Limbaugh @ CPAC

I believe the first rule of a good speech is to give one that others do not have to explain for you. If you give a speech full of crazy rants that can be clipped into, ahem, "interesting" soundbites, you have not given a good speech. If you give a speech that is easily misunderstood, you have not given a good speech. If you give a speech intended for a certain crowd that will be played ad naseum for a different one, and that different crowd is confused and insulted, you have not given a good speech.

When Rush Limbaugh addressed CPAC this Saturday, the crowd was nothing less than orgasmic. In down times, it's easy to get a crowd to love you: just tell them they're better than the other side. Limbaugh has drawn a line with this speech, in two ways. First, he doubled down on his assertion that he wants Obama to fail by not only repeating his criticism, but criticizing those who think his assertion is too harsh. Second, as the pro tempore leader of the Republican Party (anyone who thinks Michael Steele is in charge should note that he accepted Colbert's rap battle challenge this Thursday), Limbaugh put a face on the Republican party that they desperately need to get away from: That the Republicans are just a bunch of sweaty, angry white men.

I listened to all of Rush's hour-and-a-half speech, and if he thinks he got Democrats/Liberals angry, he's wrong. I don't know if he's watched Obama so far, but he's not likely to listen to someone who's bitter and screaming. Of course, the CPAC conference is decidedly reactionary, but not everyone knows that. Mr. Limbaugh, your audience was not Obama: he has far more important things to do, and he has lots of lackeys to watch you for him (to use in political ads). Your audience was the independent and undecided voter who will see the craziest parts of your speech played over and over in the news.

In order to earn the "psychology" label, I should examine not just what words Rush used, but his overall tone. Limbaugh, when on mute, played out a script similar to if you had watched his speech at full volume, namely, "AAAAHHHHH!! I HATE THEM SO MUCH!!". Waving his arms wildly, flapping his jowls, Limbaugh's anger was almost overbearing. When he did smile or show affection, you could tell it was in sarcasm. The fake smiles combined with the "bear hug" gesticulation and the shirt that was unbuttoned a little too far paints a picture of someone who is likely to die of heart complications. If Obama does see this speech, he won't be angry. Obama (and lots of undecided voters) will likely look at his loved ones in a confused way, stroke his chin and say, "hmmm..."

Obama on mute is entirely a different story. Even Republicans would agree he exudes peace. On those rare occasions when he cracks a joke at the expense of the other side, his smile is genuine: the smile pushing the skin under his eyes upward. His gestures are slow and inclusive as opposed to the fast, dominating hand motions of Rush. Palms held upward to us by Obama... Palms thrust down at us by Rush.

If the Republicans think this strategy will work, they are sadly mistaken... I think.

Depravity -- Criminality

I know I usually write stories, but this article in PsychologyToday caught my attention. Usually, we in psychology try to edge away from ethics. Even the most criminally-associated personality disorder, "antisocial," is not "bad" in the classical sense. No where in the DSM-IV TR is there a requirement for a person to be a "bad guy" to have a mental disorder, although some people may lack an understanding of what society considers good and bad. I got my bachelor's studying ethics in philosophy, and I see why psychology cannot believe in an inflexible morality: it would be too high a standard. If psychologists had to sign on to the Christian 10 commandments, for example, on determining whether someone was morally confused, everyone would have some kind of personality disorder (especially Christians).

This doctor, of whom I have just heard about, discusses "depravity" in ethical terms, mostly as it relates to antisocial personality disorder- the classic sociopath. On the Michael Welner's website, he presents us with about 30 different elaborations on crimes which we are asked to define as "especially, somewhat, or not at all depraved."

Forensic psychologists are commonly called to cases in which a suspect's insanity is in question. If the APA had its way, anyone with a mental disorder who committed a crime would be sent to the mental hospital. And, in the early 1980's, this was actually the case until district attorneys had to take pay cuts for not sending more poor people to jail. The M'Naghten rules for criminal insanity mean that the suspect has to (1) not know what they were doing at the time of the commission of the crime and (2) have had no intention to commit that crime to get the insanity defense. The person had to be not only delusional but hallucinatory as well, which leaves out nearly all mental disorders except for the most acute cases of schizophrenia. As a result, of 1,000 felony charges only four try the insanity defense, and of those only two get it.

"Depravity," a tentative step in the direction of forensic ethics, tries to measure a criminal's "guilti-ness" so to speak. In the article linked to, Dr. Werner queries whether Bin Laden is a true psychopath or whether he is driven by religious devotion. I, myself, would prefer that we go back to the APA rules for the insanity defense so that criminals might get the correct treatment. Instead of measuring a criminal's depravity, which might indicate that person's stress levels and delusional beliefs instead of actual "evil-itude," we should strive to give these poor people the correct treatment.