Did Hatred for Bush Create Love for Obama?
As part of my graduate work (and before that out of intellectual curiosity), I have read much Jungian psychology. Carl Jung was fascinated by pairings of opposites. He explored the psychological meanings of polarities in alchemy and the hieros gamos, the sacred marriage, a union of opposites.
Earlier today, when reading a book by a man trained in Jungian analysis, Robert Johnson, I had a notion about the psychological projections of a large number of our fellow Americans. Now the stuff I was reading did not have a perfect correspondence to the idea it engendered. It merely reminded me of how when we suppress one aspect of our psyche, that aspect later comes to dominate. Here’s a sample from Johnson’s Living Your Unlived Life: Coping with Unrealized Dreams and Fulfilling Your Purposein the Second Half of Life:
The other personality trait is suppressed, but it still exists as a potential, where it is added to the ever-growing inventory of unlived life. Under stress this person often flips to the opposite, and the suppressed quality comes out in a clumsy, unadapted way.
Note how so many who reviled then-President Bush were moved almost to adoration of a man vying to succeed him. You can see this phenomenon on cars in Los Angeles, with bumper stickers (still today) advocating the impeachment (or other punishment) of Bush next to iconic images of his successor.
Many who demonized Bush, all but deified Obama.
After expending so much energy on hate, they needed to find someone to revere with the same emotional intensity. Hence, they their love Obama served to balance out the hatred they felt for Bush.
And we’re not even getting to whatever it was in their psyches that caused them to project their own inner demons onto George W. Bush.
RELATED: Obama Worship: Flip Side of Bush Hatred
Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin
A subsequent reference to Robert Johnson: The Mother Complexes of Republican-Haters?
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately both reactions are very childish and don’t bode well for the country.
Those of us on the right who felt that Bush was a good man, decent president yet made some serious mistakes are reviled for being dupes and fools.
We never expect one man to be perfect, of course we have learned long ago that perfect is the enemy of the good. I’ll take good any day. Meanwhile, the Obamessiah is reveling in his glory while leading our country to disaster.
A liberal friend today expressed distress at the handling of pirate situation. She can’t believe America would behave in such a weak manor towards PIRATES. So there is some sanity out there, if it is enough to save us or not, I don’t know.
Comment by Leah — April 11, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - April 11, 2009
And we’re not even getting to whatever it was in their psyches that caused them to project their own inner demons onto George W. Bush.
Hmmmm…. I think it might have had to do with him pinching out one domestic or international catastrophe after another. I know you’re a slave to your party and everything, but are you really going to pretend like you can’t see why someone would not like George Bush?
[Um, Levi, do you read my posts? Do you even read the title? It's not about disliking W, it's about hating him with a venom which seems to surpass the normal emotion one feels for the president and that hatred then seeming to morph into its opposite for his successor. By calling me a slave to my party, you show that you don't read my posts. I've criticized my party and W on this blog, even devoting a category to "Why W Went Wrong." --Dan]
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 8:00 pm - April 11, 2009
A liberal friend today expressed distress at the handling of pirate situation. She can’t believe America would behave in such a weak manor towards PIRATES. So there is some sanity out there, if it is enough to save us or not, I don’t know.
How are we acting in a weak manner?
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - April 11, 2009
I can personally attest to the theme of your article here. In San Diego and Orange County CA, voters showed up in droves to vote for Obama – in Repub strongholds. The main theme was dissatisfaction with Bush and the Repub party in general. Amazingly, a lot of people that I know that would be classified as Republican as well voted for Obama based on spending! I don’t think that we have even started to see how angry the populace is becoming. It happened in history Nixon to Carter, Carter to Reagan, Obama to Palin?
Comment by Left Coast Rebel — April 11, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - April 11, 2009
#2: “one domestic or international catastrophe after another”
Levi, what are you talking about? Just because you refuse to acknowledge conservatives criticizing W for excessive spending, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The fact that conservatives weren’t organizing protests across the nation might have had a little something to do with the fact that W’s excessive spending now looks thrifty compared to the coming avalanche of spending proposed (and passed) by The One. And it was conservatives who defeated the proposed domestic catastrophe of shamnesty. By “international catastrophe” I assume, of course, that you are referring to the Iraq War? Do you even know what “catastrophe” means?
Comment by Sean A — April 11, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - April 11, 2009
Sean A, I believe he is referring to the Katrina response as being a domestic catastrophe.
Then again it could be the mortgage meltdown? Is growing the size of government a catastrophe?(department of homeland security). Is reducing our civil liberties a catastrophe? (wiretapping, “freedom zones” patriot act?)
To be clear, I do not consider the mortgage meltdown totally Bush’s fault. He doesn’t know any better, he’s a free market capitalist. Even Alan Greenspan is mystified that the free market wouldn’t self regulate. Who’d a thunk?
Comment by Chuck In Del — April 11, 2009 @ 9:47 pm - April 11, 2009
Hmmmm…. I think it might have had to do with him pinching out one domestic or international catastrophe after another.
Actually, that demonstrates the point. According to people like Levi, Bush never did anything right at any point in time during his entire term in office — which demonstrates exactly how irrational their hatred of Bush is.
Levi, for example, screams about Bush’s so-called “torture policies”, “extraordinary rendition, and claiming “state secrets” as a basis for dismissing cases, but babbles about how it’s OK when Obama keeps the same policies, does the same thing, and makes the same arguments.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 9:48 pm - April 11, 2009
Actually, that demonstrates the point. According to people like Levi, Bush never did anything right at any point in time during his entire term in office — which demonstrates exactly how irrational their hatred of Bush is.
Didn’t do a single thing right…. I’d stand by that. This country just spent eight years stagnating and reverting, dragging down the rest of the world with us. Even if there is a silver lining somewhere, it’s so meaningless as to be insignificant compared to Bush’s disasters.
Levi, for example, screams about Bush’s so-called “torture policiesâ€, “extraordinary rendition, and claiming “state secrets†as a basis for dismissing cases, but babbles about how it’s OK when Obama keeps the same policies, does the same thing, and makes the same arguments.
Oooooh… I babbled about it being OK for Obama to do the same things Bush did? On this website? Was this a conversation I had with you?
Sorry pal, it never happened. On balance, Obama’s been a pretty big disappointment, and that is truest on the issues of torture and secrecy. What’s more, I don’t see any liberals endorsing Obama’s total reversal on these issues, even Olbermann’s been dedicating segments to criticizing him for it. Remember, we aren’t you. Liberals seem to recognize that if the leader of your political faction is doing something you don’t like, you don’t shower your leader with praise and hypocritically incorporate that something into your political platform.
We aren’t you. We’re better!
Comment by Levi — April 11, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - April 11, 2009
Liberals seem to recognize that if the leader of your political faction is doing something you don’t like, you don’t shower your leader with praise and hypocritically incorporate that something into your political platform.
Sure you have, Levi. You demanded that Bush be impeached for these things, and yet you’re supporting and endorsing Obama for doing them.
If you had principles, you would be demanding Obama’s impeachment. But you don’t. Instead you whine and cry that Obama should be supported and that what he’s doing is OK.
So if you’re better, demonstrate it. Call for Obama’s impeachment, the same as you did for Bush.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 10:59 pm - April 11, 2009
Oh, and since you said Bush should be tried for war crimes for these things you admit Obama is doing, call for Obama to be tried and punished for war crimes.
Come on, “better” liberal. After all, you would hold Obama to the same set of principles you did Bush, right? Or are you just not capable of doing that?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - April 11, 2009
I just usually call it what it is: Liberal hate Speech (first against Hoover, then Nixon, then Reagan, then Bush I, and now Bush II) and then the left are supplicants to their own leaders.
Answer me this: When Impeachment was going through Congress, Goldwater and other GOP leaders said there was no GOP support for Nixon. A fortnight later, he resigned.
Has any Democrat ever stood up to a president of their own party? In 1998, they had their chance to rid themselves of a perjurer and save a troublesome 2008 Primary, instead, they always stood behind the perjurer because THEY HATE REPUBLICANS MORE!
(Yes, I shouted, I hate Hate Speech)
Comment by JSF — April 11, 2009 @ 11:05 pm - April 11, 2009
I’ll be damned if I can find any evidence of that. Surely the MSM would be critical. Instead, what you get on the news is dictation from the WH. You have to go to news sites from the UK or Europe to find any real criticism of Il Douche.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 11, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - April 11, 2009
NY Times: The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.
Oh, dear. Funny how things look different when your the one behind the desk.
I agree with Leah in #1. Our mistake is to deify the president (or any politician). We place far too much power in the hands of government which guarantees that someone will be bitterly disappointed. I don’t think the founders intended for the citizenry to place so much power in the hands of the president. If they did, we’d have a king.
Comment by SoCalRobert — April 12, 2009 @ 12:49 am - April 12, 2009
Wait! We can imprison those captured on the battlefield without charges until the end of combat just like the Genva Convention says? Whodathunk????
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 12, 2009 @ 6:59 am - April 12, 2009
No, but they were both created by the same thing: a deep-seated need to believe in an all powerful daddy government that can fix anything, weak minds and marketing.
Comment by American Elephant — April 13, 2009 @ 2:01 am - April 13, 2009
It’s a type of standalone complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell_(philosophy)#Stand_Alone_Complex
The left wing of the political class and the mainstream media (which are one and the same frequently) spent eight years demonizing Republicans and conservatives in general and George W. Bush specifically. It’s a common aspect of humans that what is said in deadly earnest directly is doubted but what is said repeatedly casually that lends itself to the lesser tastes of them will be gospel.
Saturation negativity towards Bush painted him to be no less than a secular antichrist. This automatically in the human mind so given to binary thinking would imply an opposite. Their mistake was so totally personalizing the hatred that they made it Bush versus Not Bush.
Republican, Bush. Democrat, Not Bush. Bush, Obama. Obama the man was never approved of, wanted, vetted, affirmed, or otherwise known and desired. What was voted in was an implied archetype.
Obama cannot live up to an ideal invented in the subconscious to give balance to an opposite extremity. Now that Bush is gone from the scene, Obama is left at the helm and it is now Obama the man versus Obama the Not Bush. The reality versus the fantasy.
This is going to be truly painful in the end for the left, but they deserve it. Arrogant presumptive ignorant manipulation of the public psyche without regard to the mass social phenomena that can result is not a way to run the USA or any other nation.
Comment by suitepotato — April 21, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - April 21, 2009