PrintAugust 6, 2010
The Politics of Disgruntlement
The politics of many liberals is motivated by a lack of self-love and self-esteem. This claim can be inductively proven by an analysis of their behavior.
People with a low sense of self can be found in any occupation. However, the types of work to which they are drawn include positions of power and control over others (to compensate for their lack of power over how they think and feel about themselves), positions that can draw fame or praise (to fill their longing for esteem), occupations that involve emotions more than reason, and positions somewhat removed from reality (as reality is unpleasant to one who thinks and feels poorly about himself).
The occupations that are appealing in one or more ways to people with a low sense of self include:
- Teachers, nurses, counselors, and community organizers -- the so-called "helping" professions -- which are societally praiseworthy positions of control over others;
- Jobs in the media, as they involve control of information and the possibility of controlling the beliefs and attitudes of others;
- TV and movie jobs, which can lead to fame while living as fictional characters and in fictional worlds;
- Artistic jobs, which attract fame-seekers through expression of emotion;
- Jobs in academia, enabling elitism without real-world contributions; and
- Jobs in politics.
Except for the last, these are all occupations dominated by liberals. This analysis helps explain why some Republican politicians assume liberal positions and why some leaders of industry support liberals whose actions can damage their industry or company. These were people who became politicians or executives because they were drawn to positions of power for the power itself, not to serve their constituents or stockholders.
President Barack Obama is mistakenly believed by many to have a healthy sense of self. A Messiah Complex, or an oversized ego, is typically a cover for a frightened, wounded inner child. Obama is an unhappy man, as evidenced by his being quick to anger and his desire to change many things about this country. He promotes himself as a victim, struggling to deal with the "worst economy in generations" and other Bush administration problems he inherited. His lack of self-confidence is demonstrated by his dependence on teleprompters (and his poor performances without them) and his reluctance to give press conferences or interviews with "hostile" reporters. Obama routinely throws friends and relatives under the bus if it appears they may damage his image. A person with a rich sense of self would not be so uncaring.
During the presidential campaign, Obama and his supporters rallied around the slogan, "hope and change." A rational deconstruction of this phrase shows that it's desirable only to those with a low sense of self. To "hope" is to wish for something with the expectation of getting it. Put another way, one is supposed to get a desired good through minimal effort, by merely hoping and expecting. It is rare to find value in anything received through feeble acts. Confident people don't waste their energy "hoping" or make plans incorporating "hope." It's those who doubt themselves who want something for next to nothing. "Change" is desirable only if one is dissatisfied with one's current state. Most changes make matters worse. Rolling the dice for an ill-defined change via an unspecified roadmap would be done only by those desperate for improvement in their lot. "Hope and change" is appealing only to those with a low sense of self -- Obama's liberal supporters.
Obama was a self-proclaimed "blank slate" during the campaign. This is appealing for those with a low sense of self who tend towards projection; everything is about them. They could see themselves in Obama, an elitist and would-be president. That explains the emotional response to his empty, trite rhetoric and why, though his poll numbers have slumped dramatically as president, his approval ratings are still higher than any policy he has pushed. Those with a low sense of self are reluctant to find fault with themselves, and they, through projection, are Obama.
To non-liberals, liberals demonstrate a dislike of country and Christianity. Liberals would not openly admit this because the risk of being shunned is too great. A person with low self-esteem and self-love has an unacknowledged sense of having been betrayed in childhood by his or her hierarchy of caretakers: parents, country, God. Country and God can also be resented because they disrupt the liberal's desire for equality. The United States cannot be better than other countries, nor Christianity more acclaimed than other religions; that would mean inequalities. So liberals denigrate the country and Christianity.
Liberals dislike moral or ethical absolutes and prefer moral relativism. For a person with a low sense of self, the expectation is that when measured against norms of what a person "should" be or do, the person in question will likely be seen as lacking. Exposure of inadequacies and being judged by others is frightening. It is better to reduce or eliminate those risks by muddying, coarsening, or eliminating moral standards.
Liberals seek to grow government, a replacement "striving for equality" caretaker of their own making, and they don't want to be concerned with constitutional limits. The Constitution consists of thoughtful, reasoned, written words, not emotional connections to the psychologically needy, and hence, it is of little relevance. The Constitution limits government, which runs counter to the desires of liberals. It promotes and protects freedom, which runs afoul of their agenda.
For those who value freedom more than equality, it is fruitless to have a political argument with a liberal. The positions of liberals arise from emotional neediness that cannot be reached through reasoned discourse. Likewise, their appeal to emotion will not be logically persuasive to one who believes protecting freedom is government's primary responsibility. It is the liberals' psychological void that leads them to respond to rational challenges of their positions with name-calling and vitriol. Liberals become angry when their own words are used against them because what is said by liberals is intended to elicit a supportive emotional response at the moment the words were spoken. The words themselves and any associated irrationality are irrelevant. To repeat the statements when the context is different and to analyze them for meaning and commitment is to use them inappropriately and expose the liberal as being hypocritical, disingenuous, or a flip-flopper. Unable to accept such criticism, which they consider fundamentally unfair, they lash out in anger.
The liberals' use of words (and human props) to make emotional connections rather than convincing logical arguments is why they fail to understand that "getting their message out" is counterproductive to them. Their messages, packaging their actual policies, are rejected by a significant majority of Americans. When policies are analyzed, they stand or fall on rational grounds. A reasoned analysis of a policy will inevitably doom one that grows out of psychological shortcomings. This is also why liberal talk radio will never be successful.
Studies consistently show that liberals are less happy then members of other ideological groups. Varied rationalizations have been given for why this is so. The reason is that liberals are not getting their fundamental human needs for self-love and self-esteem satisfied. Without those needs being met, one is not only less happy, but also less healthy.
Curtis Frantz, schooled in physics, philosophy, and computer science, is by profession a software quality analyst. His Weltanschauung is of a tester. curtis.frantz@gmail.com www.e-pamphlets.com
