uncertainty and chaos, but for codependents, control limits their ability to take risks and share their feelings. Sometimes they have an addiction that either helps them loosen up, like alcoholism, or helps them hold their feelings down, like workaholism, so that they don’t feel out of control.Codependents also need to control those close to them, because they need other people to behave in a certain way to feel okay. In fact, people-pleasing and care-taking can be used to control and manipulate people. Alternatively, codependents are bossy and tell you what you should or shouldn’t do. This is a violation of someone else’s boundary.
Dysfunctional communication.
Codependents have trouble when it comes to communicating their thoughts, feelings and needs. Of course, if you don’t know what you think, feel or need, this becomes a problem. Other times, you know, but you won’t own up to your truth. You’re afraid to be truthful, because you don’t want to upset someone else. Instead of saying, “I don’t like that,” you might pretend that it’s okay or tell someone what to do. Communication becomes dishonest and confusing when you try to manipulate the other person out of fear.
Obsessions.
Codependents have a tendency to spend their time thinking about other people or relationships. This is caused by their dependency and anxieties and fears. They can also become obsessed when they think they’ve made or might make a “mistake.”Sometimes you can lapse into fantasy about how you’d like things to be or about someone you love as a way to avoid the pain of the present. This is one way to stay in denial, discussed below, but it keeps you from living your life.
Dependency.
Codependents need other people to like them to feel okay about themselves. They’re afraid of being rejected or abandoned, even if they can function on their own. Others need always to be in a relationship, because they feel depressed or lonely when they’re by themselves for too long. This trait makes it hard for them to end a relationship, even when the relationship is painful or abusive. They end up feeling trapped.
Denial.
One of the problems people face in getting help for codependency is that they’re in denial about it, meaning that they don’t face their problem. Usually they think the problem is someone else or the situation. They either keep complaining or trying to fix the other person, or go from one relationship or job to another and never own up the fact that they have a problem.Codependents also deny their feelings and needs. Often, they don’t know what they’re feeling and are instead focused on what others are feeling. The same thing goes for their needs. They pay attention to other people’s needs and not their own. They might be in denial of their need for space and autonomy. Although some codependents seem needy, others act like they’re self-sufficient when it comes to needing help. They won’t reach out and have trouble receiving. They are in denial of their vulnerability and need for love and intimacy.
Problems with intimacy.
By this I’m not referring to sex, although sexual dysfunction often is a reflection of an intimacy problem. I’m talking about being open and close with someone in an intimate relationship. Because of the shame and weak boundaries, you might fear that you’ll be judged, rejected, or left. On the other hand, you may fear being smothered in a relationship and losing your autonomy. You might deny your need for closeness and feel that your partner wants too much of your time; your partner complains that you’re unavailable, but he or she is denying his or her need for separateness.
Painful emotions.
Codependency creates stress and leads to painful emotions. Shame and low self-esteem create anxiety and fear about being judged, rejected or abandoned; making mistakes; being a failure; feeling trapped by being close or being alone. The other symptoms lead to feelings of anger and resentment, depression, hopelessness, and despair. When the feelings are too much, you can feel numb.
There is help for recovery and change. The first step is getting guidance and support. These symptoms are deeply ingrained habits and difficult to identify and change on your own. Join a 12-Step program, such as Codependents Anonymous or seek counselling. Work on becoming more assertive and building your self-esteem.
"Scaling Up" the Codependent Model
Putting the US electorate "on the couch"
This description of some of the traits of an individual with codependent behavior is interesting for exactly what it is, but when we consider the 160 million Americans who bother to vote in national elections, can we see evidence of some of the same traits? Can we detect a clearer model of the causes driving popular political opinion if we "paint with a broader brush," that is, if we arbitrarily begin to look for these same tendencies ["Arbitrarily?" We aren't planing a series of psychoanalytic therapy sessions with every voter on the way to the polls...], when we observe the electoral behavior of American voters?
Are some of these traits being openly exploited by the think tank propaganda machines in their efforts to persuade voters by manipulating the "concept vulnerabilities" which the description suggests might become accessible with the right kind of "news presentation?"
These are, admittedly, "fuzzy correlations," but when we begin with essentially incomprehensible political consequences, applying a little extra effort in trying to reveal the under lying causes precipitating those consequences seems like an eminently reasonable project.
MeanMesa remains stubbornly unconvinced that the determining causes, psychology and outcomes of national US electoral politics are the incomprehensible uncertainties the pundits like to describe. With this in mind, let's try to "lace together" a few of the article's codependent traits with some of the more wide spread, contemporary political "attitudes" we observe in what are considered to be the ideological inclinations and resulting voting decisions of the manipulated electorate.
"The tricky thing about self-esteem is that some
people think highly of themselves, but it’s only a disguise — they
actually feel unlovable or inadequate."
We are surrounded by literally millions of Americans who -- in the gloomy depths of their internal "appraisal" of themselves -- consider themselves quite incapable of effectively considering the complexities which are necessarily required for a rational political decision. MeanMesa makes this presumption not based on a careful examination of these types individually, but rather by looking at the nature of carefully groomed, biased political propaganda which seems to be persuasive to them.
Highly
educated right wing politicians -- Senator Ted Cruz, for example, is a fluent speaker and thinker who
graduated with honors from Princeton and Harvard Law School --
masterfully "dumb themselves down" as they produce their political
rhetoric for this precise reason. The audiences of such speech comfort
themselves as they listen to the grammar and presentation, concluding
that this man is "just like me," "not smarter than me," "not tricking
me" and "can be trusted."
The think tanks [who provide Senator Cruz with his speeches] in this case haven't really devised much of a "revelatory breakthrough" with the implementation of this tactic. No one likes the feeling of being confounded by ideas which are being presented as "critically important" -- especially when those around him seem to be easily comprehending them, apparently, as a "matter of course."
People-pleasing.
"Some codependents have a hard time saying 'No' to anyone."
On an individual level this may be a quite "problematic" trait. The essence of such behavior resides with the "authority" one grants to his own identity. Sacrificing the innate authority may seem like a reasonable "price" for a codependent to pay "to just get along with people," but over time it becomes a crippling realization that "I am a victim of everyone else's desires, and I am not allowed to have my own values, much less express them freely."
In the political frame this trait is most visible in an almost phobic fear of "debate" discourse -- one where both healthier parties stand fast with conclusions, opinions and outlooks. Political disagreement is considered a "continuation of the attack" rather than an arena for debate.
There are no "middle ground" conclusions. The codependent sees only the options of "domination" or yet another case of "victim hood." He may try to equip himself with the talking points which bore the implied promised of almost automatically delivering such arguments to "victory," but he feels that doing the conceptual work needed to make such points effective is an unfair burden or, possibly, an "impossible mission," thanks to the "inevitable incomprehensible trickery" which always seems to trip up such efforts. Remember, he enters the fray with a damaged self esteem.
Poor boundaries.
"Boundaries
are sort of an imaginary line between you and others. It divides up
what’s yours and somebody else’s, and that applies not only to your
body, money, and belongings, but also to your feelings, thoughts and
needs. That’s especially where codependents get into trouble. They have
blurry or weak boundaries. They feel responsible for other people’s
feelings and problems or blame their own on someone else. Some
codependents have rigid boundaries."
One of the most glaring examples of this is found in the effortless manner religious dominionism is integrated with social-cultural realities. Right wing think tanks provide the resulting conflict with incendiary rhetoric, ideology or even legislation which almost gleefully invades the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others.
Some of the most obvious cases in this election cycle deal with women's rights, unemployment benefits, health care, same sex marriage and welfare. The "targeted players" in these issues are demonized while those arrogantly -- and largely, blindly -- intruding are reassured that their actions are fulfilling the role of "long suffering righteous" or "steadfastly, ideologically orthodox" -- both quite familiar ground for the codependent.
All this is much less confusing for a codependent constituency after labels such as "liberal" or "Democrat" have been attached and relentlessly characterized as referring to what must be inherently and thoughtlessly, automatically, despicable. The now common GOP usage of the noun, "Democrat" to replace the adjective, "Democratic," when referring to a candidate or legislative proposal is derived directly from this practice.
Reactivity.
"A consequence of poor boundaries is that you react to everyone’s thoughts and feelings. If someone says something you disagree with, you either believe it or become defensive. You absorb their words, because there’s no boundary. With a boundary, you’d realize it was just their opinion and not a reflection of you and not feel threatened by disagreements."
We see examples of this type of behavior when we watch political discussions between citizens descend -- often quite rapidly -- into explosive confrontations which quickly abandon the details of any material areas of disagreement in favor or "reactionary" rhetoric or even violent behavior.
"Reactionary" means exactly what me might think. Rather than conducting a more "considered" discourse, one chooses the easier and simply course of simply reacting. When there is a shortage of "factual leverage" for the conduct of such a debate, the codependent desperately grabs a "Hail Mary" position which leads to an unmanageable, all flags flying, "broadside" -- an unfortunate and ineffective tactic which often causes embarrassment and further aggravates the low self esteem traits when considered later.
Both the term and concept "reactionary" is frequently found in historical accounts of events such as the rise of the German Reich, the Russian revolution and the French Revolution. Inciting political groups to "react" has traditionally been very useful for the promotion of ideas lacking factual foundation. As for the "participants," it's always been easier to "react" than to "think."
Very often, the outcomes are not pretty. They don't even look "pretty" to those "reactionaries" whose "reactions" precipitated them. If they are codependent they'll look at such a failure and conclude "We were only trying to do the right thing, and now look where that's got us. We were tricked again, but we'll continue to blame the same people we blamed in the beginning."
Caretaking.
Since we are generally discussing Republicans and the "conservative" Republican base, there doesn't seem to be much discussion of this which is particularly relevant here.
Control.
"Control helps codependents feel safe and secure. Everyone needs some control over events in their life. You wouldn’t want to live in constant uncertainty and chaos, but for codependents, control limits their ability to take risks and share their feelings. Sometimes they have an addiction that either helps them loosen up, like alcoholism, or helps them hold their feelings down, like workaholism, so that they don’t feel out of control. Codependents also need to control those close to them, because they need other people to behave in a certain way to feel okay. In fact, people-pleasing and care-taking can be used to control and manipulate people. Alternatively, codependents are bossy and tell you what you should or shouldn’t do. This is a violation of someone else’s boundary."
The highly aggravated codependent appetite for feeling "safe and secure" is the primary lever in use by the manipulative think tanks as they quietly maneuver their political "prey" into the desired -- and useful -- state of mind. Everyone has an interest in feeling "safe and secure," but folks not afflicted with codependency are motivated by that feeling to take action to reasonably "stabilize" their situation as they seek these things.
This might mean very direct, physical action such as shooting the wolves that are eating one's chickens, but it might, even more likely in the modern context, mean such things as getting an education, keeping up to date with the news, trying to save a little money or doing what is possible to stay healthy. The "safety and security" of non-codependent people is, generally, challenged by the world in general.
The "safety and security" of codependent people is challenged by other people. In fact, the idea of "co-dependence" was created to describe people who depend on the behavior of other people in order for them to organize their own behavior. There seems to be only a very weak "inner voice" in them when they are not responding to external circumstances. This trait makes them easily manipulated in the political sense.
When seeking "safety and security" is framed as "control," the different natures of the corresponding approaches become even more clear. The psychological model constantly directing Republican think tank output is to "reveal" an "uncontrollable" threat to the "safety and security" of the codependents in its base who are generally unequipped and unwilling to take rational action to "control" the reality surrounding them.
Dysfunctional communication.
"Codependents have trouble when it comes to communicating their thoughts, feelings and needs. Of course, if you don’t know what you think, feel or need, this becomes a problem. Other times, you know, but you won’t own up to your truth. You’re afraid to be truthful, because you don’t want to upset someone else. Instead of saying, “I don’t like that,” you might pretend that it’s okay or tell someone what to do. Communication becomes dishonest and confusing when you try to manipulate the other person out of fear."
This particular codependent trait should probably be applied to the tactics planners in the think tanks. "Communication becomes dishonest and confusing when you try to manipulate the other person out of fear." Happily, for them, their audience in the right wing voter block has already become so rattled and exhausted that the confused messaging now seems not only tolerable, but "unquestionably" focused and relevant.
A consequence of this type of incendiary propaganda can be seen from those on the other side of issues as they criticize it or ignore it. Contradictions appear in the narrative -- often characterized as "hypocrisy." The alluring prospect of frightening and depressing the audience even more than what has been accomplished already with previous propaganda is so intoxicating that obvious conflicts being introduced into the narrative are over looked or minimalized in the hope of making the public opinion polls "jump" one last time before they are realized as contradictory.
Obsessions.
"Codependents have a tendency to spend their time thinking about other people or relationships. This is caused by their dependency and anxieties and fears. They can also become obsessed when they think they’ve made or might make a “mistake." Sometimes you can lapse into fantasy about how you’d like things to be or about someone you love as a way to avoid the pain of the present. This is one way to stay in denial, discussed below, but it keeps you from living your life."
Life is dynamic, in a state of constantly unpredictable flux. "Volunteering" as a "host" for obsessions of almost any sort amounts to installing anchors to limit the possibilities of ever forming thoughts which might contradict them. Why would someone be inclined to allow this.
One answer is that a person suspects his mental process is so flawed that he wishes to avoid a possibility for it to form ideas beyond these limits, that is, to make a mistake. This fear elevates the value of clinging to such obsessions -- a phenomenon quite visible in the influence codependent traits are prone to ply into the thought process at the political level.
MeanMesa likes to call these things "mistaken certainties." At some point these concepts have passed through what passes as logic, but after that they become axiomatic -- comfortable, unquestionable "truths" which serve as a structure of mental appliances falsely providing coherency to superficial thoughts based on them subsequently.
For example, the unexamined use of the term "liberal" -- repeatedly "defined" in the stream of propaganda -- injects concrete implications provided by the think tanks into the thoughts of eagerly "obsessed" codependents which has no association whatsoever with any commonly accepted definition of the concept.
Dependency.
"Codependents need other people to like them to feel okay about themselves. They’re afraid of being rejected or abandoned, even if they can function on their own. Others need always to be in a relationship, because they feel depressed or lonely when they’re by themselves for too long. This trait makes it hard for them to end a relationship, even when the relationship is painful or abusive. They end up feeling trapped."
Try to imagine what goes on the mind of a participant at one of the highly [over--] publicised tea party events. Finally, perhaps after years of solitary frustration and fear ["What's wrong with all these people who don't agree with me? Can't they see that I'm just trying to set things right?"], an isolated codependent finds himself in the blissfully reassuring company of a "tribe" of fellow travellers.
This serves as a reinforcing incentive leading our codependent to "buy into" the party rhetoric even more strongly -- and to do so eagerly. This "eagerness" further reduces the influence of any lurking contradictions, leaving him, in the end, almost the ultimate "true believer" to be found anywhere in the domestic electorate.
All these factors working in unison, while perhaps pleasant at the outset, actually trap him in the thrall of his new company. He is afraid to move outside the group, and this fear motivates him to blindly accept even more of the "party line" than he might have in a more stable state.
This is not a new development -- similar mass attractions have happened fairly frequently through history. However, the refined purity of the callous cynicism found in the leadership of contemporary right wing fringe's leadership has routinely created "monsters" with an unanticipated "personality" of their own.
Ask John Boehner.
Denial.
"One of the problems people face in getting help for codependency is that they’re in denial about it, meaning that they don’t face their problem. Usually they think the problem is someone else or the situation. They either keep complaining or trying to fix the other person, or go from one relationship or job to another and never own up the fact that they have a problem. Codependents also deny their feelings and needs. Often, they don’t know what they’re feeling and are instead focused on what others are feeling. The same thing goes for their needs. They pay attention to other people’s needs and not their own. They might be in denial of their need for space and autonomy. Although some codependents seem needy, others act like they’re self-sufficient when it comes to needing help. They won’t reach out and have trouble receiving. They are in denial of their vulnerability and need for love and intimacy."
In the political frame denial manifests as a wave of unilateral blaming. Once the maxims of party rhetoric become ossified into indisputable "fact," objective observation of the inner person becomes superfluous. This grows worse over time as a result of the constant repetition of rhetoric offering the "foundations" of such "facts." This is no accident. It represents the fundamental mechanism inherent in right wing, incendiary propaganda.
There is never any "perturbation" in the targeting of this blame. In the mind of the codependent the "villain" who was blamed yesterday will inescapably remain the "villain" to be blamed today. The prospect of "sharing" even a minute portion of that "blame" with oneself, that is, with one's own actions, is inconceivable.
This develops to the perilous state of forming an "army" of believers who consider themselves to "always be right."
Problems with intimacy.
"By this I’m not referring to sex, although sexual dysfunction often is a reflection of an intimacy problem. I’m talking about being open and close with someone in an intimate relationship. Because of the shame and weak boundaries, you might fear that you’ll be judged, rejected, or left."
Although connecting this trait with a codependent electorate may seem a bit of a stretch, MeanMesa offers this example. Consider the self-righteousness displayed by those who feel no remorse or empathy when they deny a woman an abortion or an undocumented immigrant a chance for citizenship.
These are the actions of individuals who cannot imagine themselves ever encountering such a situation. These "responses" are impersonal and reactionary, but what more normal responses did they replace? What form would more healthy, more empathetic responses have taken?
We can go so far as to say these responses were based on highly depersonalized, ideological arguments and show very little "human" empathy at all. Intimacy means one thing with respect to individuals, but this lack of intimacy on the political scale becomes brittle, a sterile, cold, ideological policy holding little prospect for solutions and ignoring the injuries of those who wind up being crushed by it.
Painful emotions.
"Codependency creates stress and leads to painful emotions. Shame and low self-esteem create anxiety and fear about being judged, rejected or abandoned; making mistakes; being a failure; feeling trapped by being close or being alone. The other symptoms lead to feelings of anger and resentment, depression, hopelessness, and despair. When the feelings are too much, you can feel numb."
The trait really separates the right wing voices -- and the psychology driving them -- from the remainder of the political spectrum. Just consider the emotional tirades which make common currency for right wing pundits close to the far edge of the fringe. Entire radio broadcasts are filled with the screeching equivalent of a "victim's tantrum" concerning a virtual litany of crudely embellished, imaginary injustices.
Interestingly, this is not heard from the corresponding pundits on the more progressive side. [There are very few of them. Right wing radio, for example, broadcasts roughly 300 hours to each hour of progressive radio broadcasts. MeanMesa supposes the progressive broadcasters might also consider employing a similar tactic if it had much of a chance of being effective on the progressive audiences. It clearly doesn't.]
Still doubtful? Spend a painful hour or two listening to the unending complaints of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
The think tank strategists didn't cause this. Instead, they looked very perceptively at the psychology of a large block of the American electorate and saw these traits of codependency. Importantly, they saw these traits as an opportunity, and they took it.
Amazingly, what they saw went even further than this.
Unlike the ancient Romans, this electorate didn't really need to be bribed -- only just coddled -- to get it to vote for a candidate. It had become so codependent that a mere masquerade suggesting that a political party was simply paying attention to these voters turned out to be enough. Bread and circuses were no longer a necessity, at all. They could now be replaced by a quick smile.
Instead, when the powerful elite wanted to show that "they cared," they spent tens of billions on a campaign which expressed a coarsely fabricated, disingenuous drama implying attention and respect -- astonishingly, on a campaign which pretty much promised practically nothing -- and, seeing this pitifully grotesque, tragic "passion play" directed to them, the momentarily assuaged voters in this "desperate child" electorate handed over the government.
"See??!! See??!! Daddy DOES love me!! He spent all this money to convince me to give all my power over to him because he wants me to know how important he thinks I am, and that he LOVES me!!"
What could possibly go wrong. Don't count on getting that new tricycle, kiddies, just a couple fewer back slaps for a few days.
One of the most glaring examples of this is found in the effortless manner religious dominionism is integrated with social-cultural realities. Right wing think tanks provide the resulting conflict with incendiary rhetoric, ideology or even legislation which almost gleefully invades the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others.
Some of the most obvious cases in this election cycle deal with women's rights, unemployment benefits, health care, same sex marriage and welfare. The "targeted players" in these issues are demonized while those arrogantly -- and largely, blindly -- intruding are reassured that their actions are fulfilling the role of "long suffering righteous" or "steadfastly, ideologically orthodox" -- both quite familiar ground for the codependent.
All this is much less confusing for a codependent constituency after labels such as "liberal" or "Democrat" have been attached and relentlessly characterized as referring to what must be inherently and thoughtlessly, automatically, despicable. The now common GOP usage of the noun, "Democrat" to replace the adjective, "Democratic," when referring to a candidate or legislative proposal is derived directly from this practice.
Reactivity.
"A consequence of poor boundaries is that you react to everyone’s thoughts and feelings. If someone says something you disagree with, you either believe it or become defensive. You absorb their words, because there’s no boundary. With a boundary, you’d realize it was just their opinion and not a reflection of you and not feel threatened by disagreements."
We see examples of this type of behavior when we watch political discussions between citizens descend -- often quite rapidly -- into explosive confrontations which quickly abandon the details of any material areas of disagreement in favor or "reactionary" rhetoric or even violent behavior.
"Reactionary" means exactly what me might think. Rather than conducting a more "considered" discourse, one chooses the easier and simply course of simply reacting. When there is a shortage of "factual leverage" for the conduct of such a debate, the codependent desperately grabs a "Hail Mary" position which leads to an unmanageable, all flags flying, "broadside" -- an unfortunate and ineffective tactic which often causes embarrassment and further aggravates the low self esteem traits when considered later.
Both the term and concept "reactionary" is frequently found in historical accounts of events such as the rise of the German Reich, the Russian revolution and the French Revolution. Inciting political groups to "react" has traditionally been very useful for the promotion of ideas lacking factual foundation. As for the "participants," it's always been easier to "react" than to "think."
Very often, the outcomes are not pretty. They don't even look "pretty" to those "reactionaries" whose "reactions" precipitated them. If they are codependent they'll look at such a failure and conclude "We were only trying to do the right thing, and now look where that's got us. We were tricked again, but we'll continue to blame the same people we blamed in the beginning."
Caretaking.
Since we are generally discussing Republicans and the "conservative" Republican base, there doesn't seem to be much discussion of this which is particularly relevant here.
Control.
"Control helps codependents feel safe and secure. Everyone needs some control over events in their life. You wouldn’t want to live in constant uncertainty and chaos, but for codependents, control limits their ability to take risks and share their feelings. Sometimes they have an addiction that either helps them loosen up, like alcoholism, or helps them hold their feelings down, like workaholism, so that they don’t feel out of control. Codependents also need to control those close to them, because they need other people to behave in a certain way to feel okay. In fact, people-pleasing and care-taking can be used to control and manipulate people. Alternatively, codependents are bossy and tell you what you should or shouldn’t do. This is a violation of someone else’s boundary."
The highly aggravated codependent appetite for feeling "safe and secure" is the primary lever in use by the manipulative think tanks as they quietly maneuver their political "prey" into the desired -- and useful -- state of mind. Everyone has an interest in feeling "safe and secure," but folks not afflicted with codependency are motivated by that feeling to take action to reasonably "stabilize" their situation as they seek these things.
This might mean very direct, physical action such as shooting the wolves that are eating one's chickens, but it might, even more likely in the modern context, mean such things as getting an education, keeping up to date with the news, trying to save a little money or doing what is possible to stay healthy. The "safety and security" of non-codependent people is, generally, challenged by the world in general.
The "safety and security" of codependent people is challenged by other people. In fact, the idea of "co-dependence" was created to describe people who depend on the behavior of other people in order for them to organize their own behavior. There seems to be only a very weak "inner voice" in them when they are not responding to external circumstances. This trait makes them easily manipulated in the political sense.
When seeking "safety and security" is framed as "control," the different natures of the corresponding approaches become even more clear. The psychological model constantly directing Republican think tank output is to "reveal" an "uncontrollable" threat to the "safety and security" of the codependents in its base who are generally unequipped and unwilling to take rational action to "control" the reality surrounding them.
Dysfunctional communication.
"Codependents have trouble when it comes to communicating their thoughts, feelings and needs. Of course, if you don’t know what you think, feel or need, this becomes a problem. Other times, you know, but you won’t own up to your truth. You’re afraid to be truthful, because you don’t want to upset someone else. Instead of saying, “I don’t like that,” you might pretend that it’s okay or tell someone what to do. Communication becomes dishonest and confusing when you try to manipulate the other person out of fear."
This particular codependent trait should probably be applied to the tactics planners in the think tanks. "Communication becomes dishonest and confusing when you try to manipulate the other person out of fear." Happily, for them, their audience in the right wing voter block has already become so rattled and exhausted that the confused messaging now seems not only tolerable, but "unquestionably" focused and relevant.
A consequence of this type of incendiary propaganda can be seen from those on the other side of issues as they criticize it or ignore it. Contradictions appear in the narrative -- often characterized as "hypocrisy." The alluring prospect of frightening and depressing the audience even more than what has been accomplished already with previous propaganda is so intoxicating that obvious conflicts being introduced into the narrative are over looked or minimalized in the hope of making the public opinion polls "jump" one last time before they are realized as contradictory.
Obsessions.
"Codependents have a tendency to spend their time thinking about other people or relationships. This is caused by their dependency and anxieties and fears. They can also become obsessed when they think they’ve made or might make a “mistake." Sometimes you can lapse into fantasy about how you’d like things to be or about someone you love as a way to avoid the pain of the present. This is one way to stay in denial, discussed below, but it keeps you from living your life."
Life is dynamic, in a state of constantly unpredictable flux. "Volunteering" as a "host" for obsessions of almost any sort amounts to installing anchors to limit the possibilities of ever forming thoughts which might contradict them. Why would someone be inclined to allow this.
One answer is that a person suspects his mental process is so flawed that he wishes to avoid a possibility for it to form ideas beyond these limits, that is, to make a mistake. This fear elevates the value of clinging to such obsessions -- a phenomenon quite visible in the influence codependent traits are prone to ply into the thought process at the political level.
MeanMesa likes to call these things "mistaken certainties." At some point these concepts have passed through what passes as logic, but after that they become axiomatic -- comfortable, unquestionable "truths" which serve as a structure of mental appliances falsely providing coherency to superficial thoughts based on them subsequently.
For example, the unexamined use of the term "liberal" -- repeatedly "defined" in the stream of propaganda -- injects concrete implications provided by the think tanks into the thoughts of eagerly "obsessed" codependents which has no association whatsoever with any commonly accepted definition of the concept.
Dependency.
"Codependents need other people to like them to feel okay about themselves. They’re afraid of being rejected or abandoned, even if they can function on their own. Others need always to be in a relationship, because they feel depressed or lonely when they’re by themselves for too long. This trait makes it hard for them to end a relationship, even when the relationship is painful or abusive. They end up feeling trapped."
Try to imagine what goes on the mind of a participant at one of the highly [over--] publicised tea party events. Finally, perhaps after years of solitary frustration and fear ["What's wrong with all these people who don't agree with me? Can't they see that I'm just trying to set things right?"], an isolated codependent finds himself in the blissfully reassuring company of a "tribe" of fellow travellers.
This serves as a reinforcing incentive leading our codependent to "buy into" the party rhetoric even more strongly -- and to do so eagerly. This "eagerness" further reduces the influence of any lurking contradictions, leaving him, in the end, almost the ultimate "true believer" to be found anywhere in the domestic electorate.
All these factors working in unison, while perhaps pleasant at the outset, actually trap him in the thrall of his new company. He is afraid to move outside the group, and this fear motivates him to blindly accept even more of the "party line" than he might have in a more stable state.
This is not a new development -- similar mass attractions have happened fairly frequently through history. However, the refined purity of the callous cynicism found in the leadership of contemporary right wing fringe's leadership has routinely created "monsters" with an unanticipated "personality" of their own.
Ask John Boehner.
Denial.
"One of the problems people face in getting help for codependency is that they’re in denial about it, meaning that they don’t face their problem. Usually they think the problem is someone else or the situation. They either keep complaining or trying to fix the other person, or go from one relationship or job to another and never own up the fact that they have a problem. Codependents also deny their feelings and needs. Often, they don’t know what they’re feeling and are instead focused on what others are feeling. The same thing goes for their needs. They pay attention to other people’s needs and not their own. They might be in denial of their need for space and autonomy. Although some codependents seem needy, others act like they’re self-sufficient when it comes to needing help. They won’t reach out and have trouble receiving. They are in denial of their vulnerability and need for love and intimacy."
In the political frame denial manifests as a wave of unilateral blaming. Once the maxims of party rhetoric become ossified into indisputable "fact," objective observation of the inner person becomes superfluous. This grows worse over time as a result of the constant repetition of rhetoric offering the "foundations" of such "facts." This is no accident. It represents the fundamental mechanism inherent in right wing, incendiary propaganda.
There is never any "perturbation" in the targeting of this blame. In the mind of the codependent the "villain" who was blamed yesterday will inescapably remain the "villain" to be blamed today. The prospect of "sharing" even a minute portion of that "blame" with oneself, that is, with one's own actions, is inconceivable.
This develops to the perilous state of forming an "army" of believers who consider themselves to "always be right."
Problems with intimacy.
"By this I’m not referring to sex, although sexual dysfunction often is a reflection of an intimacy problem. I’m talking about being open and close with someone in an intimate relationship. Because of the shame and weak boundaries, you might fear that you’ll be judged, rejected, or left."
Although connecting this trait with a codependent electorate may seem a bit of a stretch, MeanMesa offers this example. Consider the self-righteousness displayed by those who feel no remorse or empathy when they deny a woman an abortion or an undocumented immigrant a chance for citizenship.
These are the actions of individuals who cannot imagine themselves ever encountering such a situation. These "responses" are impersonal and reactionary, but what more normal responses did they replace? What form would more healthy, more empathetic responses have taken?
We can go so far as to say these responses were based on highly depersonalized, ideological arguments and show very little "human" empathy at all. Intimacy means one thing with respect to individuals, but this lack of intimacy on the political scale becomes brittle, a sterile, cold, ideological policy holding little prospect for solutions and ignoring the injuries of those who wind up being crushed by it.
Painful emotions.
"Codependency creates stress and leads to painful emotions. Shame and low self-esteem create anxiety and fear about being judged, rejected or abandoned; making mistakes; being a failure; feeling trapped by being close or being alone. The other symptoms lead to feelings of anger and resentment, depression, hopelessness, and despair. When the feelings are too much, you can feel numb."
The trait really separates the right wing voices -- and the psychology driving them -- from the remainder of the political spectrum. Just consider the emotional tirades which make common currency for right wing pundits close to the far edge of the fringe. Entire radio broadcasts are filled with the screeching equivalent of a "victim's tantrum" concerning a virtual litany of crudely embellished, imaginary injustices.
Interestingly, this is not heard from the corresponding pundits on the more progressive side. [There are very few of them. Right wing radio, for example, broadcasts roughly 300 hours to each hour of progressive radio broadcasts. MeanMesa supposes the progressive broadcasters might also consider employing a similar tactic if it had much of a chance of being effective on the progressive audiences. It clearly doesn't.]
Still doubtful? Spend a painful hour or two listening to the unending complaints of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
As Above, So Below
Why hunger for bread while standing in a field of wheat?
 |
| When you grow up, we'll know how to get your vote. It won't be policy. [image - SALON] |
Amazingly, what they saw went even further than this.
Unlike the ancient Romans, this electorate didn't really need to be bribed -- only just coddled -- to get it to vote for a candidate. It had become so codependent that a mere masquerade suggesting that a political party was simply paying attention to these voters turned out to be enough. Bread and circuses were no longer a necessity, at all. They could now be replaced by a quick smile.
Instead, when the powerful elite wanted to show that "they cared," they spent tens of billions on a campaign which expressed a coarsely fabricated, disingenuous drama implying attention and respect -- astonishingly, on a campaign which pretty much promised practically nothing -- and, seeing this pitifully grotesque, tragic "passion play" directed to them, the momentarily assuaged voters in this "desperate child" electorate handed over the government.
"See??!! See??!! Daddy DOES love me!! He spent all this money to convince me to give all my power over to him because he wants me to know how important he thinks I am, and that he LOVES me!!"
What could possibly go wrong. Don't count on getting that new tricycle, kiddies, just a couple fewer back slaps for a few days.
No comments:
Post a Comment