::::::::
Transference is a tactic behavior scientists say is used by persons who wish to deny their personal failures by transferring to other people what they refuse to admit in themselves. The phenomenon of the Ron Paul candidacy for the Republican Party presidential nomination has brought that spectacularly to the fore. It is not pretty.An ardent Paul supporter recently posted an article on OpEdNews requesting anyone with a better alternative to the Paul position to propose it. A few did, but offered an alternative no more detailed than naming another candidate. Never saying why their candidate was better than Paul.
The author of the article also claimed that the anti-Paul articles posted on OpEdNews have started "a malicious smear campaign against him to try and stop the momentum he has generated." Therein lies the transference problem.
When I asked him to cite the articles that smeared Paul, he only replied to read them. His reply:
"see: any artuicle (sic) written against him in the last week
"they all play this nonsense about a 1992 newsletter and call him a racist. Or they show the picture of him and a white supremicist and say he has ties which he never has had. Please. Be objective."
(An objective aside here: it's "article," it's "try to stop" and it's "the past week." "try and stop" is redundant and "last" means final, not previous. "Has had" is also a tad redundant)
But of course, I had written an article about Paul in the past week and had not done what he claimed "any artuicle" had done. In fact, I have read most of the pro-Paul and anti-Paul articles and have found none of this "malicious smear campaign" unless one considers citing Paul's political record, his personal statements and his associations to be "smear" tactics.
In honesty; there have been many smear words or statements directed at Paul in replies to articles, but they have come mainly from slanderous attacks on those who question the wisdom of a Paul presidency. It's an anti-Paul responder answering a pro-Paul responder in kind. That is tit (smear from anti-Paul) for tat (original smear by pro-Paul).
I know the tactic well. My article said little about Paul, it only detailed the many failures of government when the libertarian policies had been enacted. I was assaulted by "a malicious smear campaign" by numerous Paul supporters, include the one whose article claimed his hero is being smeared. This claim that Ron Paul is under "a smear campaign" is classical transference in action; Paul supporters claim their hero is being smeared because they refuse to admit they are the ones smearing Paul opponents.
If Paul supporter wishes to have a civil discussion of the issues without smear words being used, it is vital they refrain from smearing others first.
On the other part of the original article; the author asked for any suggestion better than what Paul has proposed. I replied with a fairly derailed plan to get this nation out of the mess it is presently in. It was ignored by the very person who asked for it. So much for Paulites wanting to solve our national problems when they only want to see another far-right libertarian politician as President.
Guess they don't know our present problems stem from a far-right libertarian President, one Ronald Reagan, whose ruinous policies were continued and expanded on by two Bushes with very little alterations in between the Bushes by one Clinton. They apparently want more of the same and expect different results.
So sad.
