Politics Thread!

[venusian]

To a man determined to knock in nails, even a rubber chicken looks like a hammer.

[(o)(o)]

I tend to see mental illness as something which impairs one's ability to function, and personality disorders more as labels for the different ways in which people can be irritating to others.

Agreed.. though ... if an individual was diagnosed with say... ooh I dunno... mixed PD involving obsessional traits .. that might be even more irritating to the individual than those around them..

Is irritating the right word tho? Someone who requires 24 hr care could be considered irritating.

Diagnostically PDs are considered more a measure of deviations from the norm than "illnesses" ... but I think that's mainly tautology. PD can cause functional impairment if it prevents a person from living a normal life. They might self harm because they can't manage negative thoughts, which superficially doesn't seem far removed from someone battling depression.

And, yes, perhaps the psychopathy discussion should be split from this thread.

OK OK.. but it shall still relate to politics..

[pogo]

It's got nothing to do with politics. The only diagnostic evidence that's been posted concerns criminals, and even that seems highly contentious so there's no consensus over how useful it is. Nothing similar has been done for politicians, or at least nothing's been posted. There's no evidence it applies to them, none that they're any more psychopathic than the general population.

You can argue politicians are psychopathic as they do things that seem heartless. But you can make a stronger case that they are highly empathic, in their ability to feel and share in people's concerns, in trying to please supporters in their party, people who vote for them, their own leaders/peers.

This is very different from e.g. business leaders who's main concern is making money, for themselves and/or shareholders. Their relationship with their staff and clients/customers is also largely financial. There being a psychopath, able to cut yourself off from people's concerns, would be a definite advantage. You can see it also in many companies with dedicated HR/admin departments which largely exist to isolate bosses from the messy business of dealing with people's non-work problems. Also the many business leaders that stay out of sight: those with a public profile like Richard Branson are highly exceptional.

This suggests your labelling politicians psychotic is not a valid clinical diagnosis, just a political label for something you don't like. Unless you're prepared to back it up with some evidence I'd suggest dropping it, or taking it to another thread.

[VNVObit]

[notaquote=pogo]Politicians, who's main concern is power, for themselves and/or benefactors. Their relationship with their staff and voters is also largely power related. There (sic) being a psychopath, able to cut yourself off from voters' concerns, would be a definite advantage. You can see it also in many governments with dedicated civil service departments which largely exist to isolate politicians from the messy business of dealing with voters' problems. Also the many benefactors that stay out of sight: those with a public profile like Rupert Murdoch are highly exceptional.[/notaquote]

yes so obviously different a psychopath couldn't possibly exist in the word of politics

[pogo]

Politicians can't cut themselves off from voters concerns, not elected ones, or at least not for long. They get voted out.

I think some people misjudge how popular certain policies are. E.g. the raising of student tuition fees was condemned by many, and apparently the Green Party will abolish them if elected. Problem is that's just a subsidy for the middle and upper classes that make up the vast majority of university students. And middle class subsidies are not vote winners, especially after the worst recession in living memory. With policies like that the Greens have little hope of gaining more seats:

If the Green party has the best policies, why does hardly anyone vote for them?

The government's policies on immigration, housing, welfare are similar. They may seem heartless but are in response to voters' concerns, on immigration, on the environment, on the welfare bill.

And 'sic' ?? "There" as in "In business", but 'sic' is short for sic erat scriptum and I clearly didn't write that sentence. Write it yourself, don't mangle something I wrote.

[VNVObit]

I clearly didn't write that sentence.

missed the [notaquote]?

[pogo]

I clearly didn't write that sentence.

missed the [notaquote]?

I saw it, but since you seem unable to translate 'sic' means "so it is written", i.e. an exact quote. It can't be both. As I noted 'There' is correct anyway. More importantly I don't care if you critique/misinterpret what I wrote. Write what you think, if you want to have a discussion.

[VNVObit]

I clearly didn't write that sentence.

missed the [notaquote]?

I saw it, but since you seem unable to translate 'sic' means "so it is written", i.e. an exact quote. It can't be both. As I noted 'There' is correct anyway. More importantly I don't care if you critique/misinterpret what I wrote. Write what you think, if you want to have a discussion.

you obviously aren't able to interpret satirical comment or understand when someone is writing a pun (at least when it's aimed at what you hold to be true)

So for your benefit. Your argument that politicians could not be psychopaths holds as much water as a sieve. I am not saying any particular politician is (not qualified to diagnose) just that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a politician could be a psychopath. Your analysis of why business leaders can be doesn't do anything to eliminate this possibility as there are more similarities between business leaders and politicians than you seem prepared to credit.

[pogo]

So for your benefit. Your argument that politicians could not be psychopaths holds as much water as a sieve. I am not saying any particular politician is (not qualified to diagnose) just that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a politician could be a psychopath. Your analysis of why business leaders can be doesn't do anything to eliminate this possibility as there are more similarities between business leaders and politicians than you seem prepared to credit.

I never wrote they could not be. I just see no evidence that it relates to politics.

The thing that business leaders and political (leaders) have in common is that they are leaders, which in theory means they're good at what they do. But they have little else in common.

Politicians rise to the top by dealing with people: on councils, in trade unions, in their constituency, in government. They can bypass some of this - they can be appointed not elected for example - but they have to be able to please and get on with at least some people. They're usually not only chosen by people but are chosen for their people skills, especially at the top. They have other people to take care of actually running things.

This can be true of business leaders but is much more often not. To get ahead in a company you often need to be only good at what you do: a good salesman, a good engineer, etc.. We've all come across examples of the Peter Principle, of some with poor people skills promoted into a supervisory role as they've done well at something else. In some companies there's a lot of office politics involved which can get quite nasty, doing-down or even disrupting the work of others to get ahead. And many business leaders bypass this altogether. There are those who are in charge of the company they founded, then who appoint friends and family into leadership roles instead of the most qualified. There are others who make their money one way then buy their way into business.

It's easiest if you think of which business leaders are likeable, empathic, sociable. There's Richard Branson and ... it's hard to think of any other examples. I'm sure most are ordinary likeable people but many shun contact, use their wealth to hide themselves away, avoiding all interviews, even photos. It's easy to believe there are psychopaths among them, much easier to believe than politicians.

[Darkflame]

Gates always came across as pretty likable to me in interviews. Not that you can tell when you dont personally know someone.
Theres been research that puts many of the top earners as psychopaths, I know that much.

If your talking purely anecdotal though, a lot of US politics certainly seems like it comes from people not caring about...well...people. Your talking there about groups that voted against paying for medical care for 9/11 first responders, for example.

[Harlequin]

Cunningly reacting to opinion polls and media campaigns does not require empathy, and gaining support through personality need require nothing more than the superficial charm that is a primary aspect of psychopathy.

Which reminds me that I should probably get around to seeing the U.S. version of House of Cards someday.

[pogo]

I was actually thinking of MS as a good example: one of the world's biggest companies but for almost all of its history run by its founder, and his college buddy. Apple similarly was run by Steve Jobs until just before his recent death. Google and Facebook still are run by their founders.

In all cases they got into those positions by being very good at writing software or making computers. Mostly that's all they're good at – Bill Gates quit as CEO of MS at quite a young age, presumably feeling he could take it no further. Google and Facebook and especially Facebook are still mostly doing the same sort of business they started, so maybe don't think they need new management and a new direction. Apple is the only one that managed to reinvent itself while still run by its founder (though they had to fire him and rehire him to achieve it).

If you want psychopaths the best candidates are from the likes of the Walton family, the Koch brothers in the US. They are some of the richest people in the US and use their wealth to bankroll the tea party, a nasty astroturf organisation, to promote their agenda, which largely consists of tax cuts for the rich paid for by defunding much of what the US government does. A lot of what the US Republican Party does makes no sense until you realise it's funded by the ridiculously wealthy. Things like trying to repeal Obamacare, close down government rather than allow through debt limit increases/annual budgets, are all back-door ways to try and get further tax cuts for themselves.

[merman]

Peter Oborne has some tough words about Cameron and his lust for power here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... esson.html

The most notable point (which also applies to the phone hacking thread) is that Cameron definitely misled the Levenson. Cameron said that the Press Complaints Commission had cleared Coulson to work at Number Ten - but at that point in 2007 Coulson had not been interviewed by the police or the PCC in relation to phone hacking.

Which also means Cameron told a porky pie in Parliament...

[(o)(o)]

Yep. Under oath!

Under oath, Cameron replied: "I was reliant on his word but I was also reliant on the fact that the Press Complaints Commission had accepted his word, the select committee had accepted his word, the police had accepted his word, the Crown Prosecution Service had accepted his word." But at that point in 2009, Coulson had not been interviewed by the police, CPS or a select committee on the subject: and the PCC never interviewed Coulson personally.

[gravy]

RUH ROH!

This could be interesting then