Political Psychology

In 2007 I wrote this and have been thinking about it a lot lately. I never finished fleshing out the concept as life got in the way, but I still think it holds true. Although people cannot always grasp the political interactions, they are not that different from two human beings interacting, and really since it is groups of humans interacting with each other, then it is not a real surprise. In psychology when one talks about respecting the boundaries of others, in politics they are true mapped out boundaries. And that is why I believe that the United States has become codependent. It can no longer truly take care of itself, but feels the need to tell other countries what to do with no respect to their own desires for their country or culture. So here it is... the beginnings of Codependent Nation, penned by myself in 2007 and revised some in 2012. This is still largely a rough draft.

Codependent Nation
by Lindsay Archer

Mentally Unstable People Make Unstable Governments

It is proven that certain patterns of behaviors are detrimental to the mental health and well being of individuals, yet governments practice the same behavior and expect different results. Our country has become Codependent. It helps other countries that those countries might rely and lean on the US, so that the US might control them subtly through kindness instead of force. Meanwhile it neglects itself and is upset that there wasn't someone else there to take care of it. All it needs is a Narcissistic nation to sweep in and take advantage of it, leaving the nation confused as to how this could have ever happened, because it was being so "good". - Lindsay Archer

The problem with a nation of the people and by the people is that if the people have destructive behaviors or mental problems, their country will exhibit the same behaviors in their policy and on a global scale.

On a personal level one mentally unstable individual affects all of those who have relationships with them by exhibiting negative behavior patterns that are destructive to themselves and those who share their lives. When you have a community, church, or country exhibiting the same negative behaviors it affects a broader range of involved people. People are people and negative behaviors have similar negative consequences in relations between individuals and in collective groups.

Many negative behaviors are derived from a desire to control, whether the object to be controlled is themselves, others, or just the world around them. Government negative behaviors work in much the same way.

The most obvious example of such a correlation is witnessed in governments directed by a single individual, a tyrant. A tyrant in power with little regard for anyone but himself would be a prime example of a narcissistic regime. Narcissists are not simply vain, which is a common misconception; they are characterized by an exaggerated sense of self worth, a lack of empathy, a sense of entitlement, and a tendency to exploit others for their own gain. Does that sound like any governments in history?

A perfect example of an abusive regime is Nazi Germany. Hitler pronounced the Aryan race to be superior and therefore entitled to rule the world. Their patriotism was their entitlement. This national pride fueled Nazi Germany onward and soothed the consciences of those who carried out brutal orders. As for lack of empathy for others, one only has to look at their inability to respect the boundaries of other nations, quite literally in this case, and their treatment of those who were not Aryan.

Like most emotionally abusive people in a relationship, Hitler did not immediately establish dominance. When Hitler was elected, he did not stand on the platform “vote for the Third Richt”. It began small, appealing to the hearts of a people trying to rebuild from the first World War.  He ran as a liberal democrat, spouting about the importance of family. Like a would-be lover manipulating a potential mate he did so with promises, and whenever it didn't go right, he had a scapegoat to channel their hate. This is a classic emotional abuser technique. The technique works on interpersonal levels and international. Narcissists in personal relationships prey on Codependents, and therefore it's easy to go from a Codependent nation to a Narcissistic tyrant. Codependents want so much to be good that they over compensate. This makes them easy targets for exploitation.

A codependent sets itself up to be a victim. Its destructive behaviors are aimed more inward than the outward expressions of a narcissist. But both desire to be in control. The codependent’s desire for control is more covert and less obvious. It is sugar coated, but it’s intent is the same, “control for their own good”.  It's the belief that they know what's best for everybody else.

The name codependent is misleading. Codependence is not the same as dependent, nor is it the same as interdependent. We all depend on each other to a certain extent, but that logical and healthy interdependence is dissimilar to the disorder of codependence. According to the Encyclopedia of Psychology:

“The concept of codependence was first developed in relation to alcohol and other substance abuse addictions. The alcoholic or drug abuser was the dependent, and the person involved with the dependent person in any intimate way (spouse, lover, child, sibling, etc.) was the codependent. The definition of the term has been expanded to include anyone showing an extreme degree of certain personality traits: denial, silent or even cheerful tolerance of unreasonable behavior from others, rigid loyalty to family rules, a need to control others, finding identity through relationships with others, a lack of personal boundaries, and low self-esteem.”

A person who is codependent controls others through kindness, by helping people who may or may not actually need OR WANT to be helped. In many cases the person being “helped” is in fact being enabled to continue negative behaviors that caused their problems. As a result, the person who is helped ultimately does not learn to help or care for themselves. This makes the one being helped, dependent on the codependent. This dependency is used by the codependent to control the dependent. It also opens the dependent to blame the codependent who has indeed assumed responsibility and control for the dependent. On a national level this could be several programs from welfare to health care that act in the same way.

Often a person who is codependent will help the dependent at their own expense to attain a sense of martyrdom, self-righteousness, or to fulfill an unrealistic expectation of virtue or sacrifice. In this process of helping it actually denies the codependent and the dependent of the things that they truly need, while providing only superficial salve without treating the real problem. The underlying motivation behind codependent behavior is that deep down the codependent wants someone to take care of them, and is often disappointed when others don’t intuitively do the same for them. In a way it is a twisted view of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. They do to others what they think that they personally want, instead of expressing for their own needs or looking too deeply at how the other person really wants to be treated. This can be seen in laws created and passed, based on the personal desires of the law makers who want to be taken care of, but make them to "care" for others.  These laws often don't remedy the situation so much as complicate it.

In essence being helped by a codependent is a lot like being in debt to the mob. They may do you a favor, but in the moment that they do, they think they own you. In the same way, the moment that there is a government powerful enough to give you everything that you want, there's a government with enough control to take it all away.

Now that you have a basic concept of codependence it is easy to take that and lay it over the actions of the United States. How many countries do we end up “helping” for some measure of control? The United States sweeps in, thinking it has the answers to all the questions, but how many countries do we actually help? Are we really digging to the root of the problem and helping them help themselves or are we putting salve on it and then making them dependent on us while all the while enabling them. One only has to look at Afghanistan to see the Codependent cops of the world sweeping in for control.

Then look at the United States’ personal policies. More government means more dependency on the government and more control by the government. As long as there is an underlying policy of “someone else take care of me” and not an empowerment of the people to take care of themselves, it just enables the problems, and those problems have not gone away. They’ve gotten bigger.

A healthy person or nation would realize, “if we can’t take care of ourselves, then we need to fix ourselves first before we try to help others”. However the political stance is to continue to interfere to the United States’ own detriment.

If the US wants to have a healthy relationship with its neighboring countries, it has to learn how to be healthy itself. It must take care of itself and its own. Next it must learn to operate with others in a healthy manner and accept its own separateness from other countries. We are ourselves with our own identity and culture. Other countries have their own identity and culture that they value as much as we do ours, perhaps moreso if we are allowing the government to be our identity. This is not something that we need to change or control about them but respect if we want them to respect us for our differences.

How offensive would it we be if someone you barely knew swept in with an attitude of superiority and started telling you how to run your life? Now imagine the same scenario between delegates from China and the US. Although one might have the best intentions believing that they have the superior government it does not establish good relations because by doing so, they have offered an insult. The attitude regardless of the wording says “you are beneath me, so let me take over and tell you what to do.” The other country might not want or need the help that is offered. They may have better systems to handle such things that the other is not aware of at all.

In a healthy interaction the two would respect each other as having equal worth despite their personal differences. Perhaps if a problem were presented, a healthy response might be “in my experience, I tried this and it worked,” however that offering comes with the understanding that the other person’s situation might not be exactly the same. It might not work for them. However by forcing people to change to be like us, when we can't take care of ourselves, is insane? It is one thing to be asked for help, and another to force it on another because we believe our democracy is superior, even if our homeland is falling apart, the value of the dollar is dropping, and unemployment rising.

A codependent polices those around them. The United States does the same with other countries. We must allow people to make their own decisions, mistakes, and to have flaws. Because by doing so, they learn from them. This is not a proclamation of martyrdom but a recognition of when it is our business and when it isn’t. If another country disrespects our boundaries, then it is our right and our duty to protect those boundaries.  Otherwise it is our right and duty to protect and maintain those boundaries.

As a country, the United States must learn to take care of itself, stop trying to control everything and everyone, stop enabling dysfunctional behavior, and stop expecting other people to take care of it. These emotional responses to external stimuli are not as constructive or even beneficial as choosing rational courses of action. Unfortunately who will step forward to help the Unites States stop its codependent tendencies? Or will it destroy itself and its dependents with it?

Pea Brain Gets It

Last night when I couldn't fall asleep, my brain was racing with things. One of those thoughts was how lucky I was to be raised on a farm. It wasn't filled with cows or fields of corn. It was modest acreage with a horse, dogs, ducks, guinea hens, rabbits, and at one time chickens...

When my father acquired said chickens, he did so without my mother's approval and it was a rift between them for a while, but even my mother came to appreciate aspects of the chickens as time went on. In fact she was the one observing them and pointed out much of what I'm going to tell you.

There was a problem though, as anyone who has raised chickens knows, there is a certain rooster to hen ratio that has to be maintained. In general there should be 10 hens to each rooster and they will kill each other off till they reach that ratio. My father had far too many roosters. Before the chick invasion my father had a coop for the ducks and guinea hens, but with this influx of fighsty fowl, my father had to quickly construct a new and larger coop for the chickens.

What happened next was interesting. Most of the males fought and scrapped with each other over the females and were generally dirty violent things. Their hens were often missing feathers and looked pretty rough. But there was a single rooster. He was smaller, and he had only a few hens. During the day the chickens roamed around and did their thing. At night they were cooped up to protect against foxes and other nocturnal predators.

This smaller rooster stood apart, and moved himself with his humble family into the smaller coop. He shared it with the ducks and guinea hens. He cleaned it. Before his mates got into their nests he cleaned it out and doted on them. He was very tender with his children and his mates. He seemed to take pride in his home and tend to it and his family. In return his hens and children seemed much closer to him, because he was closer. This sweet little bird had made for itself a family, while the rest of the multitude of chickens were fighting and living in squalor. Standing apart from the "norm" this little rooster accepted those into his home that were different than him. He was often seen with his children, until one day he was carried off by a hawk. A fox mistook the other coop for fast food, and the farm's chicken population was not long lived.

Still I think about that one little rooster. If you have ever seen a chicken's brain compared to its eyeballs, the eyes are actually larger. In fact there is a chicken called "Headless Mike" who survived having his head chopped off for up to a year. Thus I often joke that chickens were meant to be walking food. Then you take this one rooster with a brain smaller than the size of a pea, and he "got it" more than some of us supposedly highly evolved creatures. Whatever you have in the way of family, in the way of loved ones, no matter how modest, you tend to them ... you love them ... and you never know WHO on the outside looking in will see, and be affected by it. Such is the power of a life well lived... even for a chicken.