Because is actually not an answer

As you surely know by now, my mind has been largely dominated over the past year by the presidential race.  I have always been a bit of a political junkie, but perhaps now more than ever.  I have supported Senator Hillary Clinton essentially the entire time.  I hadn't made up my mind immediately, but by the time the race was in full swing - I knew she was the best person for the job - and I still think she is, and always will be regardless of what happens.

In talking to various people about the election and the candidates, I have come across people that say, "I wouldn't vote for Hillary, I don't like her."  Oh, ok - that's fair enough, I guess.  I would/will then generally follow up with, "Why don't you like her?"  A common response is, "I don't trust her."  Alright, and once again I say, "why?"  Only to be followed with something like, "I don't know, just because." 

Am I supposed to be satisfied with that answer?  Some might say that I should be.  They would say that If you don't trust or like a candidate then you shouldn't vote for him or her.  I understand that point.  But when we look at what it truly means to be an informed voter in the United States of America, to me, that means to know where the candidates stand on the issues and support the one that aligns best with your views.

When someone asks me why I don't support Senator Obama, I can answer with concrete factual statements about the issues.  Would you like to hear some?  Alright.  1) I don't think his health care plan is good enough.  It doesn't guarantee coverage for all Americans - not even close actually.  To me, this is not acceptable.  The country is ready to move towards universal health care, we have to have a president who has a plan to do so.   2) His foreign policy or lack their of is something I find a little frightening.  He is willing to have unilateral talks with anyone.  This is not smart - it is careless and any respected foreign policy scholar will say the same.  3) He has voted "present" hundreds of time.  This is a huge red flag to me.  Is he not able to take a stand on an issue?  Is he so focused on getting to the White House that rather than risking losing the support of voters over a decision he made, he just decides not to take a stance?  This is very disconcerting to me. 

I could go on, but that's not the point of this article.  My point is that I don't care if people aren't going to support Hillary (well that's not entirely true), that is certainly their choice.  I have a problem though when they don't have facts to back up their decision.  

"Because" just isn't good enough.

To the people of Ohio and Texas,

You have a very important responsibility on March 4.  You have a choice to either vote as a truly informed voter who has taken time to look at the issues or a voter who is influenced by unfounded momentum and the media.  

I watched the MSNBC debate this evening between Senators Clinton and Obama.  To me, it is striking how much more she understands every single issue from every single angle.  I know that Senator Clinton isn't able to go as in depth as she would like on certain issues, such as foreign policy, mostly because of party unity.  I wish she would.  If Senator Obama is the nominee you know that John McCain certainly will.

I don't think Senator Obama's stance of never supporting the Iraq war is going to hold up against the republicans.  Senator Clinton touched on the reason a bit tonight, but didn't go too far into it - most likely out of fear of looking too much like a bitch.  She's either too weak or too cold hearted; the poor thing is attacked for whatever she says or does.  Anyway, she stated that when it was time to vote to authorize the Iraq war, Senator Obama was not a sitting senator.  He did not have the responsibility to vote (not that he would have as his record shows).  And as David Gregory points out - McCain is going to focus on this.  Senator Obama did not have access to intelligence, albeit corrupt by the Bush administration.  I wish that people would think back to 2002.  It is safe to say that sadly the majority of the American people thought that Iraq and Saddam had something to do with 9-11.  The Bush administration used its normal tactics of deception to scare the crap out of Americans, and sold the idea that we had to go into Iraq.  

It is easy for Senator Obama to say years later that he never supported the war.  Well, I would suggest that were he a sitting senator in 2002, he most likely would have voted for the war - as most did.  

Is this really his stance on foreign policy?  His judgement that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq?  You have a candidate in Hillary Clinton who has traveled the world and gained the respect of its leaders.  She understands, on every level, what needs to be done and how to get it done.  She understands how dangerous the eastern region is, while Senator Obama's plans seem to only make it more dangerous.

This is no time to vote for another candidate that is not prepared to be president of the most powerful nation in the world.  We've tried that - we've been down this road for 8 years, and I do not want to go down it again.

Well, I could ramble on and on and on and on for literally ever about this.  I will however stop and hope that tomorrow brings better news.  

I will leave you with this quote from Gerald Corey. "Although hope can be a therapeutic factor that leads to change, unrealistic hope can pave the way for a pattern of failures." 

This is my point.

Watch this, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

Is Western Society Too Idealized?

Does western culture focus too much on the future and not enough on the here and now? Are Americans so caught up in living the “American dream” that they neglect their real selves? These are just a couple of the questions that have been on my mind lately. Karen Horney’s concepts of the real and idealized self helped propel my thinking on these issues to the next level. Whether it’s encouraging or discomforting, I have yet to decide, but I do think I have a better understanding of what may be happening.

According to psychological theorist Karen Horney, children who receive loving satisfaction of their needs develop into productive adults. If they experience the basic evil, inadequate parenting, they stray from their real self and develop neuroticism. Along with neurotic behavior they develop an idealized self, which is a fictitious view of who they should be. It is a distorted view that cannot be achieved. This concept is perhaps the one that has resonated with me the most so far. Horney often referred to the ideal self as the “tyranny of the shoulds.” I would venture to say that almost every person in the United States, several times on a daily basis, uses the phrase, “I should really…”

I do subscribe to the importance of childhood as it relates to development. The first years of life are clearly extremely formative and provide a basis for our hopefully fruitful future. With that said, I would like to take Horney’s theory a step further. Can an individual develop an idealized self even after experiencing healthy childhood development?

I think the answer is yes. While I haven’t conducted any research on those questions, I would suggest that there are a plethora of case studies at our fingertips: American citizens. I think that the pressure to succeed and achieve goals has become a staple of American culture, in some ways to its detriment. The notion of achieving the American dream, owning a beautiful house with a family while holding down a job that brings in at least a six figure salary, is ingrained in the minds of almost every American. We set goals and if we achieve them, we have to set more goals. Essentially, we are never satisfied; we always need more. I realize this isn’t true for every American, but I think a great many.

Some might suggest that there is nothing wrong with setting goals and achieving them. I agree, if the cost to the self doesn’t outweigh the benefits. According to Horney, people who live in accordance with their real selves are on the way to self-realization. The question to ask then is whether this goal-driven society is living in accordance with the real self or the idealized self. I think that people can have a very healthy concept of self while achieving goals in life. However, it seems to me that many Americans might not be on a path to self-realization.

Perhaps my pessimistic view of western culture and its lack of emphasis on the real self is a bit much for some people to take, but I do think it is a genuine problem, especially in the United States. My suggestion is that we take some advice from Horney and try to live in accordance with our real self. That might mean slowing down and actually spending some time with our own person and getting to know him or her. It would certainly do us all some good.

Someone recently asked me...

how do you suppress bad thoughts? In order to address this topic one first has to define "bad" thoughts. There are several ways to approach the concept of bad thoughts and depending on your background and values these approaches can be quite varying. I might suggest that there is a continuum of "badness" on which our thoughts might lie. There are the extreme thoughts of harm and deviancy that are essentially indisputably bad. But then there are the thoughts of yearning or pride, which while some consider bad, others might say are actually fairly good.

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume we are speaking of the indisputably bad thoughts. So how does one go about repressing such thoughts? I would say that one should not. Attempting to suppress one's thoughts is essentially volunteering to create psychological problems due to repressed emotions. Individuals spend thousands of dollars in therapy trying to uncover their repressed thoughts. People with dissociative identity disorder have suppressed their thoughts to the point of creating alternate personalities to deal with the thoughts. But people are wondering how to actively suppress bad thoughts? I would warn that this should be a practice to avoid.
Rather than suppress these thoughts, why not be as aware of them as one is able? Western culture, for years, has been creating a society of repression in regards to freethinking. So little value is placed on self-awareness and development of the true self. We are almost forced to conform to the notion that taking care of your true self first is a selfish act, when in fact it could easily be argued that the only way to truly care for others is to care for yourself first.

By being aware of bad thoughts that enter one's conscious, one is able to reflect on these thoughts and attempt to determine what it is that is causing these processes to occur. I tend to think there is an explanation for most things; if you are having negative thoughts about something, isn't it best to examine the situation and figure out why these thoughts are occurring rather than pretending they don't exist? The risk of suppressing such thoughts is too great. The only way to truly know one's self is to consciously be aware of one's thought processes - suppressing these ideas can only lead to a path of unhappiness and possible destruction.

Is it really a dilemma?

Existentialists refer to the human dilemma or object-subject dichotomy as people being both the object and the subject of their existence. Humans have the capacity to themselves as objects to which things happen, as well as subjects who act on their experiences. In many way, this is what sets humans apart from other animals; the ability to step outside of ourselves and see ourselves acting in the world as well as being acted upon. Is this a dilemma or rather a healthy understanding of self?

I suppose it depends how far you take it on either end of this continuum of object or subject. You have behaviorists who advocate that humans are objects with little to no subjectivity. This is such an extreme stance and for me, very difficult to subscribe to. I certainly understand that a lot of behavior is learned and much of what we do or who we are is a product of our environment. However, to say that is the essence of who we are is placing us in the same category as every other animal on earth. Do behaviorists put themselves in this category? It’s hard for me to believe that they themselves think they are not free thinking individuals.

On the other end of the spectrum would be someone like Rogers (whom I love). He perhaps focused too much on subjectivity. The idea that our idea of self is developed only from our subjective view of our phenomenological field is again, a bit too extreme. This suggests to me that humans all live in their own little world and essentially choose what they want to be aware of. Perhaps there is some truth to that, but I would argue not to the extent in which Rogers thought. I think there are many stimuli from physical reality that have great influences on us, whether we are aware of or not.

It seems as I continue to write, I am aligning with May, who believed it a mistake to stress one side of the dichotomy over the other. It’s all about balance, which tends to be in a theme in all aspects of life. Once people are aware that they are both the object and subject of their existence, they can use that in their pursuit of self-actualization. The only way to become self-actualized is to be aware of one’s self, understanding not only one’s desires, but the also the motivations behind those desires. If you don’t have the ability to self-relate, this could be a difficult task.

With all that said, I would suggest that there are a great number of people living amongst us today who are simply the objects of their existence. Existentialists argue that all humans have an inherent need for meaning. This may be true, but I think that a lot of people perhaps haven’t yet realized that need. They go about their daily business, always looking for something new, something that might give them a sense of contentment. They seem to use material objects as a means for defining that sense of contentment or perhaps providing is a better word, while never taking a moment to ask themselves, “What is it that I really need?’ I think it is a sense of meaning they are looking for; they just don’t know it because they haven’t taken the time to be subjects of their existence.

So where do I sit on this continuum of object-subject? Well, at this point, I would lean towards the subject pole, while realizing the importance and large impact that the objectivity pole has on existence. I think to be extreme on any stance in life can be irresponsible. There aren’t many things that are cut and dry (although it sure would be nice if there were!), but having a balance and truly understanding the impact of all influences is crucial to succeeding in the pursuit of happiness.

Super Tuesday

Vote.  There is no other option for American's during this primary season.  I've run into people these last few days who have said they aren't planning on voting and probably never will.  Not only do I find this shocking, I also find it embarrassing and it actually makes me fairly upset.  

How many people around the world would love the opportunity to vote?  How long did women in our own country fight for the right to vote?  And now people take this privilege for granted and almost treat it as a chore.  This isn't right.

These are the same people who complain about the workings of government.  These are the people who often are unhappy with how their tax money is being spent.  This makes me furious.  You don't vote, but you think you have the right to complain about anything?  Ridiculous.

We have an extremely important duty today and the remainder of this election season.  Get involved, get informed, look at and compare stances on issues, and do your duty as an American - it's never been more important in my lifetime.

I'm inspired!

I just spent the afternoon at a Hillary Clinton rally at Augsburg College in Minneapolis.  I have been supporting Hillary all along, but after seeing and hearing her speak, there is so doubt in my mind that she is the person I want to see in the White House.  The energy in the room was incredible and Senator Clinton inspired me to tears.  I will now work tirelessly to do what I can to make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States.  

And so I begin...

Top Ten Reasons to Support Hillary Clinton for President

1. To end the war in Iraq.

2. To achieve universal, affordable healthcare.

3. To create good jobs for Americans by investing in modern infrastructure and in clean, energy-efficient technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and combat global warming.

4. To provide world-class education, from universal pre-K to affordable college for all.

5.  To promote 21st century scientific innovation, including stem cell research.

6.  To return fiscal responsibility, move back toward a balanced budget, and safeguard Social   Security and Medicare.

7. To restore competence and end cronyism in government.

8. To combat terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans.

9. To restore America's standing in the world and repair our alliances.

10. To build a more tolerant, united America, working to achieve big goals again.

This is a time in our country's history in which it is not time to play games.  We desperately need a president who is prepared to immediately start whipping this country back into shape.  Someone who knows what it takes to get things done - this person is Hillary Clinton.

Strangers to Ourselves, or not?

I have spent a great deal of time lately considering unconscious versus conscious processes. This is mostly likely due to a book I recently read, Strangers to Ourselves, by Timothy Wilson. The focus of the book is the adaptive unconscious, its processes, and how to adjust our behavior through understanding the goals of the adaptive unconscious. While reading the book and everyday since I finished it, I continue to ponder the importance or rather the power of the unconscious. Wilson uses several analogies to illustrate the varying points on the continuum of unconscious control of the self. I’m still trying to figure out which point on that continuum I subscribe to.

On one end of the spectrum is the extreme of the unconscious essentially controlling all aspects of whom and what we are while the conscious plays a very small, minute role in daily functioning. At first reading I thought this idea to be a bit too extreme, but upon further reflection is didn’t seem all that crazy to me. Perhaps our unconscious is so powerful and manipulative (maybe too strong of a word) it leads our conscious to believe that it is making the decisions, when in actuality the unconscious has already decided what the decision will be. According to Wilson, the goals of the unconscious are strong and are hard to break. If we are unaware of these goals, I suppose it is possible to move through life aimlessly directed by motivations that you are completely unaware of. This idea might explain why people occasionally (or maybe too often in some cases) act in strange, unexplainable ways. In attempting to explain why someone did something, the individual might suggest that he really doesn’t know; that he was acting outside of himself. If they are so unaware of their unconscious goals, that certainly may be true.

On the opposite end of the continuum the unconscious and conscious trade roles. The conscious is in complete control while the unconscious is there to perform basic tasks that the conscious can’t be bothered with. I think this would be the perspective that most people would and do subscribe to. The notion of being in complete control is often comforting, however I think to dismiss the idea that there are unconscious goals that push us in certain directions is dangerous. Do we really want to have all of the responsibility of controlling out destiny? Is it possible for our conscious to process, evaluate, interpret, and draw conclusions on all that we take in as humans? I would say no, it is not possible, and I think almost every scholar of psychology and neuroscience would agree. So it seems at this point, I’m leaning towards the other end of the continuum (I really didn’t feel that way when I started reading the book!)

There is one last point on the continuum that Wilson discusses. On this point the conscious and unconscious are a team, they work together evaluating and interpreting information. They divide and conquer, one working with specific information and processes, while the other does the same with another set of information. It often takes both to make an informed decision. This idea might be the most comfortable to me, but I’m not sure if it’s the most accurate. I think that I’m making a decision about what I want to have for dinner, but how can I be certain that my unconscious hasn’t made that decision?

The best conclusion for me at this point is that the roles of the conscious and unconscious lie somewhere in the middle of the continuum. This is a very interesting topic for me and I look forward to consuming more research and perhaps doing some of my own. Will we ever know the truth on this matter? It’s hard to imagine at this point.

The Dream Team

The democratic presidential debate in South Carolina was depressing, to say the least. It was extremely negative with each candidate attacking the other on pointless issues. It resembled an elementary schoolyard squabble more than a presidential debate. It made me so uncomfortable at times I had to look away as I witnessed my beloved party falling apart being my eyes. I had visions of 2004; an election the democrats should have won, but didn't because the party couldn't get its act together and the campaign was a joke at best.

Thursday evening's debate was polar opposite of that South Carolina debate. As I watched the Senators Clinton and Obama discuss the issues like grown, intellectual adults, I began to get that feeling in my stomach. That feeling when you know you have something firm to stand beside. I've always been an idealist at heart - the debate in California stoked that idealism that was barely hanging on by embers within me. I could feel the excitement around the country from my couch in my living room - change in the right direction is on the horizon.

So are these two Senators going to run together? Who knows. I would say though that it certainly doesn't seem to be as impossible as it might have a week ago. CNN's Wolf Blizter asked them if it was a possibility. They didn't say it was, but the important thing is that they didn't say it wasn't.

I think the best way to get this country back on track is with Senator Clinton as the president and Senator Obama as the vice president. They each bring to the table a multitude of talents. In the most simple analysis: Clinton with the knowledge; Obama with the inspiration.

In a few short days we may see if this dream team comes together.

Photo from CNN.com