I'm not certain I understand ... or ... I'm certain I don't understand the fuss about folk in my profession (I'm a psychotherapist) talking about candidates who are running for high offices with potentially disastrous consequences. Are therapists free of the responsibilities inherent in citizenship? If they have something to contribute to the conversation are they barred from speaking? I've already made it abundantly clear that I think otherwise. If a patient of mine were to apply for clearance to launch a nuclear war and I had information that it would be dangerous, I would still have the responsibility to report to those who could safeguard my grandchildren and yours! Need I add that knowing my limitations in being able to definitively diagnose Mr. Trump or Sen. Clinton is essential, as well. Consider Colbert ... I've never met Colbert and I might still address his persona ... even diagnostically, I suppose. A person puts out a public persona -- whether introduced as "hey, Folks, this is the real me" or "this is a show," I'm entitled -- even if Licensed to Diagnose -- to open-carry. Pussyfooting around seems dishonest, frankly. ... But ... but ... It ain't easy. Lemme give a brief example ... Steeley Michael was talking circumbendibus, yesterday ... a special kind of poli-bullshit ... talking about Drumpf's hirings, as if he -- Michael, that is -- were working for McKinzie or some other Consulting firm ... or describing the third game in Fisher-Spassky. Lot of the talking-heads do that. I have had times when I've kinda liked Steele ... this wasn't one of them. This is not a game without consequences and if -- like numerous Generals and other Cogniscenti -- Michael Steele thinks the guy dangerous, he, too, has a duty to report ... as do the journalists. This is not a Phucking game in which we use Game Theory to work out or even discuss optimal strategies.
Call it like you see it, Michael. And you, too, Freuds of the Consultation Room!
MS seems like a decent sort but limiting his comments to strategics, as if this were a game without consequences lowered my sense of him. And while I don't know the risk inherent in Michael Steele's saying "I think The Little Orange Man is a poor-thinking and potentially lethal schmuck," I can certainly say that Steele was acting like "a whatever" at that moment in arguing whether DT "can pivot" or manage a pas de deux with a teleprompter. Who the fuck cares whether the man can pretend or wear another persona, except in reasoning that I don't want a persona making decisions that profoundly effect my spawn and grandspawn. ...
So, yeah ... I have no ability to decide whether Drumpf is suffering from Pathological Narcissism (in my language: the graduated inability to appreciate/cherish the Healthy Narcissism of certain others) but his Persona is, indeed, of one who has no such ability. The McCane thing ... the Khan smear ... the personal attacks on women ... the demeaning of Muslims ... the willingness to use folk for his own purposes ... shows no evidence of a capacity to see others as Subjects in Their Own Right and is absolutely consistent with the clinical picture of a pathological narcissist. And, moreso, his presentation of the Work part of a Social Contract as sacrifice on the part of the Employer shows no apparent decency ... for all those who could identify with Tennessee Ernie Ford singing "Fifteen Tons" ...
Now, the Question as to whether he's a Sick Mutha-Fucker for putting on this persona for his own purposes or is a Sick Man for having failed to develop beyond "Fair = I Take all the Marbles and You Go Home Crying" ... that distinction is of little importance to me, though it would be in my clinical office. And for that matter what Michael Steele actually thinks doesn't help me think he was being other than a self-protecting "whatever" who was putting his future over the future of the country in leaving any doubt that Herr Drumpf is talking bullshit, making it up as he goes, and pretty apparently unfit to take responsibility.
No game, Big Mike!
I do think, however, that the RNC, as a group, fits my notion of low level Narcissism in Groups. Years ago and in response to Woody Allen's call for a thoroughly post-chauvinistic society where even religious preference in the subtitle of a progressive magazine must be avoided. (Lerner's Tikkun ... the piece? Reflections of a 2nd Rate Mind) must be avoided, I suggested four levels of Group Narcissism. (1) The Nazi Level ... In Group to Out Group "Don't convert; just die." (2) The Crusaders Level ... In Group to Out Group: "Convert or Die." (3) Amerika ... "I pay Lip Service to your right to indulge your inanities." ... and (4) A Primus inter Pares way of relating My Group to Your Group ... "We like our stuff in a manner surprisingly similar to the way youse guys like yours and we get it that youse have your own relationship to your own theories, gods and kin." (5) Woody Allen's post-chauvinistic level? That I suggested was fantasy. Lerner-the-Editor wouldn't go for publishing the response but it has appeared in a number of published pieces.
My own take on it, for instance:
Parts of Drumpf audiences? and other mobs? Level (1).
NRA and its need to destroy candidates "off the path of unrestricted 2nd A"? Level (2).
The RNC/McConnell's 2009 plea to bring Obama to his knees ... Level (2-3).
I've droned on enough for today!
Here are the guys, Guys!
Take yer pick!
I do feel a little better each time I riff on such matters and am not about to play cat and mouse with whether either Drumpf or Manson is likely to pivot and whether I'd follow their lead if they did.
No comments:
Post a Comment