When right-winger commentator Ann Coulter attempted to smear longtime-married John Edwards by dropping "faggot" in reference to the Democratic presidential candidate at the Conservative Political Action Conference, she may have been subconsciously refusing to accept that she may have some issues about her own "sexual orientation." In an appearance with Chris Matthews, Coulter once said, of Clinton, "I don't know if he's gay. But Al Gore ~ total fag." Such remarks, consistently made, could suggest a Mary Cheney-like orientation for Annie, although there is nothing wrong with that.
Remember that Colorado preacher Ted Haggard was one of the most-vocal proponents of antigay legislation nationwide while engaging in gay encounters himself. Former mayor of Spokane, Wash., Jim West was a leading advocate of antigay legislation while a member of the Washington State Legislature, but then was caught trolling for gay partners on the internet, even offering one a job in his administration. Former congressman Mark Foley proposed legislation in Congress to crack down on gay sexual predators while he was preying on male pages himself.
All three conservative Republicans were denying their true identities while projecting onto others, through legislation, what they hide from themselves. Could Coulter be engaging in the same tactic?
And is it possible that the hatred the right has for Hillary Clinton is only an escape from the fact she was once a Goldwater Republican?
Doug Thompson of Capital Hill Blue challenged the right recently with The Rant: "Lob the personal insults at me to your cold, empty heart's content. Put me in your wholly disingenuous, convenient little 'anti-Bush equals anti-America' box. Rant all you want about how I hate our country, hate freedom, hate our troops and hate this president because I have the nerve to publicly denounce his reckless policy. Call me a coward. Call me a traitor. Your attacks are meaningless, except for the way they amplify your obvious aversion to authenticity." It's that last statement that hits at the matter. All that he said, the conservative mind attributes to itself subconsciously but will ever project onto others.
On March 1 the Huffington Post blog site entered into the fray of conservative attacking others when, in reality, they were subconsciously admitting what they are. The situation involved righty reaction to some anonymous responses posted to a story with the right-wingers pretending to know the political affiliations and philosophies of people who made the responses but whom they knew nothing about. The site said, "There was (Rush) Limbaugh on Tuesday morning, reading some of the more offensive comments on the air, pretending to be suitably outraged, and declaring: 'How is it that you explain visceral, literal hatred for somebody you don't know? It's one thing to disagree with somebody's policies, but this is crossing a new line ... It is sick, and it resides exclusively on the left'." There is no way Limbaugh could know the responses came "exclusively from the left" and his statement could be accepted as an admission that he subconsciously thinks "visceral, literal hatred for someone you don't know" comes exclusively from the right and is central to his own makeup, he just won't admit it and will project that despicable personal failure onto other people.
Business regulations are particularly onerous to the right. But every regulation exists to address a particular evil that is present in the system, and when that regulation is removed, the evil returns. That lesson should have been learned by the savings-and-loan scandal given to us by Ronald Reagan and Enron's scamming of the electricity market before going broke from other evils that returned when utilities were deregulated. Regulations also protect honest businesses from unscrupulous outfits, so the right-wing hatred for business regulations is a subconscious endorsement of commercial dishonesty.
It must not be forgotten that the movers and shakers of the media in America give platforms to Stossel, Beck, D'Souza, O'Reilly, Malkin, Buchanan, Coulter and Limbaugh and similar people. They and their commercial sponsors and advertisers are what made millionaires of vicious people who can only vent their hatred for all things good.
Nothing underscores the phenomenon of projection or transference more than the realization that white supremacists of the far-far-right are supreme to no one. Their projection of inferior status onto other races only shows their own inferiority. And right-wing religious bigots who claim that everyone else is immoral are only spotlighting that it is they who are immoral.
The right's constant attempts to smear liberals ~ especially Massachusetts liberals ~ only underscore their hatred of what liberals created: independence from Great Britain and a democratic republic at home, under the leadership of Massachusetts liberals, of course.
To understand the difference between projection onto others and making a valid observation of the other's positions and assertions, we have to include specific deeds or statements that would lead us to such a conclusion. It is pure folly to merely saying others "hate George Bush" without providing specific proof that opposition to his policies or actions is based entirely on hate of him, and not on the policies or actions. To claim that others "hate America" or "want the terrorists to win" requires specific proof that such is the case.
The left can claim that George Bush "hates America" or "hates our freedoms" because of all the damage he has done to America and to our constitutional freedoms with his policies and actions, but that isn't proof of any hatred. He actions could be the result of ignorance, incompetence, greed or myriad other reasons unrelated to hate.
So it's important to notice who most often accuses others of hatred without delivering a hint of proof. It is the political right, not the left, and the righties are only providing a subconscious confession of the hate they have for themselves.
*****************************************************
Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., and tries (without much success) to be patient with people who argue endlessly on subjects they have never studied. He is the author of "The Un-Americans: Trashing of the United States Constitution in the American Press", a critique of the mainstream media for ignorance of, or disdain for, our constitutional principles of self-government. He left newspaper work years ago, disgusted at the direction the Fourth Estate ~ under the mismanagement of ineffectual, out-of-touch, can't-do executives ~ was taking away from honest responsible journalism and the observation that there was no place in the mainstream media for a progressive, or liberal, constitutional "expert". Bonsell is an honors graduate of Woodbury College (Los Angeles, California) with a bachelor of business administration degree. He is profiled in Marquis Who's Who in America. (Self-portrait, above, was handled to make author/artist appear prettier than he actually is.)
Personal motto: Have brain; will use.
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
