TIME- Why the G.O.P. Won’t Embrace Mitt Romney

[NNN0LHI]

http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/16/why-the-gop-wont-embrace-mitt-romney-a-psychoanalysis/

Republicans on the Couch

Why the G.O.P. Won’t Embrace Mitt Romney

An analysis of the Republican psyche

By Justin Frank, M.D. | @JustinFrankMD | November 16, 2011

Obama’s been quiet this past week, so I’ve decided to turn my attention to the psyche of the GOP and its current identity crisis. The very public debate over Republican self-definition stands in stark contrast to the previous three presidential election cycles, which were driven by a binary message that divided the electorate into two categories — voters who were either with them or against them.

In fact, as they struggle to settle on a leader by indulging in serial infatuation with a variety of unelectable alternatives to the front-runner, the Republicans are revealing a fundamental fact about a large and controlling segment of the party: they can only tolerate leaders who are simpler than Mitt Romney seems to be. The “anybody-but-Mitt” attraction to simpler alternatives is just the latest expression of a concept known as the attraction to non-thought, an unconscious defense first identified by British psychoanalyst Gianna Williams. The appeal of the phenomenon is simple: why make the effort to entertain notions of complexity when to do so invites the risk of psychic chaos that uncertainty can produce?

Now the attraction to non-thought is exacerbated by our collective insecurity in response to the shakiness of our economy. In practice, this defense, motivated by a denial of the messiness of reality, extends to a hatred directed against anyone who tries to challenge that denial. Though Obama is the primary target of that hatred, expressed in the automatic rejection of every proposal he makes, we now see attacks on thinking whenever a challenge is made to Republicans yearning for simplicity. In last week’s debate, CNBC moderator Maria Bartiromo was booed before she could even finish her question about Herman Cain’s character.

[hifiguy]

1. Dr. Frank's book on Chimpoleon

was a fascinating and frightening read. The Time piece was quite interesting.

[Erose999]

2. Romney/Huntsman 2012: Team Temple Garment

[No Joe]

3. Pug like sympul

Think hurt Pug.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. I don't know - I think it's about more than simplicity

Trump is not simple and he was a front runner. Newt is not simple and neither is Paul. Perry is simple and he's not favored.

Why do they applaud executions? Why do they applaud the notion of letting the poor die if they have no insurance? Why did they applaud Florida Governor Rick Scott for announcing thousands of government worker layoffs? Why did they applaud Cain for proposing an electrified fence to kill aliens at the border? Why do they applaud Newt every time he goes ape shit against the media? Why did they boo a gay soldier? I think the Republicans have made evil a virtue. They're like the school bully clique who get their kicks out of seeing people suffer because they themselves can only feel important that way. I think they're sick and that this is more about their need to feel powerful where they are weak and about feeling like victims and turning their anger against fellow Americans instead of against their true oppressors. I'm not a psychologist but I think there's more to their disturbed psychopathology than a mere longing for simplicity.

[Nothing Without Hope]

6. I am thinking along the same lines as you.

K & R

[Old and In the Way]

7. The leadership is a reflection of the people who identify with the Party.

At the end of the day, I don't think the average Republican voter, like the majority of their candidates, are particularly bright. I'd really like to see a detailed study done that compares both groups in their knowledge about current events, economic theory, history, etc. I know their conviction index would peg off the meter, but I'm not so sure that they have an educated basis for these convictions. Certainly, when you look at their candidates that seem to rise to the top, you can't be very impressed that these are the best people to run this country. Cain?...really? Bachmann...really? Bush....really? Palin....really? Perry...really? Santorum...really?

It's very telling that the 2 candidate who are somewhat pragmatic and shown at least a basic capacity for bi-partisan governing (Romney and Huntsman) are considered unfit to lead their Party.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Obama/Romney would face a common unthinking foe

That's good.

Rec'd

[Romulox]

8. Oh yeah. That Mitt Romney sure is a complex...snake. Silly OP. nt

[sarcasmo]

9. They have a big problem with the magic undies.