Delusional Disorder – Political Style

Delusional Disorder – Political Style

Have you noticed more and more lately, the term used to reference what a particular politician says and what their actions are as “Delusional?” Well, it seems that the average person is starting to notice the symptoms of a mental condition called “Delusional Disorder.”

For the purpose of this commentary, the definition of Delusion and Delusional Disorder is:

“Delusions are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the Delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the belief. Generally, in Delusional Disorder, mistaken beliefs are organized into a consistent world-view that is logical other than being based on an improbable foundation built on non-existent or distorted facts.

The main feature of this disorder is the presence of Delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue. These Delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.

People with Delusional Disorder often can continue to socialize and function normally, apart from the subject of their Delusion, and generally do not behave in an obviously odd or bizarre manner. In some cases, however, people with Delusional Disorder might become so preoccupied with their Delusions that their lives are disrupted.

A person with Delusional Disorder may be highly functioning in daily life as this disorder bears no relation to one’s IQ, and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from this Delusion. People with Delusional Disorder, remain coherent, sensible, and somewhat reasonable in subjects other than the Delusion.”

Now I am not saying that this condition is exclusive to just one party or group of political beliefs. It is common across the political board. However it is most noticeable in liberals probably because there are more issues where the beliefs and policies held by liberals are not supported by truths and facts but are more supportive of agendas.

The basis for reality is the relationship to truth of the facts connected to the belief. The facts have to have a measurable level of truth. The measurements have to be objectively tested and have consistent results.

Therefore, when you say that “the economy has improved,” you look at the measurable indicators of the economy. You look at what has the most obvious effect on how much money you have to spend. It either has made it better for you or it has made it worse. If it stayed the same then that is the same as being worse by not being better. You know what has happened without being a rocket scientist or a CPA because you know how much more or less money you have in your pocket at the end of the month.

You don’t have to know about the balance of trade or the monetary index to other nations. You don’t even have to know about the relative percentage of change in the housing or automotive industries. How much money you have in your pocket is very real for you.

You don’t have to know what the unemployment rate is to know if there are more jobs or less jobs, only if you have a job or not and if your neighbor, fellow church member, or family member has a job or not. That is reality for you. You are under no Delusion about your condition unless you have Delusional Disorder.

Is it a belief that is true or out and out lying, you decide?

President Obama said in a speech, “I’m proud of the fact that under my administration oil production is higher than it has been in a decade or more.”

Facts: All of the increased [oil] production from 2007 to 2012 took place on non-federal lands. On federal land, production fell more than 23% between 2010 and 2012. The federal share of oil production fell from 31% in fiscal 2008 to 26% in fiscal 2012. Similarly, the feds’ share of natural gas production went from 27.8% in 2007 to 15.5% today. Nor is it any mystery why federal oil production has fallen. Obama’s drilling moratorium after the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, and his snail’s-pace process for awarding permits on federal land––process time increased 41% from 2006 to 2011––has held back oil production to gratify the sensibilities of deep-pocketed environmental romantics like the Sierra Club.

Reality: The cost of gasoline has gone up.

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said in his October 22, 2012, debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney. “It is something that Congress has proposed.” “Congress didn’t compromise,” Obama said on February 19. “They haven’t come together and done their jobs, and so as a consequence, we’ve got these automatic, brutal spending cuts that are poised to happen next Friday.”

Facts: “Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,” Woodward wrote. “Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid.” “The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney admitted last week “and, as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

Reality: People doing useful jobs have lost their jobs, while people who are doing unnecessary jobs still have theirs, all by Executive directives.

2013 State of the Union address: “Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.”

Facts: Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini has said that Obamacare’s provisions will likely double some customers’ premiums. Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, Kaiser Permanente, United Health Group, and more have all announced that they will be substantially raising rates in the coming months. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average family premiums have risen 4.5 percent this year — double the rate of inflation. And that comes on top of a 9.5 percent increase last year. That means that since Obamacare was enacted, family premiums have jumped up nearly $2,000.

Reality: Doctors are not accepting insurance, insurance rates have gone up, coverage has decreased, jobs are being cut and reduced to part-time without any insurance coverage. Doctors are closing their offices and quitting medical practice.

People in the US are starting to go to Canada for medical treatment – no, not really, I just made that up, April Fools. But it could happen…..

In a Rose Garden press conference on April 2, 2012, the president expressed confidence that the nine justices will uphold the law and said that to do otherwise would be an example of “judicial activism” so often maligned by Republicans. He listed some benefits of the law that have already taken effect — drug discounts for Medicare beneficiaries and millions of children gaining coverage.

“So there’s — there’s not only an economic element and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” he said.

“We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care … at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

Facts: The Supreme Court tossed out laws passed by a “democratically elected Congress,” starting with Marbury vs. Madison, in 1803.

For a more recent example, Senate historian Don Ritchie cited the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, which made it a federal offense to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone. But in United States vs. Lopez, the court said the federal government could not use the commerce clause to restrict guns.

“Lots of laws have been overturned,” Ritchie said. “That’s what the Supreme Court does.”

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at University of California at Los Angeles and blogger who considers himself center-right or libertarian-conservative, even cited a case that was passed by a large majority in Congress and then tossed out by the court.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 passed unanimously in the House and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate. The law protected religious individuals and organizations from government interference with the practice of their faith. But the court, in the 1997 case City of Boerne vs. Flores held that the statute was unconstitutional because it exceeded federal power.

Volokh said the Boerne case is noteworthy in the health care debate because it was also a federalism case, meaning it was being challenged under the 10th Amendment that says powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states.

Another interesting point: Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, two of the court’s liberal justices, joined the majority opinion.

“Were they stopped by the fact that this was a federal statute enacted by a nearly unanimous vote of the Congress? Absolutely not,” Volokh said.

Reality: For the SCOUS to uphold the law in opposition of the limitations of the Constitution for the purpose of social redesign or for political expediency and favor would be judicial activism and a crime against the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides for exactly that happen if a law is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest court of law in the interpretation of the Constitution. However the SCOUS cannot rewrite any part of the Constitution, only interpret the application of the Constitution to laws passed by Congress and thereby the constitutionally of the laws:

This list could go on and on and it could contain many statements made by politicians from all parties. However, since we are looking at the politics of this country, we will look at the current leader of the country, no matter how he got there, and focus on what he says, and possibly believes. For the point of this article, Delusional Disorder, we will leave out the possibility of flat out and out lying.

Now back to Delusion. If you say that the economy is getting better and you don’t have money in your pocket, you don’t have a job, you know more people that used to have jobs and money in their pockets and don’t have that now, then the objective test have proved that the economy is not getting better no matter how many charts and speeches by politicians say it is.

If it is not a reality then it is a Delusion. If you can’t support your argument with facts then it is a Delusion. If you have to resort to emotional issues and personal attack to divert the focus of the conversation or argument then your thinking is probably Delusional. If you have to ignore statistics and history in order to prove your point, then your argument is probably Delusional.

Having a preference in liking one thing over another is not Delusional if you base that preference on facts and not emotions. That is the test of reality. If you say that you want to go out and buy a new car even though you admit you don’t earn enough money to make the payments, then that is just bad judgment. However, if you argue that you want to buy that new car and that there will magically be money there, somehow, to pay for it when the facts say that your personal deficit is steadily climbing and there is no possibility for additional income, and you really, honestly believe it, then that is Delusion.

When you hear a politician state a fact that is obviously not true and couldn’t possibly be true and you feel like screaming at the TV, you now can understand that this politician has an undiagnosed condition of “Delusion Disorder,” and then feel sorry for him or her instead of being outraged. Or you could know that the person is an out and out liar, your choice.

Above all, remember this when you go to the ballot box next election. Remember, that politician has a Delusional Disorder compounded by bad judgment, or is an out and out liar. In either case that politician has no business holding an elected office.

If you want things to change, it is up to you to change them. Your vote will make the changes in what you know is wrong with our government. Your vote has to be an informed, intelligent vote. The only way you can do that is to spend some time on finding out what the candidate believes and how that candidate has voted. It is what the candidate has publicly said and issues that the candidate has supported not only the past 6 to 12 months but the past 6 to 12 years. Don’t be fooled by a sudden change, especially if the change started just after the candidate filed for the office he or she is running for.

The changes you want to see have to be changes supported by a large group of people so don’t keep your opinion to yourself. When it comes to the future of our country it is very important that you get out and talk to other people and share what you think and more importantly why you think what you do about the candidates.

It’s your choice and your choice will affect the future of this country. We can no longer afford to have our country run on Delusions and by Delusionary people.