When political discourse is like borderline personality disorder

When I was a kid in Odessa my Dad and I went to see The Sound of Music at least 17 times in the span of 3 months. Remember that song sung by the nuns when Maria is late for the vespers, “How do you solve the problem like Maria?” One nun says “She’s an angel”, another one counters “She’s a demon”, when the voice of reason from Mother Superior repositions the whole argument with “She’s a girl!” I always saw this as a bit of splitting nipped effectively in the bud by the Mother Superior — good for her!

The press are doing exactly this to President Obama: the right makes him out to be a demon promoting a big government take-over within the US while ruining our reputation abroad, and the left canonizes him as the do-no-wrong president. I am struck by how effective this borderline personality approach has been at overtaking our political discourse. A borderline personality is a psychiatric diagnosis highlighted by a black-and-white view of the world, resulting in splitting behaviors. Sound familiar? Right: Obama bad, we good! Left: Obama good, them bad! I learned in medical school that a borderline personality disorder is a psychosis. Therefore, conservative and liberal alike, in lemming-like fashion we are following a psychotic analysis of reality.

In this gray world, neither the black nor the white bent seems intellectually honest. Granted, everything I understand about politics I learned from the “West Wing”, so I am by no means an expert pundit. But I have also learned some valuable lessons from my own life, including that life is all about compromises whenever possible. This, I believe, is what Obama is after, which makes him neither evil nor a saint, but a reasonable leader and diplomat.

Let’s take his approach to the Middle East. Yes, he is making an effort with the Iranians, the nation perceived to carry a substantial threat to the US security. Does it not make sense to establish constructive relationships with their leaders so as to avoid a potential nuclear confrontation? You know that expression about “an eye for an eye” and being blind — this seems like the perfect application for it: time to turn around our eight-year bully posturing on Iran and start exploring real long-term solutions.

Domestically, the biggest sticky wicket is the health care reform. And even here Obama is showing himself to be a compromiser. This is not appreciated by the extreme right or left (myself included), but the realist in me understands that this is a chess match with far-reaching implications. And while I would like to see quality single payer health care for all Americans in my lifetime, I appreciate that mine is considered to be an extreme point of view.

More important to me than getting my own way is to see our country brought together. We need to get away form the psychotic hegemony and end the divisiveness of the deliberately polarizing rhetoric. We must engage in an honest intellectual exercise and effect changes that are best for all people.

Marya Zilberberg is founder and CEO of EviMed Research Group and blogs at Healthcare, etc.

Submit a guest post and be heard.

email

  • http://sleepdoctor.blogspot.com/ Michael Rack, MD

    Dr. Zilberg knows little about psychiatry, borderline personality disorder, or defense mechanisms. Borderline personality disorder is not a psychosis. The right thinking that Obama is bad and the left thinking he is good is not splitting. There are several definitions of splitting, but using the one that Dr. Zilberg refers to would imply alternating idealization and devaluation by one person or group. If the right wingers on one day thought that Obama was pure evil, and the next day thought he was pure good, that would be an example of splitting. Having one stable view of a person such as Obama, even if it is extreme, does not represent splitting, borderline personality disorder, or borderline personality organization.

    Michael Rack, MD

  • Tom

    Is he good or evil? He’s neither, rather, he simply lacks any skills besides running for office. He has not demonstrated an understanding of economics, legislation, or international relations. But he does look good and gives a nice (if empty) speech.

  • http://advancedmediterraneandiet.com/blog/ Steve Parker, M.D.

    Politics is a substitute for armed conflict.

    -Steve

  • Chang Yang

    I think Dr. Zillberg was referring to the society as a whole that is displaying “splitting” thoughts, instead of the individuals with a certain ideology or the left wing or the right wing itself. I don’t think a direct parallel can be drawn between BPD and the society’s left-or-right ideology differences, but it’s an interesting take on people’s proclivity towards a black-and-white views nevertheless.

  • Jim Lohse

    This all sounds good but simply serves to make the “moderate” writer feel good about themselves. They get to look at others and say, “They’re all dumb because they’re not as smart as me.”

    As a layman I wonder if there’s a diagnosis for that kind of feelings of superiority.

    The article ignores that there are indeed truly divisive issues that motivate strong feelings. When I hear moderates asking “can’t everyone compromise” I like to ask them, “what should we do about abortion, for example? Just kill half the baby?”

    So many issues are by their nature black or white decisions. To characterize society as psychotic might make the write feel good but does nothing to address any real issues.

  • http://evimedgroup.blogspot.com Marya Zilberberg

    First, I want to than Kevin for hosting my post. Second, I am happy that it has engendered criticism and discussion. It is only through respectful, reasoned and civilized discourse that we can start to understand one another and perhaps find the common path.

  • Sarah

    Just writing to add to the mix my disappointment that none of this article had anything to do with BPD. Next time, please at least glance through the DSM first.