Examples include advertising, and it doesn't matter what is being advertised. On television or radio, the announcer will declare that this product is "priced at only ... dollars" or "is a mere ... dollars." In both cases the advertiser is admitting that the product is overpriced and is trying to convince prospective customers that it is just the opposite.
President George W. Bush has the revealing habit of repeating, "I understand that ..." or " I understand this" or "I understand whatever ..." when he is trying to explain or justify one of his schemes. Those statements are subconscious mechanisms trying to convince himself that he understands and are defenses to protect himself from his own ignorance. They are also telltale revelations that he doesn't understand.
Whenever a neoconservative attacks a political opponent with outlandish charges, he, she or it is using what behavior scientists call "transference" or "projection." They are trying to transfer or project onto others what they subconsciously find despicable in themselves, but are too oblivious to realize.
Thus when John Stossel, cohost of ABC's 20/20 program, said on a February 23 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program that global warming "may be a good thing" he attacked global-warming prophet, former Vice President Al Gore thusly: "... is it a catastrophe, where we have to wreck the lives of poor people and turn our freedom over to Al Gore and he'll tell us what we can drive and whether we can air-condition our house?"
Of course, Gore has never advocated such a things; he has only warned about the consequences of doing nothing about global warming, as have hundreds of scientists. Stossel's attack was a subconscious explanation of his own right-wing leanings in which surrendering one's freedoms to a supreme authority is his belief, as long as that supreme authority is conservative.
And the constant refrain from the Bush-Cheney cabal that anyone who disagrees with the administration's war against Iraq is a "coward" or "doesn't have the stomach to fight" is only a subconscious confirmation that both Bush and Cheney were cowards during the Vietnam War who had "no stomach to fight" at that time. When bark comes to bite, these two curs only yap about "a noble cause" while turning tail and running from the battle like a kittydog to hide behind a mistress's skirt, but are more than willing to send others to battle now. And the argument that terrorists "will follow us here if we leave Iraq" is an admission that terrorists did come here on 9/11 and Bush was totally incapable of any defensive action at that time.
Right-wing writer Dinesh D'Souza told Bill O'Reilly on his show that, "These are the guys (liberals)-- these are the guys -- first of all, they want to shut down Guantanamo. They want to repudiate the Patriot Act. They want Bush to lose (the Iraq war) for a domestic political reason. And that is that foreign policy has been a winning issue for the Republicans for a generation. If the left can turn that around, if they can, in a sense, saddle Bush with a humiliating defeat, this will pave the way for a return to the left wing dominance of American politics that we had for most of the 20th Century."
The attack that the left wants to "lose the war" is only a subconscious admission that the Vietnam War was lost by Republican Richard Nixon. Its accompanying claim that the left wants to "cut and run" from the battle admits that Republican Gerald Ford then "cut and ran" from Vietnam.
This persistent harping by the right that the left wants to lose the war in Iraq or the "War on Terror" ~ that Bush abandoned to wage the war on Iraq ~ is also a way of evading the truth that the left successfully demolished two world-class military powers in World War II in less time than it has taken Bush and the righties to be humiliated in Iraq by undisciplined and ill-equipped mobs of nonmilitary "insurgents." It's a subconscious desire to deny that foreign policy and protecting the nation under the right have been absolute failures.
D'Souza conveniently didn't mention that the "left wing dominance of American politics that we had for most of the 20th Century" resulted in the strongest and freest nation on Earth. It produced the largest-and-wealthiest middle class in history, a middle class the political right is trying to tear down. It established the US as the most-admired nation in existence; a nation many other countries have tried to emulate, the admiration the right has squandered. It solidified the freedoms that allow D'Souza to spout off with his nonsense and have access to forums that more-reasonable people don't have. It allows D'Souza to abuse America's freedoms that the right is trying to compromise and degrade the political force that secured those freedoms for him.
Right-wing newspaper columnist Michelle Malkin claims journalists covering Iraq who report the US setbacks in the war are either cowards or siding with the terrorists who are trying to kill Americans. In doing so, she reveals her own cowardice and anti-America tendencies. Truth to a righty must always be trumped by ideology.
When righties assail lefties for waging "class warfare" against the upper-class aristocratic few they are only admitting that their own policies and actions are the real class warfare, waged from the top down. And the "war-against-Christmas" drumbeat each December only reveals the conservative war against religious freedom because no one on the left has ever attacked Christmas, only revealed themselves as being open to respecting beliefs of other faiths. The religious war conservatives accuse others of waging is only a subconscious refusal to accept that they are conducting a religious war against moderates or nonreligious Americans, and it is failing. They had been on the ascension since Ronald Reagan came to power, but the Bush regime has opened the eyes of many Americans who want nothing to do with the Antichrist acolytes of the right.
When right-wing journalist Pat Buchanan ranted at a Republican National Convention years back about a "culture war" in the United States, he was only admitting that he was waging such a war ~ at least in his mind ~ against other cultures and wanted righties of like mind to join him against those other cultures. They have,
The righties' claim that any opposition to Bush's policies or actions amounts to nothing more than "hating Bush" or "Bush bashing" are only admitting that their entire opposition in the eight years of the Bill Clinton administration was pure hatred for Clinton and Clinton bashing. They can't admit that Bush's regime has been an utter disaster ~ so really doesn't need any hatred to be opposed ~ while Clinton presided over one of the most-successful administrations since World War II.
It's not possible for a conservative to understand that one can dislike and oppose a politician's policies or politics without hating the politician. But they hate so much that they think everyone hates to the same degree as they. That certainly can to light when a Dixie Chick said she and the other two Chicks of the country-music group were embarrassed that George Bush was from their beloved Texas. A simple innocuous statement ~ everyone has an embarrassing relative ~ was too much for the hate-filled right that immediately launched into a campaign of destruction. Death threats, boycott of the group's music and continuous slander of the trio only demonstrated the right's hatred. It appears that the main sin by the Chicks is that they were several years ahead of most Americans, who are now ashamed that Bush is American, let alone president. Then, when the Chicks won several music awards this year, the right claimed it was only for their politics, not their talents, revealing again that righties let politics trump all other concerns.
When right-winger commentator Ann Coulter attempted to smear longtime-married John Edwards by dropping "f*ggot" 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 f*g." 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.