Antisocial neoconservative

[Boo_Radley]

How outlandish is this? I realize that it's not academically sound to try to apply a personality disorder to a group, but I'm not trying to publish this in a peer-revied psychology journal, or anything.

Is this over the top? Or is it poorly phrased?

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe04.html

I believe that Neoconservative politics are just Psychopathy as a political platform. I've said that repeatedly, but never explained why. Here's a short summary.

Three or more of the following are required to call someone antisocial or a psychopath.


• failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest


Grounds for arrest aren't really applicable to a group or to international law. The attack on Iraq was illegal by international law, though. The propaganda is illegal by US standards, as is lying to the Congress and embezzlement, which this group has done. The group is constantly at odds with the law, calling any judges who uphold the Constitutional protections of liberty "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench", which are trigger phrases, in a sort, used repeatedly for years in negative contexts so they're very negative terms. They seem to consider themselves to be in a "war" with modern American culture. Schools, movies, news, colleges, musicians, actors -- anyone who represents the face of American culture is a target.


• deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure


Lying to the Congress, to the People, and to the UN to rationalize attacking Iraq. The giant con to sucker people into thinking we had to attack Iraq because they were an immediate threat to us. The constant milking of money from the public, etc. Tricks like sending scores of reporters along with the invasion force, but telling them they're not allowed to show any real destruction or they'll lose their access, or limiting media to covering the Iraq elections only at about 5 polling stations in safe, pro-US, Shi'ite neighborhoods to paint a false picture. Painting a false picture like quarantining protesters at the inauguration so they're out of sight. All a giant smoke-screen to present a false perception of reality. Attacking other social institutions than the judiciary is also common, education, main stream news media, and popular entertainment are also common targets of attack.


• impulsivity or failure to plan ahead


. . . and then the Iraqis will greet us as liberators.


• irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults


Whoa. Does this one even need explaining? Not just the attack on Iraq, but also the political attacks from the party; from the bloggers and right-wing media. When Koffi Anan said that the attack on Iraq was "probably illegal", they immediately responded by attacking him. When Hans Blix said he wasn't ready to give up on weapons searches yet, they did the same. When Kerry ran against Bush, they started smearing him every way they could think. The entire nations of France, Germany and Russia were attacked, boycotted, and called enemies when they refused to cooperate with the neoconservative, US agenda.

It's pervasive throughout the neoconservative movement. As stated above, they also attack education, news, and parties that don't conform to their way of thinking.


• reckless disregard for safety of self or others


Same here. They repeatedly claimed there would be minimum loss of life in Iraq, because they were going to use percision laser guided missiles. Then they killed 30,000 to 100,000 people and have shown no remorse for it. They'll probably do the same to Iran.


• consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations


See the Bush Debt. It's nuts. They just make-believe that somehow all this money they're spending is going to magically reappear some day.


• lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another


"I can't think of any" mistakes? Whoa. Anyway, the whole movement, the pundits, the bloggers, and the party do nothing but try to trivialize or explain away all the lying, cheating and killing they've done. All of the deception, all of the smear campaigns, all gets explained away with quaint but worthless excuses.

That's more than three. I could go dig up thousands of examples of each from the movement in general, or write a big dissertation on it, but I'm just trying to explain my reasoning in saying that neoconservative political ideology is antisocial.

I originally posted that on a forum largely populated by right-wingers, and, as you may imagine, I got flamed for three pages straight. (It was actually kind of funny). But, ideological opposition aside, is this a reasonable point of discussion, or is it a partisan attack based on a faulty application of social psychology?

I didn't think it was unreasonable.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Borderline Personality Disorder

That might be a better "label" for it. "Psychopathy" has been deprecated because of years of misuse, and "Sociopathy" isn't quite the same thing.

BPD includes several more diagnostic criteria which are remarkably similar to Republican misbehavior. Use a Google search, and you'll find hundreds of illuminating websites.

--p!

[UpInArms]

2. here's some must reading on the neo-cons

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18038

excerpt:

In his article, Hersh wrote that Strauss believed the world to be a place where ''isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad'', and where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to protect their countries.

<snip>

Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, ''some are fit to lead, and others to be led'', according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that ''those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior''.

For Strauss, ''religion is the glue that holds society together'', said Drury, who added that Irving Kristol, among other neo-conservatives, has argued that separating church and state was the biggest mistake made by the founders of the U.S. republic.

...more...

[Boo_Radley]

3. Creepy

"''those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior''."

Man, I knew Stauss was a psycho, but that's just creepy. That's pre-revolutionary European stuff. These people really do want the Dark Ages.

[UpInArms]

4. Welcome to DU Boo_Radley!

Glad to have you here. :hi:

Yes, these neo-cons are definitely "creepy" - I do believe that is an understatement.