You would have to contextualise a slogan like Make America Great Again to give it a negative connotation; on its face it is objectively normatively positive.
The Brexit slogan was Take back control. Again, normatively positive.
Same for Black Lives Matter.
The psychology behind successful political slogans is that people are generally in favour of positive things.
> The psychology behind successful political slogans is that people are generally in favour of positive things.
Are there any examples of negative political slogans? "Don't vote for us, we're losers"?
I don't think it's very informative to point out that these slogans are positive. What's more informative is that the messaging came with an idea of an insidious enemy, and of betrayal, and a desire to return to a former, previously great, and deserved status.
For what it's worth, I don't think "Black Lives Matter" had those same connotations.
> For what it's worth, I don't think "Black Lives Matter" had those same connotations.
Really? The impression I had[0] was that this slogan was a cry for equality in the eyes of a police force which acted as though black lives did not matter — the mistreatment being very much insidious, very much a betrayal of “protect and serve”, and while I wouldn’t call the BLM slogan itself it a “return to a former, previously great” status, it is clearly a desire to have a deserved status (of having one’s life matter).
[0] caveat: I’m caucasian British, the closest I got to this was having an American partner a few years ago
Your interpretation is correct. Unfortunately, as with everything else to do with Black and progressive activism in the US, the right wing has been very successful at bad faith redefinition of terms.
You're absolutely right that there is an enormous difference in the policies implemented by the various governments, I'm just saying that the policies were partially driven by a common psychology.
Pathologizing your political opponents is a two way street[0]. Your opponent might be insane, yes, but it can also be all too easily deployed to dismiss your political opponents and a lost opportunity to learn something, if not in the substance of what they're claiming, then at least about the causes. Even assuming that the various conspiracy theories peddled by both the Left and the Right are bogus (and they are), the fact remains that their exists widespread, politically useful grievance that makes them attractive to many people. If you just say "oh, they're all just mentally ill", you haven't learned anything, even if the grievance is simply a manifestation of envy and ressentiment. Even if they are all mentally ill, you haven't learned why they're all insane. Maybe you don't care, and that's fine, but someone has to care because unlike the occasional neighborhood eccentric, these things are political gunpowder. So first we debate, and only later do we embark on something like psychoanalysis.
W.r.t. Putin, I think that flippantly accusing him of mental illness is lazy and shows a lack of political imagination. That's only a conclusion you reach after you've exhausted all other options. Historically, Americans have been notoriously bad at understanding Russian political motives and the Russian political mind. If you contextualize what's happening in the geopolitical context, it's unclear, at least to me, that what Putin is doing is through-and-through insane. All evil is insane in the final analysis, but in the immediate sense, there may be a method to the madness. If you don't know the aim, and you don't know the constraints, you can't really understand the means. I'm not interested in cocktail party conjecturing or the pretense of knowledge.
For what it's worth, I generally agree with what you're saying here (and I vouched for your comment, because I thought it was an insightful contribution to the discussion).
I should clarify, though, that the "psychology" I am talking about applies more to the supporters of these political movements than to the politicians who lead them. It's completely possible for an intelligent manipulator to spout some narrative that appeals to the public's psychology, without them believing it themselves.
Your point still stands, though, that it's not enough to simply say "the leader is a liar, and their supporters are mad", because that reductionist framing is more likely to shut down any attempts at further understanding than to open the door to learning that there might be legitimate grievances that are leading to this "madness".
As for Putin, I think he is dangerously sane, but that's not to say that a psychoanalysis wouldn't reveal a helpful understanding of his motivations and weaknesses. For example, it seems that he spent his early life believing in (and working for) the greatness of his country which was destined to conquer the world (as if it were a game of chess played out across a world map), only to watch helplessly as that was all ripped away from him by the West. That could be psychologically devastating and create a trauma that has stayed with him for his whole life. I could well imagine that from his perspective, if he doesn't take back control of Ukraine, his whole life has been for nothing.
If the politician makes a decision in his interest but to the detriment of his people, one could very well make they connection. A simple example is distraction from critical domestic problems the political party/politician is not able,ready or willing to solve by focusing on international politics.
Wework for example. Adam Neumann was always about "we".
So what it means at a basic level is speaking on behalf of a group that is united against the opposing "I", basically a team or gang versus an individual.
The Orders are composed of persons all hung up on authority, security and control; i.e., they are blinded by the Aneristic Illusion. They do not know that they belong to Orders of Discordia. But we know.
- The Military Order of THE KNIGHTS OF THE FIVE SIDED TEMPLE. This is for all the soldiers and bureaucrats of the world.
- The Political Order of THE PARTY FOR WAR ON EVIL. This is reserved for lawmakers, censors, and like ilk.
- The Academic Order of THE HEMLOCK FELLOWSHIP. They commonly inhabit schools and universities, and dominate many of them.
- The Social Order of THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS. This is mostly a grass-roots version of the more professional military, political, academic and sacred Orders.
- The Sacred Order of THE DEFAMATION LEAGUE. Not much is known about the D.L., but they are very ancient and quite possibly were founded by Greyface himself. It is known that they now have absolute domination over all organized churches in the world. It is also believed that they have been costuming cabbages and passing them off as human beings.
A person belonging to one or more Order is just as likely to carry a flag of the counter-establishment as the flag of the establishment-- just as long as it is a flag.
It seems to me that government needs more checks and balances so people can recall their candidates if they misrepresented themselves or their intentions.
We can recall our leaders. (At least in the US we can.)
Of course, you have to get enough people to agree with you that the leader should be recalled. You can't recall him/her because you want to recall him/her. You can only recall a leader if we want to recall him/her.
There's a difference between wanting people in the country to work together for a shared goal, and literally referring to yourself with the pronoun "we".
> "All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president."
Plus as another commenter mentioned, a call to action for a group is a bit different than using the royal we to refer to a person or position. I'm sure there are numerous examples from both parties we could post here but that would get us nowhere
I'd prefer it if people could find common ground in the realization that both parties are trash
> The hubris syndrome has great appeal to psychiatrists, partly because it is a new concept.
New? That's hard to believe that its taken this long to construct such a syndrome.
In any case, while hubris might be an issue for some (minority?), being generally disconnected from those they serve seems to be the current state of leadership.
Look at Congress, all or nearly all are millionaires. CEOs and other C Level executives are paid record amounts (as a ratio of what staff compensation). Those in charge of The Fed? When was the last time any of them rubbed elbows with the victims of their system?
Hubris is a problem, and evidently a new one. But ignorance is more common and far more damaging.
> The first example of Kennedy's lack of political skill was the failed attempt to destabilise Fidel Castro in Cuba.
is presented without any evidence. The 'syndrome' itself is based on highly biased, out of context judgement of third party observations. Perhaps they should look up the classical concept "projection."
What is the first step in assuming a power role? I think in terms of leadership you've got to somehow address the span of authority. Even having a few people under limited authority is a pretty substantial undertaking. But having counts in the tens of thousands and having considerable power? I don't think there is a way to reconcile that without detachment of one sort or another. I know if I were in that sort of position, nothing would get done lest some injury to even a single individual be precipitated, thus making me morally culpable in their hurt.
It's funny, but most of the senior staff ripe for promotion that I've had the pleasures of interacting with were always disinterested in moving "up" to a leadership position. I think most people have an intuitive sense of the real responsibilities that one has to engage with. So the idea that these people have some underlying pathology I don't think is too far from the mark. I've also considered the concept of pathogenic careers, and the assumption of particular frameworks of justification that need erected to assume certain roles. For instance a surgeon takes life and death into their hands every day, how they reconcile the high-stakes, the successes and the failures, as well as the known- and unknown in the performance of their duties may contribute to a conditioned pathology. I suspect CEOs and politicians are no different. Of course this is all speculative.
Interesting that two of the cases discussed mention a prescription of amphetamines, which they describe as harmful. Did these differ substantially to the doses we prescribe for ADHD nowadays?
I don’t have an answer to your question, but I will point out that the effects of stimulants on someone with adhd are different from the effects they have on a neurotypical person.
Me too, and also I think the trade-off worthwhile, which is why I ask this question. I hope in the future people will have found a better treatment for ADHD. Maybe they'll look back at the medications currently used in a similar way as this article does.
I would wager the amphetamine doses given in those 2 examples were quite different than what is typically prescribed by (responsible) Drs treating ADHD today.
In Eden's case, it mentions that he was actually using Dexamyl[1], which is actually a amphetamine mixed with a barbituate. Though the dose isn't given, I'd imagine it was 'as needed' and largely uncontrolled. Uppers + downers tends to lead to bad results.
In JFK's case, he was treated by Max Jacobson a.k.a. 'Dr Feelgood'[2,3], and it wasn't just amphetamines; he made up injections of all kinds of vitamins, steroids, and speed. Again, it was 'as needed' and likely overdosed. Dr Jacobson would ultimately lose his medical license.
For ADHD, the maximum daily limit for amphetamine salts is 60mg in adults, and the recommended dose for ADHD is no more than 40mg/day. At those levels, there isn't a ton of evidence of deleterious effects, certainly not psychosis, as long as sleep isn't overly impacted. A carefully controlled max dose of 40-60mg a day is a far cry from the days of 'poppin' bennies' ad libitum.
As a side note, one has to wonder if the last, and almost certainly the current, US Presidents were/are prescribed stimulants. President Trump speaks for himself, but even President Biden seems to range widely in his level of energy and lucidity. With a job so important, where appearances matter, and with a team of doctors that can give you whatever they want, I think it would be naive to think they don't write Adderall scripts.
This reads like an article written by lowest of the human social hirearchy who have such low status that they don't even understand it (I don't mean conceptually, I mean experiencially)... or maybe it is just crafted for that audience.
In any case, I don't want to constructively criticize it because they'll just learn more... which they will then use to pick a clown they control and install them as leaders, CEOs of large corporations etc. much more than they have been doing already.
I can add one thing though... which may or may not be related. If you want to support a politician, make sure you have listened (preferably watched) to them in a long unscripted unplanned conversations with several people. These people can teach them how to stand, how to talk, how to use vocal inflections etc. and give them talking points and reharshals... but watch them for long enough and they'll break character. The anti-dote to fake leaders is long-form podcasts.
I have some experience. During college I had an internship with a county planning agency. I was staffing the welcome table where they hand out nametags at a conference the agency was sponsoring.
A smartly dressed woman walked up to me and said nothing. I welcomed her and asked what her name was so I could give her a nametag. She gave me a weird look, then stepped back and conferred with what looked like a retinue. I heard her say, "Who is that there?" (referring to me) "What is going on here?"
My supervisor rushed up and saved the day, handing her the appropriate nametag and explaining that I was an intern. Turns out she was some elected county official. Of course I should have known her name.
Yes and no. County politics and politicians can be a little unintuitive. Because there’s almost no reporting of things that get done by county government - and there’s so little accountability, compared to city state and fed, an unbelievable amount of corruption and patronage occurs. Therefore personal connections are more important and ego plays a disproportionate role (where the baseline is already overinflated egos).
Basically, look out for these clinical features of the hubris syndrome when it comes to people in positions of leadership and power:
1/ sees the world as a place for self-glorification through the use of power
2/ has a tendency to take action primarily to enhance personal image
3/ shows disproportionate concern for image and presentation
4/ exhibits messianic zeal and exaltation in speech
5/ conflates self with nation or organisation
6/ uses the royal ‘we’ in conversations
7/ shows excessive self-confidence
8/ manifestly has contempt for others
9/ shows accountability only to a higher court (history or God)
10/ displays the unshakable belief that he will be vindicated in that court
11/ loses contact with reality
12/ resorts to restlessness and impulsive actions
13/ allows moral rectitude to obviate consideration of practicality, cost or outcome, and
14/ displays incompetence with disregard for the nuts and bolts of policy-making.
Don’t vote for them. Remove them from power.