|
Rating:  - readitnow!
A primer into how humans cooperate in simple and complex societies.
Important concepts for us all to consider, especially in lieu of
our current political climate.
Rating:  - The reviews for this book are hilarious!
I'll be up-front- I didn't read the book. I'm not trying to bring down the star rating, nor is it meant as a refutation of any kind. I'm just rating the general concept of the book, an M.D. attempting a politically motivated research document. Pretty lame.
While not prescribing myself to any specific established political dogma, ideology, philosophy or agenda, I found the concept of this book interesting. Although a conservative with a medical degree working fastidiously and feverishly to "prove" a connection between the views he opposes and cerebral deficiencies is fairly straightforward in its hackery, I'll give it points for effort. The writer knows the psychological makeup of his target audience, and is using his knowledge to persuade a purchase.
But even more fascinating is the interplay amongst the supporters and opponents of the concept of a particular political view as a mental illness. Any negative responses listed in the reviews are automatically rendered as prima facie evidence that, on its face, "proves" the claims of the author. It goes as such: liberalism is a mental illness. Thus anyone supporting liberalism or criticizing the claim that liberalism is a mental illness in any form is in fact presenting evidence that proves liberalism is an illness. Such circular logic is laughable, but fun to watch.
It's fascinating as there have been numerous books performing similar functions in recent years from various perspectives. Most are more pop in nature, less strive to seem "academic" like this one. Notably is John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience", which seeks to show a connection between what Dean sees is a gross decay in the conservative movement and a desperate psychological need for authoritarian figures. Or "Bush on the Couch", a psychoanalyst's attempt to dissect Bush's brain from afar. None of these efforts ever really succeed beyond the scope of their target audience. Gaging by the reactions, this one looks to be included on that list.
Between 40-60 million Americans openly identify as liberals. If the percentages are issue-oriented in calculation, the percentages of liberal views on many mainstream issues often rise above the majority. Thus the dilemma presents itself. Like the old Twilight Zone episode "Eye of the Beholder" where the woman wakes up surrounding by pig-faced people, only to suddenly be the odd-one-out, the freak, the one thought of as ugly.
The fallacy inherent is that modern American politics disallows purity in political philosophy. We are in an era of realignment, where self identified liberals are adopting and practicing traditionally conservative values, and self-identified conservatives are adopting and practicing traditionally liberal values. All are functioning within this mainframe in widely varying degrees of realization or understanding of such actions.
Political movements of any stripe contain a brand of fanaticism within it that leads to attempts to "prove" political opponents are mentally disturbed or deficient. Whether its hard attempts such as Eugenics, or softer diagnostic attempts such as this exercise, the only people it will convince is those who are seeking convincing.
I welcome all trolls. As an independent, I voted for Bush in 94', Clinton in 98', W. Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. My mental deficiency must fluctuate every other election cycle.
Rating: - We have cracked the code
It's groundbreaking because Rossiter's goal is to specifically help people understand this mental disorder. It's not about anything other than to focus on the causes of Modern Liberalism. He logically builds a case and it's not hard to follow.
People have been describing the symptoms of these people for years, but as far as I know, no one has described the causes so clearly. (Someone should segment Liberals into various categories because not all people who say they are Liberal are truly Modern Liberals. Some people vote for Modern Liberals because they focus on only a few issues or if they don't have the inkling to dig into things to see how the Modern Liberals lie. Let me be clear, I don't want to say that everyone who votes with or for Modern Liberals is truly a Modern Liberal. In any event, these Modern Liberals are in the driver's seat in the Democratic Party and understanding them is paramount.)
Many people are confused with Modern Liberals because they really don't make sense. Rossiter points out that the "liberal neurosis" is "disguised as a rational political philosophy." I think that most people used to think that these Modern Liberals were just "different." It's more than just being different. I think it used to be that both conservatives and liberals had the same aims and goals - just different ways to get there. But since the Modern Liberals have come on to the scene, they are diametrically opposed to just about everything. The book explains the symptoms and the source of the disorder. I know someone who is an alcoholic and in learning more about the disease, I have found that many, many of the issues of denial and ignoring facts are the same as with Modern Liberals. This book confirms it.
If you read the book (and I recommend that you do), you'll learn about the psychological nature of man and many aspects about how we tick. The product description isn't bad. If you are on the edge of Modern Liberalism and find that the book is too much, you can just read the first 100 pages or so, skim the middle and then read the last 75 or so pages.
Independent of Rossiter, there is a video from a guy named Evan Sayet giving a talk called "How Modern Liberals Think." Evan is a comedian and he used to work for Bill Maher. He comes at the problem from an inquisitive angle while Rossiter's book is a treatise. The video and the book complement each other. Evan's talk is at [...]. (I see that Amazon sometimes pulls urls. Just go to YouTube and search on "Evan Sayet" and pick the "How Modern Liberals Think" video.) I'd say that between Rossiter, Evan Sayet, the scores of talk radio people, bloggers, etc., that we have cracked the code on these people. It's a matter now of getting the word out and challenging them and their ideas in the public square. (Watch that Evan Sayet Video.)
I do wonder about the psychological community because they seem pretty Modern Liberal too. What effect is this book having on psychologists and psychiatrists? If Rossiter is right, what some of them will do is "change the science" so what is abnormal becomes normal - sort of like rewriting history. (I don't follow that industry so they may have already done it!)
I used to listen to these Modern Liberals and think "Well, maybe they know something that I don't" or "Maybe I'm wrong." Not anymore.
Rating: - Doesn't answer the question
If you want to find out why liberals usually side with America's enemies, hate police and the military, and are in love with criminals and inadaquate people, this book won't tell you. It only focuses on why liberals are socialists.
His writing style is burdensome. It seems like in each paragraph he says the same thing, but with a slightly different twist. This book could easily have been cut to one quarter of its length.
Before you buy this book, you should try to sample a few pages first. If you can stomach his writing style, then go ahead and buy this book.
Rating: - Most important political work since John Locke
This is a very serious political treatise. It combines the wisdom of Aristotle, Hobbs, Locke, and Hume with the deep insight of Freud and Jung. When I purchased the book I thought it would be just another propaganda piece, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it a deep and serious work. Yes, it does have a few editing errors, but they are only a little tarnish on what is essentially pure gold.
Why do liberals hold onto a faith in something that has been proven wrong again and again throughout the whole twentieth century? Why, because to control and be controlled is neurotic man's relationship to a universe that he is alienated from and therefore hates.
|
