Rightist Collective Narcissism And Why Obama’s Own Fantasy Of Rational Dialogue Is Doomed

(N.B.: this originally was posted in the comments section but upon reflection think it deserves its own post. No worries, no effort to impersonate Krauthammer or a certain Senate Majority Leader with the deliberately stylized prose. Just some observations).

Narcissism is an occupational hazard for political leaders. You have to have an outsized ambition and an outsized ego to run for office.

Stanley Renshon

The Right’s compulsive need to maintain its Narrative within which all adherents can act out their own form of idealized Self is essentially collective narcissism. That’s offered as a lay person’s experience working, talking, and socializing with them over decades. From the Newts of the world to the most vicious ‘unknowns’ (except today the latter likely have so many Facebook ‘friends’ they have their own ‘fan’ page).

Narcissistic need to support a fantasized, grandiose self-image within a larger heroic Narrative explains alot. Not just the daily evidence of disconnect between actual behavior and the projected idealized (often censoring) personality. The post 2008 purge and radicalization are inevitable consequence. A complimentary analytical framework from a conventional political/historical perspective of Movements here and on the Continent.

Narrative radicalization and escalating vehemence through cant and acting out must — by internal logic — treble when fantasy can not surmount the limits imposed by Objective Reality (say Nov. 2008). Obama’s victory is a crisis threatening the ability to segregate their disassociated fantasized self-image with their often fragmented and undeveloped self. Why anyone remotely close to the Movement who said after defeat “now is the time for introspection” was doomed to be mau maued and kicked off the island. And Lord help you if there was a photo with you hugging Obama . . .

On one extreme one gets birthers. Another? Secession. And so on. They’re really the same. Their commonality is an irrational imperative to retreat to a safe Narrative that protects their idealized, fantasy Self. From that Barlett-esque non-emprical world adherents safely can continue to use the objective external world as a mere prop in their own internal movie.

This is in marked contrast with more normative modes of collecting and processing input, cognition and productions of ‘knowledge’ below:

[Read more...]

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

It’s Under The Bed . . . I Saw Fox! Don’t Turn Out The Light, Please Mommy And Daddy!

What’s worse? The Movement in amoral full flight or mewling and whining on ‘the Left’ [sic], with tiresome gnashing of teeth and typing in dismay? Always despairing the [Senegalese?] referee’s failure to pull a Red Card, to make clear To The Whole World the score a blatant, invalid Rightist foul?

Josh Marshall’s swan dive into the victimization pool is rather typical:

Still, you just have to back up from that and realize that as disappointing as Tom Vilsack’s first crack at this was, the idea that he or Obama is the bad guy in this story is not only preposterous but verging on obscene (emphasis added). It’s like the NYPD as the bad guy in the Son of Sam saga because they didn’t catch David Berkowitz fast enough. Or perhaps that the real moral of the story is that the woman with the stalker should have been more focused on personal data security. Not for some time has something so captured the essential corruption of a big chunk of what passes as ‘right wing media’ (not all, by any means, but a sizable chunk along the Breitbart/Fox/Hannity continuum) and the corruption of the mainstream media itself as this episode.

Marshall’s diversionary examples are sophomorically inapposite. And irrelevant. Notice how the Administration’s premature panic, collusion and later attempt to brush it all away is literally acknowledged as just ‘disappointing’ (with Vilsack alone holding the bad)? The real story, according to TPM? Fox made them do it. (Note the perpetually passive psychological construct?)

Kos was wrong lamenting about this phenomenon (pathology?) 6 years ago. It’s not at all like he said – they [Dems et al.] always bring knives to a gunfight. ‘The Left’ [sic] bring nothing. And then scream for Mommy and Daddy. We wouldn’t want to give Dr. Krauthammer an idea for a column (without residuals) but there is something deeper going on.

What exactly has to happen in Marshall’s world for non-Righists to function effectively? He doesn’t know. We like TPM and have from day one when it was a simple blog. This is a friendly reader’s exasperation. TPM and its readers need an intervention. We’ll leave that to the pros. But in the interim, here’s free advice. Stop flinching and stop ‘enabling’ flinchers. Be careful what you wish for, too, re getting a ‘ref’. Maybe Josh never played competitive sports. Or had a different experience. In ours, even referees get tired of premature flinchers and secretly despise them.

Can you imagine the coup d’etat that would have happened somewhere along 1992-2000 with this crowd? By what year do you think Rush or Newt would have driven Clinton into house arrest at the Streisand Estate? And seized the (newly enlarged) crown out of the Pope’sAiles’ hands and put it on his swollen head? Recall Tweety *and* Hitch shoulder-to-shoulder cheering Newt and Ken Starr on like high school cheerleaders. Notwithstanding Clinton basically *was* a good Republican president, to boot.

On such gossamer thin strands hope rests.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Anyone Want To Meet At Ray’s Hell Burger And Start Over?

Political humor often tells troublesome truths. A reason the old Soviet Union had so many jokes. We can’t recall if we’ve shared one of our favorites before. It sums up our current exasperation with Democrats as well. Such weak reeds.

[SCENE] A Politburo Meeting Late 1970s

[AROUND TABLE] Brezhnev, Chernenko, Suslov, Gromyko et al.

The Politburo hears a classified report from an R&D center that Soviet science can now resurrect the passed. After excited discussion, a unanimous decision is reached. They must first resurrect the Great Ilyich (Vlad). And so they do.

Soon thereafter, chest heavy with medals, Brezhnev welcomes a slightly startled Lenin to the 1970s. The Politburo escort Vlad into a Zil limousine and first show him the nomenklatura apartments staggered along Kutovsky Prospket in Moscow. Then, Vlad and entourage are hustled aboard a Tupolev and flown to see the sprawling military industrial complexes in Chelyabinsk. Wearing his trademark beret, Lenin smiles, says little and scribbles furiously in his notebook. He is shown Leningrad and given a special tour of the off limits foreign currency beriozka stores reserved for elites with normally illegal foreign currency. A token for the burdens leading the dictatorship of proletariat. Lenin notes his face everywhere.

Back in Moscow, the Politburo lavishes a dinner. Much toasting and praise. The Father of All Peoples. Leader of Bountiful Wheat Harvests. Founder of Socialist Hairclub For Men. Brezhnev falls asleep, drooling. Vlad finally asks leave to visit his old Kremlin apartments and haunts.

Days pass. No one sees him. Who’s gonna disturb the Great Man? After a whole week, nervously, the ‘team of rivals’ mumble to each other, ‘I thought you were watching him’. Finally, they crack open the doors, peer in. No Vlad. Gone.

Panic. What to do? Someone blurts out, bring back Felix. If anyone can find the Great Ilyich, it’ll be Felix. The next day the taciturn Polish Chekist stands before the grey men. He asks short, specific questions about what they saw, where they went. He declares he will find Lenin. But must be undisturbed.

Felix briskly heads to Vlad’s library. He locks the door behind him. He strides directly to a bookshelf and plucks open one of Lenin’s favorite books.

As expected inside is a note: “Felix. Meet me in Vienna. We have to start over.”

———–

Starting over is a tempting notion now, too. We have a two-fold problem with Brand Obama and his Democratic coterie – made more difficult by the fact Obama is not on the ticket, except he is. First, the Brand is seemingly uninterested in wielding political power for *tangible* result. 18 months make that ‘clear’ (in his parlance). Second, the Administration is increasingly perceived as incompetent by previously pro-Obama independents – and it’s not just oil-spill coincidence.

Sure the jobless rate is JP-5 fuel for the disorganized opposition and independents. Same with BP. But they’re an accelerant, not the fire itself.

For the disoriented Movement, the fire is refusal – by a significant segment of the American population – to be part of the liberal democratic social compact. Micro dramas within the Movement/Tea Party about kicking someone out or in are a distraction. All remain furiously united in one thing: they collectively perceive themselves as the only *legitimate* political actors. True whether the jobless rate was Obama’s promised 8%, 6%, etc.

Brand Obama doesn’t understand the Movement’s role over the Republican Party. Most Democrats never will. No accommodation is possible with a Manichean Weltanschauung. Seeking ‘bi-partisanship’ when one side defiantly remains outside liberal democratic politics is lunacy. We dislike hearing ‘We told you so.’ And so apologize. But we did. In 2007 and throughout 2008. Take that Katrina and les autres at ‘The Nation’.

August-November is also too short a season to show now tangible competence. Even if they knew how. This cycle will play out with the cards in already in the shoe.

Don’t Worry, We Remember Politics Remains The Art Of The Possible

We all know Obama’s not on the ticket. Losing a chamber isn’t shocking like it was in 1994 after 40 years. It’s just one cycle. Washington always is a shirts and skins game. Two teams only. Politics remains the art of the possible. We can only look at the netroots with renewed urgency to help organize and field hardened candidates as a future real alternative. How many cycles will it take? Four? Five? If a double dip is avoided, perhaps less. That’s still a lot of coercion by this menagerie — ‘Yeah we suck, but marginally less.’

One incident speaks volumes. When Brand Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Kagan, was asked in testimony to critique any Supreme Court decision she ducked the question entirely. Then ran back to her office, flipped through a used copy of Gilberts, pre-highlighted. Only finally to proffer a third-tier law school’s One L’s (D+ obvious) written reply she’s not down with Korematsu?

My God. Exactly how much crap do they expect us to take?

—–
CODA: And re the joke, where exactly would Brand Obama agree to meet and start over? Probably Ray’s Hell Burger in Arlington.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

On Andy Grove, Mercantilist Schwerpunkts And Free Trade Kool Aid

If one is serious about re-industrializing the United States to create high wage manufacturing jobs, one probably should shun hapless pundits and other ideological purveyors. To be fair the braying comes from all sides: ‘Free Markets’ cant or the tiresome “What Would Hamilton Do Today”? As par for the course, the most visible ‘experts’ provided to us on the cable news wall often can’t read a spreadsheet, think EBITDA is a new social networking site, haven’t actually worked for an industrial company or consistently met a payroll.

Economic development requires a more serious mind. But then, one could say the same about war. And look at that.

Even more than killing dark people, a sustained development concept in Bubble-addicted America is particularly challenging. Americans expect to earn inflated income by performing essentially meaningless and frivolous output. Haven’t we essentially outsourced the wars, too?

Andy Grove laments the decline of the hi-tech industry’s domestic manufacturing. He’s right that it is essentially now a (temporary) branding and marketing channel for Asian manufacturers. “Made in China, Designed By Apple In California”. Our friend comment shared this link from Grove on point: Sadly, one has to ask: where precisely have you been for the last 30 years, Andy? (Let’s overlook the Intel billions invested in India, Malaysia and China along the way.)

Can Americans Even Have An Intelligent Policy On Re-Industrialization?

Americans we will assert seem generally uninterested in development matters, especially historical economic development. So it’s important to put forth first principles to frame a conversation. Say a president visits a failed state like Michigan. He declares ‘new manufacturing jobs in America’ [cue ritual applause] will come. But before that can happen, we should be clear on what’s the goal of American economic activity? To promote *consumer* welfare measured in the here and now? Or to develop a social and economic infrastructure that maximizes *societal* welfare in the medium to long term? An infrastructure to enable other economic and social expenditures (military, standard of living, life expectancy, etc.)?

The first is America 1960-2010; ‘consumer welfare’ is the metric. The second? Delayed consumption, lower standards of living and capital accumulation for the future. How one answers these questions determines divergent paths.

The Four Models

For statesmen or serious students of Great Power history (this excludes by definition march of trumpets Boys Life ‘history’ ala Victor Davis Hanson et. al.), there are 4 essential, successful modern development models: (a) the British until 1870s (the end of the mercantalist First Empire and commingling with ‘Wealth of Nations’ and ‘White Man’s Burden’ era); (b) the Germans from 1870-1914; (c) the American from 1880s-1960s; (d) the Soviets 1917-1970s; (e) Japan from 1945-1991; (f) the Four Tigers (copying Japan); and (g) China (1980s-today). The latter three are essentially variations on the Japanese dual economy mercantalist approach. (The BRICs are more notional, still in China’s shadow).

[Read more...]

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Shorter Health Care Coverage

Heh’ (as someone used to blog, circa 2004).

[Read more...]

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS