KOA's Rosen hosted author who claimed that liberal thinking "in some cases" is, in Rosen's term, a "clinical disorder"
On his February 20 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, Mike Rosen hosted Dr. Lyle Rossiter Jr., a forensic psychiatrist who asserted that "[i]n some cases" what Rosen called "liberalness" is a "clinical disorder." Rosen introduced Rossiter as the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness (Free World Books, LLC, October 2006). In a quotation published on the book's promotional website, Rossiter states: "Modern liberalism's irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche."
Rossiter made his statement in response to Rosen's questions, "Is it a disorder, liberalness?" and "Are we talking here about a clinical disorder?" Rossiter replied, "In some cases we are." He later stated that "another irrational goal of the modern liberal agenda is what I call the modern permissive culture that invites not only dependency but destroys self-reliance; it promotes moral relativism, sexual indulgence; it rationalizes violence; it excuses financial responsibility and undermines traditional morality and ethics.
From the February 20 broadcast of Newsradio KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:
ROSEN: Our guest this hour is Doctor Lyle Rossiter. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago. He's board certified in both general and forensic psychiatry, has diagnosed and treated mental disorders for more than 40 years. His book is The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. So, is a fundamental -- a fundamental conflict between a liberal view of the world and a more conservative view of the world, Tom Sowell -- and I've cited his book on many occasions, A Conflict of Visions -- talks about some of these irreconcilable differences regarding notions of human nature on the part of people on the left and people on the right. Is this more than a difference of opinion, a difference of vision? Is it a disorder, liberalness? We'll put that question to Lyle Rossiter, and let's put it to him right now. Lyle, thanks for joining us this morning.
ROSSITER: Thanks for having me.
ROSEN: Are we talking here about a clinical disorder?
ROSSITER: In some cases we are. But those would be selective cases. I wouldn't say that everybody has a clinical disorder who, just because they believe in liberal causes. In fact, I distinguish in the book carefully between what I call the "denying" liberal mind and the "radical" liberal mind. The denying liberal mind is generally a good guy who's pretty reasonable, plays by the rules, believes in the basic rights of ordered liberty, but is very concerned about all the agony and the misery in the world -- and, of course, most of us are -- and he looks to a power beyond himself, and his neighbors, and religious and charitable institutions to try and do something about it. So he's pretty susceptible to the promises and the radical liberal agenda, which is the product of the radical liberal mind, and its promises that if you just elect the right intellectuals, and politicians, and public government officials to power, and give them enough of your tax money and allow them to regulate you sufficiently, they will eliminate that agony and misery in the world and everything will be all right.
Now, I'm obviously overstating the case in some areas. But when the agenda becomes as irrational as it often does with its goals of basically what I call the modern parental state -- some call it the nanny state -- but I call it the modern parental state, it manages, and administers, and regulates the people in order to create a cradle-to-grave custodial welfare state. Then that gets very irrational. Not only because it's morally and consequentially wrong, but because historically, it doesn't work. Tom Sowell, whom you mentioned earlier, documented how destructive the poverty, anti-poverty programs -- the war on poverty and the Great Society programs -- were to families in creating government dependency. And another irrational goal of the modern liberal agenda is what I call the modern permissive culture that invites not only dependency but destroys self-reliance; it promotes moral relativism, sexual indulgence; it rationalizes violence; it excuses financial responsibility and undermines traditional morality and ethics.
—E.B. & J.F.B.
to listen to this audio clip
Comments (6) Show
1 - 6 |
Holy cow! can't rosey get any a-lister guests anymore? gardner was small potatoes enough, but this fraud? geeeeesh! The crazy dialogue between these two phonies reminded me of the old Office of Aryan Supremacy in the third reich. A phony science, funded by special interests, to determine pure Aryan blood was superior to others. This goof with rosey and rosey himself have the same credibility as those nazis of days gone by.
The problem with Rosen's show is that not enough Liberals call his show to challenge his statements. We have an obligation to show his listeners that Rosen is preaching nonsense. When we fail to do that, we are poor citizens.
HUSKERCO, point taken. However, please consider this. Calling his show at any time, for any reason, under any circumstances only validates him. He's not quick enough to allow a caller to make a point any more, so, out of self survival, mutes any caller scoring points on him by using what I call his "bells and whistles". His show is a kangaroo court. "Mr. hold button" and the well timed "breaks" will cut off any commentary, no matter how talented the caller. That's why I advocate for some one like David Sirota to actually go in studio and eviscerate rosey. Won't happen. rosey is a bully who knows his limitations better than any one. Just one encounter with Mr. Sirota would leave rosey humiliated, exposed as a dunderhead, and unemployed. While it would be nice to be able to debate conserves on air, they simply don't allow even a minimal amount of information contrary to the repub ideology to be introduced without responding with interrupting, personal attacks, accusations, and filibustering right up to a commercial break. Believe me, rosey insulates himself with every "bell and whistle" available.
Couldn't agree more LETKEMANN. To even listen to this gangster's hogwash is a waste of time. We know what he's about. By listening to the KHOW or KOA noise, we support the sponsors of this right wing drivel. I can tell you from the incident involving Caldara and his "bitch slap" comment that the sponsors do listen to our concerns when the Imus like tactics of morons like Caldara raise the bar. Of five sponsors I called concerning this incident, 3 responded. Two by phone and one by email each agreeing that Mr. Caldara crossed the line. You will recall the Gooney Boob racist comments that prompted several sponsors to pull their ads off KOA. Enough of these and poof. Rosey and the morons disappear.
As far as "destroying self reliance, promoting moral relativism and sexual indulgence, rationalizing violence, excusing financial responsibility, and undermining traditional morals and ethics" goes, I'd say Bush Cheney and their Repub minions in Congress have done a pretty good job on all counts.
Jackasses like Rossiter and Rosy and their "clinical" take on liberalism is a stale attempt to salvage the past and preserve the stupid white man ethic of fear, ignorance, and insecurity. Times are changing and the cowboys are running scared.
You're right LETKEMANN. Rosey's only shelter from the storm are the "whistles and bells". Time to fry this chicken and move on.
I have heard Hannity get thrown off of his game when he encounters a rash of unfavorable callers. I think that Rosen can be handled the same way. Cord from Boulder used to really challenge Rosen's propaganda. However, since he has been banned somebody needs to step and take his place. We need to fight these guys at every opportunity. We need to show that their views are extreme.
HUSKERCO, I remember Cord. I freely admit I enjoyed to the fullest his abilities to prod rosey into childish outbursts. I just feel that by calling rosey, we contribute to his show's ratings. olinger then thinks he's relevent. While it would be nice to eviscerate him, to do so includes getting by the screener, setting the tempo, and making a point. rosey's gonna interrupt immediately, accuse you of something that you now have to rebut, and your point never gets made. While he's a fraud, give him credit, he never allows a caller dissagreeing with him to get a valid statement finished. I think that by monitoring him via CMM, and NEVER buying from his sponsors, following BIGBOOF's strategy of complaining directly to them, we'll be more effective. In studio debates are great, 'cause he can not employ the bells and whistles as coyly, but rosey doesn't do 'em.
1 - 20 |