Freud explains Iraq

In response to an article in the NYT Magazine titled Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge by Mark Edmundson. It was published on April 30, 2006.

Mr. Edmundson has helped us to explain the why and wherefore in Iraq. My take on his article is that Sigmund Freud helps us to understand ANY totalitarian regime, whether in the former Soviet Union, in Iraq, or in Somalia. The dynamics of a corrupt and manipulative leader is the same. For those new to this blog... the premise is simple. The people are not all to blame for the violence. Although they perpetrate the violence and support the violence, both which are unacceptable, they perform these acts because of long-term manipulation of their world view by corrupt leaders. These leaders know (viscerally - they are NOT scholars) what 'the people' need and want.. and give it to them in spades. In return for this 'favor' they extract a horrific penalty - a broken society. Think Iraq. Think Somalia. Think Zimbabwe. What changed? Are the people suddenly more violent and depraved.. or have their leaders corrupted their very world-view to maximize the leader's benefits?

Here is what the article says - "Freud brought forward striking ideas about the inner dynamics of political life in general and of tyranny in particular.....In books like "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego" and "Totem and Taboo," Freud predicted Hitler and his descendants almost perfectly. Now, in an age threatened by fundamentalisms of many sorts, Freud's thinking may be more usefully illuminating than ever before."

"At the center of Freud's work lies a fundamental perception: human beings are not generally unified creatures. Our psyches are not whole, but divided into parts, and those parts are usually in conflict with one another....Humanity, Freud says, has come up with many different solutions to the problem of internal conflict and the pain it inevitably brings. Most of these solutions, Freud thinks, are best described as forms of intoxication. What the intoxicants in question generally do is to revise the superego to make it more bearable. We like to have one glass of wine, then two, Freud suggests, because for some reason - he's not quite sure what it is in scientific terms - alcohol relaxes the demands of the over-I. Falling in love, Freud (and a thousand or so years of Western poetry) attests, has a similar effect. Love - romantic love, the full-out passionate variety - allows the ego to be dominated by the wishes and judgment of the beloved, not by the wishes of the demanding over-I. The beloved supplants the over-I, at least for a while, and, if all is going well, sheds glorious approval on the beloved and so creates a feeling of almost magical well-being. Take a drink (or two), take a lover, and suddenly the internal conflict in the psyche calms down. A divided being becomes a whole, united and (temporarily) happier one."

"Freud had no compunction in calling the relationship that crowds forge with an absolute leader an erotic one.....What he offers to individuals is a new, psychological dispensation. Where the individual superego is inconsistent and often inaccessible because it is unconscious, the collective superego, the leader, is clear and absolute in his values. By promulgating one code - one fundamental way of being - he wipes away the differences between different people, with different codes and different values, which are a source of anxiety to the psyche. Now we all love the fatherland, believe in the folk, blame the Jews, have a grand imperial destiny."

"To Freud, crowds on their own can be dangerous, but they only constitute a long-term brutal threat when a certain sort of figure takes over the superego slot in ways that are both prohibitive and permissive."

Did you catch that? Think Osama. Think Hitler. Think any puny warlord in that desolate country called Somalia. Doesn't Freud explain this well?

The article continues - and clarifies the point - "In his last days, Freud became increasingly concerned about our longing for inner peace - our longing, in particular, to replace our old, inconsistent and often inscrutable over-I with something clearer, simpler and ultimately more permissive. We want a strong man with a simple doctrine that accounts for our sufferings, identifies our enemies, focuses our energies and gives us, more enduringly than wine or even love, a sense of being whole. This man, as Freud says in his great book on politics, "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego," must appear completely masterful. He must seem to have perfect confidence, to need no one and to be entirely sufficient unto himself. Sometimes this man will evoke a god as his source of authority, sometimes not. But in whatever form he comes - whether he is called Hitler, Stalin, Mao - he will promise to deliver people from their confusion and to dispense unity and purpose where before there were only fracture and incessant anxiety. But, of course, the price is likely to be high, because the simplifications the great man offers will almost inevitably involve hatred and violence."

An amazing article. Thank you Mr. Edmundson.

Freud explains Iraq v2

In response to an article in the NYT entitled "When the Personality Disorder Wears Camouflage" by Benedict Carey that was published on July 9, 2006.

Mr. Carey's intent, no doubt, was not to add to my explanation of terrorism in Iraq and of terrorism generally, but he clarified a key point with a totally different viewpoint and goal in mind. In my mind that validates this particular point I am trying to make. Notice how cleanly Mr. Carey's observations of psychopaths aligns with Freud's analysis of a leadership style that empowers terrorism by offering "individuals .. a new, psychological dispensation?" Here is some of the text of the article:

"These are hallmark traits of what some experts call psychopathy, a potent blend of antisocial instincts and grandiosity....

"...when you have a psychopathic offender, quite often he will manipulate others, he can be a puppet-master type," he said. "Others are attracted to his sense of certainty, his sense of power, to the fact that he can do things others have trouble doing." A person with psychopathic tendencies may appear to others as clearheaded as an elite soldier when under fire, or when on the attack. But the internal psychological reality is much different, research suggests."

This so closely aligns with the earlier Freud article, it could not go un-announced.

Lastly, a very pithy quote that applies to this same issue from David Brooks, a columnist for the NYT - "(These) assaults ... are ginned up by ideological masseurs who salve their followers' psychic wounds by arousing their rage at objects of mutual hate."

Doesn't Mr. Brooks' statement go right to the point of the Freud article and the article on psychopaths in the military? It helps to clearly identify the motivations and methodology of the leaders of the terrorism movement and all their ilk.

Forty Seven Million?

In response to an article in the NY Times by N. Gregory Mankiw that was published on November 4, 2007.

A key issue in this blog is the deceit of numbers foisted on the public as facts, especially numbers that have been ensconced in the public conscience as 'truth.' One of these figures is '47 million Americans are not insured.' Gregory Mankiw, a highly respected economist, weighs in on this issue - and once again it is clear that the numbers dumped on the public are not 'truth,' and in many cases are outright falsehoods.

How can we cope with this lack of facts? Perseverance is the only answer. Very few people have the time or the training to pursue each and every truism that crosses their doorstep. That is why the public votes based on their worldview - picking which party, not which candidate, best reflects their worldview. Lack of time drives simplification. The only way to get to the truth behind these numbers is to honestly doubt them and track them consistently over time until the truth is outed. This is one of the main benefits of being a reader of the NY Times, or other respected papers. It may take years and consistent readership, but the truth is out there.

Anyway, to Mr. Mankiw's article ---

"With the health care system at the center of the political debate, a lot of scary claims are being thrown around. The dangerous ones are not those that are false; watchdogs in the news media are quick to debunk them. Rather, the dangerous ones are those that are true but don’t mean what people think they mean. Here is an example (ed).

Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.....

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million."

Unbelievable. The truth.... it is out there.

Normal caveat. Does this mean we should NOT have universal health insurance? Of course not. Should we do something to make sure as many as possible are insured? Of course. A mean-spirited debate about health care is not helpful. True facts, a spirited debate based on facts, and the result will be forthcoming.

Thank you Mr. Mankiw.