Are Americans clinically insane?

How can a nation be clinically insane?

That is the central question of Erich Fromm's The Sane Society... The underlying psychology is a bit out-dated, but not so much as to completely invalidate it. Worth a read if you haven't already.

There is no such thing as "clinically insane." Insanity is defined legally, not medically.

As John Pieret pointed out at my blog, it's not that the media and the politicians think we are stupid. They know we are stupid, and they set out to prove it every day.

If McCain wins, do you think that the government of Australia would grant me a work visa as a "Customer Service Representative with extensive banking experience?"

I do not recall an American presidential campaign that was not dominated by such (often deliberate, I think) 'misunderstandings'.

Mike, I am sure I could find you a job that no Australian would want, like customer service representative at a bank.

US culture has been mentally unhealthy for ... well, for a long time, I'd say. Sometimes it's been submerged and hidden, sometimes it's been vividly expressed in violence. A few years ago a couple of stressor events occurred in rapid succession, and that seemed to trigger a pretty serious psychotic break. I see no indication that we're recovering.

We like our Uncle Sam icon that portrays us as a stern, mature, authority figure. By observable, demonstrated behaviors, however, I'd say socially dysfunctional, emotionally-disturbed-teenage-boy would be a more accurate depiction. If I were to seek diagnostic and treatment information from the DSM or some such, I would start looking in the section about adolescent violence.

Or, besides Fromm's work, I recommend Joe Bageant's little book, Deer Hunting with Jesus, for its insight into our dysfunctional culture.

Thanks for your concern about our mental health. I do appreciate it.

I should say that most nations are sociopaths, but only a few are psychopaths, and they aren't always the ones that get the bad press...

Anti-intellectualism is a strong theme in American politics. The 'man in the street' knows that intellectuals read a lot, sip lattes, can define 'nuance', and are probably vegetarian pinko pedophiles.
Hofstadter's classic book Anti-intellectualism in American Life contains some lovely descriptions of the emergence of this sort of politics in the early 1800s, complete with accusations of femininity and lack of common sense - a time when congressmen went about with Bowie knives and actively disparaged 'too much' learning.

At least we didn't turn out to be a nation of hairdressers and telephone sanitizers. That had me worried for a while. This could be worse, though.

I still say this country needs a formal silly party, and a slightly silly party, to help counterbalance and parody this stuff. My affiliation would be with the latter, of course.

Is this some sort of gorilla warfare?

It's really about the political parties/pundits trying to do whatever they can to win - even if it means fighting dirty. I don't think they really care about accuracy or the issues - it's all about winning the election and whipping up outrage against the other party.

On a related note regarding the caveman mentality of American politics, check this out: http://www.break.com/pictures/making-politics-simple569680.html

What it means to be an American has changed over the years. Before 1880 or so, it meant being a descendant of Northern European immigrants. By the middle of the 20th Century, it was OK to be a Greek or an Italian or even a Jew. What's going on now is a struggle to see if the old majority will accept a yet more comprehensive definition of nationality, one that can embrace Asians and Hispanics. For lots of white Americans that's not much of a problem because they belong to the tradition that understands what the country is about in terms of the cosmopolitan ideals of the Revolution. For the other side in the culture war, that just means bi-coastal liberals and moderates are traitors. The red state people are all too aware that they are fighting demographic trends, hence their cultural desperation and appeal to apocalyptic fantasies. To a great extent, that's what this election is about. Trouble is, You can't speak straightforwardly about this issue in mass discourse because tribal America is like Fight Club and we know what the first rule of Fight Club is.

Some emails I got suggest that some have found this offensive. I am sure my readers can tell when I am talking about the behaviour of a whole society as if it were an agent, and not about the behaviour of every individual in that society. Also, it was a joke, folks.

The situation is insane. It's insane when it happens in any country. It's incredibly insane when the country has the bulk of the nuclear arsenal of the world, and stockpiles of biomunitions.

The problem in the US as I see it,is the media.The issues that make people shake their heads about McCain,Palin,the RNC etc., are almost exclusively discussed on blogs or in fringe media.
Was watching CNN the other day where some "journalist" was "debunking" the internet myths about Palin,saw the disgraceful Gibson-Interview with Palin last night,there is just no way these journalists will ask any kind of critical questions,everything stays strictly on the surface,there is no way even intelligent people that can get their information from other sources,let alone the anti-intellectual numbed and dumbed Americans could form an informed opinion about the candidates from their mainstream media.

I get a lot of mileage from a paraphrase of an observation by George Box: Most models are wrong, but some are useful.

It saddens me that you felt such pressure to explain and disclaim your simple observation of demonstrated behaviors.

Heck, I got the joke right off. And laughing does feel better than crying. But ya know what else? For me what you suggested really is a useful model. The collective effects of the consistently repeated unhealthy behaviors demonstrated by my fellow Amurkins have had real consequences for real people in the real world. And somebody, somewhere, might want to do something about that someday.

Cheers (I guess. I mean, I sign off with that out of habit. But I don't really feel very cheery about living in a land of increasingly harmful make believe. But maybe repeating it will help. So ...)

Cheers

Hey, I voted for the other guy. I write letters to the New York Times. They actually published one a few years ago when I suggested that the very positive travel article on *Burma* in the magazine left out a few possibly important aspects of life for actual residents. I am surrounded by insanity, mendacity, and stupidity.

I wouldn't say we Americans are insane. I would say quite a few of us are incredibly stupid and/or incredibly ignorant. It's the only way I can explain the fact that Bush won in '04 and McCain has a very real shot at winning this November.