Liberals are clinically mad

[_bcspace]

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

-creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
-satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
-augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
-rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

[_Tarski]

LOL
Silly r-wing nuts. I guess they had to find someone to counteract the serious study described here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

So in response

Little known shrink and political hack Dr. Lyle Rossiter has released a new book entitled "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" that is designed to feed the red meat hunger of Right Wing ideologues at a time when the Conservative movement is on the ropes after seven years of incompetence and corruption under George W. Bush.

Most of its claims are not so subtle reversals of the conclusions reached by four distinguished scholars that were funded by the US Government in a study to discover the roots of conservatism.

The report "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" cost $1.2 million and was supervised by the National Foundation as well as the National Institutes of Health. It found that conservatism is essentially a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

[_Calculus Crusader]

You neglected to cite the best part, professor:

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."

[_EAllusion]

I was more interested in the phrase "top psychiatrist." As one would expect, there's nothing to suggest that Dr. Rossiter is a top anything. In fact, he's a forensic psychiatrist who makes a living testifing for defendents in court, which is often a position filled by incompetent, unethical hucksters.

Incidentally, there is a tendency in psychology to explain conservative beliefs in terms of illicit psychological processes, often in highly naïve ways. I think it is quite plainly a manifestation of the biases of a population of scientists that are overwhelmingly liberal. There is plenty of good writing in the field on this. In a text I had for personality psych, the authors used a common tendency for conservatives to support pro-life but also favor death penalities to illustrate cognitive dissonance. They apparently couldn't imagine how those positions could easily be rationally consistent, and in the process demonstrated a disturbing ignorance of a subject they were writing academically on.

[_bcspace]

I was more interested in the phrase "top psychiatrist." As one would expect, there's nothing to suggest that Dr. Rossiter is a top anything. In fact, he's a forensic psychiatrist who makes a living testifing for defendents in court, which is often a position filled by incompetent, unethical hucksters.

CFR

Rossiter has it dead on.....

A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do …

A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do.

And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.