In a brief post last night, I mentioned the attempt to demonize Mitt Romney (and the GOP in general), and how it has been remarkably unsuccessful. I see Romney’s likability as a major factor.
Well, this morning I learned about a line of attack that Barack Obama and the countless talking heads seem to have mostly missed.
Romney and the Republicans are basically sociopaths.
Governance by a Party With a Leadership That Has Been Taken Over by Sociopaths: The Fourth and Final Column Analyzing What Mitt Romney Would Do As President
[…]
In this column, I draw the unavoidable—and quite depressing—conclusion that the emergence of sociopathic attitudes is no longer confined to the lunatic fringe. While most Americans—Republicans, Democrats, and independents—remain healthy, well-socialized human beings, a group of people whom—we must now admit—can accurately be described as sociopaths has taken over the modern Republican Party, enforcing a new orthodoxy that is just as cold-blooded as what we saw in the responses the Times received to the story of Kristof’s now-deceased friend.
In other words, while most rank-and-file Republican voters are good people, their party has been stolen from them. A combination of factors—party loyalty, distorted news coverage, horse-race politics, and many others—has allowed one of our two major parties to continue to be viable even after this hostile takeover. A win by the Romney/Ryan ticket will, unfortunately, validate that group and unleash it to do serious damage to America and the world.
If you read through the piece, you will see that the word “sociopath” has taken on a new and enlarged meaning. The “lack of conscience” traditionally believed to accompany the sociopathic personality does not mean being able to do things like casually murder or slowly torture people to death; it now “extends to Republican leaders’ desire to eliminate or radically reduce anti-poverty programs (demonizing food stamps, for example, with racially-coded language), and even to their refusal to understand that the middle-class support program known as unemployment insurance is necessary during extended economic downturns.”
In other words, a sociopath is someone who disagrees with taking money from Person A by force, and giving it to Person B.
Sheesh.
Pretty soon, “sociopath” will mean opposition to socialism.
Comments
8 responses to “If you disagree, you have no conscience, and if you have no conscience, you are a sociopath!”
Regardless of how silly, useless or unimportant my solutions are, it is the fact of my having solutions that prove the case. Not the value of the solutions.
Sociopaths aren’t able to feel others pain. Not able to intuit, to empathize. Criticizing liberal solutions is positive proof of this insensitivity.
It’s all so obvious.
.
Interestingly enough you see a mirror to this in the more extreme conservative attacks on liberal positions as “socialist”, “communist”, or “fascist” (I’ve even seen several of these used together).
Despite the intrinsic absurdity of accusing someone of being a fascist commie, it does expose the intrinsic flaw in using this sort of snarl word labelling (communist, sociopath, etc.) in doing the necessary work of government.
If everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of evil, then you are acquiescing to evil if you negotiate with them. This leads to hardening of the sides and prevents the necessary negotiations that are how we have historically produced good governance in this nation.
From his behavior what are we to call Obama? Frankly, given the choice between a sociopath who fakes it, and one who doesn’t, I’d rather take the former.
[…] Majors Posted on October 26, 2012 5:30 pm by Bill Quick Classical Values » If you disagree, you have no conscience, and if you have no conscience, you are … In other words, a sociopath is someone who disagrees with taking money from Person A by force, and […]
For a time in the Soviet Union, opposition to communism was considered a mental illness. Dissidents were institutionalized. I’m sure the American left would love to apply that policy here if they had the power. Luckily, so far, they’re limited to corrupting the concept.
“Pretty soon, “sociopath” will mean opposition to socialism.”
Umm. Yes. See comment from Kyle Haight above.
Unfortunately, I think they’ve now managed to sufficiently corrupt the concept to many. I continue to hope it’s not to most. We’ll see soon.
If progressives couldn’t project, they’d have no way to criticize others. Such a lack of imagination and self-awareness. Sigh.
“Interestingly enough you see a mirror to this in the more extreme conservative attacks on liberal positions as “socialist”, “communist”, or “fascist” (I’ve even seen several of these used together).”
Extreme? Since liberal positions are in many cases mirrors of Communist Party platforms, why is calling them Communists extreme?