Feel Whose Pain?
Friday, June 27, 2008 at 09:55It’s French diplomat and author Jean Giraudoux who’s reported to have remarked “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.” Now, I wouldn’t be the first to note the parallels between extreme rightwing “conservatism” (the quotation marks are inserted to note the modern instantiation would be unrecognizable to Goldwater, much less Burke) and the psychological disorder of sociopathy. But it should be mighty interesting watching the party of sanctimony and pathological indifference to everyone but the overprivileged trying to feign “empathy” for working families.
“Feel their pain”: that’s the plan alarmed Republican advisors suggest.
The party scrambled together a commission to study its problems after the GOP unexpectedly got its ass kicked in special elections in Illinois and Louisiana; its spectacular defeat in Mississippi was apparently the last straw.
Because their actual inner experience of it is shallow or completely absent, empathy is an emotion sociopathic individuals find it nearly impossible to successfully put across because it’s hard, if not impossible, to fake it. Let’s watch. This should be entertaining.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (12)
I really sincerely care what you think, Winston.
It worked for Bill Clinton when he said he felt our pain. But then, he's a much, much better liar than the hapless, incompetent, useless GOP organization.
Duff, man: I don't believe you.
You're really reaching when you try to equate conservatism with a mental disorder. To do so is just an attempt to stifle viewpoints differing from one's own.
more ridiculous than the "Limbaugh is a druggie" rants
"Reaching", Zoy? Naw, I don't think so. For one thing, the converse is more or less
constantly repeated by some of the extreme right's most important figureheads. For another, sometimes it's just necessary, refreshing, and important to clear thinking to name behaviors for what they are. I'm certainly prepared to go through the list of symptoms of sociopathy and defend the proposition that lots of those symptoms closely match the Nooshans' public behaviors.
An "attempt to stifle"? How so? There's no effort to restrict or restrain anyone's speech, not even implicitly.
If turning someone else's political principles into pathology represents an attempt to restrain their speech or stifle them, you really need to speak out against Mr. Weiner, Ms. Savage, and others with far more access to popular culture than I have.
Actually, there's no need for us to argue about it, because we have a controlled experiment going on here in real time. Republicans will either remodel their pitch so as to convince working families their security and their problems matter to the GOP, or they'll lose, very badly.
Let's see whether sincerity (and empathy) can be successfully faked. My guess is that it'll feel so awkward they won't even try.
Speaking of faking it, let's take it from the pro's. That "unity" meeting today between the gangsta and Ms. No Wire Hangers looked like the aftermath of a really bad blind date. Faking it? These two? One observes the middle class as clinging to religion, guns and patriotism and pretends he understands and wants to change things. The other puts up with the middle class touching her hand and dispising them for there commanality but claiming she feels there pain. There is an Oscar to be had every day from the dimwit party for the line of b.s. they heap on the American electorate.
"that . . . meeting . . . between the gangsta and Ms. No Wire Hangers looked like the aftermath of a really bad blind date"
Oh, man. It's nice to have you posting here, Thomas. I'm very sincere about this. You seriously crax me up sometimes. Don't ever change, babe.
What, Thomas? You doubt that Hillary's look of adoration toward the Obamessiah was genuine? You cynic you. I'll bet you're one of those guys who thinks Hillary will be secretly working to undermine and defeat Obama so she'll have another shot in 4 years. <g>
Personally, I would suggest that conservatism solely for the sake of conservatism can border on obsession. The same is true for liberalism for the sake of liberalism. Of course, those persons might actually deserve the "moonbat" and "wingnut" labels so casually applied to those with whom we merely disagree on some point or another.
What on earth does "conservatism for the sake of conservatism" mean?