The current reflex solution is to control guns, which really means to limit guns.

But PsychePolitics suggests a different perspective. Just ask yourself what would have happened if one, just one person in that entire movie audience had a gun and used it. Really, stop reading and ask yourself.

Isn’t there a possibility–if not a probability–the shooter, even with his body armor, would have backed off? Do you really NOT think there would have been less than 12 deaths and 51 injuries?

And this shooter was the only one in recent memory to wear armor. What about the shootings where the shooter was unprotected? One gunshot would certainly back him off.

More, put yourself in the mind of any shooter, robber, mugger, rapist: If you thought there were even a 10% chance a prospective victim had a gun, would you maybe think of another way to express your anger, delusions, whatever?

Well, the population is afraid of what they don’t know – guns in this case. But should we pander to emotion – or ration – in solving problems?

If gun laws were better thought out, if instead of giving in to the pleasure principle – in this case the pleasure of reducing fear/anxiety – we might be better served by educating our public in handling guns, in gun safety. Then, more people would own guns – AND THERE WOULD BE A COLLECTIVE DETERRANT TO ALL VIOLENT CRIME, not just Aurora type shooters.

So, the inevitable question is why our political leaders don’t even suggest we look at guns and criminals from a different perspective – AS DOES PSYCHEPOLITICS.

Well, politician political leaders risk losing the votes of gun fearing voters – even if they tried to suggest it to private focus groups to test it. It is too risky for an active politician political leader.

But what about our non-politician political leaders. Yes, politics goes on even between elections and outside of Washington.

I am referring to the PRESS. On political TV shows and in political newspaper columns, all kinds of ideas are tossed around. Why doesn’t even one of our political commentators try a unique perspective?

We’ll get into the psychology of non-politician political leaders in future posts.

For now, all we have is me and average citizens, willing to suggest novel, logical solutions to persistent problems.

You know, psychiatrists and psychologists are known for avoiding suggesting direct solutions for their patients. However, when a patient is dangerous, we take actions.

Hopefully, some of you will do the same!! Don’t lie on the therapist’s couch! STAND UP AND SPEAK UP!

More, incumbents have had at least one term to solidify these relationships with their constituents. They attend church dinners, ball games, whatever.

They also can give a variety of favors to them, like government contracts and inside information about what’s going on in government.

Note, I did not say anything about the job the incumbent did. Though that is generally the focus in an election, it does not decide elections.

None of this is unknown. It takes place at the conscious level. We, or at least most of us, are aware of it. However, there is more, a factor that we are unaware of. It is not a large factor when rendered conscious. Then it can be dealt with by our adult, rational minds, and accepted or discounted.

At the unconscious level, however, the way we see and relate to our leaders has another dimension, a hidden one. We are not aware of it. It is our relationship with our parents.

When we were little, inside the nest, we saw our parents in some common ways. They were all-knowing and all-powerful. They gave, and they withheld. Most important, they took care of us.

As we enter the world, first in school, then work, there are people who also take care of us. Though it is care-taking to a lesser extent, it is care-taking. These people are our teachers and our bosses. Despite all the aspects of our relationships with them, whether we love them, hate them, admire or detest them, the relationship with them resonates unconsciously with the relationship we had with our parents.

This is also true of our political leaders, incumbents. Whether we like them or not, admire them or not, vote for them or not, they are, to an extent we are unaware of, like our parents.

So, unless a challenger is able to overcome this advantage incumbents have, he or she will not get us to reject them. After all, it would be like rejecting our parents.

The successful challenger generally addresses this problem intuitively. However, intuition is not always reliable. Rather, if the challenger takes this relationship into consideration, whether in phraseology or embedded comments addressing it, he or she leaves the incumbent with an important edge.

In any case, the next question and the one that is not asked every time this double standard arises, is, “How come?” Most people dismiss it as just politics. While it is politics, it is not just politics–conscious politics, that is. Rather, it is unconscious politics. So, here’s the why, the perspective that ties together, that explains lots of what seems illogical and unfair to Republicans and why the Democrats can continue the practice unchallenged.

The reason, which I have developed in other writings, is that the two American political parties are at this time unconsciously taking the roles of the mother and father of two generations ago. This should not be that surprising, as the leaders of both parties grew up about two generations ago.

In any case, the Democrats are identified with the Mom and “in the nest” values, and the Republicans with the Dad and “outside the nest” values. Please don’t disagree until you see the writings in the book PsychePolitics–How To Read The Political Mind and the videos I hope to post shortly.

What can Moms/females/little guys do that Dads/males cannot? They can strike out, as they are identified with the fair sex and the weak. They don’t see that they can hurt that big, powerful male, who travels outside  the nest. Dads, on the other hand, are not supposed to stike back at a woman. Even more, Dads are, in our culture, not supposed to strike out at the weak. This goes for children, too, those little guys.

The puppy can scratch at the adult dog endlessly, but the adult dog does not strike back–unless it really hurts. The same phenomenon exist for humans. Think about it. I don’t have to convince anyone. Just think about it. Isn’t that the way things are? The cultured male doesn’t retaliate against the barbs or bangs of a female–or the little guys.

So, that is why the Democrats can adopt this double standard, and contemporary American society, the press included, doesn’t find it unfair. From the perspective of the family and inside the nest values, it is perfectly fair. The underdog, child, little guy, fairer sex can’t really hurt the adult, so what’s the problem? And, from the cultured male/GOP perspective, there is the prohibition against striking them back.

As long as the Democrats are identified with, are like, Moms (and little guys), and as long as the Republicans are identified with the Dads/males/powerful, this–and other–double standards will exist.

Governor Romney has taken the “high” road, as strategy would dictate. Nonetheless, the issue of Wright is still relevant. It is relevant as a political issue, and it is relevant as an example of the psychological defense mechanism of denial.

For those few who still don’t know about this, the issue relates to a video of Obama’s long term pastor, who married him and Michelle and who led the congregation Obama attended for about twenty years. In the video, Wright is seen clearly and repeatedly saying words such as, “Goddamn America.”

First is the question of what he meant by that. America is complex, so what exactly was he damning about America? The land? The system of government? The racial balance of power? Let’s keep that question in mind, as the rest of the story unfolds.

Second, the link between Obama and Wright was strained when the story broke. Wright would not disavow his sentiments. He went (or was sent) on the talk show circuit, apparently as an attempt to smooth his positions and humanize him. However, Wright was true to his sentiments and instead of backing off and showing himself as a loyal “American”, he continued to promote his view. That was too much for the Obama camp and, ostensibly at least, Obama disavowed a connection with him going forward. Since, Wright has drifted into political obscurity.

Third, to understand the implications of the situation, which is what is denied, not just by the Obama camp, but by many Americans as well, one has to put himself or herself in the position of young Obama, walking into a church, and hearing anti-American rhetoric. What would you do? Think about it. Put yourself in his position. Would you sit there and not return? Would you call the FBI? Would you leave immediately, or would you return again and again? Think about it, for that was the situation young Obama was in.

Fourth, if one is to be president of all the people in a country, how can he have any part in asking God to damn even a part of it. Damning is far from criticizing.

Now back to the first issue, what was Wright damning, and what was not so bad about being a part of it for young and older Obama? Basically, given the racial context involved, it was the mainstream, the non-black, non-colored, white establishment AND ITS VALUES. That’s what happens when one is angry at not belonging. There is the tendency to go beyond just belonging. There is the tendency to continue expressing anger by casting down that to which one wanted to belong, or at least that which one did not want to be excluded from or overpowered by.

Here, the reality principle is at hand. Does one allow the pleasure of expressing anger to hold sway over the reality that the result will be neither for either? Put more simply,  do two wrongs make a right? That is part of the issue at hand.

The other part is the denial on the part of the American populace. Remember, denial as a defense mechanism in anyone who is not psychotic is denial not of the reality, but of the implications of that reality. The alcoholic father doesn’t deny he drinks. What he denies is the implications of his drinking, such as domestic violence or embarrassing behavior at his daughter’s wedding.

So, what is Romney to do? Given his strategy in the primaries, he will distance himself from implying what the populace denies. This is because facing the implications of condoning damning of one’s country, which some would call treason, is too much for the populace to face. If Romney is smart, and he is smart, he will avoid confronting the American people with their defense.

Whenever one is confronted with a defense, one gets angry and rejects the confronter. After all, defenses, denial included, exist to protect us from anxiety. Confronting them, i.e. saying they are just a defense, strips away the barrier to anxiety, leaving the person feeling anxious, scared, worried, and all the other shadings of anxiety. It feels bad to be scared, so the reaction often is to attack whoever made you feel bad. That is why Romney must steer clear of confronting people. That is why he will take the “high” road.

The interesting thing here, however, is that he seems not just to ignore the confrontation, but to have convinced his supporters to ignore it. Perhaps Romney sees the implication of the confrontation, implications he cannot deny. Perhaps he sees the issue as being taken as religious or racial, and not patriotic. If so, the danger for him is the backlash. That is, he does not need his own religion brought into the fray.

He also does not need yet another distraction from what most believe is the main issue of the campaign, which is. . .the economy, stupid!

Clearly, the issue has been on the table for a while, i.e. a matter of discussion. Could Joe Biden’s “slip” on Meet the Press merely have brought the issue to the fore, with Obama unable to hedge on it anymore? On the other hand, was the “slip” not a slip at all, but a trial balloon? Whatever the case, Biden’s remarks seem to have emboldened the gay/lesbian activists to pressure Obama to come out of his political closet on the issue.

Whatever the case, the move is risky for Obama. After all, many states have banned gay marriage. In those where it has passed, the numbers in favor were not overwhelming. Thus, Obama risks losing the middle on this issue, while he may have energized the gay constituency in his favor.

Another question is, “Why now?” Well, if Biden’s statements were truly slips, then Obama’s hand was forced. On the other hand, Obama likely has lots of polls showing which states will react which way depending on his stand. If that is the case, and the polls indicated he’d not lose much by declaring, doing so was not so risky. That is, he measured the risk before taking the step.

But why could he not have waited longer, until the height of the election season, when gay/lesbian energy would be important and when he could measure the likely reaction more accurately? If the polls changed, he could just defer his declaration.

The answers are not clear. Obama is certainly a risk taker, albeit a calculated, disciplined one. For example, he took a big risk in the Bin Laden murder and won.

On the other hand, it just could be that Obama saw private polls that were very worrisome. Perhaps he needed the gay/lesbian support, fearing erosion of general support. If so, declaring now was more an act of desperation.

The answer will unfold, as we approach the conventions and the polls.

The important thing for the educated voter is to realize that either risk or desperation could be at play.

Biden insisted the Republican Party was not itself, but had been taken over by the Tea Partiers. He then minimized the outlandishness of such a possibility by saying the Democratic Party in 1972 was taken over by the liberals and that take-overs occurred as a matter of course in American political parties.

Whether his assertion was commonplace or not, the end result is an attempt to split the GOP. If main stream Republicans really believe their party has been “taken over”, they will be focusing some of their attention on their innards, the Tea Party, instead of the presidential race. If they really believe they have been taken over by the Tea Party, they will feel at odds with it and, if Biden is successful, less likely to support their party as intensely.
Splitting the other side is a strategy Republican Newt Gingrich touched on in one of the debates during the primary season. He pointed out that unemployment in higher than average in the Hispanic population and much higher than average in the African-American population. His rhetorical question followed: “So, what has Obama done for you?” That would be an attempt to split the AA voter from the President.

In psychiatry, splitters are dealt with, not just endured. They are dealt with by the two apparently split sides (main stream and Tea Party Republicans) confronting the splitter (Biden) and telling him clearly they are not split. Rather they say, they are of a single mind.

So, the GOP strategists need to see the splitting strategy on the wall, before it gathers steam. Then they have to counter it.

Way back then, anyone qualifying for unemployment benefits had to show he or she was looking for work. Each week they would have to come to the unemployment office IN PERSON, stand in an ONEROUS line, and, when finally at the front, show the agent three forms signed by owners who turned them down for work that week. In other words, they had to demonstrate they were actually looking for work, not just gaming the system. And, boy was that tough.

In the Internet age, it’s a lot different. People apply online, check in online, and say whether they actually looked for work online. None of that IN PERSON, IN LINE, three  signatures onerous stuff anymore. One could be in Italy and check in, never having actually looked for work. All you had to do was say you were. Click.

Well, just think what would happen if the unemployment department’s website went down, say for a week, or just in some places. Why, that would mean people would have to stop by the office, IN PERSON, and wait IN LINE to show they actually looked for a job and were unable to get one.

What would happen is that many of the people who were not serious about looking for a job and did not need the money all that much would just not go down to the unemployment office IN PERSON and stand IN LINE, that onerous line.

Then, of course, with less people getting unemployment benefits, the unemployment rate would drop. Let me say that again. With less people getting unemployment benefits, the unemployment rate would drop.

So, if it has not dawned on you yet, the unemployment game can be gamed.

Watch closely, as the election approaches, for any glitches in the unemployment department’s website. It may just decide the election!

First, we assume judges are comfortable making decisions. After all, that’s their job. However, through the eyes of this psychiatrist, not so. Every decision they make has the potential of creating an enemy. Ever wonder why they take cases under advisment. I am sure sometimes they actually seek the advice of other judges. More than likely, however, it is to avoid a direct, eye to eye confrontation with the party they find against. They just pocket the case and let the lawyers know their decision via their clerks or paperwork.

Second, enemy avoidance aside, they don’t want to aggrieve a party. There is some guilty anxiety involved in hurting one of the parties.

So, one the one hand, they experience uncomfortableness (anxiety) at being hurt, and on the other hand of hurting. What a position!

So, while in the former case, they sometimes hide behind advisement, in the latter they often try to assuage the hurt, and therefore their anxiety, by saying a few nice things to or about the eventual loser. “You have a good point there.” “You were aggrieved.” Sometimes, they do it by saying something negative to the eventual winner, making the eventual loser feel better. It’s all about feelings, you see.

Anyway, beware when the judge makes you think you’ve got a good case, or that the other side has a bad one. The reversal will come.

So, in the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, get your act more together and fight harder when the judge seems like he or she will find for you.

First, who is the single payer? The federal government.

Second, what does this mean? It means socialized medicine.

Third, why does that matter? Because it lowers quality of healthcare.

Fourth, why does it lowers quality of healthcare? Because it just does. See the socialized systems of Europe, Canada–and America. For the latter, see the VA system and ask veterans about it.

So, while the Democrats say we have to cover the helpless uncovered, and the Republicans say it costs too much, they both miss the point. The point is that if we let the government run healthcare, healthcare will be less for all.

How will this occur? It will occur by rationing, by disorganization, and, most of all, by history. That’s just how governments work: inefficiently. Remember, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Well, North Korea gets the point, because each gambit affects even the mighty West. At the same time, the mighty West misses the point, which is why Obama offers a so-called rational explanation of his policies to decrease America’s nuclear capability.

We have more than we need, he says. Well, that sounds rational enough. We assessed the number of nuclear warheads we’d need to wipe out our enemies. Then we assess the likelihood of any of these failing. If we need 100 successful trips from ours silos to enemy cities, and the failure rate is 10%, well, we need 110 warheads in the silos. Rational.

But is it rational to act on irrational perceptions of power. Or, would the psychologically minded among us agree that ration is all that matters?

Yes, ration misses the point. The point is that when people perceive you are powerful and care about being powerful, you are fearsome. That is why the 800 gorilla gets to sit wherever he or she wants to. It is because that 800 pound gorilla can maim any of us other gorillas. Even if it doesn’t want to wield such power, watch out, because it could change its mind and use it.

That is the point of the perception of power. If a country cares about power and shows it, e.g by building up its arsenal, the perception is that it could and would use it. However, if the 800 pound gorilla backs away like a baby Huey (the fearful giant), the perception is that it will not use that power.

Remember, people–and animals–make decisions based on the perception of power. That is why a male challenging the pack leader backs off once he perceives that leader is more powerful–and ready, willing, and able (RWA)–to use that power. If the pack leader is truly more powerful but is not perceived as RWA to use that power, the challenger continues to fight.

That is why the Turkish leader Ataturk, and many before and after him, have held off challengers–they created the perception of power. That is why the West annihilated Sadam Hussein, because he, though a challenger, was perceived as having power and being RWA to use it. That is why Hitler, once perceiving the West was not RWA to use power, continued his exploits. The same for Castro after the unwillingness of the West to use its power. And I can go on and on.

The perception of power precipitates peace. Everybody moves aside and lets that 800 pound gorilla take whatever seat it wants. Peace is  the point of the perception of power.

And when the mightiest country in the West deemphasizes its power, the perception is that it is not ready, or not willing, or not able to use it. It is irrational to act against the meaning countries make of any cutback in the RWA of power. It invites more North Korean antics, not less.

There are unconscious reasons why a large segment of any population does not get this, while others get it intuitively. These reasons will be covered in other posts.