« Clark Ridiculed McCain and the Left Doesn't Get It: What's Up With That? | Preach's Blog | The Left's Degradation of the Right: A Substantial Impediment to Progressive Change »
The Left and the Right Agree: Obama Is a Sociopath
If by "sociopath," we mean someone who has no real principles and no genuine feeling for anyone he serves coupled with a better than average ability to con people into believing that he is principled and caring, then the Left and the Right are doing a good job of defining Obama as a sociopath. What makes this drumbeat tragic for me is that there is overwhelming evidence that he fits the opposite characterization.
My evidence concerns extensive readings I've done in which quotes of people who actually knew him characterize him as exceedingly genuine, thoughtful, deeply caring, and always concerned to see the best in people with whom he disagreed.
We're just not ready to believe that such a politician exists, because even moderates see people through the lens of prevailing morality that tends to reduce people to caricatures of good and bad. My hope is that Obama will keep leading us, as he did in his speech on race, to empathetically and yet credibly understand each other. His realistic empathy for white racists of the sort who voted against him in Pennsylvania was unique. He was sensitive and used detailed analysis to make the case that these people were understandable and deserving of respect rather than creeps, as so many on the left have said for the past 48 years.
I have plyed realistic empathy in my work as a prison chaplain, a consultant to conflicted businesses, and as a psychotherapist. So I am privy to a case being made in the social sciences that the category, sociopath, doesn't apply to anyone. There's no such thing as a person who doesn't care. That's an appearance. I think that evolving understanding will help us terrifically to more accurately understand people. And I believe that Obama will be a leader in helping us to become students of realistic empathy and use it in our private and public lives to solve the problems that plague us.
In analyzing him, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a deceitful person who is unable to care, or who's caring is repressed. But this one-sided caricture of him is so automatic and unthinking that it's difficult to see it as anything but a moralistic prejudice against Obama. I realize I'd have to write a much longer piece to be very convincing here, but I just want to suggest that, perhaps, it's just plain prejudicial to caricature him as an uncaring, unprincipled man.
My evidence concerns extensive readings I've done in which quotes of people who actually knew him characterize him as exceedingly genuine, thoughtful, deeply caring, and always concerned to see the best in people with whom he disagreed.
We're just not ready to believe that such a politician exists, because even moderates see people through the lens of prevailing morality that tends to reduce people to caricatures of good and bad. My hope is that Obama will keep leading us, as he did in his speech on race, to empathetically and yet credibly understand each other. His realistic empathy for white racists of the sort who voted against him in Pennsylvania was unique. He was sensitive and used detailed analysis to make the case that these people were understandable and deserving of respect rather than creeps, as so many on the left have said for the past 48 years.
I have plyed realistic empathy in my work as a prison chaplain, a consultant to conflicted businesses, and as a psychotherapist. So I am privy to a case being made in the social sciences that the category, sociopath, doesn't apply to anyone. There's no such thing as a person who doesn't care. That's an appearance. I think that evolving understanding will help us terrifically to more accurately understand people. And I believe that Obama will be a leader in helping us to become students of realistic empathy and use it in our private and public lives to solve the problems that plague us.
In analyzing him, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a deceitful person who is unable to care, or who's caring is repressed. But this one-sided caricture of him is so automatic and unthinking that it's difficult to see it as anything but a moralistic prejudice against Obama. I realize I'd have to write a much longer piece to be very convincing here, but I just want to suggest that, perhaps, it's just plain prejudicial to caricature him as an uncaring, unprincipled man.
Advertisement
Thanks for this.
It had me wondering how Michelle Obama's holding up?
This campaign and the media's coverage of it must be making her teeth hurt.
June 30, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto on the thanks.
"My hope is that Obama will keep leading us, as he did in his speech on race, to empathetically and yet credibly understand each other."
Amen.
June 30, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
For most people, a positive description of Obama's character and motivations is just as plausible as a negative one at this point.
For most people, there isn't enough evidence out there to support the negative descriptions of Obama. Those who are eager to accept the negative are usually those who are invested--either emotionally or cynically--in there being truth to such claims.
For most people, unless they are driven by prejudices and preconceived expectations, the benefit of doubt is extended until sufficient evidence proves that benefit is no longer warranted. (I mean, look at how long the American people were willing to give Bush and Republicans the benefit of the doubt!)
John, at this point, I'm more inclined to view Obama the same way you do. I've paid careful attention to Obama's words--both written and spoken--and have yet to see anything (so far) that is wildly out of integrity with the way he presents himself. But I keep my sensors set on "skeptical" because he is a politician and...well...power attracts corrupt humans. And if they're not corrupt when the get into power, they're in danger of becoming corrupted.
Thanks for sharing.
June 30, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Thanks.
As for, 'We're just not ready to believe that such a politician exists...'
Many of us are more than ready and believe Obama is such a leader (leadership trumps politician)!
June 30, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow... you're convincing there... I'm excited about the longer piece too...
July 1, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow... you're convincing there... I'm excited about the longer piece too...
July 1, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I'm trigger happy too!
July 1, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen this characterization of Obama as a "sociopath" anywhere, in fact, this is the first time I've seen it.
This is a very badly constructed argument.
July 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
The post is used to throw the word out there.
July 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD:
True enough. No one's used the word, "sociopath." But it is quite common for the Left and Right, including many of the posters at TPM, to caricature Obama as duplicitous, win at any cost, deceptive, only concerned about his own reputation, and much more along these negative lines, especially in reaction to his FISA position. These are euphemism for "sociopath." The barebones criterion for "sociopath" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is "lacks concern for the concerns of others."
July 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poster defines the word and then claims that this is what others are thinking - that's a strawman by any definition of the term. There is no such thing as "euphemisms" for the word "sociopath", just as there is no such thing as a "'barebones criterion' for sociopath in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual".
It's one thing to make a claim and construct arguments to support that claim; it's something entirely different to manufacture a claim out of whole cloth and under the pretense of the manufactured claim offer arguments to rebut the claim that you yourself manufactured. It is sloppy thinking and it encourages sloppy thinking in readers.
It is this kind of sloppy thinking, this negligence of reason and logic that drives our political discourse and makes it impossible to offer any kind of reasonable, nuanced positions.
July 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you write a title like this stupid title, you run the real risk of having some Nazi from some right-wing blog copy it and use it.
How dumb can a person get?
Change your title.
July 1, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Bev's got it, and dataguy sums it up.
What is yer point exactly, McFadden? I think I could easily put my name in place of Obama's, change a couple of references, and suddenly have an explanation for why some vilify me even though I'm really a caring guy.
July 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, people can call Obama anything they damned well please, as long as it's not "the loser" on November 4th.
July 1, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sociopath = so·ci·o·path, noun, psychiatry a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
I suggest your characterization of Sen. Obama is not only glib (in the true "Tom Cruise" sense of the phrase), but misleading, sensationalistic and, if we are to believe your "prison" experience, dangerous to those you either minister, consult or "treat."
At the risk stirring up the wrath of other commenters, "E-Meter EggBeater Lemon Chiffon Pie with Crunchy Thetan Twists," "Tears on Your Pillow Saltwater Crust Pie," "Leaving Las Vegas Bourbon-soaked Raisin Pie," "Dancing in the Dark Chocolate Pie," "Cheesy Tuna Casserole Pie with the Cheez-It Crust," "It's Cutesy Country Quiche, Lorraine!" "Tex-Mex Taco Pie," "Triple Threat Apple Tarts," "Peanut Butter Cup Custard Cream Pie," "Tanya's Mango Tango Pie."
July 1, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
uh, that was my point, except that I'm arguing that the use of euphemisms for sociopath are the problem. That's tricky.
July 1, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We're just not ready to believe that such a politician exists..."
It's hard to believe, because he IS a politician. And he cannot be a successful politician without acting like a politician.
In any case, if Barack becomes president and if he really is a miraculously wonderful person, he will be able to improve nothing unless the American people pour into the streets and scream for change. The big-money people control everything, and only a sustained public uprising can pry them loose.
July 1, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people objecting to this article, why? The claim from left and right is Obama navigates by calculation rather than moral feeling. To do so is to be sociopathic. That statement should be as unproblematic as Wesley Clark's about McCain's qualifications. It's just, on the face of it, by the logic of it, true. But notice, that's if you calculate what it literally means. If you start reacting according to the emotions the connotations might call up for you, you might react as Sully did about McCain, or as most of the commentators have here. Do such emotions constitute part of "moral feeling." Would we be better to stick with the more calculating way of understanding a statement, which is to say nothing crooked, but true and straight calculation of surface meaning without construal of whatever deep shadows may project from the speech or text for us?
July 1, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink