Third Presidential Debate

I have to say the debate didn’t give much material. Clearly, Romney feels he is on course to win, and thus he doesn’t want to rock the boat. He didn’t even touch Benghazi. Sources say Romney wanted to appear nice, and non-confrontational, to shore up what is seen as a highly important female demographic, so he apparently decided to not issue any dogwhistles, beyond the initial mention of the Al Smith Dinner, and his references to when he “is elected.”

Interestingly, somebody told Obama to go with eye contact, and avoid the notes. The problem with this is, eye contact stresses those with diminished amygdala function, and it showed in Obama’s countenance. He hunched his shoulders, his expression was weirdly intense/angry, and he just looked weird.

Narcissists and Liberals are at their best when they know the easy win is at hand. In 2008, Obama looked much better in these situations, even peaceful and happy, as he cruised to victory over McCain. Again, r’s are designed for free resource availability and easy wins. Anything else is just incredibly stressful, and in that condition, eye contact will not help.

Compared to Romney’s demeanor, relaxed posture, and half smile, Obama didn’t look like the nicer guy. Add to that his narcissism in using the word “me” to talk about the US response to the uprising in Tunisia, and his generally try-hard attitude in making his case, by comparison to Romney’s calm relaxed approach, and I suspect among those that watched, Romney would have been seen as either equal, or in control, which is all he needs, given the economy.

Interestingly, Obama used several demeaning phrases on Romney, designed not just to disagree with his position, but to make him look stupid, out of touch, and unfit to lead in the eyes of the group (diminishment of stature and out-grouping). ‘Bayonets and horses,’ ‘Battleship,’ ‘we lost four of our own, and you are criticizing me,’ and ‘we were sanctioning Iran while one of your investments was buying oil from them,’ were but a few.

This is how the Liberal seeks victory in debate, because it is what they fear most. It has nothing to do with the correctness of a position, or logical debate. It is all about out-grouping, diminshment of stature, and other amygdala hijacks – things which inherently terrify and unnerve the Liberal. The Liberals sole objective is to amass support behind themselves, and make someone else the enemy. Most importantly, they will become emotionally affected when this is done to them. All of these subtle, nuanced phrases that Obama used would have functioned as dogwhistles on a Liberal, and would have devastated Obama, were they used on him. However, Romney seemed relatively unaffected by them emotionally, just as Obama’s eye contact seemed to leave him wholly unaffected. Although utterly ruthless and ambitious, and probably an unusually unemotional Aspie-type, Romney is almost certainly not a Narcissist, which is consistent with his ability to focus on work, perceive reality clearly in his investing, and produce value reliably.

I wanted to see Obama utterly destroyed, but Romney’s campaign is out to win the election above all else. They are on course now to win easily, and they probably feel that setting out to destroy Obama might have motivated Liberal turnout, if things became too contentious, or Romney humiliated him too much. Because of this change in Romney’s strategy, Obama was much more aggressive in his presentation. Maybe for Romney this is a good strategy to win this election, but I hope they see it won’t work over the long term.

It is tempting to think you can contain Narcissists with niceness. The formula seems simple. A Narcissist can’t take amygdala activation, to the point they will blindly adhere to a lie to relax their amygdala. That seems like a good start. All you have to do is introduce a lie to the Narcissist which benefits those around them, and guides their behavior in such a way as to make good behavior sooth their amygdala, and doing bad activate their amygdala. Control their reality, and you control them. If you are wholly ignorant of the psychology you may even think they will like you, and be nice to keep the compliments/amygdala relaxants coming. It sounds good, but it doesn’t work.

The problem with the Narcissist (and the Leftist) is that they are an evil-doing machine, and they are either happy, and turned on, or depressed, and turned off. They need everyone around them suffering, while they get fanned by women in bikinis, and fed peeled grapes. As a result, when happy (or more accurately, not filled with anxiety and depression), they only do more evil. When depressed they do less. When utterly crushed, they retreat, and avoid everyone in the group. It’s that simple.

As you alleviate their amygdala’s anxiety, the Narcissist’s ego only grows. They can do anything. They can get away with anything, and everyone else is a peon, waiting to be abused. They will then act on that. If you alleviate their amygdala’s anxiety, they only get worse – more demanding, more entitled, more eager to see those around them bow, and scrape, and suffer. Once you are at this point, you have problems.

We saw this with Obama’s easy ride to election, facilitated by George Bush’s refusal to demean Liberals or activate their amygdalae with cold hard reality. Their amygdalae soothed, suddenly Liberals decided that Conservatives can get to the back of the bus, because now the Progressives are going to call all the shots. Then the grasp on reality slips ever further. Michele is beautiful, and nice, and classy in a way that bimbo Laura Bush never was. Barack is manly, and brilliant, and women should swoon for him. Even if the country doesn’t want Obamacare, they are getting it anyway (and it won’t have any negative consequences to Liberalism or to the nation – it can’t possibly). Conservatism is dead. The Tea Party is evil, and needs Homeland security to keep it in check. Basically, the happier the Liberal gets, the less they will be able to perceive reality, and the more they are able to justify the evil in their hearts.

It would get even worse, if you let the Liberals think those transgressions were acceptable. If history is any guide, it ends with anyone who wants freedom being loaded on the trains and sent to the death camps, as the last vestige of the Liberal’s reality gives way to a false reality in which anyone who opposes them and their control is evil and needs to be killed. It is how radical leftism, unchecked by panic, anxiety, and depression, always ends, and it is the fractured amygdala which leads to this.

If Mitt thinks he is going to win his second term by winning over Liberals, and alleviating their anxiety, he is dreaming. If he thinks he will win in a landslide, by not angering them, or by feeding their egos, he is dreaming. You cannot make Liberals happy, and alleviate their anxiety, without seeing them increase their demands to punish anyone who has worked to be happy, and without them seeing you as weak and stupid. They will demand ever more government control and oppression of the successful, and they will become consumed with a desire to take you down.

George Bush tried to appease Liberals, refused to demean them, and even invited the worst among them, like Teddy Kennedy, in to make policy decisions with him as an equal. All he got for his efforts was ever increasing acrimony, and a second election which he thought, for a brief moment, he had lost.

You can’t be nice to Liberals. Bringing people together is a myth. You can no more unite Liberals and Conservatives, than you can unite serial killers, and innocent young girls, or foxes and rabbits.

You have to be like Reagan, and demean them and deride them at every turn, until they are so ashamed of their Liberalism, they retreat from the stage. Given their ideology’s grossly aberrant embrace of every r-selected trait, and our nation’s innate K-selected tendencies, it wouldn’t be hard. Nobody likes cowardice, sheer stupidity in national affairs, the oppressiveness of losers in domestic affairs, sexualization of the young, demands that the populace fund leftist-bimbo sex sprees, or just the general lack of loyalty inherent to Liberalism. Everybody recognizes that our society is heading leftist, and everybody thinks we are heading in the wrong direction – towards collapse. It wouldn’t be hard to make the connection, and create a new neurological connection in the populace’s collective amygdala, linking Liberalism with stupidity and national failure.

Once Liberals are in retreat, their public advocacy will be so weak that the undecideds will only hear Romney’s voice, and the nation will unite behind him. Other factors will also play around this, (including the tendency of some r-types to embrace threatening enemies, Stockholm-style), but the end result will be conclusive. The nation will trend Conservative as it did under Reagan, and the next election will be Romney’s for the taking.

Romney has the perfect type of demeanor to perform this ridicule, while maintaining Reagan’s frame of a genial, gentle grandfather, amused at the fact Liberals even think they should be listened to.

I hope he is smart enough to recognize this, and begin working towards his second term from the very start of his first.