I see no point in spending time in discussing which specific psychiatric jargon labels are appropriate for particular politicians, let alone actually "diagnosing" - though I have been tempted a few times myself to think of certain politicians in one or another such terms. Far better would be for individuals to step back and examine what characterizes politicians as a group, specifically in regard to how politicians view ordinary people. Look critically at the campaign speeches and interviews (in writing so that the words can be reviewed), but definitely don't stop there - go onto legislation promoted and voted for in whatever government positions they have filled.
Virtually all politicians operate under the same premise - that they know better how individuals should live their lives than those individuals themselves and, most of all, in what way individuals should be allowed to live their lives except for when they initiate physical harm to others. AND virtually all politicians are determined to make use of government's own legalized authority to initiate such physical harm to anyone in its territory (if not the entire world, as is currently the defacto situation with the USA) in order to make their ideas happen. This is nothing new with the current presidential election or in the US for that matter. This pattern is and has always been the thinking and method of those in government leadership, whether they were elected to their position, appointed by one who was, inherited it by "divine right" or simply took it by force (always with the assistance of those who have no compunction for initiating harm).
The vast majority of politicians, whether newly running for some position or eager to retain it, will say and promise whatever is likely to create an emotional connection with and ultimately a vote in their favor from the particular audience of actual or potential supporters who they are currently addressing. Critical thinking is not something virtually any politician wants in those planning to vote in his/her (hir) jurisdiction. Far from being unusual that verbiage this week is contradictory to what s/he did and/or said last month or last year, this is the defining characteristic of politicians as a species. Not only it is very helpful to them when the majority of constituents do not understand that such occurs, politicians actually count on that to be the case within the myopic constituency to which they wish to appeal. Some politicians may bluff when confronted with their contradictions or ignore the questioners; others will use the technique of double-speak to utter essentially nothing. It is the very rare politician who will provide a detailed unambiguous explanation for why s/he has made a change in position, even though it is still one that is for the purpose of interfering in the voluntary interactions of others using the extorted funds that finances all government activities.
For their continuation as a species, politicians actually require a status relationship of leader/follower with their constituents. Therefore, it is essential for politicians that individuals grow up thinking and continue to hold the view that the most important directions on how to interact with others is something that must come from a government (as it came mostly from religious leaders before the era of modern democratic governments espousing the separation of church and state), otherwise chaos will occur. In this way politicians - whose essential interest is power over others - will be viewed by the vast majority as necessary evils, really trying to do "good", even though there may be some strong disagreements on the specifics of how the controlling mechanism of government will operate.
Without a paradigm shift in thinking about how an orderly society can exist without people being led like sheep by leaders who seek to be or stay in control - even without any institutionalized leaders at all - there will continue to be politicians. And most of these politicians display at least some outward behaviors and verbalize some ideas that can easily become fodder for discussions about which psychiatric labels relate to this or that particular representative of the donkey or elephant (or whatever symbol is used for a political group). What must be realized is that such behavior and ideas are an essential part of this so-called "game" of politics and that it will only disappear when a considerable number of people have sufficiently socially matured to understand and practice individual self-order.
A paradigm shift in thinking from a society based on ruler/ruled to one of self-ordered individuals may be easier for the young than those with 20 and more years of adulthood in the current and longstanding social interaction culture of society. But I won't write off all oldsters since I am 63 and didn't come to some of these conclusions above until less than 10 years ago. So for those who are used to thinking only in the current mode or are relatively new to thinking about such matters at all, step back and deeply consider what is really needed for a society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit. As part of that effort, I suggest a concentrated reading of "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction".
I am a professional life-extensionist and liberty promoter who practices what I and husband, Paul Wakfer, encourage. More detail about both of us - philosophically and physically - at http://morelife.org/personal/
When the comment time period has closed at OpEdNews.com, readers are welcome to post their comments/questions at MoreLife Yahoo after meeting the posting requirements of that group, sent to all new members upon joining. All archived messages, however, are available to anyone.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/
Say Something Meaningful Rather Than Simply Use Labels
You are quite correct that "the [current] political system doesn't weed out sociopaths" - if the definition of "sociopath" is taken to mean someone whose actions, and the ideas behind them, are highly contrary to the long term best interests of others and actually to hirself. To repeat, this is exactly what I wrote as a lead-in:
Virtually all politicians operate under the same premise - that they know better how individuals should live their lives than those individuals themselves and, most of all, in what way individuals should be allowed to live their lives except for when they initiate physical harm to others. AND virtually all politicians are determined to make use of government's own legalized authority to initiate such physical harm to anyone in its territory (if not the entire world, as is currently the defacto situation with the USA) in order to make their ideas happen.
Glad to see that you agree with me on this.
However, democracy is merely the rule of the majority - there are no stated principles included in this word "democracy" on which the rule of a majority is based. All that matters in such a system is that the majority of voters indicate agreement on some issue up for a vote. "Representative democracy" is what exists in the US and has for its existence. The majority of those who vote determine who "represents" everyone and therefore which politician will enact rules for everyone. Gets us right back to being ruled and the problems of which I wrote above.....
"Social equality" is a nebulous term that could mean anything or nothing...... Is this to infer that everyone is "equal" under all circumstances? If so, that is patently false since there is wide variation in the ability and skills in any group of people, let alone physical attributes. I have and always will assess people individually because of this wide variation, and I expect that others do likewise. If however, you see no difference between any of the people with whom you come into contact in any given day, either you interact with only 2 or 3 people and they are all on the same level of esteem by you OR you do not assess individuals at all but simply treat everyone as one would identical mechanical widgets. Actually I think you have used the term "social equality" without any real consideration of what it is supposed to mean - a label that has been thrown around by most writers without much thought.
As to your comment title, "Looks libertarian to me", you haven't identified what portion(s) of my article "looks libertarian" to you. And then instead of simply assigning a label, it would be far more informative to me and others if you described what "libertarian" means to you and why that is either good or bad.
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
by
Kitty Antonik Wakfer (24 articles, 6 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 136 comments)
on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 7:55:06 PM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
