Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Are Republicans Autistic?
It inspires conviction, faithfulness, right-thinking and devotion to duty - as well as bigotry, self-righteousness, fanaticism and mulishness. It nourished the atrocities of the Inquisition and directed the persecution of Galileo. It propels persons to hoard religious hatred toward others who are mutually hateful. It seduces heroes and martyrs onto the shadowy altars of glory, serving eternal principles that are quickly forgotten. It motivated the execution of innocent persons as witches and it continues to condemn innocent defendants and to liberate guilty miscreants. It incites nations to squander their resources, dissipating their prospects on crusades, blood feuds, and holy wars. And it sustains revered institutions that degrade and threaten humanity, even to foreshadowing the extinction of the species.
--"Autistic Certainty" Donald E. Watson, 1993
Radio personality Jack Rice leapt into the news this weekend by asking if Republicans were autistic. The metaphor is crude, and largely undeserved, but merits further exploration.
The word autism was first used in 1911 to describe human behaviors so self-centered as to suggest failure to process the realities of the outside world in language, and an inability to relate to other humans. In the 1940s symptoms were defined further as social withdrawal, difficulty in communicating, extreme self-absorption, and repetitive or stereotyped behaviors.
Now called Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), it is generally agreed that people with ASD have few linguistic, social, cultural or logical constraints to manage their lives. A current definition adds " ...people with ASD have difficulty seeing things from another person's perspective. Most 5-year-olds understand that other people have different information, feelings, and goals than they have. A person with ASD may lack such understanding. This inability leaves them unable to predict or understand other people's actions."
Historically, severely afflicted individuals have been burnt as witches, honored as shamans, hanged or incarcerated for crimes, or celebrated as geniuses. Adolph Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, Hans Christian Anderson, Charles Darwin, Wolfgang Mozart, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kaczynski, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Charles Richter, and Ludwig Wittgenstein have all been labeled autistic by one or another critic.
Last winter the Kent community was rocked by the terrible tragedy of an 18-year-old autistic youth named Sky Walker beating to death his mother, Trudi Steuernagel, a distinguished professor at Kent State University.
Apparently Trudi did things right - loved Sky unconditionally, got the best professional help available, offered extraordinary opportunities for Sky to be in situations he could handle and among people he could function with.
The horror is that Trudi survived for a week after the attack, probably aware that she was suffering and dying at the hands of the child she had tried to do right by. She had protected him from the consequences of his actions for 18 years, unable to control his behavior. Reality intervened.
The understanding and compassion shown by people in the Kent community, the actions of law enforcement personnel and others in protecting Sky in the succeeding months is admirable. It is the way mature humans should treat the afflicted. Sky has been judged incompetent to stand trial and sent to permanent custodial care.
Most full grown reasonably healthy adults are physically capable of inflicting fatal injuries on another person. And every one of us is, to some degree, autistic - somewhere on the spectrum between full physical, intellectual, emotional and social functioning, and total self-absorption and disconnection from the realities others live in.
We are also, as a society, autistic to some degree. Politically, in the last 8 years we displayed some of the autistic certainties Donald E. Watson refers to: allowing our government to invade a country that had committed no aggression toward us, tolerating the use of torture and indefinite detention of suspects without charge. We now seem to be on the verge of letting a new administration escalate the war that isn't working in Afghanistan.
But what should frighten us is that collectively, patriotically, too many of us are self-centered, disconnected from reality, not communicating effectively but believing myths and mantras that do enormous damage: absolute certainties like "support our troops", "universal healthcare is socialism", "guns don't kill people", "raising the minimum wage creates unemployment", "Bush lied, people died", "the power to tax is the power to destroy".
Interestingly, early this century French economist Bernard Guerrien and his Sorbonne students started a movement called Post-Autistic Economics (PAE) based on the idea that neo-conservative economics and politics have been driven by autistic patterns of thought. They make the case that free market economics is essentially autistic, based on "abnormal subjectivity, acceptance of fantasy rather than reality." (see also James K Galbraith: "Can we please move on? A note on the Guerrien debate" September 2002)
That shoe fits rather too well: the autistic child of neo-conservative economics, generally unresponsive to the real world, to other humans or human language, reasoning and values, has badly beaten our economy, and almost grown strong enough to kill the democracy that nourished it.
The times we live in are threatening. Most of us are not autistic, but are poorly equipped to deal with the uncertainties of today's complex and contested realities. We are easily tempted by the simplistic certainties of fiction and ideologies, and the contrived realities of radio, TV and the blogosphere.
We need to be concerned with the elemental violence of individuals who are not sufficiently socialized to control their own actions. We need to recognize that most violent acts are driven by physical and/or sensory overload, frustration, anger, or the inability to cope with perceived reality. Autistic persons have fewer linguistic, social, cultural or logical constraints to manage their actions, but they almost never act violently out of malice or for ideology.
We also need to be concerned with the entrenched ideological violence of war, torture and YOYO economics. It doesn't help to label one another autistic, fascist, socialist, or racist, but we should be ashamed that we spend our wealth and resources on wars to kill or control one another, and that we reward people who do selfishness better than the rest of us and punish the poor.
Are Republicans autistic? Not more - or less - than the rest of us. Somehow we have to learn better ways to live with the uncertainties of life on a fragile planet with billions of imperfect humans with fallible social and political tools.
And we must learn to be very suspicious of certainties - ideological or autistic - that sustain beliefs that degrade and threaten humanity and foreshadow the extinction of the species.
88 Comments so far
Show AllThis analysis is viciously prejudiced against the autistic, who are not violent, and who do have loving relationships with others; by including the autistic spectrum, the article further attacks many contributing members of society. I would not know where to begin in more accurately describing autism; the article describes something more like sociopathy; and I would concur the Republicans seem that. But we don't need to defame suffering people and their families; nor the happy autistic whose main problem is prejudice such as this. It is despicable seeing such ignorant prejudice on Common Dreams.
"the article describes something more like sociopathy;"
Yup.
The traits of a sociopath are listed below. Everyone applies to most Republicans and an awful lot of Democrats too. Face it our country is being run by a bunch of mentally compromised individuals.
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
Grandiose Sense of Self
Pathological Lying
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Shallow Emotions
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
"Fathers and Teachers, I ponder what is hell? And I say that it is the suffering of being unable to love."--Feodor Dostoievsky
This analysis is viciously prejudiced against the autistic, who are not violent, and who do have loving relationships with others; by including the autistic spectrum, the article further attacks many contributing members of society. I would not know where to begin in more accurately describing autism; the article describes something more like sociopathy; and I would concur the Republicans seem that. But we don't need to defame suffering people and their families; nor the happy autistic whose main problem is prejudice such as this. It is despicable seeing such ignorant prejudice on Common Dreams.
Chill. You are overreacting - to the degree that you do not read the article correctly.
I was a teacher for 35 years. I have had autistic students in my classes. My experience is that while they offer little, if any, interest in others, they demand much more attention from them than do normal children - enormous amounts of concentrated, focused dedication for very little return, socially. They often have one skill in which they outstrip others - memory, ability to calculate, music, etc., which causes others to label them as "idiots savants".
Some of them are violent or even have perverted tendencies, of which they cannot be cured because of their lack of impulse control, empathy or social connectedness. Cannot.
One of my students insisted on following the girls to the washroom, would frequently escape the custody of his EA and lurk. Whenever a girl asked to be excused, he beleaguered her with intimate questions about what she was going to do.
Another student attacked another EA several times - she had to run for her life into the staff lounge for safety while she called for assistance with this violent individual. Because this person had become a threat to the safety of my other students, I had him removed from my class. Someone with more specialized skills and training needed to look after these violent, perverted teens; I had a classroom full of kids to look after.
There are many degrees of this condition, which, truth be told, no one yet understands fully. We do know it is a disease and not a moral failing. Remember this last point.
The author of the article did qualify her terms, suggesting that though Wall-steet solipsism bears some similarities to autism, it falls short of actually being autism. The economist who used the term was using it rather loosely, finding some parallels, but not trashing autists. Sociopathy is the correct term, as you say.
There was no defaming of suffering people anywhere in the article. Ask yourself why you side with the murderer and not the devoted mother he murdered. When people's safety is threatened, it is at least inappropriate to sentimentalize the offenders.
Autism is a condition that does not merit sentimentalizing.
Better to pen a love poem to a brick.
I was hardly siding with a murderer. But violent behavior is not typical of autism, and plenty of non-autistic people murder loving parents (not plenty of either really). Full blown autism requires very close supervision. The author specifically discussed the whole spectrum of disorders, which by using a technical term, both removed the discussion from being metaphorical, and was wildly inaccurate. Aspergers syndrom individuals often have trouble predicting the reactions of others, but are themselves dismayed by this problem.
I don't think I should "chill". I have no problems with epithets like "crazy" or "stupid" which merely imply irrationality on someone's part. To take the actual term of a psychological disorder and describe that disorder clinically (if inaccurattely) and then throw it as an insult, is very exactly like using the n-word to insult someone who is white.
I believe you are correct on this one.
No it's not. There was no "clinical" description. It was an exploration of similarities that ultimately decided the term was inaccurate: "It doesn't help to label one another autistic, fascist, socialist, or racist..."
Your beef is more appropriately aimed at Watson, Rice, or Guerrien, who supported rather than explored the definition as applied to politicians and financiers. The phrase "to some degree" is used repeatedly in connection with the lament that "too many of us are self-centered, disconnected from reality."
Perhaps the problem is applying terminology from one field to another. Perhaps the problem is using a psychological term at all, especially for a moral issue. In that case, "crazy" and "stupid" should be as offensive as "autistic".
Which terms of psychological disorder do you find acceptable to use? Sociopath? Narcissist? Antisocial Personality Disorder? Would these be as objectionable to you as "autistic"? I can only surmise there's a personal history, a raw wound that was raked by that article, or a championing of a cause.
No - it's not like using the n-word, for anyone. Different category.
There's a healthy mix of reasons for my intensity on this issue; some specific to autism, others not. In that mix is the fact that I teach psychology and deal every day with people's misunderstandings of psychological disorders, and have spent a life beating my head against a wall. Autistic or otherwise, most psychological disorders are not statistically associated with violence (though sociopathy and narcissism both are). Horror movies infuse our culture with stereotypes of "crazy, violent people" from whom we need protection. Arnold's analysis plays off that general stereotype, as well as her more specific attack on a particularly non-violent sub-group. Misunderstandings and fear of "weird" behavior have led to tasing and killing of people in mental health crises. I have always been particularly dismayed when so-called progressives partake of a stereotyping and labelling of a vulnerable group. Hate talk is hate talk.
I respect you experience and your sense of justice.
Lay people do tend to use field-specific terms in a, say, careless way. But Arnold's piece is not hate speech. It's an example of a lay person using a scientific term carelessly. And she was stereotyping social/political "conservatives", if anyone.
My question (rhetorical) was: if she had used the field-specific term, socipathic narcissistic, or antisocial, whould you have been as upset"? Where is the champion for those with Antisocial Personality Disorder? (nyah, I wouldn't be one either)
Anyhow, if I had an autistic child somewhere in my life, I would hope to find someone like you to help.
Peace and blessings.
Sorry about double post; my fingers were shaking in anger.
If Caroline Arnold is going to use this human tragedy as an analogy, she needs to get hip to reality:
1) The Republicans, who have always been a minority in this country, now control the political agenda with a minority in the U.S. Congress and a nominally Democratic President;
2) She needs to address this piece to her own party.
The horrors of this specific case fail to make a clear point.
Thanks for the sanity!
You have trapped yourself in a Moibus strip of your own construction by that last sentence.
yeah, too true... democratic fan boys and whores should go down harder than repubs
"The word autism was first used in 1911 to describe human behaviors so self-centered as to suggest failure to process the realities of the outside world in language, and an inability to relate to other humans."
That would seem to be a questionable description of autism, but not so far off the mark as a description of U.S. "exceptionalism" and by no means limited to Republicans alone.
I think "Bush lied and People Died". Does that makes me autistic?
As far as I can tell, only conservatives are autistic.
I, too, wondered why that particular phrase was included. He did lie, and people did die as a result.
When I saw the headline, I thought this article would be facetious and perhaps insulting to people with autism.
But after reading it, I can believe that conservatism is a mental illness, or that what is called conservatism attracts people with a peculiar complex of mental and social defects.
Your last line hit the nail on the head. They are ruthless and vicious. They intimidate the people around them by demonstrating their disregard for human decency at every opportunity. This is why, even in the minority, they can get their own way.
Stop being afraid of them Obama. It's a bluff. They exhibit behavior that would get them arrested if they were ordinary people: Soaking his head in furniture stain, affecting an expression somewhere between stoned and insane, taking the most inhumane position on every issue.
He is a bully and you have to back him down.
I believe they get their own way because the media also frames every argument from their point of view.
That's only because the left doesn't have a point of view to speak of. Every time I ask what the right left idea is... silence.
Yeah, he's listening.
Obama is there on behalf of the power brokers to do one thing: manage the "left" side of the citizenry. He's doing a great job, don't you think?
God I hope not.
So did I, sneaker. I am on the outside, looking in.
Another way of looking at American politics, and the media that covers it, is adolescent.
Way too much testosterone and too much arrogance combined with "a peculiar complex of mental and social defects".
The US behaves internationally like a pubescent male in a quest for physical gratification.
There is no soul or caring in American politics, only a game of who has the most marbles. It's time to grow the heck up. The rest of the world laughs at the very public confessions of the sexual indiscretions of geriatric American politicians. Again I say, grow the heck up.The rest of the world has a whole different attitude about such things. Only a high school jock is as boastful. Grow the heck up. The media slaps a microphone on these idiots, so we get to hear, as well as see them. All the media really wants is to enhance its bottom line. The media, combined with politicians is the Great American Circus.
Adolescent does NOT describe the American people, who, are in general, caring & compassionate individuals. The American "people" willingly help a neighbor, friend or stranger in need. The American "people" express their humanity toward others daily. Your politicians do not reflect your values. What I observe daily are members of Congress who love the media spotlight and fear that it will pass from them if they ever DO anything worthwhile. As long as they continue to argue, the spotlight is on them. The American "people" are grown up and they deserve to be taken seriously.
I really feel for you.
I would describe a significant number of Americans as being adolescent. One only needs to look at the seething hatred of the right for anything that they can describe as socialist to recognize the principals of gang warfare. Even though the right are heavily armed and ready to use their weapons, no blood has been spilled as the non-right seeks harmony through non-violent conflict resolution, an indication of maturity.
I'd say adolescence describes perfectly individuals of the American right.
OK, What is "conservatism"? What is "Republican"? What is "progressive"? What is the right left idea? Do you have any idea? What are we talking about here? Pasting labels is easy, where is the substance?
You "can believe that conservatism is a mental illness"... does this make you a "true believer"?
Autism is probably not the correct term, but it does make for a catchy title, does it not? I believe that more correct terms would be self-centered, selfish, with the fringe elements being psychotic. Classic predator behavior. And a minority of people with these tendencies can be a very vocal and powerful element, even to the point of winning (or co-opting)power from the majority. We normal people fit the classic definition of stooge: one who allows oneself to do anothers bidding.
Kudos for a thoughtful, absorbing, and original extended metaphor on the dreadful ills of our age.
Perhaps in this case Autism should at most be considered a metaphor rather than a label for Republicans (which today, really means Conservatives) and their behavior.
On the other hand, a realistic label for Republicans/Conservatives is easily found by noting that the opposite of Progressive is Regressive.
Are Republicans Autistic?
Republicans are constantly grinding their teeth. The muscles in their jaws are always pulsing. They are gleefully stupid, homicidal and greedy beyond all imagination.
rofl @ "gleefully stupid".
...and proud of it, I might add.
There are 6 billion people on Earth. Every single one of them will have his or her own reality, which can change even in an hour, depending on various circumstances both inner and outer.
Considering reality on that level, the intellectual/emotional/surface perceptual level, reality is a very long spectrum of variety.
But if you consider the idea that reality is that which never changes, then reality has got to be non-physical, beyond space, time, and causation, deeper that the mind, intellect, senses, and emotions.
It is the level of pure existence, pure being, the basis of all life, unseen, perfectly silent, stable and non-changing, but it is the source of all physical creation, the source of all change.
Loss of contact with that reality allows temporal reality to take over, and thus people start to live like dust in the wind with no anchor to keep their thinking orderly and creative.
In the absence of an internal order, people being to crave stability and control. They become haunted by the mere prospect of change.
These political parties are all but finished. They have brought such devastation to the world that the best they can do is flail and rant or run away from their disasters. They are a frightened and sorry lot.
I agree. The answer to the world's problems: "Let it be"
Home run!
I think it is fair to say that most Europeans find the modern Republican party weird and frightening - quite unlike most politicians over here (who are bad enough!). Whether they are clinically autistic, I do think the party attracts some fairly deranged individuals.
A description that could be applied to many Europeans also.
I am sorry but your blanket description of individuals with autism does not jive my experience as the father of an autistic child. My son exhibits true empathy, has a sense of humour, is developing social skills, has friends, identifies emotions in himself and others, is sharing and kind.
It is a spectrum disorder.
Regarding the article, sociopathy or anti-social personality disorder would be closer to the mark, descriptor-wise.
It is a spectrum disorder.
Regarding the article, sociopathy or anti-social personality disorder would be closer to the mark, descriptor-wise.
Yup
and
Yup
I think using the label Autism whether as a metaphor or meant as some sort of insight was bound to be insulting to someone....I figured that the first quote would cause a lot more anger among the religious...but maybe they haven't noticed the article yet.
Personally I think the metaphor is pretty good when you just consider the original understanding of the word,or the fact that there is a wide spectrum and what we call "normal" is somewhere on it. Besides the word and description of sociopath was used (Bush on the Couch, I think) and it didn't get a lot of traction.
What's the use of an analysis of this group of crazy people?
What we need to think about are better, more enlightened ideas and technologies.
So many of these essays are alike. Many of them essentially say, "Look what they've done now."
They are us.
We all contribute to world consciousness in some way.
It's good to regularly experience the peace inside yourself, and allow that peace, energy, and intelligence, the finest spark of your existence, to bring light to your hours and to those around you.
A green forest is green only because the individual trees are green.
Become a radiator of peace.
www.tm.org
http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/
http://www.mum.edu/
http://www.globalcountry.net/
Blanket condemnations of any group shows a lack of intellect. When Beck or Limbaugh says " damn liberals/progressives it shows their stupidity.
I like to believe that liberals at least and progressives too are a bit more thoughtful.
Henry8 says, "Blanket condemnations of any group shows a lack of intellect."
I agree. To point:
From RichM - No one is more pathetically delusional than loyal Democrats who think that only Republicans are the problem.
From ezflyer - As far as I can tell, only conservatives are autistic.
From sneaker - ...I can believe that conservatism is a mental illness...
From Nietsche - [Republicans]are ruthless and vicious.
From WTF - Even though the right are heavily armed and ready to use their weapons, no blood has been spilled as the non-right seeks harmony through non-violent conflict resolution, an indication of maturity.
From Mordechai Shiblikov - Republicans are constantly grinding their teeth. The muscles in their jaws are always pulsing. They are gleefully stupid, homicidal and greedy beyond all imagination.
From Lily_otv - rofl @ "gleefully stupid". ...and proud of it, I might add.
From fpie - The Republicans on the other hand are quite adept at deception
These comments exhibit a complete lack of thoughtfulness, self-righteous bigotry, and a complete dehumanization of your opponents. Aren't these the same faults you found in war-crime perpetrators and slave holders? And Republicans? So who here is the pot and who is the kettle?
Does it ever occur to you that the public has survived abuse from the GOP ? And if you actually read most of what they wrote, they're no fan of the Democrats or for that matter people who wear the "progressive" and/or "liberal" labels and then imitate the worst of the other side.
Listen. I too am sick and tired of party/ideological labels but you are misunderstanding them. I see you're probably new to this site so I would suggest you sit down and take the time to read a lot of what they have to say. They are progressive independents once you get to know them.
P.S.: Yes, you and Henry8 are technically correct since there are plenty of Democrats, Blue Doggy especially, who act no less different. If the author had included both parties Henry8 wouldn't have objected. He knows that most members of both parties stink to the core although I don't agree with him that a young moderate GOP will emerge any time soon.
I'm not sure of the thrust of your comments. My point was that blanket condemnations of entire classes of people are bigoted and intellectually and morally bankrupt. It does not matter who makes those kinds of arguments. The examples listed are from a handful of posts on this thread, but are unfortunately representative of a significant portion of the comments on CD at large. When the other side uses these words, we do not automatically "win" the righteousness award.
To carry the moral and intellectual high ground, such statements should be avoided like any other bigotry. If an argument cannot be carried with reason, logic, and fact, then should it be made?
I can't speak for others but I can tell you this. I don't judge people by their user names unless that user has proven him/herself totally rotten to the core. I go by what they actually write in their posts and respond there. This is how I am tolerant of Henry8 despite some of his controversial positions on some issues that would get him called a rightwinger automatically. I am progressive/liberal leaning but still independent. You just have to realize that most of these people hate both parties. I do too although I am open to any exceptional Democrat or Republican such as Kucinich, Gravel, Feingold, Paul, etc... who shares at least a great deal of our progressive and/or liberal values. I've grown up in conservative rural MO myself before I moved to St Louis a few years ago but when I visit every now and then, it's amazing how some otherwise social conservatives are crying for single payer health care, ending the costly and bloody wars and occupations, reining in Wall $treet and saying no to bailing them out, etc... Stick around. You'll know these people more when you read more of their posts and why they posted what they posted. Whether you will like it or not is up to you from there. Take care. :)
Mr Dimm, why, perhaps we got Hitler all wrong. After all, he liked dogs. Perhaps he just had a miserable childhood. Perhaps there were some thoughtful, kindly Nazis. Perhaps we got GWB all wrong too, as he is just a fun-loving guy who likes fart jokes. Perhaps we should continue polite innocent dithering with the people that WILL NOT LISTEN to any reasonable thing, and we just remain above the fray, while every progressive thing continues to get the shit kicked out of it by the bullying corpofascists and right-wingers (who turn into crybabies when they get pushback, or blowback as Chalmers Johnson would put it.) They must be stopped, and they cannot be reasoned with. But Waltdimm sounds just like the apologists for the corporate MSM... the fair and the balanced (Not).
Sadly, we can't say, hey, Mollie Smith of Podunk, MO is an OK person and yet a Republican, and go on down an itemized list of innumerable individuals. We must perceive the basic thrust of the guiding philosophy of a group, such as slaveholders, and CONDEMN THE ENTIRE GROUP- so that others will learn NOT to belong to that group. Otherwise, we will only get the waffling and flailing we get now.
Know your enemy for what they are. And this contempt for Republicans has not come out of the blue, or come instantly due simply to ethnicity for example; the reactions you quote have been years in the making and learning and understanding. So they are in fact thoughtful comments, and not bigoted in any real sense of the word you use for derogatory purposes.
And by the way, Walt Dimm, you condemn the people you list as thoughtless, self-righteous, bigoted dehumanizers... as you complain about blanket condemnations. So guess what? You are the pot.
"Blanket condemnation of any group shows lack of intellect?" And then approximately 7 comments down Henry8 continues his criticism of europeans. Hmm?
What's the matter with Henry8? He always shows resentment of Europeans. Has he even been to Europe or is he just jealous that Europeans have cleaned the USA's clocks on everything? His jealousy of Europeans shows up on most of his comments on this site.
He isn't always that way. He likes the European models of health care since most of them are closer to single payer for instance. He is also against extreme warfare depending upon how you put it. He is a social liberal on jobs but on the issues of environment, immigration, and foreign policy he can be insensitive at times. I'll still respect him though since he does have at least a portion of a heart when one adds up everything he says on the issues.