Clarifications

I often use the behavior of my patients as a way to illustrate and illuminate points I am trying to make.  As an example, in my post Clans of the Alphane Moon, I described how a young man, during his slow descent into overt psychosis, began to construct more and more fantastical ideas to explain his disintegrating world view.  In order to hold onto his view of himself and the world, he ultimately became paranoid and delusional.  My point was not to suggest that those who hold paranoid conspiracy theories about the world can be, or should be, diagnosed with Psychiatric disorders.  My point was to establish that such conspiracy theories often are attempts to maintain a world view that is under stress; in such a case the conspiracy theories are compensatory, just as the patient's delusions were.  In point of fact, neither work very well and need to be continually elaborated to incorporate more and more disparate data. 

[Apparently Juan Cole, et al, are now suggesting that the Israel-Hezbollah War might have something to do with "War for Oil."  The convolutions to the "War for Oil" theory, which has never successfully explained anything or predicted anything, should have consigned it to the dustbin of history long ago, but it obviously serves a need, which is the point I am trying to make.]

Apparently, my posts have not been clear on this point, as evidenced by an e-mail I received, as well as some of the comments left on my blog:

Ye gods, sir, do you realize the dangerous terrain your blogging through?

Liberals, socialists, those on the political left, are either suffering from a a neurosis, a personality disorder, or perhaps even a psychosis? 

Is this what I'm reading?

It may be what you are reading, but it is not what I am writing. 

My letter writer continues:

You're a practicing psychiatrist? Under whose auspices? The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytical Association? Are your peers aware that you are making sweeping pejorative psychological generalizations on the internet while provide counseling and therapy to individuals with whom you may have significant political differences? Or do you only treat Republicans?

Good grief, it was the Soviet KGB that used to send dissidents off to mental institutions. Where are you taking all this?

Is failing to unreservedly support Israel is a sign of mental illness?

Robert Trimble

Robert, I have never diagnosed someone based on their political views, but I can appreciate that you could misunderstand my writing, so I thought it would be helpful to clarify.  I do not diagnose based on political ideas, whether I agree with them or not; that does not mean that in certain circumstances someone's political ideas are not psychologically meaningful.

Narcissism is ubiquitous.  All of us have, as a developmental task of childhood, the problem of resolving the tension and creating a healthy synthesis between our infantile Grandiose Self and our wishes for an Idealized Other who can take care of all our problems.    Many people tend to have an unbalanced synthesis, with some being more overtly grandiose (often seeming arrogant and obnoxious) and others more dependent.  In both cases, one important element is that self-esteem for such people depends on the approval (adoration, even) of other people.  In the very worst cases, the Narcissistic character uses other people as mere objects or props whose sole purpose in life is for his personal aggrandizement.  Many of the worst monsters throughout history have shown all the elements of Malignant Narcissism; Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Hussein, et al.  Note the key point that for these tyrants, their subjects' lives were worthless except as they enhanced the dictator's own fantasies and desires.

When a person's political views are too closely bound into their Narcissism, it causes significant problems.  In such cases, their political ideology, their ideas, become so emotionally overinvested, that their effect on real people is often neglected or minimized.  This can happen from the left and the right. 

For example, there are many people who firmly believe that life starts at conception.  They believe this with all the power of religious conviction.  Yet the vast majority of even the true believers do not think that their belief trumps their own, or their opponent's, humanity.  In other words, they may believe abortion is murder, but do not allow the idea to justify the murder of those who would preform or seek abortions.  On the rare occasions when a person or group has taken that step, they are rightly seen as criminals (not as Psychiatrically disturbed individuals) and are locked up.  Those who verbally support such murderous ideas at the expense of their victims need to be opposed and defeated and marginalized at every turn.

In a similar vein, there are many on the left who believe in socialism and/or communism with all the fervor of the staunchest Islamist believing in the Koran.  Their beliefs have led to such seeming contradictions as supporting terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel as legitimate freedom fighters.  The Islamists are quite clear that they are using terrorism to support their ideas, ideas which are to them far more powerful than any claim to humanity and life of their opponents.  In this case, they support terror and murder in the name of their political ideology.  When the media or the left in the West support such people, I believe they need to be opposed and defeated and marginalized at every turn.

My contribution is to help explain why some people value ideological ideas more than other people.  It often has to do with Narcissistic elements; that is a far cry from using Narcissism as its colloquial pejorative or as a diagnosis. 

As to Robert's last question:  Failing to support Israel is not a sign of mental illness; it is a sign of ethical, moral, intellectual, legal, religious, and characterological bankruptcy, however; but that's just my opinion.