Today’s GOP: You can’t reason with crazy

[Teatownclown]

Today's GOP: You can't reason with crazy

By Gene Lyons May 11, 2012 10:54PM

After the comprehensive failures of President George W. Bush, conservatives faced a hard choice: rethink or go crazy. For too many, the election of Barack Obama appears to have made it a no-brainer. Millions have chosen the comforts of delusion, envisioning the ordinary give-and-take of politics in a democracy as an apocalyptic struggle between good and evil.

In a presidential election year, the evidence is everywhere. Two weeks ago, Florida GOP Rep. Allen West told a gathering of constituents that he knew of "78 to 81" congressional Democrats who are members of the Communist Party. Almost needless to say, West failed to name even one. Hardly anybody noticed, and certainly not the "severely conservative" presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. snip

Longtime GOP congressional aide Mike Lofgren wrote last year in explaining his resignation, "the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe."

For Obama to succeed where Bush had failed also had the potential to reduce the GOP to a powerless bloc of neo-Confederate whiners for a generation. So Obama had to fail at all costs.

Crazy can't be reasoned with. Only defeated. http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/12471883-452/todays-gop-you-cant-reason-with-crazy.html

AND THERE'S THIS WHICH SEEMS RELEVANT TO TNF....

How the Ayn Rand-Loving Right Is Like a Bunch of Teen Boys Gone Crazy
Flowers are nice, but this Mother's Day, what I really want is for these immature boys to grow up already

How to Tell the Men From the Boys

Conservatives completely fetishize masculinity. They idolize sports heroes, warriors and the Manly Jesus of modern evangelicalism. They eagerly seek the trappings that will buttress their sense of maleness in their own minds -- guns, big trucks, enough money and power to push other people around. The further right you go, the more exaggerated this focus on hypermasculinity becomes.

Psychiatrist Stephen Ducat explained this phenomenon at long length in his book, The Wimp Factor. Ducat's research shows that right-wing men are so obsessed with the external trappings of maleness precisely because they've failed to develop the inner qualities and accept the obligations that are required of actual adult men. It's all show, with nothing solid on the inside to back it up. And the more fragile their masculinity feels to them, the more exaggerated the outer display they put on is.

Given the insecurity that lies at the heart of this sad compensation, it's especially ironic that they've got the whole country buffaloed into thinking this is appropriate adult behavior. We've ended up with a culture of maleness that emphasizes the objectification and degredation of women, a lack of male accountability for anything that happens in the culture, and a definition of masculinity that's all about empty shows of dubious might -- like peacocks preening on parade.

For the record: This is a comic-book stereotype of manhood as it's imagined by little boys. But it's not the real deal -- not even close.

The essential difference that separates the men and the boys is that men understand and accept that they have an obligation to the greater good, and are willing to unflinchingly step up to that responsibility. They commit to their families. They work to improve their homes and communities, so they're safe and nurturing places for everyone to be. They take the long view as they plan for their kids' future. They look out for people around them who are weaker than they are. And they respect and cherish the co-parents of their children as their equal partners in that effort.

Adult men do not resent being asked to contribute to the collective whole. They know that their actions have consequences, and that they are responsible for the impact of those consequences on the greater good of the community.

[erfalf]

Conservatives don't care about anyone else, but on average give more of their money and time to charitable organizations? I think I've got it.

It's not that conservatives don't care about other people, it's that it is impossible for liberals to believe that what conservatives want to do will actually help everyone, which if implemented correctly, will. It has been proven, over and over and over. Rand understood that decisions need to be made at the individual level, because people in general are selfish. She never once said that people should not think about the greater good. She just said they should not be required to do so. If she wanted to give to charity, it was because she was selfish and it benefited her in some way (made her feel good or whatever).

This is slanted propaganda at it's finest.

[Gaspar]

Depends on your definition of crazy Teatowel.

it's just that Liberals are very engrossed in that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.  They view individual responsibility and opportunity as a burden, freedom as a curse, and equality as a tool of plunder rather than a simple truth.

Conservatives understand that by virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others.  That is why conservatives admire ingenuity, innovation, prosperity and the creation of wealth.  To a Liberal these are things to be despised and plundered in the name of whatever cause, group, or disaster they can invent or exploit.

[Hoss]

Depends on your definition of crazy Teatowel.

it's just that Liberals are very engrossed in that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.  They view individual responsibility and opportunity as a burden, freedom as a curse, and equality as a tool of plunder rather than a simple truth.

Conservatives understand that by virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others.  That is why conservatives admire ingenuity, innovation, prosperity and the creation of wealth.  To a Liberal these are things to be despised and plundered in the name of whatever cause, group, or disaster they can invent or exploit.

Do you see the cliff yet?

Conservatives also espouse the belief that corporations should be given citizenship of their own...

[Gaspar]

Do you see the cliff yet?

Conservatives also espouse the belief that corporations should be given citizenship of their own...

I like how you did that. 

If you can support that claim, go for it.

[guido911]

Conservatives also espouse the belief that corporations should be given citizenship of their own...

They do? I didn't get the memo on that.  Still, corporate citizenship, I can get behind. Corporations should demonstrate some responsibility to help our society (and it doesn't hurt that a corporation should have a legal location where it can be found).  

Now, if someone will someone please forward that memo circulated around 1886 that talked about corporate personhood in connection with the fourteenth amendment? I'd appreciate that.

[nathanm]

She never once said that people should not think about the greater good. She just said they should not be required to do so. If she wanted to give to charity, it was because she was selfish and it benefited her in some way (made her feel good or whatever).

That's actually not what she said at all.

[AquaMan]

Really? You guys are arguing conservative vs liberal? I opened a thread expecting some truly batshit craziness. Politics is a delusional game, period. My delusions are infinitely better than yours and I don't have to prove it. In netspace, I don't even have to note your posts exist.

This is the most marvelous ego feeding machine ever devised.

[guido911]

Really? You guys are arguing conservative vs liberal? I opened a thread expecting some truly batshit craziness. Politics is a delusional game, period. My delusions are infinitely better than yours and I don't have to prove it. In netspace, I don't even have to note your posts exist.

This is the most marvelous ego feeding machine ever devised.

Um, did you see who started this thread?

[AquaMan]

Um, did you see who started this thread?

Yes, and I also noted who was participating.

[guido911]

Yes, and I also noted who was participating.

I wouldn't be so hard on Nate and Hoss.

[Hoss]

I wouldn't be so hard on Nate and Hoss.

You said hard on...

[guido911]

You said hard on...

[AquaMan]

That's actually not what she said at all.

Speaking of Nate, Thanks for the Ayn Rand interview. How amazing was Wallace and Rand?! What strikes me is how civil, intelligent and respectful the two were. A philosopher/psychologist so smart and confident that she didn't need to yell, interrupt, bully and act out. And a real journalist of intellect with no discernable biases. Miss that. It feels like we have really degraded as a nation in our conversations.

Can't believe I never read those two books or any other interviews with her. Too busy with TV, comic books and objectifying women to have noticed, I guess.

[Conan71]

It feels like we have really degraded as a nation in our conversations.

What do you mean by that, fartknocker?