Diagnosis Trump

ShrinkCouchby Patricia L. Dickson3/5/16
It appears that Donald Trump is already creating new jobs in the field of psychology.  He is at least improving the economy in the D.C., area with patients visiting their therapists more often due to experiencing a new source of stress because of the political rise of Donald Trump.  According to an article in theWashington Post, psychologists in the D.C. area catalogue the anxieties felt by their patients and describe how they whine at length about being disturbed by the things that Trump says:

What had happened to Trump during his childhood, the patient wanted to know, to make him such a “bad person?”

He has stirred people up,” Howard said. “We’ve been told our whole lives not to say bad things about people, to not be bullies, to not ostracize people based on their skin color. We have these social mores and he breaks all of them and he’s successful. And people are wondering how he gets away with it.”

Type “Trump” and phrases such as “scaring me” or “freaking me out” into Twitter’s search engine, and a litany of tweets unfurl, including one posted two weeks ago by Emma Taylor as she lay in bed in Los Angeles: “I literally can’t sleep because I just thought about how Trump may actually win the Presidency and now I’m having a panic attack.”

“It’s like a hurricane is coming at us, and I don’t have any way of knowing which way to go or how to combat it,” Taylor, 27, a Democrat, said in a phone interview. “He’s extremely reactionary and that’s what scares me the most. I feel totally powerless and it’s horrible.”

Therapists in New York City’s Upper West Side are also reporting an uptick in references of Trump from patients:

Judith Schweiger Levy, a psychologist in the neighborhood, has noticed a recent uptick in Trump references among her patients, including a middle-aged businesswoman who blurted out this week that her sister is supporting the billionaire.

“She was so upset and worried that she could have a sister – someone so close to her – who would have zero problem with Trump,” Levy said. “Another patient – also a woman – all she could talk about was Trump and how he’s crazy and frightening.”

Ruminating on Trump’s effect, Levy said, “Part of the reason he makes people so anxious is that he has no anxiety himself. It’s frightening. I’m starting to feel anxious just talking about him.”

How is it that grown people are so weak and anxious that they have to seek therapy because big bad Trump is saying bad things?  America is turning into a society that is producing effeminate Pajama Boy men and emotionally fragile women who run to therapists crying “mommy please make the bad man go away.”  Trump has become a big bad bully from the playground to these weak people.[pullquote]”I literally can’t sleep because I just thought about how Trump may actually win the Presidency and now I’m having a panic attack.”[/pullquote]

According to the same article, after Trump’s victories on Super Tuesday, Google recorded a 350-percent increase in users submitting the question “How can I move to Canada?”  A radio disc jockey in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, has decided to tap into the fears by launching a website inviting Americans to relocate if Trump wins.  Over several weeks, some 400,000 visitors have checked out Cape Breton’s official website.

Psychologists report that their patients fear Trump’s supporters more than they do him:

Dan Seely, 86, who lives in New Hampshire, was a Republican in those days. He voted for Johnson because he feared Goldwater.

Seely, now a Democrat, is more afraid of Trump because he believes the billionaire has captivated the public in a way that Goldwater never did. “I see his signs on their front lawns,” he said. “It makes me wonder who these people are that they think he can be a suitable leader of the free world.”

Ken Goldstein, a Los Angeles-based author and businessman who is a Democrat, recalled meeting with a business associate recently and feeling astounded when the man said he thought Trump would “be great for America.”

“You just realize you have nothing more to say to that person,” he said.

Goldstein finds small comfort imagining Trump’s defeat, if only because his followers “are still there.”

“Who are these people?” he asked. “Are they at the grocery store, are they sitting next to me at Dodger Stadium? That makes me nervous.”

Since I am a Trump supporter, I would love to meet some of these fragile people.  I would walk up behind them and say, Boo.  That would probably send them over the edge.  If grown people are sent running to psychologists simply because of harsh words, no wonder our college kids are whining about hurt feelings and demanding safe spaces.


PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author Author Archive Email • (759 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Diagnosis Trump

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    We saw similar things in 2004, when liberals all over were reacting apoplectically to the re-election of Bush. I read of a Left Coast woman who didn’t want to see her mother (who lived in Ohio) because her mother favored Bush. There was also an uptick in psychiatric problems reported in the Palm Beach area.

    This all flows from what I call virulent liberalism. Some (probably most, conceivably all) liberals are paranoid about what conservatives will do if the liberals don’t block them. (I call this condition dextrophobia.) This was mostly latent during my lifetime because of the Demagogues’ control of Congress. But after 1994 things changed, and it frequently becomes active. When that happens, we see all sorts of psychological problems as well as a total absence of political ethics — since conservative victory means the End of the World, they must do “whatever it takes” to stop them. But this phobia is also what leads to Bush Derangement Syndrome and similar mental fears regarding Sarah Palin or Donald Trump or whoever.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    What a bunch of self-absorbed, crack-pot ninnies. I like it that the article mentions the upper west side of New York city. No doubt a huge number of nut cases hail from that zip code.

  3. Rosalys says:

    My hope is that these people will go completely catatonic and become unable to go to the polls in November!

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I confess. Technically it’s not good to psychologize political opponents. Although I agree with Michael Savage when he says that liberalism is a mental disorder, this needs to be kept in perspective. Humans, by nature, are disordered. Political disorder (confusion, ignorance, etc.) is common and part of the overall disorder.

    And I shouldn’t be the pot calling the kettle black because I’ve run into people on the Left (or low-information voters unknowingly indoctrinated by the Left) who I would rather put in my rearview mirror and regard as little more than human vegetables. Still, honesty requires me to say that many feel the same about me.

    Still, I do believe I can make a reasonable argument for my political, social, and metaphysical philosophies without resorting to kool-aid. This is something those on the Left can’t do. They are they kind of “true believers” who are so mindlessly destructive. They remind me of the cultists in the movie, The Wicker Man, if not the people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers . . . the ones who’ve had their body snatched, of course.

    And although oil and water might not mix, this bit of oil (drill, baby, drill) does not need a “safe room” to deal with the cranks, freaks, degenerates, and just ne’er-do-wells on the Left. I can deal. I don’t need a psychiatrist’s couch. I will repel these little buggers with bug spray when needed, but otherwise I traipse about in reality just fine with those snatched bodies.

    So perhaps Michael Savage isn’t entirely wrong. There seems to be an emotional fragility developed, or inherent, in those who are indoctrinated in or attracted to Leftist ideas. There is a disorder. They seem to need a safe house. They are the ones constantly talking about moving to Canada (0r wherever) if fill-in-the-blank is elected. The same people who champion “diversity” don’t really want it and can’t stand it when it bites them in the butt. They want a homogenized society free from that awful thing called “other ideas.”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a much better comp for modern liberalism than The Wicker Man, unless you consider the title rite to be a good symbol of modern taxation/spending. Note that the cultists weren’t hostile to Edward Woodward’s character; they merely considered his sacrifice a regrettable necessity.

      In 2008, a liberal columnist was coming up with suggestions for where dejected conservatives might move. Naturally, it could never occur to him that just because deranged liberals (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) talk about moving (and have since at least 1968) if they lose (though they never keep their promise, unfortunately), conservatives don’t. He probably would have known better if he ever let himself personally know any conservatives.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        In an insane world the only place for a sane person is the asylum

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I can’t argue against the merits of your argument. But they do help flesh out some nuances.

        I will say, I think it’s both. The “Body Snatcher” represents the completely mind-numb ideologue, no longer even capable of critical thinking. Stick “free” in front of something and he’ll quickly give you a hundred reasons why he should have it.

        The “Wicker Man” cultists represent the runaway violence and sadism of an intellectually and morally corrupt movement that knows what it’s doing (as you said) but still does it anyway. It’s not dumb as much as it is devoid of mercy, wisdom, and reasonableness.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          It’s not dumb as much as it is devoid of mercy, wisdom, and reasonableness

          Amoral. Or perhaps just incredibly arrogant. The Ends justifies the Means. And we know our Ends are the right ones. Sounds like every Leftist since Robespierre.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      And I shouldn’t be the pot calling the kettle black because I’ve run into people on the Left (or low-information voters unknowingly indoctrinated by the Left) who I would rather put in my rearview mirror and regard as little more than human vegetables. Still, honesty requires me to say that many feel the same about me.

      The difference between them and us is we are right. 🙂

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Yes, we are right. And on things that don’t strictly adhere to right/wrong, I think our preferences are better as well. Which is another way of saying, you are right, Mr. Kung. You are right.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I think our preferences are better as well.

          I believe our preferences are come to after a certain amount of observation and reasoning, whereas those of the Left appear to be based simply on what they “want” to be true.

          Our preferences also take into account that we may not be 100% correct thus leave some room for maneuver i.e. they are not “Holy Writ” in the sense that those of the Left are.

  5. GHG says:

    You can not reason with a closed mind. Indoctrination closes the mind to opposing views. Liberal ideology is the negative image of what it purports to be and any attempt to break through the indoctrination is seen as an attack on what they hold sacred and therefore is viscerally defended. There is no room for compromise, only victory or defeat. Ultimately either traditional conservatism or progressive liberalism will be defeated. There can be only one.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Liberal ideology is the negative image of what it purports to be and any attempt to break through the indoctrination is seen as an attack on what they hold sacred and therefore is viscerally defended.

      Mr. Lesser, I think you get right to the heart of an important aspect of this. Your use of “negative image” reminds me that liberals/Leftists/socialists/progressives (the whole ne’re-do-well crowd) tend to find their identity (or image) in politics. And although toilets and urinals are necessary, there isn’t a sane person outside of those with bizarre fetishes who would center their lives around them.

      Progressivism is like that. I assert that politics is a necessary evil, but an evil all the same. There cannot be a better truth than what Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51:

      But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

      Because of flawed human nature, we both need government and also must be wary of it. Politics is the currency of government. Politics is not music. Politics is not oil painting. Politics is not poetry or prose. Politics is, by nature, conversant with lies, half-truths, manipulation, ugly compromises, and corruption.

      Reasonably good men can make the system work. Average men can work, and make work, a system that has already been excellently designed. But where we are now is that excellent design has been substantially degraded and the men who work at politics are a lesser (no offense, Mr. Lesser) breed. They are more corrupt than the corrupted system can possibly stand.

      So, back to identity. Only a fool identifies with boutique, faddish, or passing political views. Political views by their very nature rarely intersect with the truth, let alone with what is good. It’s politics, not oil painting. Good has to first exist strongly on the front end for the working of politics not to wear down a good idea into a corrupt or feckless one. But to start inside and from politics is a hopeless position.

      The Left is at heart a utopian, and thus totalitarian, political movement whose ideas for living can only be achieved (if they can be achieved at all) with total control of the government. No good idea or movement requires that. Christianity does not require that. Heck, membership in the YMCA or Lion’s Club does not require that. Being a conservative does not require that. But being a “Progressive” requires that for their goals to be achieved, they must take control of government and that government must be totalitarian (that is, in control of all the details, large and small, of how people live their lives).

      To identify with politics of that level and thoroughness is not good. And all the kooky problems we run into spring from that.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        This notion of liberals finding their identity in politics, or to be precise in reflexively accepting all the current liberal political fads, is exactly what I have in mind with the concept of “professional liberal” (which I first encountered in Allen Drury’s Capable of Honor, a term that doesn’t describe such liberals).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Sounds like a hit to me. How’s that book by Limbaugh coming?

          If I had to say what my identity was, first and foremost it would be a man. No, not perhaps the manly-man type of Grizzly Adams or Shane, but one of our most obvious and distinguishing features is our gender (and there are really only two of those). I say if you can’t make some peace with that — along with its responsibilities, strengths, and weaknesses — that one is setting oneself up for a whole lot of unhealthy kool-aid and bad ideas. There is plenty of room for variety and self-definition within this first tier. I’d like to think I’m Chuck Heston with better teeth, but he was one hell of a guy and hard to match, even remotely.

          My next identity is that of a shy, reclusive, computer nerd, classical liberal, artsy-fartsy, geekish non-30-minutes-of-fame, iconoclastic, thoughtful, intelligent, inexperienced, brave, chicken-hearted American. That’s quite a mix but then who said that isn’t how people are? We’re a whole bunch of things, not just good or evil.

          Probably lowest on my list, surprisingly (or not so surprisingly), is the metaphysical identity — atheist as opposed to theist, for example. The way I see it, reality is what it is, whether we know it or not. And how we think about it can certainly influence our behavior. But these types of questions define absolute and concrete certainty…or, really, even reasonable certainty, in my estimation. So I don’t prance around considering myself a “child of god” even if I certainly do not consider myself an accident of random Darwinian chance. I think this is what religion is for. It gives us a way to focus our identity using ready-made parts.

          And, of course, I’m a Steelers fan. I rooted for the Steelers against my own Seahawks when they met in the Super Bowl a few years ago. That should tell you something. And what bad calls? I didn’t see no bad calls.

          And I’d like to think of myself as a writer, a seeker of truth, a prognosticator, a blatherer, and opinionated son of a gun, but one whose opinions are hollow-core.

          But, good god, what would it be like to identify yourself as a Vegan, an Environmental Wacko Child of Gaia, a Hippie, a Crunchy Con, a follower of political fads that seep into the culture not from high art but from the low craft of politics? No thanks.

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    There are a few interesting tidbits I’ve encountered that might fit here. One, I read an article by Cal Thomas on Justice Scalia which noticed his unanimous approval back in the Reagan era, and commented that you probably couldn’t get unanimous approval of Mothers’ Day today. It occurred to me that this was probably true — how any liberals really approve of a day honoring mothers, given that their highest value is preventing motherhood?

    Second, a California legislator has proposed a ban on state payments for official travel by government employees to any state with a religious freedom law. Apparently it’s been justified partly on the basis of preventing them from being exposed to anything really unpleasant. A good response would start by pointing out that such states are quite happy not to have Californicators visiting them — and follow it up by doing their own reciprocal ban on state travel to California (and any other such state).

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I don’t know if this is an official Trump ad — remember, this is the internet — but what we can know is that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have used the Barking Hillary against her. Trump likely will.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *