DADvocate

Increasingly, liberals and leftists scream racism at the slightest perceived and imagined provocation. The latest big kerfuffle is Joe Wilson's "You lie" supposedly being based on racism and Jimmy "Peanut Head" Carter's accusation that any and all opposition to Obama's policies is racist. Over the last few days, I've read a couple of posts that have helped me understand this phenomena.

At Shrinkwrapped, a practicing Psychoanalyst, psychiatrist explains the persistent racist charges as a reaction formation.

One great hope for the American black community, implicitly recognized and understood by black and white Americans alike, is embodied in the smart, extremely articulate, good looking black man who has a beautiful family and the consummate political skill to gain the highest office in the land. If Barack Obama is now found to have feet of clay, or far worse, if his presidency fails, this would be a disastrous blow to the community so identified with him. For many blacks, and a great many liberal whites, the unacceptable thought, handed down from the racists of the past, is that blacks are not as smart as whites. Their accusations of "racism" toward anyone who criticizes President Obama's policies is a reaction to the worry that President Obama will prove to be an ineffective President, thereby confirming their worst (mostly unconscious) fears.

Long ago, the first Psychoanalyst made a brilliant interpretation when he declared that "Methinks the lady doth protest too much", capturing the core of the defense of reaction formation. In a reaction formation, the unconscious unacceptable thought presses upon the conscious mind and threatens to become conscious; the internal censor rejects the idea, forces the thought back down into the unconscious, and covers it with its opposite equivalent. (The unconscious says, "I hate my baby brother and wish he was dead so I could remain the most important" and the Censor, in order to protect the Conscious mind, horrified by such thoughts, responds, "I don't hate my brother! I love my baby brother to death!")

The accusations of racism whenever the President is criticized have taken on a Shakespearean tenor: the unconscious says, "President Obama is failing to convince people of his ideas; maybe he, and by extension all blacks, are not so smart" and the conscious mind reels and replies, "No, he is the smartest, he is the One, and the only explanation for his failings is that those who oppose him do so because they are racists!"

Methinks they protest too much.

At PajamasMedia, Frank J. Fleming offers a different take on why liberals are still so angry and yelling racism.

See things from their point of view. The most fundamental principle liberals have is that they are all very, very smart, and everyone should listen to them. Nothing angers them more than something that challenges them to reexamine that core tenet.

---

This was the best chance they could ever possibly imagine, and it’s already pretty much over. Liberal ideas are still in the ghetto. While conservatives can still openly call themselves conservatives and argue directly for things they like (such as gun rights and free markets), liberals still have to run from their label and never dare say out loud the things they want, such as socialism and single-payer health care. How could liberals not see this coming? Are they not as smart as they think?

Having to even contemplate such a horrible possibility is enough to drive a liberal mad.

So they lash out. Since they are obviously so smart (obviously!), the only reason anyone could oppose them is that the person is stupid and evil. Thus everyone protesting must be a stupid racist. It’s the only conclusion possible without having to reexamine the central tenet that liberals are super smart and should totally run everything. And if you were under the delusion that you were surrounded by stupid racists who won’t listen to your obviously smart ideas, wouldn’t you be pretty angry all the time?

Being somewhat skeptical of psychoanalysis and psychiatry, I tend to agree more with Fleming's take. These interpretations are not mutually exclusive with the other as well as agree with a point in DSL's post the other day where he discusses some of the thoughts of "His name and his alone we refuse to type." The untyped one said:

There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.

Truly the words of someone convinced of his moral and intellectual superiority.

Will any liberal/leftie read these words or the words of the other writers to whom I refer and gain any insight or enlightenment? I doubt it. Why would they listen to a bunch of racists?