Over at my other gig, I highlight about a dozen conservative blog posts a day, some of which are written by smart, engaging people with whom I generally disagree (such as James Joyner), though most are from writers who I find offensive and distasteful. In all, I probably go through 30 or so conservative blogs a day, which can be challenging for reasons that have nothing to do with time and everything to do with content.
As a rule, I resist the temptation to do posts here about the items I find on these far-right sites, but once in a while, I just can’t resist. Take this post, for example.
Dr. Sanity, as I understand it, has a professional background in psychiatry, and frequently incorporates this training into her unusually “aggressive” posts about how the left is made up of unpatriotic terrorist-loving traitors. Dr. Sanity writes very well, composes even longer posts than mine, and creates pieces that are quite readable, just so long as you’re willing to be amazed by how much she literally despises those with whom she disagrees.
Today’s post about the left’s “denial” was particularly striking. As she sees it, we have “created and fully integrated specific ideological tools that facilitate ongoing psychological denial.”
It reminds me of all the paranoid patients I have observed over the years, who effortlessly are able to dismiss or explain away those facts that don’t fit in with their carefully constructed conspiracy theories. If you get too assertive in pointing out those uncomfortable facts, you find yourself in no time fully integrated into the theory. For the paranoid, the case is closed and the argument is finished.
The political left has been utilizing the same psychological strategies inherent in the paranoid style since the end of the cold war and the 20th century…. This is what makes it so frustrating to debate or argue with today’s typical postmodern leftist. Some are willing to engage in discussion, but you can always count on their complete dismissal of any fact that does not conform to their ideological perspective. No matter how many times you debunk their position (e.g., no matter how many times evidence of Saddam’s WMD’s are found and documented; that evidence has been either ignored or poo-pooed using a variety of rationalizations — and the goalposts are then changed to ensure the safety of the denial).
When it suits their purposes (i.e., when they are losing the argument), they will resort to the claim that reality and truth are merely subjective constructs anyway, and that any evidence you present is only someone’s “opinion” and that their opinions are as good as anyone else’s.
Yes, as proof of our “denial,” Dr. Sanity points to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Seriously.
I don’t have anything to add to this — I think Dr. Sanity’s post speaks for itself — but I think it’s helpful to consider, from time to time, just what our friendly rivals on the other side are thinking.