When it suits the outcomes they prefer, Liberals define away mental disorders – notably of a sexual nature – as nothing more than normal variants. Much false information has gained credence in our society as a result of its dissemination under the guise of "science."
The pervasiveness of poor mental health in this country is arguably the single most costly element in our human and material life. When conservatives approach the issue of mental health in an intelligent and thorough manner, they will find success beyond their wildest dreams.
It is conservatism's job in the twenty-first century to counter the noxious effects of liberalism on the mental health of Americans. Where liberalism supports impulsivity, conservatism must support thoughtfulness and patience. Where liberalism blurs natural distinctions on the basis of sex and age, conservatism must emphasize their importance. Where liberalism encourages separate "realities," conservatism must defend a common, objective reality whose understanding is basic to adequate life functioning.
In the area of preventive and therapeutic mental health care, liberals have long dictated moral values through major mental health organizations, academia, legal organizations, and media. They favor, on the one hand, biopsychiatric theory that equates psychological problems with neurological ones and dismisses the importance of childhood experience and sound upbringing in psychological development. Yet, when it suits the outcomes they prefer, they define away mental disorders-notably of a sexual nature-as nothing more than normal variants. Much false information has gained credence in our society as a result of its dissemination under the guise of "science."
With overregulation and government subsidization, they keep psychotherapeutic training expensive and out of the reach of many who could benefit from it, for either professional or personal purposes. Quality treatment is, thus, unavailable, financially and geographically, for many who need it. Personal problems become social ones, as educational failure, dependency, incivility, crime, and family breakup or non-formation increase exponentially.
In response, conservatives should increase the strength of their own counterpart organizations, bring sound psychological theory-notably, psychodynamic theory-to the public, utilize the market to make psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational services available to all, and make explicit the role of transcendent values in the psychological field. This will lead not only to better mental health and a more functional society, but to less public expenditure related to poverty, family failure, substance abuse, and crime, and, thus, to lower taxes.
Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the idea that the human subconscious has a powerful effect on thought, feeling, and behavior. They are concerned that psychology, in identifying pathogenic factors in early parenting, merely provides an excuse for not taking responsibility for oneself. Or they believe it necessarily breeds self-absorption and works against mature focus on others. These views should be corrected. The subconscious is quite real, and merits attention. Even the Bible comments frequently on the complexity of the human mind. Yet prayer alone is not a substitute for self-exploration guided by a skilled professional. One may think of the matter this way: If your car's brakes are malfunctioning, the responsible thing to do is not to "will" them fixed but to take your car to a mechanic. Likewise, if your thoughts, feelings, or behavior are abnormal or counterproductive, you should put yourself in the care of someone trained to help.
Further, some conservatives note the expressed atheism of Freud, the father of psychoanalysis. Certainly, Freud was critical of superstition and anti-rationalism, which have a basis in some religious traditions. At the same time, his own cultural experiences included both vicious anti-Semitism and a Victorian overemphasis on self-control. These factors, and the general religious skepticism of his time, especially in the scientific community, make his anti-religious views understandable. Still, his work and that of those who have followed him have done much to free the spirits of many grievously afflicted persons.
Freedom from that most oppressive captor, mental illness, should be at the top of the new conservative agenda. Regular attention should be brought to the nature, causes, prevention, and treatment of psychological disorders, thereby empowering the public while reducing stigma. As we should know from the many prominent conservatives who have fallen from grace due to compulsions of various kinds, it takes more than an intellectual understanding of what is right in order to live a life of virtue, productivity, and peace. It takes good mental health. Whatever its cost-human or financial–it pays for itself many times over. And America will know conservatism's worth by the fruit it bears.
The Morning Scramble – 12/30/2008…
News that the British pound has slipped below the euro (H/T – Oil Patch Plug) inspired me today…
Crystal Clear Conservative is shocked, SHOCKED that the Federal Reserve is tripling its space. Well, when it is the primary……
I found this a puzzling essay.
I read it, then re-read it, and at the end of the day I’m not really sure what it is about. The title was really encouraging, and having a wild hair up my own arse about America’s mental health, I sallied forth into the essay, full of hopefulness.
I was excited about the possibility that Intellectual Conservatives might have some new ideas to offer about clinical depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer’s dementia, or domestic violence. For example, I am aware that there is a fine tradition of stoicism in conservative thought, and my mind began to percolate upon the fusion of Zeno with Glasser’s Reality Therapy or Ellis’s RET. I thought Ms. Kass might envision Bowen’s Family Systems Theory fortified with a stiff shot of Russell Kirk.
But I have a sinking feeling this is really all about homosexuals.
The ‘poor mental health’ bemoaned in the opening paragraph? Buggery, I’m guessing, although I’m not really sure. It’s all kind of vague.
After all, the teaser at the outset proclaims that ‘[Liberals] define away mental disorders–notably of a sexual nature[!]–as nothing more than normal variants[!]’ I suppose the writer could be talking about bestiality, or incest, or necrophilia, but I’ve noticed that even Liberals are grossed out by that stuff. So I’m pretty sure she’s talking about homos, mostly.
All of the psychological and psychiatric organizations eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades ago. I get the impression the writer thinks that was a mistake, but she doesn’t really spell it out. I wish she would have given some indication why she thinks that homosexuality should be considered a mental illness, if indeed that is what she is driving at. I’m puzzled by why she would think so. It doesn’t seem like a mental disorder to me.
I could be wrong, though, and maybe this is about larger issues. I noticed that the writer takes a few shots at the mental health establishment, which is allegedly being held hostage by Liberals, who are restricting access to it (for reasons that escape me) and infesting it with Liberal foibles such as ‘impulsivity’ and ‘encouraging separate realities’.
I find this approach of a piece with all of the other IC essays I’ve read (both of them): identify a particular character flaw and ascribe it exclusively to Liberals, while identifying its healthy and wholesome opposite as the exclusive domain of Conservatives. Liberals are Impulsive, whereas Conservatives are Patient. Liberals are idiots-who-think-with-their-emotions, but Conservatives? You betcha, they’ve just flown in from Vulcan.
I'm not convinced I know a lot about liberalism, but I don’t really think that liberalism ‘supports impulsivity.’ Impulsivity is acting without thinking, and is frankly antithetical to success in most endeavors. True, there are plenty of impulsive liberals, just as there are plenty of impulsive, impatient, and thoughtless conservatives. Liberals probably support adaptive spontaneity, and the abandonment of neurotic inhibitions, but impulsivity? That seems like a stretch.
Modern scientifically-validated psychotherapies don’t advocate impulsivity, either, as far as I know. To my knowledge, most psychotherapies are intended to help clients become more functional, less self-defeating, and more emotionally stable. Although there are any number of fringe, New Age therapies that might seem to encourage impulsivity, mainstream therapies (e.g., cognitive-behavioral, behavioral, interpersonal, and psychodynamic) do not. They seem to encourage improved planning, patience, respect for others, and tolerance of frustration. Or maybe I’ve just been seeing the wrong psychotherapists all these years.
Conservatism must ‘defend a common, objective reality’? Yikes. That sounds a little scary to me. Who is to be the arbiter of this reality? Who gets to decide whose reality is the objective one?
Liberals, from what they tell me, don’t ‘encourage separate realities’– they simply recognize that our perceptions of ‘reality’ are colored by our self-interest, history, biology, and culture. When General Custer attacked a giant Sioux settlement (without sufficient scouting, I might add), his perception of objective reality—what was ‘right’, what was ‘moral’, etc—was far different from the Indian braves defending that village. Similar contemporary examples abound. Liberals get that.
And then there is this:
——————- In response, conservatives should increase the strength of their own counterpart organizations, bring sound psychological theory-notably, psychodynamic theory-to the public, utilize the market to make psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational services available to all, and make explicit the role of transcendent values in the psychological field. This will lead not only to better mental health and a more functional society, but to less public expenditure related to poverty, family failure, substance abuse, and crime, and, thus, to lower taxes.———————
I’m not sure why the writer believes that psychodynamic theory is particularly ‘sound’. I guess I’d need more details about what form of psychodynamic theory is being discussed here. From what I gather in a 10 second Google search, the term psychodynamic is associated with classical Freudian psychoanalysis, and some modern variants such as interpersonal psychotherapy and ego-analytic therapies. It could probably stretch into Jungian analysis and the like. I’m not saying that those therapies are ineffective—-just about all therapies seem to have some value—-but in almost every empirical investigation they lag behind more modern psychotherapies in the alleviation of mental disorders. I don’t see any reason to violently oppose psychodynamic therapies, but it is a little hard to find evidence that they need to be more broadly proliferated. Unless, I suppose, one is simply inclined to dismiss psychotherapy outcome research. Not sure why anyone would do that.
Those ‘transcendent values’…hmmm. I’m a little worried by that. I’ll be generous and assume that the writer is referring to The Golden Rule, responsibility, hard work, patience, generosity, frugality, respect, tolerance, and kindness–all of which are perfectly congruent with Liberalism, Conservatism, and modern scientific psychotherapy. I have a lurking suspicion, however, that the values that the writer wants to propagate are more rooted in modern right-wing social conservatism-—anti-gay, ethno-centric, anti-Evolution, fundamentalist, patriarchal—-than in truly transcendent values. But I could be wrong on that, and the writer doesn’t really specify which transcendent values she favors. The devil’s in the details, I think.
I did think the essay ended strong. Not much to argue about in the last couple of paragraphs.
Thanks for an interesting essay.