In my post on The Hostile Dependent Eternal Adolescent, I pointed out that those who approximate the eternal adolescent are those who typically take a more passive position with the world; they are often observers rather than actors. As such (and this would even include those actors who subscribe to a passive world view, a seeming contradiction I will try to elucidate shortly) they are essentially powerless to effect changes in their world. They can only have an impact when they are able to intimidate, coerce, or (rarely) convince those who have the levers of power to take action. Because weakness is frightening and infuriating, when frustrated, they tend to escalate.This suggests some fundamental points to keep in mind when trying to determine the ideal way to deal with the kinds of unhinged, escalating demands and charges we hear from the Eternal Adolescents of the MSM/Democrat convergence.
Anyone who has a difficult Adolescent recognizes how they whipsaw from Independence to immature dependency to Pseudo-independence.
The difficult Adolescent is a challenge for the best of parents. They are big enough to act however they wish, yet are still children who need guidance and limit setting by their parents. They are also peculiarly able to evoke anger and, at times, rage in their parents. This evocation is a key to handling them. Since the adolescent, in reality, is actually quite powerless to control his own environment, while at the same time yearning for the freedom (without responsibility) he imagines adults enjoy, his limitations, especially when highlighted by a parental prohibition, are terribly frustrating and infuriating to his often exaggerated sense of himself. The tactful parent does not make a great display of his authority but allows the youngster to exercise control in those areas of life where they are confident in the judgment of the young person and the opportunities for dangerous outcomes are minimal. Wise parents pick and choose their battles. Within reasonable limits which are age appropriate (a determination that has wide latitude and is up to the comfort and wisdom of the parents) the child is given freedom and expected to show the ability to exercise it responsibly. As the child exhibits his ability to handle responsibility, more freedom and responsibility are granted. (As an aside, one of the worst decisions this country has ever made, under the influence of teenage drinking and driving hysteria, has been to change the drinking age to 21, but that is a post or two for another day.) The key in dealing with the adolescent is to maintain one's equilibrium in the face of their charges. If the curfew is 12 midnight, some bending in light of special circumstances might be reasonable, but agreeing to a 3AM curfew because there is a party at a house without parents, while vocally desired by your child (who roundly condemns you as the strictest parent ever, especially compared to all his friends among whom he will lose face and be disgraced forever) is an abdication of parental responsibility. It may be tempting as the path of least resistance at the moment, but most parents know that giving in is a path that leads to disaster.
In setting limits for an adolescent, the greatest danger lies in the becoming furious at him. When you become furious, your judgment is impaired and your decision making tends to be distorted. The worst case scenario is when the anger engendered by the child is denied, suppressed, or repressed by the parent.
Adolescents are among the most intrinsically talented at evoking feelings of helpless rage in parents. It is because they are so familiar with the feelings and have had the same feelings evoked in them by life's circumstances that they know just how to get under their parents' skin. When a child feels weak and helpless, it is an intolerable feeling. By creating those exact feelings in their parent, it helps mitigate their feelings. If they are weak and powerless, but can frustrate their parent(s), then they are no longer quite so weak and powerless! They have, covertly, taken control over the parent. By making you lose control, they feel more in control.
How could this work with the MSMocrats. Powerline and Polipundit both have posts suggesting an approach which can work; Powerline also has a post which despairs and suggests exactly the wrong approach.
In Happy Anniversary, Guys, John Hinderaker reminds us of one of the seminal victories of reality, via the blogoshere, over the MSM:
Today is September 9, the first anniversary of "Rathergate." It was at 7:51 on the morning of Sept. 9, 2004, that Scott hit the "save" button on the original version of "The Sixty-First Minute," that discussed the 60 Minutes program on President Bush's National Guard service that had aired the previous evening, along with the DNC's advertising campaign on the same subject that was beginning on the morning of Sept. 9. At the end of his post--now the most famous post in the young history of the blogosphere--Scott included a quote and a link to a Free Republic post by Buckhead which questioned the documents' authenticity.
In Wildfire, DJ Drummond describes, in some detail, a wide ranging discussion, over 225 comments, which was joined by liberals and conservatives and addressed all sorts of hot button issues; the conclusion?
What does it all mean? A lot of noise and a fair bit of fury, but not “signifying nothing”, to dispute the Bard. What essentially happened was a lot of name-calling and some political barraging, as is common, but only the Conservatives held a cogent grasp of the facts, or support for their position. In the end, the Liberals were loud an boisterous, but could not defend their claims, and finally gave up when they ran out of steam. I can’t say what’s happening at other sites, except that facts do not change, and on this issue the facts on only on one side of the line. The right side.
Finally, John Hinderaker posted Dismal Poll Numbers, about the downward trend in President Bush's poll numbers under the impact of the constant, unremitting assault by the MSMocrats:
Here's my point: whatever you think of the mechanics of a particular poll, the direction of President Bush's poll numbers is clear. And it seems clear that Hurricane Katrina, and the outrageous attacks that the Democrats have pursued over the past week, have dealt him, and the Republican Party, another blow. I see no evidence that the Democrats are paying a price for their dishonorable tactics. And they won't pay a price, unless the Republicans start defending themselves and attacking the Democrats the way they deserve to be attacked. The "turn the other cheek" approach that the administration has followed for years--don't respond to attacks, no matter how unfair, just try to ride out the news cycle and move on--has resulted in one needless wound after another, and cumulatively they have now damaged President Bush's standing with the public, likely beyond repair.
In the first two cases I mention, the most salient aspect is that the facts eventually won out. In the third example, where John doesn't realize he is contradicting himself, he suggests Republicans respond and attack the Democrats "the way they deserve to be attacked." This is the emotional response. It is indeed infuriating to see the MSM print vitriol as news and fantasy as reality, but ultimately, facts do win the day. Any parent who has gotten into an argument, going tit for tat, with their Adolescent knows that eventually, emotion will get the best of anyone and something will be said that is regretted; at that point the Adolescent wins. If Republicans become angry and respond in kind to the Democrats, they will inevitably make a foolish comment that can be, and will be, used by the MSMocrats to change the argument to the Republican's misstep and their "dishonorable attacks" will be forgotten. With all the verbal firepower on the left, the public will be tempted to cry for "a pox on both their heads" and will tune out.
The Republicans need to trust the American people and trust the facts. Articulate Republicans must spell out the facts, without appearing to assign blame, whenever possible; Bush should certainly speak out more as the CIC, but no Republican should adopt the tone or frame of reference of the MSMocrats.
That being said, let the Democrats continue to spew their nonsense. Use the blogosphere to catch their errors, distortions, and venality. We should be delighted that DU, the DailyKos, et al, continue to invent new delusional scenarios that the Boxers, Reids, Hillarys and Jacksons lap up, barely digest, and then spew out. No one should ever encourage the Republicans to take a page from their book. They can only lose that way.
Recent Comments