YOU KNOW WHAT POLITICAL DENIAL IS, DON’T YOU?

Denial is a commonly used psychological defense mechanism, generally called defenses. When we use them, psychological defenses reduce anxiety we have about something. So, we feel better.

One political use of denial occurred as we entered the Iraq war. It would be costly, and many people would be worried, nervous, uncomfortable with that aspect of the war. All those words, “worried”, “nervous”, and “uncomfortable” are just synonyms for the word anxious.

It is important to use words properly. Then we know what we are talking about. It’s that simple.

Back to defenses. So, realizing much of the population would be anxious about the cost of the war, our leaders offered us a defense. It is called rationalization. They said, “The oil will pay for the war.” We felt better. Our anxiety about the cost was eliminated, if we believed that rationalization. That’s a political defense, offered to the public as a way of allaying their fears–whoops. Used a synonym. Sorry. Allaying their anxieties.

Now for the defense of denial. Like most of the common defenses, denial has various degrees. When a psychotic patient pulls the payphone off the hospital wall in plain view of nurses, then denies he did it, that is called psychotic denial or gross denial. He denied the fact.

In the usual way most of us use denial, however, it is not the fact, but the implication, that is denied. What is denied is that it matters. Let’s take the alcoholic, as that’s where the expression, “You’re in denial” originated. The alcoholic doesn’t deny he’s drinking. What he says is something like, “So what?” Well, there are lots of whats. He compromises his relationship with his spouse and children, his friends, and even his boss, if he shows up at work drunk or even with alcohol on his breath. That’s what!

Now let’s take a current example of political denial. In this case, it is not so much the politicians, but the people and their watchdogs, the press. As the president is the most visible politician at any time, we come back to Barack Obama. When he ran for president, our country was still roiling in the debacle of 9-11 caused by Arab Muslims. Fanatic ones, to be sure, but still Arab Muslims.

At the same time, there was this man running for president. He had an Arabic name, Hussein. He had two Muslim fathers. No one denied this. It was the implication that was denied. It wouldn’t matter.

An Arab Muslim as president? Wow, that makes me nervous–anxious. So, let’s find a defense mechanism. OK. Denial. We don’t deny the fact he has an Arabic name or two Muslim fathers. However, we deny its implications. We deny it matters.

Well, the reason a defense was required is that it did matter. How could he not have Arabic and Muslim leanings or sympathies. It would be unnatural.

And that’s an example of political denial in modern times.