The American people are all really just would-be flawless chickadees polluted by corporate marketing and war propaganda.

r, s—

Why is it that everybody with a patriotic name in this thread is a nincompoop?

That’s not exactly a diagnostic label, true, but it does seem to augur poorly for America, does it not?

It’s far less arduous than reading the entrails of birds, however. One only has to come to TD to see what the future holds in store for us.

Me, I’m rather pleased. In summary, I agree that America is rather messy.

Hubris. Nemesis. Splat.

Turdblossem never ran for any office, he is out of his league when he offers criticism.

A neocon of the first order.

patriot10101:

Step away from the crack pipe. Let us know when you get out of rehab.

Rico, suave,

I said I was a mental health professional and have both diagnosed/treated mental disorders. No apologies necessary, however.

As a postscript, I might also note that I have a good sense of the absurd and believe our understanding of mental “disorders” relies of a lot of assumptions that are very problematic. It stands somewhere between “leeches and the early 20th century.” It will mature only when our species does.

My issue with Rove, once again, was not really so much about labels but about his right-wing politics (e.g, Bush’s brain), utter lack of principle (e..g, signature propensity for character assassination) and his apparent lack of empathy with all things living or dead.

That said, he is indeed a social Darwinist, a Machiavellian who understands the rules of real-politik, and while I disagree with his own politics, I sorely wish the left had someone of his caliber and ruthlessness on its side.

Instead it has victims and moralists. But as Dylan once said, there’s no success like failure and failure ain’t no success at all.

psychobabbler:

Brilliant

Karl Rove is an enemy to this country because he promotes policies that lead to a
further enslaved, over worked, under paid, and uninformed public.

I’d say that he suffers from blowhardJerkasism.

I wish someone would give him his honorary degree/coffee cup/trophy and put
him back in his cage.

mdgr:

“Per the DSM IV, which I myself use in my practice,”

????

mdgr:

My apology. Did I misread? You said you were a psychologist didn’t you? Your reference to the DSM led me there.

Rico, suave—

What I have said is that presenting a folder of evidence is, from my perspective, superfluous. I am not saying that your question is unreasonable, but I am simply not going there.

My metaphor about spectacles also includes the range of our separate experience, and the inferences and conclusions we have drawn from it. No disrespect intended, but in my view, debating the evidentiary issue is something akin to debating the “evidence” for or against Scientology with Tom Cruise.

I didn’t suggest I was a “doc,” and the diminutive terms really is not necessary. I also did not conflate Rove’s being a monster with his enormous skills as a strategist.

On the other hand, I might well have, which is to say that when I called for sound strategic thinkers on the left, yes, I am also calling for ruthlessness and cunning, for people who might enjoy pulling the wings off of their political opponents and who have the foresight and skill to pull it off.

And, yes, we need more “monsters” of that kind on our side. More real-Darwinians as you conservatives might say.

I was asked previously about Carville. I consider Carville a joke—a very self-inflated joke, not to mention alien—but let’s not go there. I’d much rather have Rove on our side than Carville, however.

Yes, you are right about lawyers. I think that’s the **real** reason why they’re so despised, but you and I probably would have made pretty good lawyers. There are limits and principles, however, and thus far, I see no sociopathic nor psychopathic traits in you, nor in myself.

Both Rove and I can see around the corner. The difference seems to be that he is absolutely unprincipled in executing his kills. Me, I would simply delegate it (Armitage in the Plame case, for example) and hide behind my alibi of plausible deniability.

Then again, maybe I myself have a few psychopathic tendencies of my own. It might be good for the left. I’m inviting Hannibal Lector to dinner. Want to come and join us?

Being a conservative is not a pathology.
*****************

No, but Rove is not a Conservative. He’s a radical reactionary, which is utterly different than a Conservative, but hides behind the label of “Conservatism” without being anything of the sort.

I respect Conservatives, but there are damn few of them left.  Bad money always drives out good money, and radical reactionaries have driven out Conservatives.

doc:

“Rove’s clinical status arises from certain specific markers, mostly the utter lack of empathy and conscience, and a propensity to use any means necessary to achieve his ends.”

Yes but you haven’t given me any specific examples (ok one, Plame) of behavior which would attach Rove to any of those markers. Show me an example of “lack of empathy” in Karl Rove that sets him apart from say, half the posters here on truthdig. Show me a specific example of “lack of conscience”. And if a “propensity to use any means necessary to achieve his ends” qualifies one as a sociopath, then every major politician and lawyer worth his salt is a sociopath.

Being a conservative is not a pathology.

Rico, suave—

Love the Q.E.D. flourish at the end. It should have been in PowerPoint.

Rove’s clinical status arises from certain specific markers, mostly the utter lack of empathy and conscience, and a propensity to use any means necessary to achieve his ends. The diagnostic markers are referenced in the URL I previously cited. Don’t worry, Atwater would also have qualified.

I won’t bother you with the many examples of character assassination, etc., because you would probably say there’s insufficient proof to link him, say, to Valerie Plame, et al. We each rely on favored sources, however—we both have different spectacles through which we see the world—and it seems inappropriate to rehash all the evidence in a TD post.

I do not share your lofty opinion of Obama’s character, and setting aside the sophistry leading to your Q.E.D. moment, I disagree with you about the need to contextualize the messenger in evaluating their political message.

If you don’t, you might very well get:

(1) I broke most of my campaign promises.
(2) So did my party (hopey, dopey, ropadope).
(3 Vote for me in 2012.

Q.E.D.

Thanks, but no thanks.

mdgr:

Ok, let’s digress for a while. What behavior exactly qualifies Rove for sociopath status? For psychopath status? I am relying totally on your professional opinion here. No trick question. No “gotcha” waiting.

Actually, I’d rather not tie Obama to his message. He’s very smart and articulate, unlike his most recent predecessor. I’m sure he is of fine moral character, loves his wife and kids, yada yada yada. But when you tie a message to a messenger you come up with a syllogism sort of like this:

Karl Rove is a conservative ideologue.
Karl Rove is a sociopath.
Conservative ideologues are sociopaths.
QED

Very tidy. Very persuasive. Very unfair.

If I said:

National health care is a socialism.
Obama is for national heath care.
Obama is a socialist.
QED,

you would object that it proves no such thing.

Rico, suave—

I agree with Rove’s message here, but no, I do not believe it is appropriate to abstract the message from the messenger. I think Rove’s character is relevant—not in attacking this discrete message, but in any discussion arising from Rove’s posting.

I am fairly democratic here, even if I’ve long despised the fiction of democracy except as it applies to small and presumably literate city-states. It worked in ancient Greece but it sure as hell doesn’t work in America. But that’s a different side trip, and I apologize from that unmannerly digression.

What I meant to say is that Obama too is a messenger. He blows smoke from both sides of his mouth, and by this time, many people know it. I’m sure you’d want to tie his message (hopey/changey) to the character of the messenger. Well, I want to do the same relative to Rove.

BTW, having said Rove’s a “monster,” note that at the beginning of this thread, ITW and I started by agreeing that Rove was smart. That was, in fact, the main thrust of our posting, although we did submit certain caveats.

It took Marshall and Righty to move off-point from that message, making sweeping generalizations that political advisers (such as Hermann Goering and Himmler, one assumes) should have been exempted at Nuremberg from criticism because they served their masters well.

Don’t blame me and ITW for that. Blame the morons on TD.

Marshall:

No, in my mind you are more than entitled to you opinion, as I am to mine. What I will not do is cheapen myself by debating with fools.

There are many good posts on Truthdig, but all of them get buried in the barrage and mire of flaming, and this applies without exception to virtually every thread. Few of them are even read by other readers. They get hijacked by people like you.

What typically occurs is not an enhancement of one’s debating skills—again, why would one want to debate with someone an analytical of a 12 year old—but one’s flaming skills. Once again, why would I wish to waste my time doing that with you when there are more subtle minds out there with whom to do that.

Per the DSM IV, which I myself use in my practice, Rove qualifies as an “Antisocial Personality.” That diagnosis isn’t a mater of opinion—anymore than diabetes is—and, yes, I am a mental health professional. It may sound like a harmless title—almost campy by today’s standards—and that’s one of the reasons why the DSM V would be inclined to characterize Rove as a Antisocial/Psychopathic Type. The DSM III would have merely called him a psychopath, though he might have brought a letter from his mother stating he was only a sociopath. Goering, Himmler and other political advisers to Hitler have assuredly been called the same—so Rove is in good company—as would your buddy Hannibal Lector. I sincerely hope you enjoy your proverbial dinner together.

I’m sure that you, righty and other trolls on the of like mind (sic) will flame me for this. I will not be responding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

‘I never said anything about Rove and “socio- or psychopathology”. ‘

well, i’ll say it. he’s a sociopath

I never said anything about Rove and “socio- or psychopathology”.  I just said he was the Devil-incarnate…..

Let’s stop talking about Rove’s mental health. Let’s talk about what he said, that being, I think, that Republicans should take nothing for granted from the election results.

(To mdgr and ITW- I really don’t find much socio- or psychopathology in those statements.)

Gee, Marshall, I guess you don’t remember (or don’t want to remember) all the fancy foot-work Rove pulled to keep out of the view-finder on the Plame outing.  Yeah, nobody knew nothing but Armitage…I guess you don’t recognize the “patsy” in that mess.

And let’s not forget the push-poll in the 2000 SC primary, where Rove & Co. desperate because McCain had whipped Bush’s ass in NH, started calling people saying “Would you vote for McCain knowing he had an illegitimate Black daughter?” (or words to that effect).  McCain IS father to a (technically) illegitimate Black daughter: He and Mrs. McCain adopted Bridget, a Bengali girl born out of wedlock who needed a home and a family.  Rove took something beautiful and pushed the red-neck button to make it seem something sordid and ugly…and it worked.  Bush won SC.

I suppose Rove is no different than James Carville or Paul Begala (he just may be better at it).  But I don’t hold much respect for them, either.

ITW and mdgr,

Every divisive tactic has been tried — and yet so far found wanting. We have gone through, in creepy Alinskyite fashion, all the bogeymen, JournoList enemies — Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Justice Roberts, the Tea Party, John Boehner, Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie and the Hamburgler.

Keep trying.  I applaud your dedication to the lowest, easiest, common denominators in politics.

By mdgr, November 4 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

Guess what mdgr - I don’t respect Hannibal Lecter’s ruthlessness of spirit.  That
would be a pretty sick thought were he real.  I do however find oddness in
criticizing a political advisor’s effectiveness at performing his job, which is by
definition the success of his candidate.  I suppose you respect James Carville’s
abilities but find nothing malevolent in his success because you agreed with the
policies his candidate supported.

Just as Inherit is entitled to his legally unsupported opinion of Rove’s role in the
Plame affair - though we already know it was Armitage who outed her - I renew
my observation that comparison’s like Lector/Rove are attempts to win debate
by disemboweling the process; it’s the hackneyed Hitler comparison in a
hockey mask.

I understand that one way to square the savvy rhetoric of an admittedly sharp-
minded and insightful political figure is to frame him as simply a sociopath akin
to a mass murderer but I think that’s far flung and shallow.  I’d put, say,
Blagojevich into the sociopath category along with many other functioning
politicians I’m sure.  But I’m gonna pass on the mass murder comparison.
Perhaps you’re one of those far lefties that believes that anyone who supports a
war is automatically guilty of war crimes, in which case we’ll have little common
ground for discussion.  But no, Rove is no culture hero in the same way that,
say, Obama was to the legions of adoring but now disillusioned and rightwardly
leaning ex-fans.  But I don’t think his savvy and clarity of thought is the engine
of a malevolent psychopathic monster as you seem to.  I respect both his
intellect and his positions, which perhaps in your mind makes me a psychopath
as well.

Marshall,

Are you serious?

There have been many very astute generals, many of them utterly lacking in principle. There have been many villains too. Karl Rove’s main concern was always for the ends, and he has used any means to get there. He appears to have no conscience nor any principles either—other than winning, most often through the mechanism of character assasination.

If he’s your culture-hero, best not give other people lectures in ad hominem attacks. It reeks of hypocrisy.

Let’s put it another way so as not to offend your delicate and evidently far-right sensibilities:

While I respect Mr. Rove’s ruthlessness of spirit, I wouldn’t want to invite him for dinner. I respect Hannibal Lector’s ruthlessness of spirit as well, and the same misgivings would arise relative to a similar kind of dinner invitation.

Marshall,
I guess you are one of those who loved all of Bush’s policies, which Rove made possible.  Rove worked with Cheney on the “outing” of Valerie Plame.

I respect his political acumen.  I hate what he uses it for.

No Republicans didn’t win… The Tea Party won…

That is your first mistake Mr. Rove..

the next one will be trying to make them behave…

Curious why mdgr and Inherit think so badly of Rove despite the praise for his
thinking?  I think the guy is brilliant and find little wrong with his stances on
policy.  He may disagree with yours, but that doesn’t make him “the devil” or “a
psychopath”.

I see this kind of demonizations as another inherent roadblock for the left: it’s all
too quick to dismiss the opposition not on issues, but on ad hominem.

hello. i am saddened by the entire voting charade.
the election cycle for the next has officially begun.
it is like a huge magic act upon the public. the
special interests will continue to write unreadable
laws, no agencies will be abolished, small business
will continue to be hammered along with the American
Dream, and the political charade of unaccountable
taxation and secret agendas will prevail. they are
one big party spouting the same deceptions -
misdirection and deceit(it’s magic). voter fraud,
campaign fraud, fraud fraud in government fraud,
criminals getting rewarded- they all know now to talk
the talk. they gloat over absorbing the Tea Party,
and i think we really need a third party. this is no
longer working, and the power is entrenched, and
untouchable. it is truly saddening.

Inherit”

Agree. Rove is a strategic thinker.

He makes mistakes, but he also understands group dynamics the way few on the left do. Losing the forest through the trees is a particular talent of liberals, unfortunately, and I trust that I am using that term with appropriate disdain.

Obama has some decent campaign strategists in 2008, true, but that was very time-limited and lifetimes ago. He mostly had good luck. At this point, he has neither strategy nor luck going for him.

Rove may be a sociopath—even a psychopath—but he is smart and he’s usually rounded the corner long before the Dems have even zipped up their pants. We need people on the left (progressive, not liberal left) who can think strategically, even as Rove does.

“My kingdom for a horse,” said Richard III. Me, I would take one strategic thinker.

Rove may be the devil-incarnate, but at least he’s no dummy and he’s not fooled by the result.