Is Republicanism a mental illness?

[OAITW r.2.0]

Seems like more and more self-identified Republicans love guns, hate people of all stripes, hate ideas that promotr ptogrssive social policy and can't relate to people who don't think like themselves. As the Party shrinks, the people that remain are becoming more extreme in this illness. How long can "moderate" sane Republicans continue to exist in this Party?

[roamer65]

1. Fascism is a mental illness and the Repuke party is infested with it.

That’s the problem.

[RockRaven]

2. Is being an asshole a mental illness?

Because I can't tell the difference anymore between being a Republican and being an asshole.

[Lovie777]

3. Yes......

[pecosbob]

4. GOP...the party of sociopaths

[BlackSkimmer]

5. I really think people should stop bandying around the term "mental illness."

We should be smarter than that. Right?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

7. One would certainly think so.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

9. I agree

Mentally ill people are less likely to be violent than normal people are.

Sociopathy imho is a personality type,not a real mental illness.

[BlackSkimmer]

10. It's really kind of sad to see here as much as I have lately.

Sigh.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

11. Yeah I get it.

[Trenzalore]

6. Not all things that are bad are the result of being mentally ill

I don't think the Nazis were mentally ill. I don't think the Communist in Russia under Stalin were mentally ill. I believe they were perfectly aware of the consequences of their actions and didn't care. Saying something is the result of mental illness morally gives someone an out. These people are just hateful assholes. They don't get the excuse of being sick. They aren't they are well aware.;

[OAITW r.2.0]

12. I stand corrected.

Your comment and others in this thread are right to call me on calling it a mental illness. A shared sociopathy is probably a better descriptor.

[patricia92243]

8. MAGA - yes. Moderate Republicans - no.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

13. Magats are sociopaths and

Too many "reasonable" republicans are closet magats. The entire republican platform is anti social by its nature.

For instance do you believe there is a "natural order of things a hierarchy?" Isnt it funny these assholes who believe in hierarchies always put themselves and people like themselves at the top.

Hierarchy is bullshit,destructive for humans. its a lie.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

14. No, it's genetic, that's why it exists all over the world, in every race and culture throughout time

To me it's very simple. It's genetic and instinctual.

Otherwise we wouldn't see versions of the same basic mentality, everywhere, always.

It's only the minor details that are actually different.

[OAITW r.2.0]

15. Good point. So, there should be a way to determine the genetic markers that

make some people social and others anti-social. IMHO, the Republican agenda is anti-social, in that it promotes ideas that can't work in high population centers. Because their political base is in places where there are fewer people that interact with people that are different from them.

[Jamastiene]

16. I have always thought mental health are doing it backwards.

Most of us who have to go to therapy are there because Republicans have abused us in some way.

Wouldn't it be better to treat the people who are causing grief and trauma to the rest of us?

Why should we have to take even more time out of our lives to deal with the aftermath of growing up with Republican abusers? Why should we have to "learn to cope" with what right wingers have done to us? That's systemic protection for them to abuse everyone around them and teach the rest of us how to "cope."

It should be the other way around. Start treating them for their paranoia, delusions, abusive violence, etc. and the rest of us will get along much better.

[OAITW r.2.0]

17. Thanks for making a better post than I did.

I truly believe that a lot of problems with this country can be dropped on the door of Republicanism. It's been this way since a we elected the President-actor Reagan....and he provided the face while Republicans , behind him, did the social damage.

[hunter]

18. I really like this post.

Thank you!

[Prairie_Seagull]

19. Another possibility is drug induced anger and irratibility

I am not sure about other generally recreational drugs but a side effect of long term opioid use can be increased anger among others.

PS Not a health care professional. I have however been paying attention.what

what if, just what if, this helps to explain "it"

[Bucky]

20. Sadly, these people treat Republicanism like a tribal identity

It's not an ideology. It's a serious misnomer as so many of those who belong to the Republican Party clearly lack any commitment to an actual republican form of government--free elections, rule of law, equality of citizenship, adherence to the US Constitution, belief in the civic virtues, commitment to basic civil and political rights--as is stipulated by the Constitution.

But the mental illness is not political conservatism. There's plenty of conservatives before Adam Kinzinger who were offensively conservative but still put the country and the rule of law first. They dominated the House and Senate Republican caucuses when Nixon was facing impeachment. They might've pushed for Sammy Davis Jr to run for Senate (and did support Edward Brooks), but they never would have self lobotomized enough to nominate a Herschel Walker. They would take the consult of Henry Luce or William Buckley, but wouldn't have blindly followed their dictates or kissed the ring like modern Republicans do with Rupert Murdoch.

The disease is the tribalism, or rather the reductive tribalism. That is, the substitution of paranoia for tribal identity, becoming addicts to the same Fear of the Other they've been peddling to the masses in lieu of real policy since before 9/11. So it's not even tribalism. Our tribe is the United States. If they were being tribal, they'd act fanatically in the interests of the United States, even if that meant betraying American values like republicanism. But instead they just obsessively, psychotically, turn on whoever they think threatens their power, demonizing them, threatening them, like the creatures churning in Dante's Inferno, a constant moshpit of posturing and backstabbing in a rush for camera time and Twitter shares and Rupert blessings.

In a word, the worst parts of today's Republican Party has become a coven of nihilism. Power for power's sake. Hatred for the satisfaction of the oxytocins it releases in the bloodstream. It's the party of irresponsibility. The party of screaming toddlers.

[OAITW r.2.0]

22. :a coven of nihilism. Power for power's sake. ;

Pretty much it. When they get the power, they can't govern.

[former9thward]

21. Why do you think the Party is shrinking?

[OAITW r.2.0]

23. Do you think it's growing?

Personally, I think this Party has been changing over the past 40 years. Less intelligent people and more committed to ignorance.

[former9thward]

25. The numbers don't indicate any shrinkage.

In the House vote they took 51% of the popular vote vote and Dems got 47%. They won the House 222-213. That is not shrinkage. The Senate will be either 51-49 or 50/50. They have the majority of governors and state houses. So I guess I don't see any shrinkage.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

29. None of those results indicate the growth, shrinkage, or size.

[former9thward]

30. When you increase House seats that is growth.

When you win the popular vote that is growth. That is the first time in several elections the Rs have won the popular vote in the House. If you disagree then maybe you can show the shrinkage instead of just saying it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

35. The OP is about Republicanism, not the results of an election

And I didn't "just say[] it". I only pointed out that the results you presented do not indicate growth, shrinkage, or size. Those results are influenced by many factors, including turnout and voter suppression.

An indicator of the growth, shrinkage, or extent of Republicanism could be taken from Pew Research polls (comparing poll results to party platforms, for example) or voter registration.

[former9thward]

36. The poster in the OP said the party was "shrinking".

I questioned that because I have heard that all my life and nothing much has changed. We measure party success and failure in this country by elections won and lost, seats won and gained. Not philosophy which is almost impossible to quantify and so its just leads to unproveable assumptions and personal projections.

If you want to do it by polls go ahead but most do it by concrete results. (Although we were told before the election polls are worthless and its only the results on election day that counts)

[Hermit-The-Prog]

37. You shifted to "party success"

Party success is not the same as the size of "Republicanism".

I specifically mentioned Pew Research polls, not election polling. For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Note that a very specific portion of self-identified Republicans oppose any access to abortion, while the majority of the public favors access to abortion. That portion is shrinking over time.

It would be interesting to compare public opinion over time with different parts of the Republican and Democratic platforms.

Those concrete results you gave are the result of many factors, and indicate we need to work on those factors, but they do not necessarily indicate "Republicanism" is on the rise. If the majority of the public agree with Democratic policies, but Republican candidates continue to be successful, then we are failing at message, turnout, voter enfranchisement, or other. If the majority of the public agree with Republican policies, then "Republicanism" will grow and, in my opinion, we're screwed

[Midnight Writer]

24. More of a personality disorder.

[aka-chmeee]

26. Well, in my wife's family

I always referred to it as a congenital birth defect.

[no_hypocrisy]

27. Chicken and the Egg metaphor, which came first?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

28. I think right-wing authoritarianism best explains it.

After all, it was supposedly right-wing authoritarian "personality" that best predicted if someone supported Trump during the 2016 GOP primaries.

The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533/

Coincidentally, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) became a topic of interest after the rise of fascism in Europe prior to WW2. So calling them fascists is pretty accurate.

It requires strict adherence to group thinking (or tribalism) to be a RWA, under the guidance of a "strong leader", which usually means that critical thinking and logic are sacrificed by the individuals to maintain allegiance to their group. They'll either ignore or go through extreme mental gymnastics to defend their group, even when faced with contradictory evidence and logic.

Overview of RWA here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarian_personality#:~:text=In%20psychology%2C%20the%20right%2Dwing,conformist%20in%20thought%20and%20behavior.

Edit:
It's a very non-scientific way of thinking, since scientists will happily use evidence and logic to disprove the ideas of their own colleagues. If those colleagues are well-established and widely-respected, that's even better!
So it's not too surprising that only 6% of scientists identified as Republicans according to a Pew poll in 2013:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382/amp

I can usually spot a RWA pretty quickly, if they seem to value a particular group of people more than CONCEPTS!

[whistler162]

31. NTSA

[WhiskeyGrinder]

32. No. Irrationalism, hatred and bigotry are not mental illnesses.

[Sympthsical]

33. "can't relate to people who don't think like themselves"

You're so, so close.

[DFW]

34. They even have their own language

EXCERPTS FROM THE OFFICIAL DICTIONARY OF REPUBLICANESE

In Republicanese, many words that sound alike may be spelled differently at random. A few prominent examples:

In Republicanese, the following words may be spelled at random using any of the three ways given:

A.) Two, Too, To
B.) Their, They're, There
c.) Your, Yore, You're

The Republicanese version of Robin Hood therefore starts with "In days of you're...."

The only rule is that the correct use of them as in English is never permitted twice in a row.

Words with single letters that change meaning when that letter is doubled must never be used in correct English context. The classic example is “lose” vs. “loose.” In Republicanese, if you do not win an election, then you “loose” that election. Conversely, if your (Republicanese: you’re) belt is too tight, you need it more “lose” in order to be comfortable. Another example would be the Republicanese, “I met Donald Trump, and he was rudder than I imagined,” vs. “I grabbed the ruder and was able to steer the boat to shore.”

In English, the contraction for "it is" is written "it's." To show possession referring to something previously mentioned, one writes "its." In Republicanese, it is the other way around.
Example:
English: “It's impractical for a building to have its solar panels in the basement.”
Republicanese: “Its impractical for a building to have it's solar panels in the basement.”

In Republicanese, an apostrophe is used to form a plural, whereas this is never correct in English. But it must be done at random, never systematically. For example, Bill and Hillary are "the Clinton's," but Bill, Chelsea and Hillary are "the Clintons." The other way around is also correct. In Republicanese, either form is correct as long as it is not spelled the same way twice in a row.
Example:
In English, one writes "The Clintons like dogs."
In Republicanese, this can be written as "The Clinton's like dogs," or "The Clintons like dog's" or "The Clinton's like dog's." The only version that would be incorrect in Republicanese would be to use no apostrophe at all. Only English is written that way.