The discussion in the comments was particularly rich and informative. I did not mean for the post to be primarily about George Soros, but he is certainly a worthy topic of discussion since so much of what he believes and supports is inimical to what many of us believe are the best values and principles upon which America is built. There is an important point I would like to reinforce. This is a principle that animates Psychoanalytic thinking and is useful to keep in mind; it is also one of the main reasons I try to avoid making Psychoanalytic interpretations of people I have not personally seen professionally. To wit: All behavior, which is the result of multiple unconscious and conscious determinants, can have multiple explanations.
Consider a hypothetical wealthy Socialist, née Communist, who believes that a centrally planned and controlled society offers the best possibility for universal social justice. Let us posit that this individual treats individuals who disagree with him as enemies and justifies all manner of cruelty in the service of his ideology. He consciously believes that even the worst crimes are justified by the wonderful goals he has so clearly in mind; in fact, only through "breaking a few eggs" can the Socialist Utopian omelet be made.
Consider some of the kinds of unconscious organizations that might lead to such an outcome:
Our hypothetical, committed ideologue could be unconsciously quite sadistic. His rationalization of torture and murder in the interest of his Utopian ideals could be based on an unconscious sadism, ie pleasure in the pain of others. He may have been attracted to his ideology because he sensed that it would allow him to gain power over others, power which he could use to inflict pain.
On the other hand, he might be a Sociopath, simply lacking in fundamental empathy and uncaring about the lives of others. Other people would exist as pawns for him to use for the furtherance of his own desires, often including sadistic desires, but not motivated primarily by sadistic wishes.
However, there are other explanations.
He could merely be extremely Narcissistic, perhaps even a Malignant Narcissist. In this case he would derive no particular pleasure, unconscious or otherwise, from inflicting pain but rather, would value other people only in terms of how they affect his self worth and self esteem. Idealized objects would be esteemed while those who have nothing to offer would be dismissed. The true Malignant Narcissist in a position of power would use the most vile means to ensure that the adoring crowd remains an adoring crowd and thus what might look like sadism is actually not motivated by the gratification of pleasure in pain but rather the need to have object lessons for other potential opponents who fail to show the proper obeisance.
Meanwhile the committed ideologue, who with his extra dollop of Narcissism arrives at his ideology via an intellectual process, may simply be someone who relates poorly to other people. In his case, while he might love mankind, he doesnt have any particular connection to the individual man. This is common in ideologues who love the people but despise (devalued) people.
Finally, perhaps our hypothetical idealist has remained stuck in an adolescent Utopian position. He truly cares deeply about people and wishes everyone to just get along without strife. He is fearful of his own (and others') aggression and is committed to only doing good. Perhaps he wants to save the planet and realizes that only by controlling other peoples' behavior can the world be saved. His character is immature, poorly understanding of cause and effect, and thoughtlessly dangerous and controlling.
In reality, most people contain a mixture of elements from all sorts of unconscious determinants. In the end, why they behave the way they do, as important as it would be to me if I were their Psychoanalyst, is minimally relevant to our current political straits, save when it can usefully help shape a way to undermine or attack them. All of these people can be dangerous to others because they desire nothing less than to control others and should be opposed on their politics not their character.
NB: This does not mean that character doesnt count in our politicians; of course it does. Character is probably the single most important element that determines whether or not we are safe placing our government in their hands. However, although I may have some insights into the ways character forms and some ability to help people change, I have no more expertise in penetrating the public persona of the faux character too many of our politicians construct than anyone else. In fact, most people today are experts in evaluating the character of others based on their public persona. In 2008, a significant portion of the population got carried away with the projection of their own Utopian wishes onto a candidate who was purposely deceptive in his representations; we began to make amends two weeks ago. Despite that, and my suspicions of his motives, I refuse to see Obama as an enemy. He is an opponent and as such, I can oppose his policies without wishing to see him destroyed.
Recent Comments