Wall Street Journal political columnist Gerald Seib takes note of the growing ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans, citing a WSJ/NBC News poll conducted Dec. 6-9. Tellingly, among the findings:
- Asked if they were a supporter of the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one women, 69% of Republicans said yes versus 25% of Democrats.
- Asked if they were a supporter of the gay-rights movement, 63% of Democrats said yes versus 14% of Republicans.
One conclusion might be that gay people and their friends should only support Democrats, a view held by many leading national and regional LGBT advocacy groups. A more strategic take-away would be that winning over Republicans should be the key aim of those self-same groups.
In post-marriage-equality America, it seemed at first as if culture war divisions might give way to a new consensus, with conservatives seeing married gay people as a positive—akin to what’s happened in the U.K., where Prime Minister David Cameron has said, “Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us. Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and we support each other. I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.”
But in the U.S., polarization on gay issues is hardly abating, as the WSJ poll shows. And here, a major factor, I believe, has been the well-publicized efforts by LGBT social justice warriors to prosecute small business owners with conservative religious beliefs (including wedding planners, photographers, florists and bakers/caterers) under anti-discrimination laws, using the power of the state to put them out of business if they refuse to provide their services to same-sex marriages.
Conservatives place a high value on religious liberty, which today’s secular progressives frequently dismiss as if it were of no consequence. So a cynic might suggest that perpetuating polarization through such prosecutions—instead of tolerating a minor amount of religious dissent—while not in the best interest of ensuring wider acceptance of LGBT equality, could be in the best interest of professional advocates whose continued existence and full coffers are predicated on keeping the culture wars burning.
Social conservative politicos and activists are fanning the flames, but it’s intolerant progressives who keep striking the match.
32 Comments for “Agenda: Maintain the Ideological Divide”
posted by Doug on
To quote Ronald Reagan “There you go again, Stephen” It’s all those progressives fault that the GOP is so bigoted. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Social conservative politicos and activists are flaming the flames, but it’s intolerant progressives who keep striking the match.
Utter nonsense, Stephen. Less than a dozen business owners, all of them conservative Christians, have run afoul of public accommodations laws. Progressives have not, for the most part, exploited the issue. Republican politicians, on the other hand, have pulled out all the stops to exploit the issue, spreading fear and loathing of gays and lesbians, and leveraging conservative Christian paranoia to the fullest extent possible. The issue should be a non-issue, and it is an issue only because Republican politicians have elected to make it an issue.
In post-marriage-equality America, it seemed at first as if culture war divisions might give way to a new consensus, with conservatives seeing married gay people as a positive—akin to what’s happened in the U.K., where Prime Minister David Cameron has said, “Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us. Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and we support each other. I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.”
Perhaps supposedly pro-equality conservatives like Paul Singer should take a page from Cameron’s book, instead of endorsing and funding determinedly anti-equality politicians like Marco Rubio, who has doubled down in recent weeks to spread his version of anti-equality Gospel.
I would argue that “a new consensus” has emerged.
Support for marriage equality is very high among Democrats and high among Independents, and even 35-40% of Republicans support marriage equality, not that you would ever guess that by listening to Republican politicians, who uniformly refuse to utter a whisper of support. Old people and conservative Christians are the only demographics that are holding out.
Similarly, on the question of hapless “bakers, florists and photographers”, when asked the question “If a business provides wedding services, such as catering or flowers, should that business be allowed to refuse those services to same-sex couples for religious reasons, or should they be required to provide those services to same-sex couples as it would to all other customers?”, 57% of Americans said that the businesses should treat all customers on an equal footing. Again, the demogaphics split — Democrats and Independents favor requiring businesses to treat all customers on an equal footing, but 67% of Republicans do not.
I would also argue — as you have in the past when you aren’t too busy trashing progressives to get around to it — that the conservative Christian segment of the Republican base is keeping the Republican Party from moving forward on the issue. The problem is not that Americans have formed “a new consensus” so much as it is that Republican politicians are too frightened by conservative Christian power in the Republican primaries to take any steps to recognize it. Progressives have had little or nothing to do with it.
One conclusion might be that gay people and their supporters should only support Democrats, a view held by many leading national and regional LGBT advocacy groups. A more strategic take-away would be that winning over Republicans should be the key aim of those self-same groups.
Interesting. In 2014, when the HRC announced a three-year, $8.5 million campaign to promote equality in three Southern states dominated by conservative politics and religion (Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi), you opposed the effort as I recall, arguing that only conservatives can be effective when it comes to winning over conservatives, and progressives should butt out. Is my recollection wrong, or have you had a change of heart?
But somebody has to win over Republicans, and supposedly pro-equality conservatives sure as hell aren’t doing it. So while I think that advocating “equal means equal” should be the sole aim of LGBT groups, part of that effort is to make the case to conservatives, with or without help (and perhaps opposition) from homocons.
posted by Jorge on
“Agenda: Maintain the Ideological Divide”
*Cheer-cheer!* What? That’s a totally cool headline. It’s like android monotonespeak, only political.
One conclusion might be that gay people and their supporters should only support Democrats, a view held by many leading national and regional LGBT advocacy groups. A more strategic take-away would be that winning over Republicans should be the key aim of those self-same groups.
Change the language from one that talks about Democrats and Republicans as individuals and make it about Democrats and Republican as abstract political forces and I would agree with both statements. It is useless to persuade or work with individuals, because individuals do not reproduce. You must persuade a critical mass necessary to create an enduring sociopolitical change.
The issue should be a non-issue, and it is an issue only because Republican politicians have elected to make it an issue.
First things first. This post is almost completely ramblypost. It’s a whole bunch of accusations without any citations or references to events or even an “as you already know”, and there’s more of it than I can ever remember seeing on this site.
I also find myself agreeing with it. For reasons that fall under “as you already know.”
He alleges, “In post-marriage-equality America, it seemed at first as if culture war divisions might give way to a new consensus, with conservatives seeing married gay people as a positive”, and, I agree with this observation*. I further believe there have been many moments in which Christiancon flailing on gay rights matters has led to politics and media paying them absolutely no mind*. I don’t believe the flailing has ever abetted. It is a constant.
*: For reasons that fall under “as you already know.”
Combine moment of détente + Christiancon flailing as a constant, and you have to conclude that Christian conservatives alone cannot create contention. You have to conclude that the level of contentiousness depends on something other than what Christian conservatives are doing.
Therefore, I believe that Stephen Miller’s statement that “Social conservative politicos and activists are flaming the flames, but it’s intolerant progressives who keep striking the match” is… spot-on, and in exactly the order the words are written in. You cannot say intolerant progressives are striking the match, and social conservatives are fanning the flames. This happens in the reverse order.
…The problem is not that Americans have formed “a new consensus” so much as it is that Republican politicians are too frightened by conservative Christian power in the Republican primaries to take any steps to recognize it. Progressives have had little or nothing to do with it.
True, but that’s a little different than what Mr. Miller is talking about. Consensus can be achieved with a Republican party that refuses to move forward. That’s not the same as actual counter-activism.
So while I think that advocating “equal means equal” should be the sole aim of LGBT groups, part of that effort is to make the case to conservatives, with or without help (and perhaps opposition) from homocons.
As a gay moderate, I would be more than happy to oppose any effort to limit the authorized activity of LGBT groups to “equal means equal”
posted by Houndentenor on
So how do we convince Republicans to support gay rights? As I know a lot of them I could use some advice. It’s not a rhetorical question. What do I say to convince them?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that we can influence individual Republicans the same we we’ve won over Americans in general.
We come out, be out and stay out. My husband is a Texas native, and he has, little by slowly turned most of his family members around, just by being out. Republicans are no different than any other, in the sense that they care about family, friends, co-workers and neighbors, and will, as often as not, slowly rethink their anti-gay attitudes when a person that they know and love or like is known to them to be gay. The studies support the correlation between knowing a gay person and having increased levels of support for gay rights.
I think that it is also a good idea to confront Republicans, quietly but firmly, when they express anti-equality attitudes, which are, most of the time, not well thought through on their part, just repeating what they “know” from years and years of anti-gay and anti-equality propaganda. I’ve done this many, many times, and it gives Republicans pause to find themselves outside of the echo chamber for a bit. Anything that gets a person thinking about gays and lesbians in a new way is likely to help over time.
And finally (and this is a subset of confronting, I guess), I point out that the movement toward “equal means equal” is essentially conservative, reflecting mainstream American values. Marriage is, as Jon Rauch and others have been pointing out for years, essentially a conservative value, and amongst the gay/lesbian community, the conservatives prevailed over those who wished to abandon marriage as a social entity for gays and lesbians. Focusing on family and career are conservative values (as well, of course, as progressive values). So is the idea that all Americans should be treated equally under the law. And so on, and so on.
The reason that it is important to confront Republicans is that too many of them live in the Republican echo chamber, in which “liberals” have driven the gay rights movement in an effort to destroy God, Family, Country. Even homocons like Stephen, supposedly pro-equality and supposedly our voices in Republican circles, constantly spread the Republican Gospel that gays and lesbians, brainwashed by “liberals”, are intolerant thugs hell bound to destroy all that is good about our culture and our country. If we talk for ourselves, we can talk truth, and that will, one hopes anyway, help to dispel the negative effects of the echo chamber.
Lori has pointed out in the past that bringing Republicans around is a one-at-a-time process, labor intensive to say the least. That’s been my experience, too. Hearts and minds are not won wholesale.
I know that retail, one-on-one efforts work over time, little by slowly, because I lived in a rural, Republican area of Wisconsin until Monday, when Michael and I moved to Madison to get closer to the University of Wisconsin hospital. I spent a lot of time over the last decade on one-on-one work with Republicans, and I’ve made progress. It isn’t easy and it isn’t quick. But most of the people I’ve spent time when have moderated their anti-gay attitudes over the course of a few years.
Having said that, I don’t know how to convince Republicans as a political party to support gay rights. I’m not sure that it is possible until the demographics of the party change over the course of the next decade, and the demographic shift could go either way.
The older demographic will die off, to be replaced by a younger demographic, and that suggests that the Republican Party will, over time, become less entrenched in opposition to gay rights. However, age demographics aren’t the whole story. Over the last decade or two, the Republican Party has become more and more skewed toward white, evangelical, conservative Christians, a demographic that is steadfast in opposition to gay rights of any kind, and is not likely to migrate toward tolerance/support as quickly as the rest of the country. If skewing continues over the next decade, as others abandon the party, the party could become more entrenched in opposition than it is even now. The hope, I guess, is that younger white, evangelical Christians are less inclined to oppose gay rights than are older conservative Christians, although it is only among the youngest voting demographic that there is any significant level of support for gay rights among white evangelicals.
Republicans as a party will also have to deal with the “old habits die hard” problem.
Republican politicians opposed DADT repeal in 2010, almost to a man, despite the fact that 80%+ of Americans and a majority of self-identified Republicans supported repeal. Legislative votes don’t necessarily follow current changes in public opinion, but instead change on a lagging schedule because “old attitude” politicians have to be replaced with “new attitude” politicians, and that takes time.
In short, I don’t think that there is much any of us can do to influence the speed of change in the Republican Party as a party. We can help individual Republicans climb out of the swamp, but not the party as a whole. Republicans are going to have to do that for themselves.
posted by Jorge on
My suggestion is that you talk about real problems that should not be, problems that require a solution that Republicans are not offering. Not the 1000-plus rights thing. One person, one serious problem, the one or two things you find most compelling, things that force a decision or position. My suggestion is to appeal to pragmatism. You do not need to convince them that your solution is the correct one (of course you explain it), but explain that the problem cannot be ignored. Be prepared for absurdity (“Why can’t they just get straight married?”).
I think that it is also a good idea to confront Republicans, quietly but firmly, when they express anti-equality attitudes, which are, most of the time, not well thought through on their part, just repeating what they “know” from years and years of anti-gay and anti-equality propaganda.
…
And finally (and this is a subset of confronting, I guess), I point out that the movement toward “equal means equal” is essentially conservative, reflecting mainstream American values.
…
Having said that, I don’t know how to convince Republicans as a political party to support gay rights.
Well said.
The establishment Republicans include many people who conclude that gay rights is fundamentally a progressive and not conservative cause either ideologically or politically, and who can tell you down to a hairsbreadth everything that is subtly subversive with everything that is progressive. They will be well prepared to question you about those “pro-equality” attitudes that are “not well-thought through.” The vast majority of them will not bother, though. They see what happens when long-standing straight friends “suddenly” announce that they cannot attend one’s wedding. (Not many people have the skill to tell a close friend such horrible things like “Uhhhhh I think your baby shouldn’t be baptized because he was born to parents who are living in sin.” ) In this political and social environment, it is better to stay silent and keep to oneself. That’s why I tell you to be prepared for absurdity.
posted by Houndentenor on
In other words, a liberal like me is not going to convince them that they as conservatives should support gay rights. I will keep trying anyway, but that was already self-evident to everyone but Stephen and his ilk. It’s not THEIR responsibility to make the argument for gay rights to their fellow conservatives! No, it’s liberals fault for being liberal because reasons!
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Again, the Conservative party in the U.K. changed its views on gay marriage, largely because it was essential for the party to demonstrate its ability to lead a diverse, multicultural Britain that supports things like, universal health care and marriage equality.
I suspect that many gay and straight Conservative party members were also influential in shifting the party on gay rights. They probably didn’t simply write silly blogs or sit around and blame the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats.
posted by Kosh III on
“a major factor, I believe, has been the well-publicized efforts by LGBT social justice warriors to prosecute small business owners with conservative religious beliefs”
No progressives here in the heartland of Conservative polticians and the Southern Bigot Convention. The “warriors” here want to destroy gay people.
http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2015/12/30/gay-rights-face-onslaught-in-2016-legislature
Homocons need to get out more often.
posted by Houndentenor on
Although I have no authority to negotiate on behalf of anyone, I offer this compromise…Republicans stop fighting gay marriage and gay rights and we agree not to make them provide any services for our weddings. Would they be willing to accept such a compromise?
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
No, because you are still “forcing” them to treat you in a decent and civilized manner.
posted by Barbara on
It’s simple. The problem resides in these words from Cameron: “Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us. ”
True in the UK, untrue here and now in the US. Simple.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m finding it helpful to research the history of the LGBT movement. If more of us did that, we’d gain a better perspective on the overall situation.
It’s proving quite useful in my work as an activist on behalf of those with mental health issues. (See how clunky that is? If it gets onto the map and begins to be more widely recognized, hopefully we can come up with something shorter.)
The mainstream, authoritarian left has little interest, as yet, in this budding movement. It affects far more people than the LGBT issue–one out of every four Americans suffers from some sort of a mental health concern. But 25% of the population is languishing in a gigantic closet. They’ve been bullied and shamed into it, and ordered never to come out.
How do we get the left interested? Individually. Person-to-person, and person-by-person. It’s a sleeping giant, just beginning to awaken. For the political sociopaths who care about nothing else, at the very least it represents a hell of a lot of votes.
So I’m talking to people. I’m getting something started in my diocese. I’m working with other people of faith. And I’m bypassing the professional “progressives” who just don’t care (yet). They’ll care when they think there’s something in it for them–which is when a lot of other people are on board.
And I’m writing about it. Among other projects, I’m writing a book chronicling my “guinea pig” experiences in coming out of the closet. My perspective as having already come out of the closet as a lesbian helps me a lot here.
But Tom is right. Convincing people about any political issue begins at the person-to-person level.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have no idea as I have no connection to any left-wing groups, but if your statistic is accurate and 1 in 4 Americans has a mental health issue that means EVERYONE knows someone who is suffering. If you’re hoping for government action, good luck. We can’t even do anything about the backlog in applications for veterans’ benefits and there is no constituency against fixing that problem. If you want to raise public awareness you need to get a media figure or celebrity interested because otherwise you won’t get any news coverage. (That’s sad, but true nevertheless.) You may do well locally by talking to local groups that might be predisposed to addressing such an issue.
posted by Lori Heine on
The actress Glenn Close is very involved in the issue. She’s a good friend of my sister’s. Her organization, Bring Change 2 Mind, is making a great effort to educate the public about the need to welcome sufferers from mental health conditions out of the closet. My brother-in-law is an actor, but his main concern is eradicating child hunger. A worthy end in itself, of course.
Hopefully, more high-profile people will get involved. I agree that it would really help.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
The only people that I know who are involved with mental health issues, are moderate-progressive.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Can we get clarification of just what is included in the definition of “mental health issues” and from what source the figure 25% of the population “languishing in a gigantic closet” is derived. That would seem to imply that people whose mental health issues are out in the open, such as one of my daughters for example, are not part of that 25%. So do the 25% in the grouping of “closet” mental health issues all have diagnoses recognized in the APA DSM?
posted by Lori Heine on
One out of four Americans is a figure I have seen in several sources. I’m sure it must mean that they have been diagnosed, or there would be no way to know if they had mental health issues.
By in the closet, I mean that they are discouraged from sharing the knowledge of their condition from the people in their lives. Other than a therapist or other mental health professional, no one knows about it but them–and perhaps a few close family members, who treat their condition as if it’s a gigantic shame.
No therapist, however good, can be the Wizard of Oz. Everyone suffering from a mental health condition needs an entire community of support, including the people in their lives who think they’re “normal.”
There are also people who very likely suffer from such conditions, but who are afraid and/or ashamed to even seek help. They may not figure in the statistics yet, but they should be counted. Not so that the government or their political adversaries can persecute them, but so that they can live out in the open, unashamed, and seek the best help they can get from professionals and from the people in their lives.
My father suffered from some sort of psychological/emotional disorder for many years–probably all his life. It was painfully obvious to everyone who knew him, but a man of his generation was discouraged from getting help in every possible way. I was with him in the final year of his life, and I can attest to the toll it took on him spiritually, physically and in terms of his relationships with others–as well as emotionally and psychologically. It also did incalculable damage to our entire family.
There seems to be a hereditary strain to such conditions. I have suffered from a very severe anxiety disorder that was only recently diagnosed. I will never be able to get back the years in my life that have been lost to this because of unfulfilled potential. It was wasteful and entirely unnecessary. Now that I know what’s going on, it’s been tremendously liberating. I intend to do everything I can to help others not to suffer the same way or lose years out of their lives because of it.
I’m not sure if that answers your question. It’s my answer, and I believe that it is adequate.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Dale, in answer to your question, the 25% figure comes from the National Institute of Mental Health, a federal agency, and reflects estimates generated from a prediction model based on findings from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
The 25% figure is an estimate of the percentage of Americans who suffer any form of mental illness in a given year. The 25% figure includes individuals who suffer mild impairment as well as those who suffer significantly disabling impairment. The number of Americans who suffer significant impairment from mental illness in a given year is estimated at just under 5%.
The definition of mental illness used in the study is not clear to me from the NIMH description:
Notably, the NIMH figure does not include substance use disorders, which may develop from efforts to self-medicate anxiety disorders or depression, but typically amplify the underlying disorder and impede treatment as the drug and alcohol abuse continues over time. I am not clear how the study handled PTSD, which is common among combat veterans, and often manifests in anxiety/depression, sleeplessness, anger/rage, emotional isolation and so on.
I guess all that I can suggest is that you look at the NIMH study and draw your own conclusions about what is covered and what is not, and how accurate the figures might be.
posted by Jorge on
PTSD is considered an anxiety disorder, Tom. Among other things, it involves “avoidant” behaviors (this includes emotions and thoughts) and symptoms of “increased arousal”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
PTSD is considered an anxiety disorder, Tom.
Thanks for the knowledge, Jorge.
I am involved in efforts to provide non-professional support to veterans with substance abuse issues, and PTSD is a constant in the equation. Most are getting professional help and medication as needed from VA/private doctors and therapists, but the support of other veterans who has been through the combat experience, and suffered from PTSD and associated disorders as a result, helps provide day-to-day support, particularly in rural areas, where government and NGO resources are scarce.
posted by Jorge on
Now that is a fascinating idea. I’m glad to see it in action.
You keep Eleanor Roosevelt as the therapist and you put the fellow veteran as the social worker. I have this thought experiment that nobody wants Eleanor Roosevelt as a therapist for combat-related PTSD (assume she’s qualified), but in which it does lead to improved outcomes eventually. Put the veteran support anywhere and you can get the same “things that need to happen happening faster” that you get by making the “someone who’s been there” the therapist.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m pretty sure that Eleanor Roosevelt has passed on to that White House in the clouds. If I thought she was my therapist, I think I’d be beyond help.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jorge, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but let me be very clear about one thing: The veterans involved in this process are strictly non-professional. We leave the medical stuff to doctors and psychiatrists. We leave the therapy to therapists. We leave substance abuse treatment/recovery to treatment centers and AA/NA. We are simply — and only — trusted companions in the journey, listening, sharing our experience and offering hope.
posted by Lori Heine on
Exactly right! And exactly what is so urgently needed. This is what I’m trying to encourage.
People can do a lot to help each other heal. I’ve found that to be powerful and effective in Twelve-Step, but the principle also works in other settings.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Thanks Lori for clarifying, and Tom for the source information (you always impress me with your penchant for details). My questions arose because the figure 25% seemed suspiciously high to me. And I wondered whether people were included in that figure who merely suffered from maladaptive spiritual or social coping skills for life’s normal day to day stresses. From what you told me, Tom, it sounds like the NIMH was lumping people with real mental illness with people who’s minds don’t deal very well with the daily grind. Including such people may produce impressive grant requests, but I feel it diminishes the importance of people with seriously malfunctioning brains. I was a great fan of the prominent but controversial psychiatrist Thomas Szcaz, who railed against the tendency of the (1950s-1960s) psychiatric profession to label people who are “disabled by living” as mentally ill. Medical research since then has shown that he was wrong about conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, which appear to have a biological basis. But there are other behavioral or thinking issues for which he was right, issues that are not illnesses and need spiritual guidance or coping skill training rather than psychotherapy and pharmacological interventions.
Then, of course, there is a third category of people who don’t fit either of those categories, and who are not so much disturbed as they are disturbing. We call them presidential aspirants.
posted by Lori Heine on
It would be easy to dismiss what I’m talking about as the blitherings of a dithery little woman. I don’t think that’s what you’re doing, and as the father of a daughter who struggles with a mental health issue, I would certainly hope–at least for her sake–that it isn’t what you’re doing. Society in general has a tendency to fixate on what people can’t do for these people, instead of what it can. Better to excuse itself from doing what it is able.
I don’t focus on statistics because I am focused on WHAT I AM ABLE TO DO. I am looking at it from the angle of ways laypeople can be educated and empowered to be more supportive of this segment of the population in everyday life.
The segment of the population I’m talking about is perhaps the most exploited of any misunderstood minority. They are seldom spoken about unless in connection with how somebody might make a buck off of them or use them to promote their own careers and/or political agenda. This at least partially explains why they are so isolated and so often feel so alone. As suicide and drug and alcohol abuse (often for the purpose of self-medication) are now at epidemic levels, it’s time to admit that professional help is inadequate as long as these people continue to be treated like lepers.
I’m hoping to get people exactly like you–people whose own loved-ones are “out of the closet” and looking to you for support–onboard with this. It truly is a civil rights issue. It’s a human rights issue.
Focusing on what other people–the professional mental health community–can do is all too often a way to absolve ourselves from doing what we could do (and in many cases are not doing). I don’t know that this is true for you, so I’m not claiming that it is. I’m merely pointing out where my concerns are concentrated.
It isn’t an “either/or” issue. People in this segment of the population need all the help they can get, from whatever source it can be found. I have a great therapist and an active in A.A. I also hope to help start a group for E.A. (the Twelve-Step program of Emotions Anonymous) in central Phoenix, because none exists here now.
This is an exciting time for people like me, and like your daughter, because things are beginning to change for us. I’m hopeful, though I do see how much work needs to be done.
posted by Jorge on
My questions arose because the figure 25% seemed suspiciously high to me.
To me it seems suspiciously low. The in a given year is an important qualifier. Every time I see these figures I’m amazed at how so many people live such normal lives. It is not at all difficult to sustain a lasting injury, though I suppose some people are predisposed to take greater damage.
Last year was, hmm, not a good year.
And I wondered whether people were included in that figure who merely suffered from maladaptive spiritual or social coping skills for life’s normal day to day stresses.
That’s pretty much where the definition of mental illness begins, Dale. A mental disorder is almost any mental condition in which you experience distress or you have an impairment in your ability to function. The line is drawn in situations such as homosexuality where a decline in functioning occurs only because of things like external social effects (which is why they removed homosexuality and gender identity disorder from the DSM), a medical condition, substance abuse, or grief.
The reason you have to include low level impairment in measuring mental illness is because a number of disorders describe a minor impairment that lasts for a very long time–a rather insidious combination.
But there are other behavioral or thinking issues for which he was right, issues that are not illnesses and need spiritual guidance or coping skill training rather than psychotherapy and pharmacological interventions.
What do you think psychotherapy is if not coping skill training? Conversely, these days priests have to have enough of an understanding of mental illness to recognize when the person who is coming to them is not just trying to solve problems, but is actually unhealthy.
posted by Doug on
I fear this issue, mental illness, appears headed in the typical direction. The left will vastly over define mental illness and the right will vastly under estimate the number of mentally ill and the usual result, which all complain about, will be that nothing gets done and the country as a whole and individuals at large suffer the results. In the mean time the only winners in this ballet are the politicians and lobbyist.
posted by Lori Heine on
You’re very right, of course. That’s why any movement for human dignity and liberation has to go beyond dependence on government action. People don’t want to be political footballs. My efforts concentrate on grassroots action instead, for that very reason.
posted by Jorge on
“The left” and “the right” are perfectly capable of taking reasonable action in the situation you have defined. The social cost of mental illness tends to convince the right eventually, while people who don’t seek treatment because of reasons tends to convince practitioners.
In recent years for example the military community has tried to de-stigmatize PTSD by calling it “post-traumatic stress” (dropping the word disorder) to make it sound less like a mental illness while also talking about why PTS needs some kind of intervention. This serves both goals: you get to deny it’s a mental disorder, and you get more people into treatment, some of whom maybe only meet 50-95% of the criteria for PTSD right now but they still have PTS.
People who don’t have full-blown PTSD, well, one, you don’t know that about them yet, two, they could develop it later, and three, they could have full-blown something else that was caused by the trauma. Number two is important. There is such a thing as short-term counseling or crisis counseling.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Oh, I think I’m pretty much on your side in this matter, Lori. I just question whether too many people with troubled emotional lives are falsely labeled with the term mental illness. This whole topic is far afield from where Stephen’s post started, but while we’re here, I’ll add that not every painful back is caused by spinal stenosis. Not every binge drinker is alcoholic. And not every depressed person is mentally ill. Some people have depressing lives, about which it is normal to feel depressed.
Others, like my daughter, are pretty clearly mentally ill. She’s a walking APA-DSM. They need help, and they need more people who care. I have another daughter who is a psychotherapist, and apparently quite a good one. She can’t stand her sister. Well, the sick one is pretty annoying at times, but she’s been that way for 40+ years, and I just hope she can find a measure of happiness alongside her squirreliness. How’s she going to do that? I don’t know.
In my lifetime, social and scientific concepts of psychodynamics and emotional health have shifted and twisted and mutated at a dizzying pace. Psychiatrists who used to practice psychoanalysis now write prescriptions. Psychologists who used to practice “talk” therapy now do “brief” therapy more akin to being “hired friends.” Clinical social workers and counselors promote more “brands” of therapy than there are brands of cereal in the supermarket.
Where’s a poor unhappy soul to turn?
Helping others is not what you would call an exact science. I saw a psychiatrist for two years when I came out as a gay man in my 30s. He and I sat there weekly, both of us chain smoking and talking. I can’t tell you anything profound he said or did, until one day he said, “You seem pretty happy.” I said, “I am.” And he said, “You don’t need to come back anymore.” Later he died of lung cancer. I didn’t. But if it would have expressed my gratitude to him, I would have taken the fall for him.