Something I've seen around the news a bit lately, and haven't seen it mentioned here (unless I missed it), is Post Election Selection Disorder, or PEST. Seems that some Kerry voters are seeking therapy for dealing with the results of the 2004 Presidential Election.


Link

And a letter from Michael Moore on his Website that compares Democrats to domestic abuse victims.





Is having your candidate lose an election grounds for a mental disorder? Is it fair for some Democrats to compare themselves to domestic abuse victims?

What specific reasons are there (if any) via Bush's re-election, to drive people to depression and solace from group therapy and mental health professionals? I don't merely mean disagreeing with policy, but to be really affected.

Is this unprecedented in any western country at any time in history?

I think what might be affecting a lot of people from this last election is called Learned Helplessness. Usually this takes a bit of conditioning to develop, but I suppose two Bush presidencies and a conservative House and Senate can take the place of many trials. Learned Helplessness is a psychological condition where a subject feels as though they have no control over their environment, (ie. that their behavior is independent of external event).

This can lead to depression because of a perceived lack of control. So P.E.S.T. might just be an extension of Learned Helplessness. I know that I felt somewhat disheartened a few days after the election.

Is having your candidate lose an election grounds for a mental disorder? Is it fair for some Democrats to compare themselves to domestic abuse victims?

Losing an election could be grounds for a mental disorder, but not this election. I'm not so sure about comparing oneself to a domestic abuse victim, but our domestic policy is being abused.

What specific reasons are there (if any) via Bush's re-election, to drive people to depression and solace from group therapy and mental health professionals? I don't merely mean disagreeing with policy, but to be really affected.

The reasons are that people thought they did everything they could, only to be defeated. They (might) now believe that they have no control over the system since they apparently "did everything in their power", and yet still came up empty handed. It's like back when you were in school and you studied really hard for a test only to fail.

Is this unprecedented in any western country at any time in history?

If it's learned helplessness that people are suffering from, then I don't think so. It's just another way in which LH presents itself. It might be the first time something like this has gotten media coverage, thus making it look unprecedented.

Is having your candidate lose an election grounds for a mental disorder? Is it fair for some Democrats to compare themselves to domestic abuse victims?

What specific reasons are there (if any) via Bush's re-election, to drive people to depression and solace from group therapy and mental health professionals? I don't merely mean disagreeing with policy, but to be really affected.

Is this unprecedented in any western country at any time in history?



One thinks they might have been a bit more creative at labeling this disorder than calling it "PEST". That's pretty rough to start with I think and hardly an acronym designed to help these poor people get on with their lives. Just think how these fine people must feel when they show up for a group therapy session and the receptionist asks them if they are there for the PEST group or are they one of the PESTs. It seems to me that alone might make one feel a bit like a victim.

I don't know about any specific reasons for this other than it seems to be somewhat fashionable in some circles these days to be a victim of something. I don't know if it's just a rationalization thing going on or not, but being a victim is "in" lately. I do think there were people who for their own personal reasons became very emotionally attached to this election. There was and continues to be a visceral hatred towards President Bush on the part of some people. In some it is so strong as to perhaps drive them off the deep end into the depths of depression and despair. One can only hope that they can find some sort of solace with their fellow PEST-afflicted and together re-emerge at some point as contributing members of society. Perhaps Michael Moore's next movie might serve as a catharsis as sorts towards restoring these people's mental and emotional health.

This is very interesting and i think it has promise to it. I dont mean such in an anti-bush tone, but in the overall opening to the vast ignorance we live in of the mind really. Such things as neuropsychology, or neurophysics, and or course neurobiology, and so on are all relatively new so to speak. To say how biology and ecology mix with one another is a massive horizon of questions really. If you take a typical american middle aged male and asked him to carry out his life in the opposite dress to his sex, like wearing a dress to work, you might get some kind of a emotion reaction from such an organism and that is a simple example, and of course you can ask why in terms of gaining a direct answer vs. the indirect relative approach, or more philosophy or folklore or so on based. Culture based premonitions to again just a gigantic amount of the unknown there. If the people are suffering mentally, they why cannot they seek help for such in a free society. I had the same feeling of rage and helplessness myself, and i dont think about bush for such a reason. I say let the people get help and let us advance more. Such things could lead to the advancement of various drug therapies really, in aspects of the individual also, again just the unknown and all.

No and no. I would have to say that if everything else was going right in a person's life, having his/her candidate lose the election should not upset the apple cart.

And this country's penchant for coming up with acronyms, cute or otherwise, is just silly at times. It trivializes what these folks are feeling. Why can't mental health professionals just say that it's depression triggered by a big letdown?
There are at least a few things that come to mind:

• Having loved ones overseas who can't come home for the holidays
  
  
• A mounting death and injury toll with no end for this war in sight
  
  
• A sense that what environmental and educational reformers in particular have worked for was set back at least another four years in preference for corporate welfare and increased war expenditures
  
  
• Being out of work or fearing that your job is going next and wondering how the mortgage is going to be paid
  
  
• A sense that the government is curbing our civil liberties ostensibly to fight terrorism but isn't doing *squat* to keep our borders safe from terrorists
  
  
• Watching the depressing news reports on television
  
  

Heck no. The only unprecedented thing about it is that the feeling of loss has been recognized by the media this time. There was increased involvement in this election, so there are more people who are experiencing the sense of loss.

Before the onset of psychotherapeutic drugs and psychotherapy, there were entire families who, for generations, have been prone to depression. (There still are.) Happiness is not a natural state for some people, whether it has to do with brain chemical imbalances or external circumstances. While some may have succumbed to suicide, most have just lived sad lives. It is only recently in our civilization that we have figured that we might have some entitlement to feelings of happiness and fulfillment.

As far as receiving therapy and having support groups for those who feel an acute sense of loss, I see no harm in it.

There is a cliche' the news media used to characterize the issues the Bush supporters voted on: God, guns and gays. I would add lower taxes to that formula. Anything else appeared to be assigned a lower priority in this last election.

Those of us who voted Democratic are concerned about the war (many of us being against it from the beginning but not having a viable anti-war candidate to vote for), the health care crisis, jobs, education and the environment. We see these issues as taking a back seat to a protracted war and the favoring of corporate interests in the next four years, along with a lot more talk about God and less humanitarian emphasis by the God talkers. George W. Bush will continue to have his way with this country in spite of our best efforts to vote him out. It is depressing, but it does not merit a silly acronym to be bandied about.

Sure, given enough other poo in one's life. People have been known to go into deep depressions over a football game.



I think we Democrats should simply embrace the fact that we are devil spawn liberals who want to gouge the wealthy and destroy America as we know it. Thus, the Republicans who think that and express it aren't being abusive at all.

It'd be like disarming a bomb or taking away their bullets.



Does this question really need to be asked? Get real. After the election, I'll bet plenty of Bush voters are having fits of psych turmoil. It's just not proper for them to seek help. Not manly or normal, you know. Too much like being a devil spawn liberal.



Of course not. People have been dealing with being crazy all along. We use to burn devil spawn, remember? That's no longer okay, but it is okay to drive devil spawn bonkers. It must be maddening to the self-proclaimed righteous that the devil spawn is okay with getting some psych help.

In fact, maybe this will become a devil spawn movement! Get mentally healthy and see what happens.

That would be unprecedented in any western country at any time in history.

Well if some liberals really think they are devil spawn then they should seek mental help. Or is this hyper-dramatic sarcasm that really doesn't address the issue.
I don't really care if somebody has to seek 'help' because they can't deal with the fact that their candidate lost the election.....I'm a Libertarian, and I'm pretty certain that MY candidate will never win the presidency, so I ALWAYS have to live with someone I didn't vote for. Yet I don't go crying to a group therapy session.

I think this country has lost it's collective concept of dealing with reality and taking responsibility for individual actions without blaming society, the system or whatever, without seeking 'professional help'.

Yes, I don't put much faith into the mental health system or most psycho-babble, probably because I haven't felt the need for it for myself. I don't knock people for going for what I perceive as real issues, but Kerry losing the election has got to be about the most inane reason I can think of.

Well, at a guess, I'd say because calling it "just depression triggered by a big letdown" doesn't garner press coverage, or the opportunities for lucrative book deals, media interviews, lecture tours, seminars, and so on.

Is having your candidate lose an election grounds for a mental disorder?
Mild depression - possibly. It makes a change from the contrary charge that Democrats are all perfectly normal, and all the Bush voters were suffering form an undiagnosed learning disability, but it's just as inaccurate and just as sweeping a generalisation.
Is it fair for some Democrats to compare themselves to domestic abuse victims?
I think the comparison to abuse victims is specious, unnecessary and I think it would be quite reasonable for abuse support groups and abuse victims to feel hard done-by.

What specific reasons are there (if any) via Bush's re-election, to drive people to depression and solace from group therapy and mental health professionals? I don't merely mean disagreeing with policy, but to be really affected.
As an outsider form a country where we tend not to have therapists medicalising every possible mental state, normal or abnormal, to create new business niches for themselves, I'd say that the main reason for this new condition is, er, having lots of therapists medicalising every possible mental state, normal or abnormal, to create new business niches for themselves.

Is this unprecedented in any western country at any time in history?
No. After the 1992 UK General Election, the Labour movement (which lost to the most unpopular Tory government of recent times under John Major) went through an even worse crisis of confidence and pretty much changed beyond recognition under Tony Blair into a kind of neo-Thatcherite-with-a-social-conscience party. They won a landslide at the next election, and stayed unprecedentedly popular for years after. Only in the last year or two has "normal" politics resumed, and even now, the opposition parties are in such disarray that they could conceivably be in power for another decade.

Trouble with this situation, of course, is that the centre left is likely to exhaust itself completely over such a long time in power, opening the door for a generation of right-wing dominance when they do drop completley off the radar. Personally, I think an alternation of single terms, or even PR power-sharing, would be preferable to such long periods of partisan dominance. It just isn't healthy for over half the population to feel like they are marginalised most of the time.

IMO it's proportionate hyper-dramatic sarcasm for a trivial subject outside the growing divisive issues schism and in line with the increasing specious inanity on AD. Too bad there isn't a twelve step program for pre-invasion Iraq WMD propagandists-in-denial. It would be easier to clump them with a cutesy acronym and at the very least serve as the butt of jokes on someone's blog while they strenuously defend tenuous Saddam/al Qaida/terrorist connections, simultaneously de-emphasizing U.S./Iraq pre-Gulf War transactions and regional terrorist links like a broken record. They've got a few years tenure on the latest denial-ists, after all.

Is having your candidate lose an election grounds for a mental disorder?

No. Their self-styled victimization is a warped prognosis, aided by psychiatrists whose first order of business at higher education institutions should be figure out when to recommend a metaphorical swift kick in the rear first, and how to pay for the mortgage secondly.

I'm not denying someone's feelings towards the election, but there's a time, place, and method for everything. Their feelings are due to internal party dysfunctions. How bad or mild those dysfunctions may be is up for debate. Pining is a waste of energy better spent in political pursuits.

Well, whether it is devil spawn vs. the Righteous or higher-functioning hominids vs. pre-conscience hominids with overly-active limbic system function, all the sarcasm really doesn't matter, unless you happen to be the target of the sarcasm.

This thread does not really need to degenerate into a sarcasm fest.

I would assert that if a person feels that the circumstances of the election and the issues behind it have produced a depression, it is better to go talk to a neutral party about it than to get a gun and blow out some S.O.B.'s brains.

We have a President who still hasn't gone to Dover Air Force Base to honor the incoming soldiers who have given their all for his cause. He maintains a detachment from the nitty-gritty life bereaved families face. It would have been good to know that this President had seen some kind of military action where he was face-to-face with soldiers dying or being wounded for life and where he actually considered his own mortality. No, it's not required in order to be President, but it would be good for any leader who sends troops into battle to know what battles are about.

I would suggest that since depression is essentially anger turned inward, that the anger be turned outward and channeled into useful action of some sort. The causes are still out there. We have an opportunity to influence both major political parties and possibly beef-up a non-Democratic, non-Republican political party to run in the next election cycle.

While it is true that not all of us will be around for the next national election, we can always work to influence it for good, whatever we perceive that good to be.
Ignore the clown in the White House as best you can. Stay in touch with Congresspeople. If they don't vote your way, pester the living daylights out of them. If they do vote your way, encourage and support them. Demonstrate against the war. Write letters to the editor, letters to Congress. Take every opportunity to exercise your right of free speech whether the Emperor hears about it or not.

This is probably off-topic, but it might be helpful to those "suffering" from an infestation of PEST to know the truth about this particular argument - one raised here many times.

Last week, President Bush visited Camp Pendleton in California. That's home to, among others, the First Marine Expeditionary Force. Members of the 1st MEF were among the first to go into Iraq and since that time have suffered a number of casualties. President Bush spoke to them publicly and then ate lunch with them, that was carried on the news. What wasn't carried though was the meeting the President held in the afternoon with the families of our fallen Marines. It was a private meeting, no photo-ops, no publicity. Just the President and the families. I know some of the things that happened there because I know two of the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq and were invited to attend. It was a highly personal and private time for them and based on what they shared with me, it was also a highly personal and private moment for President Bush.

Perhaps it might be useful for the PESTies (can we call them that without upsetting people? ) to examine their affliction and perhaps determine if it might not indeed be self-induced. Consider that Bush and the Republicans are often accused of "wrapping themselves" in the flag with the implication that we only do things for publicity, we don't really mean it. Yet then, when President Bush meets privately with families of soldiers KIA instead of publicily, he's "detached".

Glad to know he's compassionate with somebody's family, Aquilla. After all, he is the one who started the war on Iraq. I will continue to hold Bush responsible for the deaths of American soldiers on this side trip from the so-called war on terrorism. And what about the families of the innocent Iraqis killed? Of course, he's not responsible for those deaths, is he?

As I said, let's ignore this man in the White House. Use the time to work, even on a local level, for better schools and improved environmental quality. Find something useful to do that has an impact on our communities and ultimately our country. Don't worry about derision from the sore winners, the chest-thumping primates who are compensating for something. It's time to get therapy if you're into it; if you're not, just get busy doing something good for those you live with and those whose lives you touch.

No, I do not see those who are depressed about the election being like people who are abused. They do not have to feel that way. Don't worry about the silly psychobabble term "PEST." And remember that depression is pretty common around the holidays anyway--it's probably not all about the election. This too shall pass.

Illegitimi non carborundum--Don't let the bastards wear you down.

Well, at least not the ones killed by their brethren who sport the latest in TNT attire, anyway.

Back to the mental health of Democrats......
Sore winners? Chest thumpers? Compensating? Primates? I thought you wanted people to do something useful? Is name calling useful? Would you not have any problem with someone calling Dems whiny, spineless jellyfish? Pea brained over emotional losers?

Or is it a case of it being OK because sarcasm really doesn't matter, unless you happen to be the target of the sarcasm.


I agree with you on this.

And Aquilla....I personally like the term PEST's

Yes, and I meant every word of it. Sticks and stones and all that, DTOM. I have a brother who demonstrates most of these qualities when he argues politics with me, after he's been drinking and the inhibitions melt away.
Those of us who take it can dish it out as well. Let it run off your back if it doesn't apply.

I might remind you that George W. Bush is a self-proclaimed, born-again Christian. That did not stop him from pointing out to Dick Cheney during the 2000 campaign an editor he called a "major league [anal orifice]," and the microphone picked it up. Yet look at all the great, humanitarian stuff he is supposed to have done...does that negate his good works? Ask his supporters.

Nor do angry words negate what liberals and other non-Bushites can do in their community to effect positive change despite this regime.

Bush is possibly one of the worst presidents we have had in my lifetime. And now he will continue his agenda relatively unobstructed by Democrats, Libertarians and independents.

Don't misunderstand me: I never said to get rid of the anger, but to redirect it. Can you deny that there are those who voted for Bush who are chest-thumping primates who delight in deriding those who voted for the losing candidate because they are compensating for something amiss in their own lives? They're probably talking about the whining, spineless jellyfish Democrats.

"If you can't say something nice about somebody, don't say it" was the advice Thumper's father had in Bambi. However, I somehow think that folks on an Internet debate site can handle it.

The whining, spineless jellyfish Democrats exist with or without their equally idiotic Republican counterparts. One does not cancel the other no matter what a side says or does.


I'm sure we all can, PE. Question is should we. Or better yet, is it worth it and are you being sarcastic to bring attention to something or just getting your licks in. I don't think this is the real you.

Back to the "debate" I have a hard time describing post-election blues as a psychotic disorder. Participants in the BRN therapy group may have a previously undiagnosed disorder. A political immersion and defeat for these people, even if the problem is a mild form of neurosis, can carry an obsession over the election past the appointed date. I share their concerns, I really do, but a few of them sound like bonafide conspiracy theorists. I don't think looking forward to venting and providing the opportunity to vent, thereby prolonging their focus on the election, helps. 38 days later it's time to do other things.

The group facilitator, Rob Gordon, said the group is on the road to making the psychodynamic relationships that will "guide them to a cure." The road they're on perhaps yields a cure for PEST. I wonder if PEST is the root of the problem.

Aquilla

How is it possible to have a 'highly personal and private moment' with several families of grieving strangers? Does GW Bush posses qualities beyond human empathy?


Its hardly 'private' if I can read about it on the internet.

Seems to me just like several of GW Bush's other 'private' moments with grieving relatives. The sort where they come to see him at his convenience instead of him going to their dead family members funerals. 1,200 or so dead US service men and women and not one funeral attended?

Compassionate, or just a busy schedule?

I don't know, Moif, I've never met him personally so all I can go on is what people who have met him have told me.



You read about it on the Internet because I told you about it, Moif. It is up to you to think what you want to think about it. Perhaps there is a group of PESTs in Denmark with which you can share your thoughts on it.

Is having your candidate lose an election grounds for a mental disorder?

Two words. Hell and no. So your candidate lost. Get over it. They're are Los Angeles Clippers fans who have more to be depressed about.

Ok, maybe that was a bit over the top. But with all the rage about being a victim, as Aquilla rightly pointed out, very few people have anything to be upset about. If I could make an example of someone on AD, it would be Wertz. Right now, the administration is trying to Sharpie out his rights and dictate whom he can love and spend the rest of his life with, all the while dealing with violent homophobes from the right. To answer that second question, Wertz is more affected than many of us here.

So what the hell is everyone else on the Left still crying for? I believe PE was the one who made a point about turing anger into action or something like that. If I could spotlight someone else here, Cube Jockey has done just that. BuyBlueBuyBlue.org is something I have been able to witness rise from an idea filled with emotion into a reality. And let me tell ya, with the attention is getting, it could very well make a change.

But why do something when you can gripe and call Republicans chest thumping war mongers, and get time off from work for it.

Ya caught me, Lesly. I was making a point but it was fun doing it. There have been a number of folks having fun with the acronym at the expense of those who have been labeled it by these psychologists. It is ludicrous to compare these folks to those who come from domestic abuse situations.

And to characterize any or all Democrats who were disappointed by the election results as people with "P.E.S.T." is like characterizing any or all Republicans as Ann Coulters or Rush Limbaughs. While there are those who resemble these uh, personalities, the vast majority do not.

Titus is right; if anyone has the right to feel screwed by this administration, it is Wertz.

So let's have our fun with this little thread and take comfort in the fact that since Ashcroft is gone as Attorney General, the bare-naked lady statues are naked for the public once again, and once again young Cub Scouts will have to avert their eyes while visiting the nation's capital! (Of course it will give them something to tell their unmarried parents about when they get home!)

What about conservatives who also think this way? This is an allusion to Ann Coulter, just for clarification.

Point is, after being demonized by the ruling party (and class), I can imagine many reasons some people would need help. On the other hand, demonizing takes its toll too, so I'm pretty sure a lot of conservatives have their mental problems but won't seek help.

And the point is, seeking help isn't shameful in and of itself, but in this country it is, as evidenced by this thread. We should tough it out, go do something else, and so forth. Seeking mental health treatment is a sign of weakness, and that attitude is wrong.

What reasons would some Democrats have for seeking mental health treatment? Really, does this question need to be asked? Okay, what the heck:

1) Getting pushed into a needless war and having to take the risk of this happening again in a number of different places, and this risk-taking being beyond one's control.

2) Putting up with a no-responsibility mind set in the government of the country in which one lives.

3) Receiving regular and pointed criticisms for being what you are, and criticisms not based on fact.

So there are three to chew on.

But of course, if you stay on the outskirts of emotional commitment, then there's no problem. I think the people seeking help have emotionally committed and are having a hard time getting over it. Nothing new about that. It's too bad that we're such a crazy society, and I'm just suggesting that getting mentally healthy might change things in remarkable ways -- also that this would be the first time any nation, western or otherwise, tried this approach.

But PE, why do you not take your fellow Democrats or the mental health crowd to task for christening the ever so lovely acronym?

I could only imagine what would spew from the left if the roles were reversed and the 'fundies, extreme right wing wackos and brownshirts' had lost the election. The party of compassion and tolerance can seem a bit hypocritical sometimes.


Yes let's.......and when you start a thread, I'm sure you will get the same level of respect that you have exhibited....sticks and stones and all.


You know, I'm starting to see something with this PEST problem.....maybe it is valid. How else can so many people flock to victimhood status so easily. It couldn't be compromising personal responsibility could it? Nah......it's got to be somebody else's fault........it always is.........

I love Americans.....

To be seriously affected by election results, would probably mean that the individual was prone to mental health issues anyway, for example depression, because the actually consequences of the election result are going to be relatively minor for any one American individual - if only because it is extremely hard to show a conclusive link between en election result and something bad happening to any one individual. (For example, one could lose their job and blame it on the Bush administration's policies - but this is unlikely to be the root cause, so much as a contributing factor).

In short, the results don't matter that much, so anyone who finds themselves severely affected is probably prone to exaggerating things in their own mind.

I haven't heard of such a thing occuring anywhere else, but if regarded as a symptom of an individual's wider mental health problem, then people have probably given similar reasons for feeling depressed...

Aquilla

Nope. Sorry. No PESTS here.
In point of fact, since we're discussing 'the truth', I may as well point out that your not the first Bush supporter I've seen online relating about President Bush's 'personal and highly private moments'.


Is having your candidate lose an election grounds for a mental disorder? Is it fair for some Democrats to compare themselves to domestic abuse victims?

If they are homosexuals in love and wanting to get married, then I suppose so, though I think comparing that to physical violence is a bit over the top.


What specific reasons are there (if any) via Bush's re-election, to drive people to depression and solace from group therapy and mental health professionals? I don't merely mean disagreeing with policy, but to be really affected.

Well, if you are concerned with the environment and you believe it is the single most important issue currently facing the human race, and you understand that the United States is the worlds greatest cause of pollution and the worlds largest consumer of natural resources, and at the same time you are aware that GW Bush has the worst record of any contemporary western leader with regards to the environment, then you might be forgiven for becoming depressed at his re-election since it will mean another four precious years lost to the onslaught of greed and exloitation that has become a US trademark.

Also. If you are concerned with international peace and stability and you believe that war is an evil that should never be counternanced and no state should ever go to war unless it had been attacked first, and you understand that the war in Iraq was a pre-emptive war that serves no other purpose than the consolidation of American authority in the worlds foremost oil rich region, then again, you might be forgiven for falling into despair as the world, under the direct influence of GW Bush slides backwards into the sort of practices which characterize Imperialism.


Is this unprecedented in any western country at any time in history?

Not really. I know of several examples where the winner of an election caused mass hysteria in his people.

That points to another trend -- denial of political victims. You see, nobody should be upset because of war, nor deficits, nor denial of rights, nor to votes being ignored/discouraged/denied, and on and on.

Yes, somebody is doing something to somebody else, and to deny that is to, well, deny it.

However, seeking psych help is admitting to having a problem, and only one person can do anything about it -- which is the person with the problem. Now would the problem be there no matter what? Good question. Some are -- chemical imbalances or too much pressure from all sides, or some such thing.

I will agree that PEST is a silly acronym for what very well could be a serious problem. Most acronyms are terrible, so blame tech writers and the computer industry for popularizing them. But onward . . .

Chemical imbalances can be treated with drugs; too much pressure can be treated through therapy, as can real life tragedies like death in the family, divorce, loss of job/career, and so on. I guess the attitude is that people should just suck it up, pull themselves up by bootstraps, stiffen upper lips (strange images here), and not seek any help.

My point is well laid out: Not seeking help is worse than seeking help. Psych problems will be expressed eventually, in some manner, and often not associated with the original problems. So when the riots start up (or mass shootings, or whatever), people will wonder what the heck is going on? Where did that come from? Everyone must be crazy!

Exactly. Actual or imagined victimhood will be expressed, no matter what. Treatment might keep it to venting within a support group rather than trying to take it out by violent means.

I think the Demos seeking help are doing the right thing. I don't think the psych pros are just inventing something for profit. However, I also think we will be seeing more untreated psych problems being expressed in puzzling, and violent, ways, as we have in the recent past (thinking Oklahoma bombing, Columbine, and what was up with the arsons out East?).

Will these future events be traced back to the 2004 election? Not if people upset about it seek help.

Personally, I started emotionally distancing myself from the 2004 election before it happened. That's a defense mechanism, and a darn good one. Others went in with both feet, which can very well lead to problems later on. I suppose one could say that they were victims of their own choices.

Eh, so what. That doesn't change the situation, but only gives a rationalization for denial. Those weak, foolish people, tsk tsk. Besides, therapy does work to bring the onus on oneself, since only the self can heal the psyche. Getting help doing this is a wise choice, but it does carry a good deal of social stigma.

I suppose then one could say that these Demos are demonstrating a good deal of guts. Or is this just another foolish choice when employers deny them work and politics deny them positions?

Yeah, well, it's a crazy world all right.

AM, you write very well, and argue your point coherently, but I can't buy into your premise.

Unless I'm misreading you, you seem to be saying that even I should go seek counseling, because if I don't believe in PEST (or some other translation of it) then I'm in denial. I certainly don't believe I am. I know for a fact that I will likely never see my candidate win national office. Should I feel sorry for someone that at least has a 50-50 chance of seeing their guy win?
I really don't care if someone goes into counseling for election loss, but it is my perogative to find it silly.

I totally agree with Lesly when she says:

So maybe it's good that these people are seeking help. Maybe I'm hyper-cynical in that I find the Dems and Reps both just as ineffective and just as owned by special interests. That coupled with the fact that my values will always lose out in presidential elections, by all rights should lead me to a therapist or a water tower with a scoped rifle.......
I can see more value in turning energy into projects such as Choose the Blue and CJ's BuyBlue.org. Not that I think that they will have a great effect on the political landscape, but at least they are trying to be constructive.

I can even see the value in something like This Tribute Video as a form of therapy.

I recognize that I have an inherent distrust of mental health professionals, and I know some people probably benefit from their services, I just can't wrap my little primate pea brain around the loss of an election being a real pressing emotional issue, but I guess that would just be my opinion, not so much of a judgement.

DTOM,

Nope, I think people who think they need some kind of mental therapy should seek it out -- but this is also a risk for future things like background checks. You don't feel this need, so don't waste the time or money.

I do agree that some people get too caught up emotionally, and that for me, this isn't a very good thing to do. I've learned it from other experiences, but maybe some learn it from politics. And yes, I agree that this might even be a foolish way to find out how we can mess ourselves up royally.

Sorry if I got personal with you. Wasn't my intent.

If it's any consolation, my favorite scene in Dirty Dozen is the psych examination. Why'd you answer baseball? Cuz that's what I was thinking about.

As my name has come up here a few times, I suppose I might as well chime in.

Is having your candidate lose an election grounds for a mental disorder? Is it fair for some Democrats to compare themselves to domestic abuse victims?

First, I think the reaction which has lead to "PEST" involves more than merely one's candidate losing an election. Am I, as a gay male, worried about this administration? Damned straight. But I hardly think gay men and lesbians are the only people who should be worried right now. If I worked for a Family Planning Clinic, I'd be worried. If I were a member of the military - or the Reserves or the Guard - or if I had a family member or friend who was a member of the military, I would be very worried. If I used cannabis as a recreational drug, I'd be worried. If I were an investigative journalist - or if I were any objective journalist - or if I were an outspoken member of the opposition, I would definitely be watching my back. If I were struggling to feed my children or hoping that they might one day have adequate health care or a decent education, I'd be seriously worried. If I were concerned about the economic health of the US and were my livelihood at all dependent on the stability of the dollar, I'd be mortally worried right now. If I were interested in civil rights or human rights or the sanctity of the Constitution - in short, if I genuinely cared about the future of this country - I might be worried to the point of needing professional help.

To many, myself included, this election was not just about one candidate winning and another losing. To many of us, the defeat of George W Bush was America's last hope. And, for us, that hope is gone. For us, the damage that was done during the first four years of this administration may now be irreversible. The White House is hoping to make much of that damage permanent - and to further bastardize our Constitution and our laws. They are hoping to stack the federal courts, including the Supreme court, with judges who are opposed to our rights. For those who see beyond a mere pair of candidates, there is good cause for depression, despair, anxiety - and, perhaps, therapy.

What specific reasons are there (if any) via Bush's re-election, to drive people to depression and solace from group therapy and mental health professionals? I don't merely mean disagreeing with policy, but to be really affected.

As mentioned above, this is not about simple disagreement. Many people's futures are at stake - many people's lives are at stake. To me, those could be construed as serious enough concerns to exert a bit of mental stress.

Is this unprecedented in any western country at any time in history?

Not in the least. I am sure that there were many Jews and homosexuals and gipsies and communists and intellectuals who were more than a little nervous in the late thirties in Germany. I expect that there were many who suffered a bit of mental stress in Italy at the same time. I imagine that there were many who felt the same in Stalin's Russia and Franco's Spain. Of course, some of these comparisons will be taken by many as an overreaction. That may well be. Personally, I'd rather overreact than be caught totally unawares.

In Reagan's America, I knew a lot of people who were terrified that the AIDS epidemic would go unchecked, that there would be no adequate education, no proper research into treatment or cure, that even their insurance rights would not be protected and that they would not be able to afford hospitalization or drug therapy. Most of them are dead now.

I do not see my own concerns leading to an outright mental disorder, but among some people I know, their existing politcal paranoia is definitely being amplified by their trepidation about their future and the future of America. Personally, I'd agree with those who say that taking action is the best therapy - be it fight or flight. But there are many who are not equipped to do either - and they may find some solace in expressing their fears to PESTs of a like mind.

At the risk of being accused of playing The Race Card, I really do think this is a White Thing and as a Black male, I don't understand. I never hung all my hopes, dreams and aspirations on the fortunes of one politician.

I voted for John Kerry. I wanted him to win. I was disappointed that he lost. But I still had to go on with my life, win, lose or draw. As I said before; All that happened was that one wealthy and privileged white man beat another wealthy and privileged white man. I wasn't expecting ice cream and cake everyday if Kerry won. Nor do I expect whips and chains because Bush did.

It is pure hyperbole to compare the Democrats debacle of November with the suffering of domestic abuse victims, Holocaust survivors or Arizona Cardinals season ticket holders. I'm waiting to hear that somebody committed suicide because Kerry lost. I'm willing to bet that some knucklehead cashed their own check in despair (but then I live in a city where some heavy metal moron offed a bunch of people because his favorite band broke up. Go figure).

All you have to do is understand the fear and loathing Bush invokes in some quarters is to watch Bowling For Columbine and how FEAR is often used to terrify Americans into mindless panic.

Bush is going to make abortions illegal. Bush is going to destroy the environment. Bush is going to make us all evangelicals. Bush is going to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Bush is going to kill thousands of civilians and soldiers in another pointless war. Bush is going to give all the money to the rich and starve the poor. Bush is comin' to get yo' mama. All these fears and more that a George Bush, freed from facing reelection, will take the gloves off and just do something awful and horrible to America. You can almost see the blood dripping off the fangs...

I have a reasonable amount of faith that not everyone who voted for George Bush hates gays, blacks, liberals and France (not necessarily in that order). I have the expectation that compassion, charity, a love of freedom and democracy, basic fairness, a sense of justice and peace on earth and goodwill toward men, women and children are not traits exclusive to Democrats. I'm pretty secure believing that Republicans love their kids too and don't want them drinking polluted water or breathing dirty air either.

Just which Democrats and psychotherapists do you want me to take to task for coming up with the lovely (your word) acronym? Did they post it here? No, you did. This is where I read it, and it sounds ridiculous to me.

As far as the 'fundies, extreme right wing wackos and brownshirts' go, I do not recall bringing up any of those appellations here. Besides, you will not have the opportunity to read whether I am as ungracious a winner as some Republicans have demonstrated themselves to be until the next election. And you just might be surprised how I and my fellow anti-Bushites comport ourselves under different circumstances.

If the next thread I start is as specious as this one and invites the use of pejorative descriptions of a side whose members are feeling a sense of loss and using an acronym that invites derision, I suppose I can expect sticks and stones and, as you put it, "the same level of respect" I exhibited.


This quotation I lifted from another posting of yours, and it seems that what I wrote must have struck a nerve. Did you honestly take it personally when I wrote those things? No wonder you're upset. If it makes any difference, I didn't mean you. The fact is, I give you credit for having political consciousness and a conscience to think beyond the "what's in it for me" mindset so characteristic of some of the "red" frame of mind.

I have answered the question. No, it's not something new. No, it does not rise to the same level of seriousness of the plight of those who are physically abused. And yes, if someone feels s/he needs therapy after this last election, by all means, go to a therapist, go to group.

But to allow sniggering over the name from some posters but not something from the other side of the argument other than "gee, that's not right," or "that's not fair," or "gosh oh my oh golly gee, you folks shouldn't make fun of them" actually promotes the idea of liberals and Democrats being wishy-washy, ineffective or jelly-spined. Allow some of us to show that our spine is composed of the same bone and cartilage that yours is.

Are you shooting the messenger? I'm just bringing up a topic to debate, much like others do here at AD. (always seems to work well with the anti-Bush threads )

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to attribute the fundies, extreme right wing wackos and brownshirts line to you....I lifted those gems off of some cute leftist forums I frequent.


Whoa there...I'm not upset at all...just as you said in an earlier post...I was making a point, but having a little fun with it. I make attempts at self deprecating humor...might not be so good at it at times.

Just to clarify for everybody, I'm not equating Democrats with domestic abuse victims, a letter posted on Michael Moore's site espoused that notion. I found it so ridiculous and downright insulting to real victims, it was the impetus behind starting this thread.


Touche' That's why I enjoy debating with you.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me the answer is no. My first vote for President was in 1964. I have now voted in eleven elections.

Here's my track record:

1964-Johnson-Won
1968-Humphrey-Lost
1972-McGovern-Lost
1976-Carter-Won
1980-Anderson-Lost
1984-Mondale-Lost
1988-Dukakis-Lost
1992-Clinton-Won
1996-Clinton-Won
2000-Gore-Lost (well sort of)
2004-Kerry-Lost

In eleven tries I’ve won 4, (36%) lost 6, (55%) had one stolen in Florida (9%).

I’m used to losing, so I’m basically immune to any potential mental disorders that might be associated with Bush’s victory.

What really has me tearing my hair out is the plethora of clowns that insist on taking victory laps by not removing Bush bumper stickers from their gas guzzling SUVs and Texas pick-'em-up trucks.

I did a little better than you, BoF.

1972 - Nixon - Won
1976 - Ford -Lost
1980 - Reagan - Won
1984 - Reagan - Won
1988 - Bush - Won
1992 - Perot - Lost
1996 - Dole - Lost
2000 - Bush - Won
2004 - Bush - Won

Hmmmm... 6-3, not bad overall. My record with Congresscriters isn't quite so good, so I won't talk about that. However, I will tell you that I don't have any Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on my cars, never did, but in deference to the PESTs, I did take down my Bush/Cheney yard sign a few days after the election. Living in a Blue state and county though, I still do see some Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on cars. Since they aren't doing victory laps I can only assume that they are too depressed at the moment to remove those stickers. Ahd, hey, that's ok with me, I'm not going to hit them or honk at them or yell out of the window of my reasonably fuel-efficient car at them. Having withstood 8 years of Slick Willie in the White House, I can understand their pain.

But, all kidding aside and I plead guilty to being somewhat tongue in cheek in this thread and having a little fun with it, the Kerry supporters around here are my friends and neighbors and we have a whole lot more in common than not. My friend here, (at least I think he's still my friend even though I didn't call him when I was in Columbus ) Nighttimer summed it up perfectly when he said the following......




Nighttimer is right on target with this statement and I think anyone who is suffering from some sort of depression over this election would be well-served to read what he says and understand that it's true. That will do them more good than any form of "therapy" will.

Look, I don't deny that the Republican Party has it's share of nutcases on the extreme right. Just as their counterparts on the extreme left, they get more than their share of airtime on television and radio and have a forum to make all kinds of crazy claims to having some sort of a power because they "put Bush in office" or some such nonsense. Well, they didn't and they don't. If they think they're going to push some sort of wacko extreme right-wing agenda on the American people, they are sadly mistaken cause it ain't a gonna happen. The mainstream Republican Party won't allow it and we're in power at the moment. We're not going to round up gays and blacks and liberals and ship them off to re-education camps in a red state while we delcare war on France. And we don't want our sons and daughters to drink sewage water or breathe air that you can see and taste and we don't want to see people living under freeway overpasses and in cardboard boxes or teenage girls having back-alley abortions. We don't want any of this and in that, Republicans share the same goals as Democrats and other parties. Our only difference is in how we propose to solve the problems and that gets me to my last point.

I wrote a story about my election night experiences in Columbus in another thread that bears repeating here I think. I was literally surrounded by Kerry supporters when I was there - not surprising since I was working for the European media. As it became apparent that President Bush was going to be re-elected, my camera man who was a strong Kerry supporter looked me in the eye and said, "Ok, you guys won. You've got your chance. Now you better lead and do something with it." That is an awesome challenge that the Republican Party asked for and recieved from the American people. It is a challenge that better be taken seriously by my party or there will be hell to pay and I will be among those leading the charge.

I was going to avoid this topic because I could not see how I could answer it without wandering off topic. I just can't keep quiet about it anymore (who would have thought I would be unable to keep my mouth shut ).



The "ruling class"? Who is the ruling class? If it is just the wealthy, then I think their are an awful lot of members of the "ruling class" in hollywood who have spent years demonizing the right and the Republicans. In the last 10 years, partisanship has grown to the level of absurdity and both sides spend an equal amount of time demonizing the other. I find it hard to believe that this sort of demonization would cause someone to have issues because political demonizing rarely has any basis in reality.

The ever increasing victim mentality in America is scary. She maimed her husband because he abused her. Nope, she never called the police, never tried to leave, etc, She just decided to maim him and she should not be punished because she was a victim. He may have killed those people in the liquor store, but he is poor, and was beaten as a child so we shouldn't hold him accountable. They did shoot up the school and injured alot of people but they were picked on by other kids for being different, so how can we blame them?

Too many people I know are saying things like, I need to move or why should I bother voting in the future, etc. As is the case in any election one side lost. In this particular election, the side that lost did so, IMHO because they completely failed to articulate their message. America wants more then " my opponent is bad, and I will be better" they want to know how.

So, one can choose to wallow in self pity over this loss and waste alot of emotional energy on it, or you can choose to use that emotional energy to get involved in the political process now and push your side to do better in the next election. How much energy is waisted on this that could already be turned into action for the 2006 congressional elections?



Everything is a mental issue now. Kids are naturally hyper, and naturally have short attention spans and naturally have a tendency toward defiance. Yet these days, rather then be parents, many turn to mental professionals, who call these age old actions mental conditions now, and medicate their kids into zombie like states. When will this all stop?

Some of our greatest Americans were people who had strong feelings and faced adversity. This is also where some of the best writing, especially poetry comes from. Of course, if we medicate it away, we wont see much in the way of new quality writing in this vain.



1) Where was the same outcry over Somalia? Where were all the people seeking to enrich professional councilors back then?

2) It has been this way for as long as I have been alive because of the actions of BOTH parties.

3) People on either political side receive this criticism equally. People on the right that go to Universities, the former homes of free speech and exchange new ideas, are frequently shouted down to the point that their speech is pointless because it cannot be heard.

The REAL cause of all the grief and worry over this election and politics in general IMHO is the blind partisanship that has pervaded out culture these days. People on both sides have come to believe that the other side will bring the complete destruction of the world if they are allowed to obtain power. They fail to look at their political history and see that both sides are equally responsible for the mess we are in. It all didn't start just 4 years ago. It all started 60+ years ago.



Unfortunately Nighttimer there are far too many people in America these days that do not see it this way.

There are those on the left who think that the right being in power will lead to the removal of all sorts of personal rights, lead the economy into the next depression and cause people all over the planet to die. Then there are those on the right who believe the exact same things in regard to the left coming back into power.

When will we ever learn that a Representative Republic, where nearly ALL the Representatives on BOTH sides are members of the elite wealthy class will NEVER be good for the average American regardless of who's party is technically in charge.




I know more people that have stronger emotional commitments to their professional sports teams of choice then their politics. When their team losses, do they need professional help?



IMHO the only thing is is going to change is the size of the bank accounts of the mental health professionals and the amount of volunteers available to Democratic candidates as some will decide involvement is too draining on them and others will not be available because of the hours committed to their mental health professionals enrichment, pity party groups, or whatever.



The same holds true for many of the new disorders we have in this generation. For as long as public schools have existed, some kids have pick on other kids. In the past, it was considered part of growing up. Now it is considered the cause of mental illness that will need a lifetime of treatment (and payments) and in some quarters an excuse for violent action. As a former kid who was the subject of an immense amount of ridicule growing up I can say from experience that the difference between someone who acts violently in response and someone who blows this sort of treatment off is the result of good parenting and the teaching of children of what is right and what is wrong and that life is not always fair. These days, we seem to have lost those teachings in favor of the almighty god of self esteem. And it has gotten us where?


When people say get over it, I don't think many mean you lost tough (At least I don't) they mean get over it and fight the fight again. There are many who have turned their emotional energy into action that can help their political cause in the elections to come. That is the best way to "get over it" IMHO.



Great one NT!! As I see it, the party that was in power and messed up our lives, squandered our future, involved us in unnecessary wars and acted in the interest of corporate America and the Wealthy in America is no longer in power. They were replaced by the party that messes up our lives, squanders our future, involves us in unnecessary wars and acts in the interest of corporate America and the Wealthy in America. Nothing has changed other then placement of a few animal symbols.

In the end, I have to agree with Dontreadonme


If my opinions on this issue (or on any issue for that matter0 are offensive to someone, then my answer is: Tough, deal with it. This is a free country where we are all guaranteed the right of free speech, but we are not guaranteed the right to be heard, or to NOT be offended.

BoF,

Yep, and I'm a Vikings fan.

One thing missed so far is the fact that a lot of new-comers to politics put their hearts and souls into winning this election. Losing hurts, and those of us accustomed to it have grown thick skins.

Others have not.

Regarding bumber stickers, they don't affect me. Actually, they just let me know how little regard people have for their vehicles and minds. Some of the more clever ones get a chuckle. The political ones, no matter who the candidate, are just ignorant, to me. I really don't care how other people feel about them.

Yep, pretty thick, like a brick. Others are not.

As far as fearing Bush, well, let's just say if one isn't feeling some trepidation for the next four years, starting in January 2005, then one isn't aware. However, awareness will be coming and the charge will be on.

I actually feel a little sorry for Bush. Eh, push that liberal poo down. He'll get exactly what he deserves. His daddy took Reagan's lumps, but this kid will have to take his own.

Anyway, right now for liberals, thick skins are good. And to stay on track, therapy can help to grow the armor. It can help to tear down walls too. What's the diff? Walls are erected from the fear of experience; armor is clad from the caution of experience.

Here's another take: Losing causes hormonal changes, as does winning. The hormone changing is testosterone, but this change isn't universal:

Winning and Losing and Testosterone

Excellent point!! Experience teaches wisdom. Wisdom teaches one how to protect their persona from such things a loosing a contest. To me, this is the definition of Maturity. I just don't see it as something one needs a professional to learn this. But then again, I am a member of the working poor and simply do not have the money to blow on paying someone to listen to my complaints and tell me it will get better (I just use my wife for that. ).



I found this to be quite interesting.



Interesting. So, there are chemical changes that effect emotions when someone wins or looses any contest and woman are different then men. Not all that surprizing, but certainly interesting.



Ah ha!! This looks like the beginning of scientific evidence that a woman scorned is something to be feared!! Every man who is married to a woman knows this already, but at least now there is proof (or at least the beginnings of proof). But is there a cure?


(emphasis mine)

45 Minutes. The chemical change lasts 45 minutes, so it would appear, at least according to this study, that the cause of this PEST issue is NOT a chemical imbalance based on winning or loosing. If it was, why would so many continue to suffer from it?

Sorry, but I think this is more an issue of sour grapes (and this is coming from someone who DID NOT vote for Bush). If you want things to be better in the future then accept the past, as the past, and focus on what you can do to change the future.

If you want real change then you will have to seriously consider the fruitlessness of Rabid partisanship and the reality that the only difference between the average elected Democrat and the Average elected Republican is that one's name is two letters longer then the other.

If all you actually want is change from what we have now to what we have now, but with another party being in charge then get up, dust yourself off, and go down to you local Democratic Club and volunteer on local campaigns, county campaigns, state campaigns and the upcoming 2006 congressional campaigns.

If however, you want real change than start getting involved in the various organizations fighting for REAL progress in America, like the New America Foundation, the Reason Foundation, etc. And take the time to learn the positions of the various politicians running in the various races around you from dog catcher to Senator and vote for the one who you feel best represents positive change for America, regardless of party.