Re: An explanation for Liberal TDS-ism via reference to Carl Jung

C&P from a piece by Todd Hayden.

xxxxxxxxxx

“What is this hate? Where does it come from? What triggers it, and why is it a raging inferno among today’s liberals when it comes to Trump? And most importantly, what can we do about it?

Carl Jung, the Swiss psychologist who mapped the murky depths of the human psyche, offers a lens to decode this lunacy. He argued we all have a shadow—the dark, repressed corners of our minds where we shove traits we’re too ashamed to face. Aggression, hypocrisy, fear of chaos, or intolerance fester there, denied by our polished, conscious selves. When we can’t stomach these flaws, we project them onto others, turning them into scapegoats for our inner mess. For liberals, who wear their compassion, intellectualism, and inclusivity like a merit badge, Trump is the ultimate shadow screen—a larger-than-life figure onto whom they can dump their disowned demons.

Why Trump? He’s a walking middle finger to their values: brash, unfiltered, and defiantly individualistic. Jung would call him an archetypal “Trickster” or “Shadow King,” a disruptive force who exposes societal contradictions. Liberals pride themselves on diplomacy, yet their shadow harbors aggression—think of the vitriol in their protests or X posts. They project this onto Trump, branding him a “bully” while ignoring their own venom. They champion rationality but fear chaos, and Trump’s unpredictable style—tweeting like a drunk uncle at a wedding—becomes a lightning rod for that dread. They tout moral superiority but dodge their own hypocrisies, like preaching equality while dismissing rural voters as backward. Trump’s existence forces liberals to glimpse their shadow, and they hate him for holding up that mirror.”

Tiggity®

Ultimate Clemson Legend [108964]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 70731

Joined: 2002

People have really lost it. It's something I never understood really.

May 31, 2025, 11:55 AM [ in reply to Re: An explanation for Liberal TDS-ism via reference to Carl Jung ]

Not just TDS, or Biden DS, or Obama DS, or Hillary DS, or Bush DS, or Algore DS, or Harris DS, or whatever.......it's all the same.

You have history books, millions of pages written on Jacobin DS, the Leninists, the Marxists, North Korea, Maoist, Castro, Hitler DS, Mussolini DS, Stalinists, Che, Chavez, the list goes on and on.

Broadly, it's called a Cult of Personality, and it happens often when someone different comes along, hijacks a political party, creates a movement, and people somehow wind up literally worshipping them, to the point of being a God sometimes.

I never really understood the process, but I know it exists, and is well recorded, and the trend is as old as politics. The one common theme throughout history, is these TYPES of leaders naturally appear almost universally as a result of a weakness or a problem in an existing governemnt system. And I feel, incorrectly, history studies these personalities thoroughly, BUT what is RARELY covered is their rise, and this is more important IMHO than whatever they accomplished or destroyed. Of all the ruthless dictators, tyrants, and leaders with cults of personality, perhaps only one has really been studied properly through the lens of history, and that's Hitler. His life, and rise, and the history and problems of the governemnt that preceded his rise were well-known, and his rise was documented perhaps better than any other tyrant in history.

And at every turn, in every example of a tyrant rising to power, there was almost ALWAYS a solution to the prior problem, OTHER than the tyrant. And what tables those solutions is another interesting thought. Somehow people latch onto the tyrant as the solution to the problem only to end up creating a much bigger problem. And all the while, the problem that led to the tyrant, could have been fixed using the prior, existing framework.

Our Constitution was created in this very context. Our experiment in democracy could easily have ended like France, but it didn't because of one thing, our Constitution. It was drafted in the shadow, and with much deference to the Magna Carta. Aside from the Magna Carta, our Constitution is perhaps the second best governing document ever created. And yet Americans, many unfortunately, are more than willing to discard our Constitution in favor of what pleases them.

Instead of knowing our problems (we all know them) instead of looking to our founding framework for solutions, we are prone to toss it as a broken, outdated artifact, when in fact it is us who are broken, not the document or system it created. I have often lamented about my prefered solution to the conservative grievances, our debt, and our corruption. The answer is sitting there, LITERALLY never used, because it is an answer to a problem tyrants would rather exploit to their benefit, than solve.

And seeing everything through a historical lens, it's amazing that we all just sit around never cognizant of our role, as Americans, to fix our problems in the way they WERE INTENDED TO BE FIXED. Our biggest problems are not political in nature, they're HUMAN nature.....in nature. And what other than human nature guided the Enlightenment, and subsequently our founding fathers, and the Constitution it created. It was SOLELY created not to promote a party, but to control human nature, in a democratic framework that takes evil into account, to create a working, strong, and lasting governemnt of the people.

And to date, I've seen nothing from conservatives (MAGA or Never-Trumpers) OR democrats, or anyone else, who is offering the best solution for our nation. And unfortunately, if history is a guide, the best solutions will, from now on, remain tabled. Unspoken, unacknowledged.

Make this solution happen, or our future is more predictable than Monday's weather. We all know what needs to be done. It is one, or perhaps two things, ONLY, that need to be done. The person who proposes my prefered solution, gets my vote. And that will be no one.

***************************************************************************************

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

An explanation for Liberal TDS-ism via reference to Carl Jung