Understanding and Overcoming the
Unhealthy Motivations of Liberals
Though they are sometimes derided as "only" theories, theories are man's best effort at understanding and explaining our universe and everything in it. A theory must explain observed phenomena, be falsifiable, and have predictive value. Thus, for example, the so-called "theory of manmade global warming" is not a theory at all as it fails on all three of these principles. This e-pamphlet will present a theory, and related corollaries, that explain the ideology of liberals. It will then use that theory to present action plans to help both liberals--if they choose--and the country grow healthier. Theory of Unhealthy Motivations
of Liberals
Liberals, or to avoid that term they often refer to themselves as "progressives," are those who place a greater value on the equality of people than on the freedom of people. Liberals would use government to reduce the freedoms of some people to provide benefits for others to make everyone "more equal." Liberals argue for fairness and equality for all people, but neither is possible. Other than identical twins all people are genetically different and without exception each has unique life experiences that are interpreted differently. We are necessarily and naturally unequal in a worldly sense. If "all men are created equal" in a Godly sense, endowed with the same unalienable rights, nothing more needs to be done to gain that equality, only to protect it. Liberals, progressives, socialists, fascists, Stalinists, communists, and statists seek similar means to the same end. They want control of an expansive, intrusive government using taxation, regulation, and takeover of private property and businesses to achieve an earthly equality. An equality that is unnatural, unhealthy, and unattainable. This irrational political ideology is rooted in psychological shortcomings.
Though people are unequal, there is a sense of earthly equality that has value; that a government treats its citizens equally. This notion of equality is not supported by liberals. Liberals embrace, and want to make more extreme, a system in which some have their money confiscated (taxed, and at unequal rates) while others are given money. They want a system in which the work of some is heavily regulated while that of others heavily subsidized. They want a government of discriminatory laws established to compensate for past discriminations. Liberals, including liberal politicians serving in office, vilify large groups of citizens while soliciting empathy for others.
Note that we already have liberal utopias in America. These are places in which equality is the fundamental good and in which government takes complete care of people's food, housing, education, health care, and employment. We call these places prisons. It is the end result of sacrificing freedom for equality under an intrusive government.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States correctly identify the purpose of government as protecting the freedoms of its people. Being free is the natural state of all life forms. Soldiers risk their lives and die fighting to gain or protect freedom…not equality. We have a Liberty Bell that "Proclaim[s] LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof"… not a Fairness Bell. The Statue of Liberty welcomes those "yearning to breathe free." In the beautiful, inspiring words of the Declaration of Independence:
First Corollary to Theory
It’s not madness that drives liberals to want an encompassing government encroaching on a natural, realizable good (freedom) to chase an impossible and even undesirable goal (equality, which implies celebrating sameness). Madness only applies when rationality is expected. It is emotion that drives liberals’ desire.
Recently Rev. Al Sharpton, who is treated and respected as a leader by liberals, provided an enlightening example of liberal irrationality. During a speech in Danbury, CT on May 2, 2010 to help celebrate the 115th anniversary of New Hope Baptist Church, Rev. Sharpton claimed, “[Martin Luther King’s dream] was to make everything equal in everybody’s house.” That claim was not met with an uneasy silence or guffaws but with a huge round of applause. Hmm, what about the house itself? Must everybody’s house be of equal value? Equal square footage? Equal lot size? Equal quality of location? Equal tidiness? If I were to buy something for my house, do I have to notify everyone in the country what they must now buy as well to maintain equality and if they can’t afford it, am I prevented from buying it or are they given someone else’s money for the purchase? Can the country veto my choice? If I buy a piece of furniture, does it have to be the same style and color when others buy it? What if someone buys a piece of art I don’t like, am I compelled to buy a copy of it? What about those that live in an apartment? Sharpton apologists may claim his words were not to be understood literally, but what meaning of his words makes any sense? One’s “house” is one’s personal space. In what sense could the content of an individual’s space be equal to another’s? This is a raw appeal to emotion devoid of rationality and is a perfect example of the expression of a liberal position. Equality über alles with people not even free to own different things.
Having an internalized sense of being less than others drives a desire for equality. The liberal’s internal motivation is: “if we are all the same, I can’t be less.” From a practical perspective, making people or situations equal involves punishing the successful; which can be a welcome expression of jealous anger for those with a low sense of self.
Having low self-esteem makes freedom something to fear. Freedom means being free to succeed or fail. For those with a low sense of self, the expectation is that one’s failure is inevitable. Freedom is not desirable under those conditions.
In short, from a political perspective, the liberal’s emotional neediness leads them to identify and experience a bonding with others who also have low self-esteem and low self-love. Collectively they long for a greater sense of self and strive to attain it by achieving equality among people using the power of an ever-growing government and irrational arguments (for equality and against freedom) that they find emotionally compelling.
Second Corollary to Theory
Having a core human need going unmet is painful to accept or even acknowledge. Having the shortcoming exposed by another—even if done unintentionally—seems a brutal attack. In reality, you can’t fix what you don’t know or won’t accept as being broken. A damaged psyche can generally be repaired but if and only if it is recognized as needing repair. Those with low self-love and self-esteem are better served by emulating, not hating, those with a high sense of self.
We all have areas in which we can improve ourselves. One might have a speech impediment, poor posture, unhealthy eating habits, a schedule that neglects to include exercise, etc. Dealing with these types of personal problems doesn’t generally have a broad impact on one’s life or the lives of others. For those lacking in self-love, the impact on their life is huge. Facts and reason can’t fill their inner void—psychology trumps philosophy—so such people often seek personal fulfillment through emotional connections with similarly damaged individuals and a non-reality based worldview. This is a symptom treating approach to the problems of low self-esteem and self-love and will not be ultimately satisfying.
Liberals’ personal problems become a societal problem when liberals try to address them by requiring changes to the lives of others. They seek a government with extensive power and reach that can limit freedoms and penalize success so that we seem to be more equal. It’s as if I were to address a problem of poor posture by requiring everyone else to slouch. My problem seems to be defined away as my posture is no longer worse than any other’s and thus can’t be comparatively bad. However, the quality of my posture is not measured against the posture of others; it is measured by my personal physiology and I will suffer for poor or be rewarded for good posture based on that. Similarly, the adequacy of self-love or self-esteem one has is not determined by comparison to others. It is not measured by net worth which government can adjust. Whether one has healthy levels of self-love and self-esteem is determined by personal physiology and psychology. No matter how much government can disrupt the lives of its citizens, it cannot make anyone love or esteem themselves more or make anyone happy.
What liberals really need—greater self-esteem and self-love—government is completely powerless to provide.
How the Theory of Unhealthy Motivations
of Liberals and Its Corollaries Explain
Observed Phenomena
The statements and actions of liberal politicians and their supporters can be understood through this theory. Self-esteem and self-love are different, though tightly related concepts. Esteem is primarily a thinking construct, love is an emotional one. It is conceivable that one could think highly of oneself while not feeling positive about oneself or vice versa. In reality, levels of self-esteem and self-love generally occur in similar measures. Those with a low sense of self—i.e., low self-love and low self-esteem—will generally have a diametrically different way of feeling and thinking about themselves and others than people with a high sense of self.
Personal Characteristics Reflecting Sense Of Self
A low sense of self is manifest in somewhat different ways depending on personality type. For example, while it’s important for a person with a low sense of self to conceal this inadequacy from others, an extrovert would likely do that through arrogance, an introvert through shyness. When emotionally hurt, an introvert may experience sadness, an extrovert anger.
 Our sense of self-value is rooted in our childhood nurtured or not by the love and affirmation we received from our parental figures. Many parents are distracted from their parental responsibilities due to divorce or other marital difficulties, job or financial concerns, and alcoholism or other addictions. Parents with damaged psyches are likely to perpetuate their unhealthy traits. Parents who are neglectful of their children, abusive, or protective to the point of not allowing their children to fail and learn from their mistakes will likely raise children with a low sense of self. Children with low self-esteem and low self-love are rather common. Learning to love oneself as an adult when that need wasn’t met as a child takes a significant effort few are willing to apply.
Our levels of self-love and self-esteem have little relationship to what we generally refer to as intelligence. People with low-self esteem can be extremely intelligent. Indeed, the trappings (degrees, positions, and titles) associated with formal education—which many people incorrectly believe begets or reflects intelligence—are common in “liberal elites.” Sharp-minded liberals seek these accessories through liberal institutions—their comfort zone—in part to wear as badges of esteem-worthiness if not superiority. Intelligent people who are psychologically motivated to embrace liberalism are able to construct elaborate arguments for their irrational positions. On inspection their arguments are as castles in the sky. Liberal intellectuals are not unlike astronomers who pre-dated Copernicus and built complex models of the motions of the sun, moon, and planets as they revolved around the earth! The most brilliant physicians prior to the 19th century embraced humorism as the theory describing the makeup and workings of the human body. The most intelligent people will arrive, with a high degree of certitude, at untenable positions because they began from inaccurate understandings and assumptions or applied faulty logic because of psychological influences. Those who believe equality is a greater good than freedom may be very intelligent, but they are incorrect in that belief.
People with low self-love and self-esteem can be very nice to others. “People pleasers,” those wishing to please others at all costs, are nearly universally considered nice and well-liked even though they have a low sense of self. They seek but fail to raise their self-love and self-esteem by being loved and esteemed by others. Love and esteem of others is never really felt and appreciated until one can love and esteem one’s self.
People with a low sense of self can be considered highly successful by others. The external values we prize as a culture—good looks, fame, fortune, money, physical health, accomplishments—aren’t accurate reflections of a person, as a person. Consider O.J. Simpson who had all those societal indicators of success but was exposed as a person few admire. People with a low sense of self are driven to succeed so they may be acclaimed as successful. If they are successful by society’s measures they must be good, or so they long to feel.
One can be intelligent, well-liked, and societally successful yet still have a low sense of self. The way to determine levels of self-love and self-esteem are in a person’s behavior (which reflects their inner state) and their relationships. The table showing personal and relationship characteristics is a tool that can be used to identify the level of a person’s sense of self.
Nearly every public statement or action by a prominent liberal can be seen as reflecting one or more of the low sense of self characteristics and few if any of the characteristics of a person with a high sense of self.
Consider the nation’s leading liberal, President Barack Obama, and how he embodies nearly all the characteristics of a person with a low sense of self and few if any of the qualities of a person with a high sense of self. Barack Obama’s teenage mom became pregnant out of wedlock, had two failed marriages, and apparently was a socialist. His dad was—or became—an alcoholic, physically abusive, polygamist and communist. The likelihood of such needy and damaged people being healthy, nurturing parents is nil. Obama’s childhood included an early abandonment by his father, abandonment by his step father, abandonment by his mother, frequent moves so he could not develop long-term childhood friendships, being teased by peers for being neither black nor white, for having big ears, and for being skinny, and he had an elderly childhood mentor (Frank Marshall Davis) who was a communist and pedophile. (A poem written by 19 year old Barack Obama suggests he may have been violated by Davis). Obama predictably turned to illegal drugs (marijuana and cocaine) in his youth and remains addicted to nicotine. With this background, he could not escape being seriously, psychologically damaged. From his behaviors and relationships, it is clear he has not successfully addressed his inner deprivations.
Phenomena Explained By the
Theory of Unhealthy Motivations of Liberals
As noted earlier, a theory has to explain observed data. This theory explains the following phenomena (the numbering is for reference purposes and is not meant to imply an ordering).
1. Hollywood celebrities being predominantly liberals – When playing a role, actors and actresses pretend they are someone else; which is appealing to those who don’t love who they are. Movie makers create fantasy worlds populated by other people—directing attention away from self and reality. Celebrities desire fame because it gives the (false) hope of being loved by others and hence being worthy of self-love. Adulation of others can never satisfy the need for self-love.
2. Artists of various types being predominantly liberals – People become artists—poets, painters, dancers, singers—because they have powerful emotions they feel compelled to express. They are driven more by emotion than reason. Such drive originates in unmet needs, the most fundamental of which is the need for self-love.
3. Those in the “helping professions” (teaching, nursing, counseling, community organizers) being predominantly liberals – Helping people in a public manner is a lure for compliments, expressions of gratitude, and esteem from others suggesting these are professions that attract people in need of greater self-esteem. These professions enable an “other orientation” which allows a person with a low sense of self to avoid focusing on themselves. These professions also involve uneven power. Teachers have power over their students, nurses and counselors over their patients, community organizers over their subjects needing organizing. A desire to have control and power over others who are then expected to feel indebted, all while avoiding self-reflection, is an indication of a low sense of self. (Clarification on generalities: Because these professions have a strong appeal for people with a low sense of self, doesn’t mean only such people are in them.)
4. The vast majority in the mainstream media being liberals – Reporters and journalists are in positions of control over their audience and control of the information that is shared. They are agenda based and seek to align their audience’s feelings and thoughts with their own. Wanting to shape, control, and influence into agreement through biased conveying of information are disrespectful acts of people with a low sense of self.
5. Union members and their leaders being liberals – Unions are based on equal treatment for all (regardless of performance, thus encouraging mediocrity) and freedom (to join or not to join) for none. They embody the liberal ideology. People who are confident in themselves and the value they can provide have no motivation to bind themselves professionally to others. Unions exist for people who see themselves as potential victims (of employers) and who want to get more in wages and benefits than they believe they would get in a free market. These are characteristics of people with a low sense of self.
6. Many (self-proclaimed) intellectuals and elitists being liberals – People with high intelligence, real or apparent, can have low self-esteem. Using an air of superiority, boasting, and arrogance (characteristics of those with a low sense of self) is intended to provide a cover for low self-esteem; though it in fact reveals it. People with a high sense of self are humble regardless of their intellect and accomplishments. They are relaxed, accessible, and natural; not stiff pontificators.
7. Barack Obama’s résumé – Obama’s three professional positions were in academia, as a community organizer, and as a politician. All three of these occupations are ones that attract a person with a low sense of self. They are positions of power over others, there is little risk of real-world failure associated with them (in politics there are always other people or conditions to blame), and they are positions in which one can be expected to be esteemed.
8. Young people tend to be more liberal than older people – It is not just the inexperience and ignorance of youth. Young people are in school or recently graduated after 12 to 20 years of being in school. Their instructors were mostly liberals who had grade power over them. The young are also at an awkward age in which their bodies are undergoing hormonal and other changes which are challenging to self-confidence. Outside relationships with young, generally clumsy and immature others are given more time and energy than relationships within the family. Finally, surrounded by similarly aged and challenged others, the young are in a place where peer pressure is enormous as is the need to fit in. For those with a strong sense of self that was nurtured in their childhood, adolescence through young adulthood is at worst a bumpy, temporary period. For those lacking in self-love and self-esteem from their earlier years, the likelihood of becoming unhealthily stuck in their needy state is huge.
9. Fruitlessness of political arguments between liberals and those who value freedom more than equality – The emotional basis for their professed beliefs is why a rational argument with a liberal will not be persuasive. Those who seek to argue politics rationally with liberals (having as their base assumption that protecting freedom is government’s primary responsibility) will not be persuaded by liberals’ appeals to emotions.
10. Organizations that proclaim their support of an identified group of people, only supporting the liberal members of that group – The most obvious examples are the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)—which savages conservative blacks—and the National Organization of Women (NOW)—which attacks Phyllis Schlafly, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and other strong and successful non-liberal women and defends the womanizing, women degrading Bill Clinton. If their allegiance is primarily to a liberal cause and not a group, the names of these organizations are misleading. Because these groups consist of liberals, the words they use even to describe themselves don’t need to be accurate. They want and expect group-think (or more accurately, “group agreement” without thinking). Equality. Sameness of position matters more than membership of the group they are defined as supporting.
11. Voting blocs that perceive themselves as victims of discrimination (Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, Latinos, other minorities) remaining Democrat despite that party’s failure to improve their lot – Members in these groups who see themselves as victims, have low self-esteem. They are emotionally bound to their group and collectively to others with a low sense of self despite compelling rational reasons to reject the Democrat party. Reality, facts, and results are not as important as words, intentions, and the feelings behind them.
12. Victim group voting blocs ostracizing individuals of their group that no longer vote Democrat – Conservative blacks are called “Uncle Toms” and worse. Free thinking is frowned upon as the group’s binds are emotional. Exposing them as emotional and non-thinking risks revealing the underlying problem of low self-esteem. When common, emotional, neediness connections are central to a group; free thinkers are traitors to the cause.
13. Liberals’ adamant support of abortion – Low self-love and low self-esteem leave one with a sense of powerlessness; which results in a strong urge to gain or hold power. Power or control over one’s own body is fundamental to satisfying that urge. Since consideration of others is secondary to satisfying one’s own primary needs, the status, even survival, of the entity in a womb—from embryo to late term fetus—is irrelevant. Attempts at limiting abortion through counseling, recognition of fetus viability and fetal rights, requiring parental notification in the case of minors, etc., is internalized as emphasizing the individual’s powerlessness. The response to that is dramatic and emotional.
14. Liberals’ tepid or non-support of Israel – Even though Jews as a group are considered victims and are largely liberal, liberals don’t support Israel. Israel is seen as historically getting special (non-equal) support from the United States and it provides its citizens with greater freedoms than its neighbors. Hence, to the liberal, Israel is advantaged over its neighbors and for the sake of equality it must be lowered in stature.
15. Liberals’ support of totalitarian regimes – Dictators are by definition for intrusive government and less individual liberty. Liberals of the day have supported Fascism, Communism, and Socialism. They have supported Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and other dictators who grew government, reduced private property, and limited personal freedoms for the greater good of “the people.” Liberals may not openly support but they are unlikely to condemn other totalitarian leaders. Liberals find regimes with enormous power over their citizens irresistibly appealing. Such power is understood as necessary for achieving “equality for all.” Equality among individuals (their abilities, desires, outcomes, situations, personalities) does not naturally exist and hence demands a huge external coercive force to attempt to compel it. If we can all be made equal through the power of an all encompassing government (or best, a One World government), then those who feel undeserving of love and esteem—unable even to give love and esteem to themselves—are no less than anyone else. To the liberal, such a government can solve their personal problem of a deep rooted sense of unworthiness.
16. While claiming to be for equality, liberals have their hated enemies – Differences between liberals and their perceived enemies aren’t rationally argued. Capitalists, those who value freedom above equality, and those with a high sense of self are painted with emotionally charged terms: greedy, racist, fascist, uncaring, evil, and worse. They are the ones to be treated unequally and punished.
17. Liberals’ belief that our country’s enemies can be talked or negotiated out of being our enemies – Liberals innately recognize that dictators also suffer from an inferiority complex. Liberals project onto our country’s enemies that making an emotional connection will soothe their anger towards the United States. Liberal leaders display a negative or apologetic attitude about the U.S. expecting it to help with that emotional connection. This approach fails because the United States is identified by our enemies as an enemy. America’s enemies will not accept an emotional connection from American liberals just as American liberals reject any emotional connection with their enemies.
 President Obama bows to King of Saudi Arabia, Emperor of Japan, and President of China
18. Liberals’ lack of concern with Constitutional limits on government – The Constitution consists of thoughtful, reasoned, written words not emotional connections to the psychologically needy and hence it is of little relevance to liberals. The Constitution limits government which runs counter to the desires of liberals. It promotes and protects freedom which runs afoul of their agenda.
19. Liberals seek to find and legislate new “legal rights” even at the cost of “natural rights” – The latter—including the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, to speak, to assemble, to worship, to own the fruits of one’s labor—are innate and neither infringe upon nor demand anything from others. Legal rights, such as the “rights” to housing, medical care, decent wages, vacation, and abortion all place obligations on others. This is core liberalism; sacrificing freedom to exercise one’s natural rights in an attempt to achieve greater equality. Liberals use emotionally charged terminology such as “civil rights” and “fairness” to persuade others to join in their cause. What they want is neither rational nor ethical so their appeal is to emotion. If a “right” demands anything more than merely its being respected, it is not a “right” but a trading of rights for wants. That is a trade no government is morally enabled to require.
20. Liberals’ dependence on talking points, decades old “playbooks,” mantras, and name-calling – To the non-rational, words are not important for constructing arguments, theories, or presenting a viewpoint. Words are for making emotional connections or to blunt the possibility of a reasoned discussion. Liberals’ simple minded use of talking points, words and phrases short-circuits a meaningful use of words. Name-calling by liberals is often projection. Two examples of the latter are “racist” and
“fascist.” Racism is unfair treatment of a person based on race. Disagreements with or different treatment of individuals based on reasoned positions cannot be racism, unless the underlying assumptions and reasoning themselves are faulty and race-based. The onus is on the person who wants to charge “racism” to expose the incorrect assumptions or logic. Without doing that work, they themselves are guilty of racism for unfairly treating (labeling with a negatively charged word) a person based on race. It’s not only today’s liberals, Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt referred to their domestic political opponents as “fascists.” Fascism is a system of government with a powerful central authority, stringent socioeconomic controls (through heavy regulation, influence, or ownership of companies and industries), suppression of the opposition through censorship (such as limitations on political speech around elections, by corporations, and thru “Fairness Doctrines” in various manifestations), and rejection of the individual (that is, individual liberty) in favor of an integrated, collective community (equality over freedom). That definition of fascism describes the goals of liberals. Fascism opposed classical liberalism but makes a fine bedfellow for contemporary liberalism.
21. Liberals dislike of moral or ethical absolutes and preference of moral relativism – One can’t fail to live up to moral standards if none exist. For a person with a low sense of self, their expectation is that when measured against norms of what a person “should” be or do, they will likely be seen as lacking. Exposure of inadequacies and being judged by others is frightening. It is better to reduce or eliminate those risks by muddying, coarsening, or eliminating moral standards.
22. Liberals tend to be less religious then those with a high sense of self – There are devout liberals, this phenomena refers to a tendency. Religions promote the idea of a greater Power overseeing earthly life. Members of religions that include a loving God can have an enhanced sense of worthiness through their religion; “God loves me, I am worthy.” Those with a low sense of self can feel they were betrayed by God, who failed to protect them or help them feel better about themselves. A liberal can avoid feeling betrayed by God by being an atheist or an agnostic.
23. The appeal to liberals of the slogan “hope and change” – A rational decomposition of this phrase shows it’s only desirable to those with a low sense of self. To “hope” is to wish for something with the expectation of getting it. Put another way, one is supposed to get a desired good through minimal effort; by merely hoping and expecting. It is rare to find value in anything received through feeble acts. Confident people don’t waste their energy “hoping” or make plans incorporating “hope.” It’s those who doubt themselves that want something for next to nothing. “Change” is only desirable if one is dissatisfied with one’s current state. Most change makes matters worse. Rolling the dice for an ill-defined change via an unspecified roadmap would only be done by those desperate for improvement in their lot. “Hope and change” are only appealing to those with a low sense of self.
24. Liberals being less happy than non-liberals – Studies consistently show liberals are less happy then members of other ideological groups. Varied rationalizations have been given for why this is so. The reason is that liberals are not getting their fundamental human needs for self-love and self-esteem satisfied. Without needs being met, one is not only less happy but less healthy.
25. The powerful emotional response to candidate Barack Obama and his soaring yet rather empty rhetoric – Obama’s low sense of self, wonderfully exemplified by his Messiah Complex, combined with a presence, voice, and mannerisms that suggested (but did not reveal) great intellect resonated with those having a low sense of self; both liberals and people with no passion for politics. They could see themselves in Obama—the self-acknowledged blank slate. He did not gain supporters through reasoned arguments but through appeals to emotion. Tingling legs, people fainting, and screaming crowds aren’t consequences of sound logic.
26. Support for President Obama that is significantly higher than support for any of his policies – People can’t experience an emotional connection to policies. Many who feel the “low sense of self” connection to Obama—and support him because of that—analyze his policies rationally and reject them. These people support the man but not what he believes or does. Many of those who support his policies do so only because they are Obama’s policies and the bind to him is sufficient to endorse all that he does.
27. President Bill Clinton’s memorable political tool being “triangulation,” his memorable personal trait being womanizing – Triangulation is an attempt to please as many as possible while holding to a malleable political philosophy. A womanizer seeks personal power and affirmation of being valued. Behaving as one who does not love himself, Clinton’s desire to be liked was more important than his philosophical and personal integrity.
28. Michelle Obama saying, during the 2008 Presidential primary, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country,…” – The reality of what the United States is and has done, its enormous sacrifices to support freedom for its own citizens and that of people in other countries, its unmatched generosity, its magnificent achievements in all fields of human endeavor; none of that mattered much to Mrs. Obama because she didn’t feel it personally. Getting emotional strokes from the press and others during the campaign and seeing the possibility of being the First Lady; that was a personal affirmation that inspired more pride than America’s history. It’s all about her. She with a low sense of self.
29. President Obama minimizing unscripted appearances and performances – Though he is our servant and reports to We the People, Obama went 10 months between press conferences largely for two related reasons, he is uncomfortable when off script and he does poorly in those situations. Scripted appearances allow Obama to show himself as he wants people to think he is. Unscripted appearances are far more likely to show him as he really is. Those with a low sense of self are guarded about themselves. They dread being “found out” and seen by others as they see themselves.
30. President Obama being unsupportive of his relatives including his half brothers and half-sisters in Africa, his illegal alien aunt “Auntie Zeituni,” and his “typical white person” grandmother – These family members are a reminder of his roots and a source of embarrassment for their lack of external success. A person with a low sense of self will throw “no value add” people under the bus, family member or not.
31. President Obama being described by the mainstream media as cool and cerebral – The mainstream media, wanting to support one of their own—a person with a low sense of self—pushes the perception that President Obama wants embraced. President Obama seeks to project coolness and great intellect and the media follows his lead. Being cool and calm is a quality of confident and capable people, but it is also a technique people with a low sense of self use to appear to be what they are not and to avoid powerful emotions they fear may consume them. Having great intellect, being “smarter than others,” gives some protection for making apparently bad decisions. One can claim, or have one’s acolytes claim, others are just not smart enough to understand these were good decisions. Still, Obama’s deep and pervasive anger and poor decision making (especially surrounding his inactions then detrimental threats and actions after BP’s Deepwater Horizon well catastrophe) are recognized by the public and are reasons his personal popularity has suffered.
Displays of inappropriate anger showing a lack of class
Obama extends his middle finger when talking about Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary (to cheers from his audience) and does likewise when describing John McCain during the run-up to the general election.
32. Liberal hatred of and attempts to destroy Sarah Palin and, before her, Ronald Reagan – Over the past 50 years, Palin and Reagan have been the most prominent politicians with a high sense of self. They are clearly comfortable in their own skin and possess and display the characteristics of people with high self-esteem and self-love. They are the antithesis of a liberal and are jealously hated for having what liberals long to have.
33. Liberals attempting to marginalize Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio hosts by referring to them as “hate mongers” or “hate filled” – Rush Limbaugh has a high sense of self and is hated (emotional reaction) never debated by liberals (which would require a rational response). Part of this “hate” labeling is projection, Rush is hated so Rush must promote hate. Part of the labeling is accurate though misrepresented. If one’s parents, spouse, or children were kidnapped and tortured, it is likely one would hate such a thing had happened. One would also likely hate the perpetrators. Hate, or to use a less charged synonymous term, “extreme dislike,” can be an appropriate response to a situation. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts meticulously describe America’s greatness, its roots, and causes. They point out actions by politicians or influential cultural figures that threaten or undermine America’s greatness. If their perceptions and reasoning are accurate, and they nearly always are, then American patriots would appropriately have a strong dislike, a hatred, for these threats to their country from within or without. It should be noted that neither Rush nor any of the other leading conservative talk radio hosts promote personal hatred of individuals, only of their attempts at diminishing the country’s greatness.
34. Liberals’ use of attacking the messenger, name-calling, and vitriol to rebut an argument or having an untenable position exposed – Emotion is used to counter arguments because ultimately the liberal’s positions are rationally untenable as they depend on an underlying assumption that the government value creating equality (which is impossible) over protecting freedom (which is natural). Being shown to have a weak position, a person with a low sense of self will feel threatened or attacked and have an emotional response, often anger.
35. Liberals’ anger when their own words are used against them – What is said by liberals is intended to elicit a supportive emotional response at the moment the words were spoken. The words themselves and any associated irrationality are irrelevant. To repeat the statements when the context is different and to analyze them for meaning and commitment is to use them inappropriately and expose the liberal as being hypocritical, disingenuous, or a flip-flopper. Unable to accept such criticism, which they consider fundamentally unfair, they lash out in anger.
36. Liberals often giving the appearance of disliking the United States – The appearance is the reality. Liberals tend to be sympathetic to and apologetic for enemies of America out of a sense of “fairness.” (They aren’t uncomfortable or embarrassed when they and our enemies say similar things about America.) The United States isn’t accepted as being better than other countries because that goes against the liberal desire for equality. Yet liberals don’t hold other countries to the same standards as the U.S. That is because the United States is disliked by most liberals—though they would not openly admit this, even to themselves, as it exposes them to widespread rejection from fellow citizens. Liberals perceive the United States as unfair because it is the world’s lone super power and greatest state—an inequality with respect to the rest of the world—and the U.S. is considered partly to blame for their growing up in it with a low sense of self. This country was their home but it did not take care of them emotionally.
37. Liberals disliking the U.S. military – The United States military can control nearly any situation into which it is placed and dominate any opposition. To the liberal, this is an inequality of the first order and hence is offensive. Worse, this unrivalled force is being used by the unfair, uncaring United States (according to liberals’ perceptions).
 Veteran’s Day 2009
Only the Commander in Chief stands with hands folded.
38. Former Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate Senator Joe Lieberman, a liberal in nearly all matters except the War on Terror and his support for Israel, being booted from the Democratic Party – Lieberman, an observant Jew who is married to the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, stands firmly with freedom over equality on these two matters—perhaps in only these two matters—and exercising his freedom of conscience in them while being part of the Democratic Party resulted in his being ostracized, even demonized, by most liberals. Liberals do not permit the freedom of “straying from the reservation” of equal beliefs and made it abundantly clear by this treatment of one of their former leaders.
39. Liberals often being antagonistic towards Christianity – The hierarchy beyond parents is country then God. A child who did not feel loved by his caretakers—and who would internalize that as being unworthy of love—is likely to partly blame those farther up in the hierarchy for their unhappy internal state of affairs. As we are fundamentally, though not entirely, a Christian nation, Christianity becomes an object of scorn as it was a key part of the national home that failed the liberal in their childhood. Other religions may be accepted or supported by liberals as their adherents are in the minority and hence seen in some ways as victims.
40. Frequent use of the race card by liberals – When one opposes President Obama or points out the shortcomings of his positions or actions, one is often called a racist by liberals. Various –isms and –ias (racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.) are charged when there is disagreement with any liberal leader or position. That is because since reason and rationality don’t apply for them, the perception of liberals is that a disagreement is a personal attack which must be rooted in the victim status of the person or group. Since perceiving group victimization is innate to their worldview, liberals will see it even when it doesn’t exist. President Obama’s suggestion that racism played a part in the Cambridge police arresting Harvard Professor Henry Gates is a recent, high-profile example.
41. Liberals’ support of converting illegal aliens into legal United States citizens with minimal penalties – There is the aspect of liberals seeing illegal aliens converted into voters as a liberal voting bloc, adding to their power. Liberals also see illegal aliens as equal to U.S. citizens; people are people. Those who see freedom as the greatest good government can ensure recognize that the nation's immigration and border security laws are mechanisms to safeguarding freedom. Disregarding those laws is disregarding freedom. Granting citizenship while not enforcing illegal alien entry and employment laws (or suing states for trying to enforce such laws) is doubly troublesome…though not for liberals.
42. Republican politicians and columnists who claim to be conservative yet defend liberal positions – People with low self-esteem are often drawn to politics and the media due to their lure of power and control over others. Many Republican politicians also have a low sense of self and will readily cede their espoused conservative ideology with hopes of gaining esteem from their peers or the press and satisfying their personal need for self-love. Within political power circles the qualities of high self-esteem are rather rare, so to feel a sense of belonging—which means belonging to groups of those with low self-esteem—one will gravitate towards liberal positions.
43. CEOs and leaders of large corporations often supporting liberal politicians, even though liberal policies have a negative financial impact on corporations and their entire industry may be vilified by liberals – Though they may be assumed to be strong capitalists and freedom (free market) oriented, many CEOs are people with a low sense of self. Their successful drive to be at the top of their profession was a drive to obtain power and the external trappings of esteem-worthiness. Within their business they may be quite rational but in the public, non-corporate sphere, they identify with those having a low sense of self—liberal politicians. Theirs is an emotional, non-rational alliance.
44. Failure of radio talk shows with a liberal perspective – The media of talk radio requires use of facts and reasoning. Perpetually appealing to emotion cannot keep an audience. Liberalism depends on appealing to emotions and avoiding reason.
45. Liberals’ use of child shields or a few sob stories to support a position regarding particular bills – These are clearly appeals to emotion. Laws, to be of value, must be crafted through open, reasoned discourse. Liberals try to circumvent reason with their emotional appeals because their reasoning is flawed. Developing law based on a few examples is nearly assured to be bad law.
46. Liberals use of environmental concerns to limit freedoms – Nearly everyone cares about the environment. Liberals seek to use claimed environmental crises as a lever to gain a level of control over people—especially the successful. The large costs in lost freedom and lower living standards to (allegedly) address environmental problems are not quantified. Worldwide, with an increasing human population, the consumption of energy will increase. When liberals seek, through taxes and regulations in wealthy, more environmentally sensitive countries, to raise the cost of energy produced by nuclear power plants and oil, natural gas, and coal sources, they are not only punishing those countries but developing nations as well. Driving up the cost of a world market commodity in the United States drives it up everywhere. As less developed nations scramble to find or create their own energy sources, obtaining energy will likely occur in a more environmentally hazardous manner. Put another way, for safety and least impact on the environment reasons, who would you rather have doing a deep sea oil drilling operation, processing coal, building an oil refinery, or collecting, storing, and transporting natural gas; the United States or any other country? American liberals are choosing “any other country.” That answer also has a negative impact on the U.S. economy; something that doesn’t seem to trouble liberals.
47. Laws favored by liberals often hurting the ones they were intended to help – Resulting realities aren’t as important as intentions and the emotional connectedness that led to the creation of the laws. Also, helping others is not as important as punishing the successful. People with a low sense of self feel less inadequate (temporarily) by bringing down those who seem to be successful and worthy of self-love.
48. The tendency of liberals to use boycotts against those they perceive as being “unfair” – Boycotts depend on individuals subjugating their individual freedom to act in a group manner to address what is considered to be an inequality. That is, it is the liberal philosophy of equality being more important than freedom and of punishing their enemy.
49. Liberals’ relative inability to learn from history or current events that are distant – Though every time statism, socialism, or fascism have been tried they have failed within a few generations, liberals seek to try again. It is difficult to make a personal, emotional connection with a remote, political situation and even more difficult to make one with those in the past. Deriving and applying lessons from history or even current events is a rational exercise liberals will tend to avoid. Unable to connect with such lessons emotionally, liberals find emotional comfort in the concept of a large, powerful, caretaking figure of big government. To liberals it is a parent that will affirm and love them, care for them, and treat its children as equals. It is not “Big Brother,” it is the fatherland. (Or the motherland as the Soviets referred to their country.)
50. Liberal leaders’ belief that a widespread disagreement with their positions is because they did not get their message out – To the liberal, “getting the message out” is really getting people to have the same feelings as the liberal. It’s not about agreeing to the words of the message, it’s agreeing to the feeling and motivation behind the words. It is why the health care bill didn’t have to be written or even read for people to support it. To those who look for the meaning of a message, its rationality and truth value, a liberal message is illogical, incorrect, and rejected and “getting the message out” only lowers the acceptance of the message.
51. Liberals’ heavy use of imagery to influence public opinion – Thoughts and logical reasoning are a distant second to emotions for one with low self-love and self-esteem. A liberal leader can strengthen support from his base through appropriate photo ops using celebrities, the downtrodden, flags or the military as props (depending on the feelings they wish to invoke), or, as candidate Obama did, use a Greek temple and reverb in sound systems when giving speeches to seem larger than life. For liberals it is far more important to feel good about their leaders than to think highly of them based on what they say and do.
The theory being posited provides reasonable explanations for all of the above phenomena. Any alternate theory about the motivations of liberals has to be able to explain the above data.
Predictive Value of the
Theory of Unhealthy Motivations of Liberals
A sound theory enables those who understand it to make predictions based on it.
Prediction 1: Liberals, whether they are in politics or simply strongly interested in politics, will exhibit the characteristics of a person with a low sense of self in their words and actions—especially as those relate to politics. This is the core prediction of the theory and nearly trivial to see fulfilled. It was the consistent behavior pattern among liberals that led to the development of this theory. As that behavior pattern continues the theory will seem prescient.
Prediction 2: The initial response by liberals to the Theory of Unhealthy Motivations of Liberals will be to ignore it, reject it prima facie, or argue that it is insufficiently scholarly. People with a low sense of self avoid that which is considered to be unpleasant. They have enough problems handling thinking and feeling poorly about themselves. They don’t need more difficulty in their lives. Liberals apply this avoidance strategy doggedly. They ignored Bill Clinton’s womanizing and affairs, John Kerry’s faked war heroism, John Edwards’ affair, and Barack Obama’s personal, educational, and professional history. (It’s amusing that Obama supporters label those who question his birth story, “birthers.” What then are those who accept without rigorous exploration, the claim of a Hawaiian birth for Barack Obama? “Non-birthers?” “Immaculate Conceptioners?”) A half step up from ignoring an unpleasantness is to deny it. A prima facie rejection is a technique used to avoid applying reason yet it is reason that is needed to rebut a theory. What constitutes a proper falsification of this theory will be given below. It is acknowledged that the theory is not developed nor presented in a scholarly manner. That was done for time considerations and to reach a broader audience. Once the theory is presented and exercised, its fuller development can follow.
Prediction 3: Liberals who learn of this theory will have a powerful, emotional response to it. When a person with a low sense of self is identified as such, against their wishes, their reaction will be deeply emotional: sadness, fear, and/or anger. This theory is a tinder box to liberals. Publicizing it is lighting a match. An emotional reaction from liberals lends credence to the theory. Had the theory been far off the mark the response would have been one of puzzlement.
Prediction 4: Liberals who learn of this theory will attack the messenger. Those who experience anger when presented with this theory will respond in an attacking, emotional manner. People with a low sense of self have what is often referred to as a “wounded inner child.” There is a part of them stuck in their childhood when they didn’t get their love and esteem needs met by their primary caregivers. This theory will be a potent reminder to that hurting child of what they unfairly missed. Their childish response is not only understandable but expected.
Prediction 5: Many liberals will claim that Obama and other leading liberals do not have the characteristics of people with a low sense of self and indeed have the qualities of people with a high sense of self. Those that argue in this manner are people that are not accepting of reality. Actions and statements by leading liberals that exemplify the characteristics of a person with a low sense of self are obvious and numerous. It is anticipated that liberals will argue President Obama does not:
Prediction 6: Many liberals will claim that the observed phenomena that the theory claims to explain are misperceptions. There may be a few listed phenomena that are not self-evident even to liberals, but arguing the handful is to miss the broad sweep and explanatory power of the theory.
Prediction 7: Liberals will claim that even if the listed phenomena are accurate, there is a better explanation for them than this theory. If a better theory exists, i.e., one that better explains observed phenomena, has predictive value, and is falsifiable, its presentation would be most welcome.
Prediction 8: Liberals will claim that the theory is disproved because there are identified counter examples of liberals with a high sense of self. This theory is a generalization and need not be true in every case. Counter examples are expected to exist, though I am unaware of any “high-profile liberal with a high sense of self” counter-examples and welcome learning of them. The highest profile American liberals of the past 20 years, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore are saturated with characteristics of a person with a low sense of self.
Prediction 9: Liberals will claim that the theory is disproved because there are high profile Republicans and conservatives that have many of the qualities of a person with a low sense of self. There are many high profile Republicans (generally not conservatives) with a low sense of self. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter and Florida Governor Charlie Crist (before they switched parties), were two prime examples. They are not evidence that contradicts the theory. The theory is not that a low sense of self leads to liberalism but that liberals generally have a low sense of self. Those with a low sense of self can be drawn to politics, lured by its power. If they live in places that generally elect Republicans, they have to present themselves as conservatives. They say or do what they believe is necessary to get, keep, or advance their position.
Prediction 10: Those who are puzzled by the “why” of liberal ideology, will embrace this theory as providing the explanation. Liberal behavior, the “what” they will do, is rather predictable by those who pay attention to politics. The explanation for “why” they do what they do has been lacking. Why would Americans act in ways to weaken the United States at home and abroad? Why would they undermine the institutions that helped to make this country great? Why would they apologize for America? Why would they alienate our friends and seek to befriend our enemies? Why would they push agendas that the American people reject? Why…why…why? This theory nails the “why.”
Prediction 11: Liberals won’t argue the accuracy of the list of personal characteristics that reflect one’s sense of self. If the list of personality traits for a low sense of self presented herein was largely inaccurate, it would completely undermine the theory. But to argue against that list would be to argue against our core understanding of human psychology and is unlikely to be successful. Those with a low sense of self are not interested in dwelling on what they consider to be their personal shortcomings so they won’t attempt to refute the theory on these grounds.
Prediction 12: Liberals won’t argue that equality is a greater good than freedom. They recognize that belief is not explicitly held by many—and they don’t like to consider themselves as in the distinct minority. They know that no matter how much they want equality to be more important than freedom, rationally it cannot be so. It is an argument they would lose. If the topic is avoided, liberals can continue to live and act as if equality were the greater good. What they fail to understand is by not defending the proposition that freedom must cede to equality (an indefensible proposition) they are forfeiting the philosophical basis for contemporary liberalism. With no philosophical basis all that remains for liberalism as an ideology is psychological—and is explained by this theory.
Prediction 13: “Liberal,” already a label many liberals avoid, will become even more distasteful if this theory becomes well known. Those with a low sense of self don’t want to be identified as such and the label “liberal” will become associated with that personal shortcoming.
Prediction 14: Obama’s favorability rating will continue to decline across all groups. Emotional connections with others based on a common neediness (lacking self-love and self-esteem) are not generally deeply rooted. There is a desperate “every man for himself” aspect of a person with a low sense of self. The negative, devastating reality of Obama’s policies and his true unsympathetic nature towards others with a low sense of self will become ever more recognized and he will become ever more rejected. Words spoken and promises given by Obama that were only intended to make an emotional connection will eventually be expected to carry weight. There will be growing anger, frustration, and disappointment. People who projected themselves onto Obama and helped lead to his election will turn away; “I felt he was like me but he is a huge disappointment and failure so I will distance myself from him.”
Prediction 15: Obama’s already low sense of self will sink further with lower approval ratings. His low sense of self characteristics will become more pronounced. The traits of one with a low sense of self are in part coping mechanisms for not having the need for self-love and self-esteem satisfied. When it becomes evident to Obama that the masses who appeared to love him have turned against him, he will rely more heavily on those coping mechanisms, especially becoming more secretive, distrustful, hostile, angry, rigid, and arrogant. Jimmy Carter redux. Obama will likely suffer health problems (perhaps digestive or heart issues) and will age significantly under the pressure of the job and stress of rejection. His marriage, not a strong one given the neediness of both Barack and Michelle, will suffer.
Prediction 16: After huge conservative gains in Congress in the 2010 elections (a prediction that came true), liberals will attempt to repudiate the people’s wishes by forcing through legislation favoring equality over liberty between November 2010 and January 2011. After a huge swing in political power, the appropriate circumspect response would be, “Based on the election results, the American people want the government to move in a different direction. We will let the newly elected government set that direction.” Congress is usually considered a lame duck between an election and swearing in ceremony, however this will be an activist period for a waning liberal Congress. Liberals will be angry for being rejected and turned out of power and they will push the liberal agenda against the will of the people as expressed in the election. Liberals are not in office to serve the people but to try to satisfy their need for a greater sense of self. Spurned they will seek revenge by spurning.
Falsifiability of the Theory of Unhealthy
Motivations of Liberals
The primary way to falsify the theory is to show that a significant proportion of liberals don’t have a low sense of self, i.e., they have few if any of the identified characteristics of a person with a low sense of self. Formally the theory is:
Disproving the theory means showing:
Note that anything about non-liberals is completely irrelevant in disproving this theory. Hence the common liberal rejoinder to a complaint about a prominent liberal’s words or acts—“well, so-and-so (a non-liberal) did the same thing” (whether or not their analogy is accurate)—can’t be used in disproving this theory. To disprove the theory, one has to only discuss liberals and their sense of self as revealed through their words and deeds.
Recall the definition of “liberal” used in this theory is “one who places a greater value on the equality of people than on the freedom of people.” This is the contemporary meaning of “liberal” and it is loose enough to include those who consider themselves liberals, progressives, socialists, statists, communists, Maoists, Stalinists, and fascists. The differences between these ideologies are the degree and manner to which adherents will trade individual freedom for greater equality and the way they treat groups of people they dislike.
The Theory of Unhealthy Motivations of Liberals can be weakened if not refuted by identifying phenomena in which significant proportions of liberals behave in a manner that is best understood by their having a high sense of self. The behavior of liberals described in the phenomena above seems consistent with the expected actions of a person with a low sense of self. Counter examples to or better explanations of those phenomena undercut this theory.
An indirect way to argue against this theory is to articulate an alternate theory that better explains the presented data, is falsifiable, and has predictive value.
Using the Theory of Unhealthy Motivations of
Liberals to Help the Country Grow
Who was the better athlete, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, or Babe Ruth? It would be fruitless to argue for any of them without first getting agreement on what it means to be an athlete. Similarly, it is largely a waste of energy to argue for or against a particular proposed policy without first agreeing on priorities and goals. It is quite rare that politicians ever publicly discuss, let alone agree on, priorities and goals. The mainstream media, which interacts more frequently with the public, is more derelict in this responsibility. The Theory of Unhealthy Motivations of Liberals, even if disproved, benefits the country by exposing this shortcoming of political debate.
Consider the recent debate over health care. Proponents claimed the reason reform was needed was to control costs and make medical care available for more people. Putting aside how introducing an always inefficient government bureaucracy as a middleman can make anything more available or less expensive, the debate avoided the obvious questions. For example, why is nationalizing health care a good thing? Why is government imposing something on people who would choose not to have it appropriate or legal? Why is government taking from some to give that unwanted thing to others desirable? What is government’s responsibility towards its citizens? What limits must it respect in trying to discharge its responsibility? These questions inevitably involve the relative priorities of freedom and equality. When we are clear on our fundamental beliefs and trace the roots of policy proposals back to their underlying assumptions, we can make rational, coherent, correct decisions. Enunciation of the theory itself is helpful in illuminating the need for a more fundamental dialogue about policies.
If the Theory of Unhealthy Motivations of Liberals is sound, it can be used to help the country in two broad ways:
1. By reducing the amount of liberalism in the country through reducing the number of liberals or their degree of liberalism
2. By reducing the amount of liberalism in government
Reducing the Amount Of Liberalism in the Country
Health is generally understood to mean, “the absence of illness or injury,” which is a negative definition. A positive definition of “health” is having one’s needs met. Needs are distinct from wants. An organism with unsatisfied needs grows ill and perhaps dies; that’s why they are called “needs.” Humans have the need to love and esteem self and to feel loved and esteemed. These are needs with no upper limit; one can’t be loved too much, or love one’s self too much. There is no bound to growing healthier. It’s in liberals’ best interest to have a higher sense of self. As their levels of self-love and self-esteem grow, i.e., as they grow healthier, their liberalism—valuing equality over freedom—will decrease.
There are three fundamental ways to help people with a low sense of self. First, help them recognize and accept the existence of the problem. The Theory of Unhealthy Motivations of Liberals is a useful tool in that effort. Discussions with liberals on any issue can focus first on how a low sense of self is the source for the liberal position. Since a person with a low sense of self does not want to have that shortcoming identified, this is to be done in a caring manner, gently inviting growth.
In political discourse with liberals, persistently emphasize
the inappropriateness of trading freedom for equality. Ask liberals:
Liberals will seek to take what they consider to be the high road and suggest they are not benefiting themselves but taking from the haves to give to the have less. Help them understand they are re-distributing wealth and time and limiting freedom. Point out it is ignoble to dictate who has to give what to whom. Relentlessly drive home the fact that happiness and having a life worth living does not come from outside us or something that comes from comparison to others but something we find within when we are free to live our lives as we choose. These are not something the government can provide to anyone, but they are something the government can limit if it fails to secure our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In the end it is liberals who have to do the difficult work to reduce liberalism in the country. It is up to each individual to grow their self-love and self-esteem. There are many paths to gaining a greater sense of self including; inner child work, positive affirmations, rejecting a victim mentality and taking total responsibility for what happens to you, accepting the need to continually work on self-improvement, and to act oneself into a healthier way of being by living the characteristics of a person with a high sense of self even if they don’t yet fit. This is difficult often painful work, but ultimately worthwhile and rewarding for the individual and the country. A country grows healthier as its citizens do.
My personal expectation is that few liberals will be convinced they need to find a path to a greater sense of self. No matter how compelling the above logic, it is just that: words and logic. A person with a low sense of self is driven by emotions and without an obvious, compelling, emotional need they will not seek to become healthier. This is not unlike an addict who must first “hit bottom” before accepting that they must fundamentally change.
Reducing the Amount Of Liberalism in Government Change doesn’t have to come from below it can also come from above. If government cannot limit freedoms, its value to liberals is lessened and they will seek to have their need for a greater sense of self met elsewhere.
Reducing the power of government makes it less of a draw for those with a low sense of self. Government doesn’t attract our best and brightest so we are better served if its influence is limited—as it is defined to be by the Constitution. As one approaches absolute power, one approaches absolute corruption. As citizens and voters we can demand less taxes, less government, and less regulation—which are all demands for greater freedom.
Another way to make government less attractive to liberal politicians is to focus on the subservient nature of political positions. Every opportunity you have to interact with a politician, respectfully but assertively demand they acknowledge they are the servant of the people; that they are your servant. If widely done and expected, people with a low sense of self would not take a job with this condition of employment.
In interactions with federal politicians or candidates, ask if they consider government’s primary role to be securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even staunch liberals will be hard-pressed to egregiously disagree with the Founding Fathers. But once they agree, their philosophical underpinnings are lost. Unequal treatment of its citizens precludes a government protecting liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the opening to ask politicians and candidates about their low sense of self based on their specific actions and words. If they exhibit a low sense of self, respectfully ask them to refrain from running for or being in public office until they grow healthier. It’s important they get their own house in order before sitting in the people’s house.
|
