| | Fred, a] Do they actually -believe- their approach is going to work in the long run? That is the naive part of me, wanting to believe that they at least believe that, even as I disagree.
b] Or, is their goal the actual destruction of -this- nation and way of life, a kind of nihilism out of which they at least expect a better life to emerge(again, me trying to find sanity in their motivations)? Or...just destruction, total nihilism? And if there is any aspect of this in their motivations, then that is where I am asking you to dig deep, as an explorer in the field of human psyche, to explain that, because I am at a complete loss to see the upside. The short answer is a combination of "Both" and "It depends." Long answer follows:
Each person is different of course. But they all have some sort of operational theory - that is, some set of expectations and ideas as to where they want to go, and what will take them there. But, they also have a set of emotional responses driven by deeply automated value judgments, defensive reactions, and by their individual sense of life and this is in the mix with the theories - driving them.
It's worthwhile to see theory and emotions separately. Obama, for example, might believe that in the long term, his particular brand of socialism/racialism/neo-anti-colonialism/globalism will 'work' and be "right" - but he can't tell us about this wonderful utopia he is driving towards because "we aren't ready to hear that... yet." And his operational theory is to move towards his goal with some things done in the open, where possible, and other things disguised. And a major part of his plan might be to let the old system implode, to fall apart, and thereby generate the need for repairs and major changes, and when it comes in the form of a major crisis, that will make the change politically easier.
At the same time, he probably has deep-seated hatred for many aspects of America as it was... and still is in some ways. He is probably self-aware on some of his hatreds, and repressing many others. The darker and more nihilistic any aspect of his motivation, the more likely it is repressed, and instead of recognizing it, there will be triggers of rationalized explanations that tie to his theoretical orientation - so he can keep on fooling himself as to the degree he is motivated to destroy rather than create or build.
The rule of thumb would be something like this, "For a given level of general intelligence and education background, the more nihilistic the results of a proposed plan, the more likely the person is driven more by repressed demons and using ideology as a convenient fig-leaf." Narcissism is a defense that encourages a person to see themselves as justified in being an elite. It encourages a person to mentally diminish the importance of others. This makes it easier to envision doing harm to them. It is a general purpose routine for demonizing anyone that might get in the way or just not appreciate them enough.
But all of this wouldn't apply to the more gentle souls who just live in fantasy land.
The fantasy land rule of thumb would be about people who tend to be less successful in hard-ball fields of life (like politics). So, when you see someone who proposes full-blown socialism, or anarchy, or some other total disaster, and isn't very good at practical success in the real world (unless their career is in academia, Hollywood, or they are a perpetual student, or massively underemployed), it is more likely they are not driven as much by anger or hatred, and instead are just living in a world of floating abstractions. They are using ideology to create a make-believe world that comforts them - instead of hoping for a world that will crush the non-believers in painful ways. A much different world.
The mechanism that holds all this craziness, of either kind, together is a form of compartmentalization that permits people to be 'rational' and competent in planning and performing a variety of functions, while keeping other areas hidden from themselves with automatic triggers that feed them the prepackaged arguments and propaganda that is appropriate to the moment and to who they are with. Think of a scientist or engineer who is a deeply religious person and takes much of the mysticism seriously - compartmentalization with automatic shielding via prepackage pseudo-thinking taking the place of actual awareness and sound reasoning.
So, it is like analyzing multiple personalities - each of the layers has a somewhat different motivation and the layers are not unlike an onion. All these things rise up through the layers and funnel into single choices being constantly made.
--------------
I'm not sure what you were getting at when you said, "...I'm at a complete loss to see the upside."
--------------
I applaud your son! That is quite an achievement - graduating with the double major from a good school. Mixing economics and psychology makes perfect sense to me :-) I've always thought that psychology is the one part they left out of all the social sciences. We make choices, and the act of choosing is done in an emotional context. That's motivational psychology. Economics should be about finding the natural laws that allow us to quantify the results of aggregate choosing.
|
|
