Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Psychological Projection in Politics, a growing concern?, This will cover hypocrisy and double standards as well.
post Nov 20 2017, 04:19 AM
Post #1

Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,241
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican

Sorry in advance for the length of this, I'll try to make it worth a read. It'll get heated at times but I come in peace tongue.gif

As Americans, we live in a time where some are so politically polarized that they meltdown if they hear someone who doesn't think or look like they do. In the really bad cases, you'll see a lot of projection. In psychological terms, projection is when someone feels or behaves the same way as those they criticize or encourage, (it can work both ways). Negative projection is a self-defense mechanism and can be a form of venting for those who are unhappy with one or more aspects of their life, (Why acknowledge a hate or dislike of yourself when you can project those feelings onto others)? While projection is a good distraction, it prevents those who do it from fixing the root causes of their problems.

In politics, a word that's fairly similar and commonly used, (often by conservatives and independents), is hypocrisy. It's a common argument made by the right that the left is often hypocritical, so as a moderate conservative I'm going to explain this from a right of center perspective. I welcome the left to counter or contribute ideas.

I believe the focus on hypocrisy is understandable, especially regarding the lefts biggest issues and self-proclaimed mindsets. For example, being inclusive by respecting those who are different or at a disadvantage is thought to be central to the left. Closely linked to inclusivity is the idea of being respectful towards women and further down I'll also explain a few other positions where I believe the idea of hypocrisy or "projection" is a criticism that's fair to make in regards to the left.

The right and Republicans often project as well but the difference here is that they don't claim to be the party of inclusivity, at least not as commonly as the left does. (Covered largely in sections 4 and 5 below), inclusivity is a concept that often dominates in American politics because it filters into various policies, that's why it's so important and it's why the right is concerned, (not with the concept of inclusion itself, but with the misuse of that word). I believe the left, as a whole, is usually more vocal with their opinions as well, especially when you subtract Donald Trump. tongue.gif Being more vocal means left-wing projection comes more frequently and from many directions. (Ask if you want me to break that down more.)

With all of that out of the way, below I'm going to explain key areas where I believe the left is projecting their own behavior onto others, or otherwise pushing a double standard....


Many leftists complain about Fox News bias and have a half dozen cute names for that network yet they can usually count on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS just to name major networks comparable to Fox. Conservatives invent names like Clinton News Network and have hypocrisy issues of their own but look at how many networks back the left, they have an advantage in the News Media and are therefore pushing a larger double standard if they can't call those networks out yet make charges of bias against right-wing media. In the following thread, I've debated the media and shared substantiation that it's left-leaning in the opening post and in a few replies, so I'll keep this one short....



Some groups on the left portray Christians as an unfair or dangerous group who's persecuting others. Particularly Atheists which is a group that thrives on the left, not to mention progressives who have trouble putting focus on Muslim terrorists but often complain about Christianity. I don't know about the members here but I haven't heard anything about abortion clinic bombings lately, from what I can tell Christians today are largely on the defense, not only in America but across the world....


This short video shares some data and information on what's happening. It describes Christians as the most persecuted religious group in the world today. I'm not sure if they're the "most" persecuted but they make a convincing case that it's certainly a problem. To paraphrase the video...

(In North Africa and the Middle East the number of Christians has dropped from 20% to 4% and much of that decline has happened recently. This is due to events like church bombings and attacks on individuals. For example in 2013, in Egypt alone, 80 churches were attacked and destroyed. This isn't uncommon either, it's a widespread problem. Even in moderate Middle Eastern nations like Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kasikstan and Uzbekistan, Christain minorities are under legal pressure not to build churches or evangelize.) (not a direct quote, see video above)
The video gets much more detailed than I did.

I'm not a Christian or religious but I have a problem with injustice. This topic should be covered more than it is, it's an enormous human rights issue that too many people don't know the extent of because Christians are considered a group who persecute, rather than a group who's being persecuted. I'm not saying there's no longer a judgemental aspect to Christianity but times are changing in many ways.

To mention Atheists, is it hypocritical for them to focus the majority of their claims of violence on the religious when Joseph Stalin was an Atheist who targeted Christians and was responsible for more deaths than Hitler? Just a few days ago Devin Patrick Kelley, (an Atheist), barged into a church in Texas and killed 26 people. Does anyone know of a situation, in recent history, where an American Christian killed 26 people or more because they held different values or beliefs? I don't, but share this information if you have it, I'm usually willing to refine my beliefs.

To be clear, most Atheists and Christians don't act like that but it's a problem, especially when combined with the insults that fly back and forth which get us into these situations. I should also state that there are Christians on the left and not all Atheists are leftists but every survey I've read either suggest that the majority of them are, or that there's a huge difference between the left and right. I believe this is readily agreed upon so, in short, the left often criticises Christian conservatives, talks about how dumb or dangerous they are while Atheist and Muslims are more prone to getting a passes.


The left often hounds Trump for dishonest behavior, and while they sometimes get it right, they've embraced the Clintons who are one of the most, if not the most, dishonest political duos in America today. Allegations in regards to Hillary's dishonesty date back decades to when she was a lawyer and there was less partisan politics involved with the charges made. Those who defend her adamantly would be surprised how many of the allegations over the years have been true. Fast forward to today, former presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee is one of the latest prominent Democrats who is suggesting she rigged the primary for her own benefit. Things are falling apart for her fast, nearly every day I see someone come out against her or hear about a new piece of the puzzle in regards to one of her scandals and not all of that is coming from the right.

Even with that, so many people on the left that I've heard from are still dismissing what she did during the primaries, along with other scandals she's involved in and there is no shortage of them. Some will hound Trump over anything, even things which are fabricated such as the fake Russian dossier that the Hillary campaign paid for. Others, including Hillary, mention fact-checking a lot for Trump but the double standard is clear proof that their charges are often politically motivated because Hillary and some of the defenses of her have also needed fact-checking. This is to say nothing about Bill who I'll mention below.


To talk about sexual harassment, some on the left condemn the right and are quick to label conservatives as disrespectful towards women while they lecture others on how to behave. This is very evident in Hollywood but what are celebrities thinking with that?!? It's like an alcoholic who's drinking yelling at another drinker telling him he's a loser for doing so. Celebrities who are doing this often have no concept of self-reflection, it's too often about what someone else is doing while they're entitled to whatever the hell they want. Sorry for the ranting on that but conservatives have had to hear that they don't value women for a long time. However, sexual harassment on the left is widespread just as with every other group, not to mention a fair amount of discrimination against Conservative women and women who choose not to work.

Outside of Hollywood, the sexual harassment charges against Bill Clinton have resurfaced with prominent Democrats now calling him out. It's a problem that goes as deep as allegations of rape. Where on earth have leftists who are only now condemning Bill Clinton been? Conservatives were portrayed as conspiracy theorists and the victims were ridiculed and described as liars for decades! Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Bill is starting to be held accountable by the left but this new wave of condemnation of the Clintons is only happening now that they have virtually no power or ability to lead. It's now become safe to call them out on serious allegations. That just comes off as defending a movement no matter what happens, later to be honest when it doesn't matter as much. I'm glad we're seeing at least some honesty in regards to the Clintons but it makes me wonder if, for example, there are leftists pushing this Trump/Russia collusion narrative without believing in it. The possibility that someone is projecting their own frustrations or guilt seems more likely when there isn't a factual basis behind an argument.


This is a big one, the left points to groups like the KKK or White Nationalists and talks about how divisive and dangerous they are, and they use that as an arguing point against the right. While I agree that we certainly need to be concerned, yet again there's little self-reflection.

In order to make this seem like an epidemic, some have decided to rewrite the rules on what qualifies as a White Supremacist. It's no longer about actual White Supremacists who join a movement. To some if you're a Trump supporter you're a White Supremacist, that's it, that's all it takes in the eyes of some! Trump supporters are lumped together with a group that few people respect and most people, understandably, hate. I didn't vote for Trump and question some of his actions, but here again I have a problem with injustice. Both sides need to be called out for divisive rhetoric and violent actions.

I'm not going to say that there isn't a rise in hateful rhetoric over the last 9 years from White Supremacist groups, but they're not the movements they once were by any stretch. Furthermore, this is indeed happening on "both sides". Left-wing protesting movements have exploded in size and divisive, hateful, and often violent rhetoric and behavior. Groups which are going largely unchecked by the left are on a regular basis, dividing Americans if not assaulting those they disagree with. If anybody needs proof of that, I can accommodate you easily but keep in mind that the details are so bad in certain circumstances that if this were taken seriously more people would rethink where the left currently stands on inclusivity.

Having said that, these events aren't a fair description of leftist protesters as a whole but too many individuals are straying from the concept of rational and civil conversations, It's clear that things are getting worse. Antifa violence is common, Black Lives Matter is less violent by comparison but they also divide with hateful rhetoric and by encouraging violence on Cops. Outside of these movements, random acts of violence from leftists are also on the rise yet by some stretch, the right has the label of intolerant and the left has the label of inclusive. Growing hate groups on the left often simply don't know or don't want to know, that America as a whole is in trouble, with many sides contributing to the problems we see.

To wrap this up, the left is never going to be trusted as a group who advocates equal treatment of others or a group who's inclusive if they're not living by example. Inclusion doesn't mean attacking Black Conservatives, Female Conservatives, Whites, Cops, Christians, the Upper Class, Trump Supporters, Conservative College Students, etc etc. It doesn't mean supporting only groups who sympathize with you, that's not progressive, it's a continuation of a very old problem.

I respect those on the left who aren't pushing problems they have onto others. I believe that if you're a civil and respectful person, that it's okay to call out conservatives when they've been disrespectful or uncivil. For leftists who are disrespectful and uncivil, it's still okay for you to call out the right for that behavior, it's America, but in the eyes of most, you're illegitimate and won't get through to anyone other than those who, more or less, agree with you already. To the Julian's and Vsrenard's on the left, it's up to people like you to redirect the left. With the hate that's directed at the right, many won't even hear us out but with the respect you show and constructive criticisms you make, you can change a lot for the benefit of both sides, so full speed ahead!

Questions for debate..

1. Do you believe the left has an issue with hypocrisy and projection, if so can you give an example of either?

2. Hypocrisy is an argument that the right makes often but do you believe that Conservatives have
this problem to the same degree? (give examples if you wish)

3. Can you name some things which would help both sides to come together?

4. Do you have hope that we will heal some of this division or is our future grim?

Bonus Question...

5. With so much condemning information coming out and resurfacing on the Clintons, is it fair to say
they're no longer viable in politics and could either of them be facing criminal charges?

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 20 2017, 05:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 40)
post Feb 24 2018, 08:26 PM
Post #41

Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,241
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Feb 21 2018, 03:47 PM) *
Hey net2007. We will always quibble. Even disagree. There is so much common ground, too.

I do not think politicians try to convince the public about their policy being a good thing. Politicians try to convince the public they are giving out advantage. Good politicians convince enough voters that their particular demographic group is getting the advantages. Politicians could not care less about policy and philosophy other than the philosophy of, "What gets me more power and votes?"

The analogy with a car salesperson is correct for those salespersons who only care about the sale, not what is good for the customer. The clique used car salesman.

Politicians do not put forth their own philosophy. Politicians try to sound like they have a philosophy which is selling well as a current trend.

Politicians win with perception and not philosophy. Politicians mirror the electorate. The electorate lacks a philosophy other than, "What is in it for me?"

Both voters and politicians see government as a means to getting ahead. They generally lack policy based upon fair opportunity and protections for all.

Appearance is just that. Appearance. So what if one politician is a better salesman than the next? If policy is the same there is no real difference.

If a nicely dressed thug has a nice voice and sings to you during the mugging is this a good thing? Does the lack of anything left on your person afterward really matter between the singing thug and the shabby cursing one?

An informed and inquisitive public will avoid the bad policy politicians and the used car salesmen. It is a responsibility to support better.

"We will always quibble. Even disagree. There is so much common ground, too."

Right, I feel that generally speaking, we agree on a lot of things but no worries on where we don't. I feel you're more fiscally conservative than I am, though I agree we need to be more responsible with spending for sure. Your position on Trump also places criticism on policy or him continuing on like other politicians have. I see some of that but tend to be more critical of his approach and delivery, I think the tone he sets is often the number one thing that's working against him. With that said, I have a hard time with across the board condemnation of Trump, in part because I've noticed how dishonest media pundits and other partisans have had to be to maintain a consistently negative tone. It's been surreal watching them follow a path that almost appears programmed in for some of them as if facts and the situation at hand often have little or no impact on their arguments.

You've spoken some on those types of problems in broader terms but I can't help but look at the way left-wing groups handled Trump being elected and how right-wing groups handled Obama being elected and see a difference in the level of vitriol and game playing overall. There is certainly a good bit of that on the right as well but something is happening with many leftist and Democrats which steps things up a few notches. I have a lot of respect for those who are on the left who aren't contributing to those types of problems but they have their work cut out for them.

I believe the amplified hostility when protesting to be the end result of a media that is trying so hard to divide us, discourage conservatives from expressing their views, and portraying them in the worst possible way when they do. The "media" means most of the news media and Hollywood, talk radio is often different but it doesn't get the same exposure when you look at the numbers. The left gets an added boost from colleges which are also generally left-leaning where too many educators are teaching their students to distrust those who have outside opinions. What's happening at UC Berkeley is insanity, I fail to see a comparable large scale but typically conservative institution doing so bad that they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to beef up security each time someone with an opposite opinion simply walks through the door to speak. They've created a student base that's often so biased and hostile that many of them can't control themselves and those types will go on to spread that intolerance to the generation after them and I think that's the point. Catch them while they're young, easier to manipulate, and have a lot of time to spread what they learn to others.

I want to be fair with this but I want to discover the truth as well. I always welcome those on the left to challenge things I say or add information to a debate but thus far I'm not hearing good counters on those kinds of arguments. I asked this question earlier....

"Does anyone know of a situation, in recent history, where an American Christian killed 26 people or more because they held different values or beliefs?"

That in light of Devin Patrick Kelley, barging into a church in Texas and killing 26 people. The broader point I was making there is that a number of things (even larger than that) point to a shift where Christians also appear to be going more on the defense. While there's always going to be a judgmental aspect to religions like Christianity, I don't hear about abortion clinic bombings anymore, I hear a lot of concern that they're being marginalized though and there's a lot of information to support that. Right now, many are putting more emphasis on stories where Trump says something controversial than they do on anything like this because consistent pressure and negative coverage of the right is priority one to a substantial chunk of the News Media, Hollywood, Colleges, and Democrats in office.

To get closer to our debate, on Trump how could I not agree with you that there are problems with him? hmmm.gif I think my position on him is more along the lines of a tweak from where you stand. He's continued with the trend of division between the left and right, he's done nothing to tone back racial tensions, in light of recent events he's spending on a similar level that Obama did, along with a number of other things but if he redirects on some of that he'd have an approval rating similar to what JFK's was. While he's continuing on with some of the nonsense of prior administrations, he's separated himself from the pack in key areas. I mentioned the regulation cutting but there are other things as well. Most recently Trump has been having open discussions with children from Stoneman Douglas High School, as well as openly debating with teachers and elected officials from Florida in regards to developing a new policy. Typically presidents don't get into situations where there are too many unknowns and they're not advised to, televised open policy discussions like that are risky.

In quite a few ways this presidency has got people involved and talking more about how our government functions. Granted a lot of that talk has been divisive or driven by those who are involved because they want to counter Trump but he's brought attention to how our government works for a lot of people and exposed a great deal of the ills within it.

To address a couple more things...

"Politicians could not care less about policy and philosophy other than the philosophy of, "What gets me more power and votes?""

Often that is the case, I'd only add that it's not 100% applicable to everyone and some have this problem more than others.

"Appearance is just that. Appearance. So what if one politician is a better salesman than the next? If policy is the same there is no real difference.

If a nicely dressed thug has a nice voice and sings to you during the mugging is this a good thing? Does the lack of anything left on your person afterward really matter between the singing thug and the shabby cursing one?"

Same as before, I think these are often problems but that they're not applicable in every circumstance. On the first sentence, I believe that things like style, tone, and approach matter less than the substance behind them and that actions speak louder than words as well, but all of that can be important. More or less I have a light version of your beliefs, for your analogy, if a thug can manage to sing and entertain you while he mugs you, anyone who can manage that would be even more dangerous than a thug that behaves like a thug. So I think the point behind the anylogy is a solid one but, as before I think it applies to some politicians more than others. In other words I don't think they're completely lost, yet. (Knock on wood)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: March 23rd, 2019 - 06:39 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.