Coyne gets All Freudian on The Right Honourable PM

[overthere]

What happens when reality intrudes on promises promises promises to everybody for everything- and people buy into it no matter what is actually happening? Including the person who makes the promise? Make the KoolAid, then drink the KoolAid. Adjust recipe and consumption to your own taste....as needed by circumstances.

The truly scary stuff is yet to come, but thanks Andrew for starting a list. We'll be checking it twice in the months and years to come. It's not likely many of us will have pesky jobs that occupy our time.

If you missed it — perhaps you were shovelling the walk, or in the bath — the latest Liberal broken promise has arrived. This time the issue is the F-35 fighter jet. You may recall the Liberals vowed during the last election campaign to scrap the previous government’s controversial purchase, and start the process of finding a replacement for our aging CF-18s all over again.

Not only would the contract be put out to competitive tender, but the F-35 would be excluded from consideration — an important point of distinction with both the Conservatives, who seemed inclined to stick with the F-35, and the NDP, who favoured an open bidding process.

At any rate, that’s if you take the party platform at face value. Perhaps there is more than one way to interpret “we will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.” A campaigning Justin Trudeau went so far as to claim this would save “tens of billions of dollars,” which is the amount you’d save if you didn’t buy any planes at all.

But here we are four months later and the Defence minister has a somewhat different message. Asked at a defence conference this week if the F-35 were still off the table, Harjit Sajjan would say only that the process would be “open.” The important thing, he said, was to “build the right requirements for Canada and then we’ll see how that plays out in terms of which companies want to come forward.”

So add that to the list, along with the $10-billion deficits for two years, the balanced budget after four, the 25,000 refugees, the revenue neutral tax changes and the rest. I repeat, it has been just four months since the election.

Some might detect a pattern of deception in this. But the more one watches this government at work, the more one must be open to an alternative explanation for its behaviour. Psychologists call it “cognitive dissonance,” a condition in which the subject, unable to reconcile his own understanding of reality with the facts, retreats into the preferred reality rather than endure the acute discomfort to which he would otherwise be exposed. In a fully dissociative state, the subject becomes more or less completely disconnected from reality.

This is more common than it might seem. Even after nine years in power, the government of Stephen Harper remained convinced it was still in opposition. Conservative ministers would rise in the Commons to denounce this policy or that practice of government, to all appearances wholly unaware they were members of it.

There is, for example, the matter of the Saudi arms contract. It is logically possible to be in favour of selling $15-billion worth of armoured vehicles to one of the world’s most repressive regimes — that would describe the Conservative position — as it is also possible to be against it, as the Liberals seemed to be in opposition. The party’s current position, on the other hand, as described by the Global Affairs Minister, Stephane Dion, is that it doesn’t approve of the contract it is in the process of implementing.

The reality is the contract could not proceed if the government were to find it in violation of Canada’s export rules — that is to say, by applying them — against supplying arms to countries with a “persistent record of serious violations” of human rights. But to let it go ahead anyway would offend against the Liberals’ self-image as peace-loving humanitarians. So it must be that, in the words of a former prime minster, they had no option.

Or consider this week’s vote in Parliament on a Conservative resolution condemning the “boycott, divest, sanctions” (BDS) campaigns against Israel being carried out by various churches and activist organizations. Here again the Liberals were clear in their opposition to the motion, which they rejected as overly sweeping, given the many disparate groups with disparate motives who are involved. And here again they voted for it. (“Liberals denounce and agree with Tory motion” was one headline.) It is one thing to say one thing and do another, in sequence. But to do both at the same time is deeply worrying.

Further examples are easily called to mind. Sending troops to fight in a “non-combat” role against ISIL. Signing the Trans Pacific Partnership international trade agreement, while disavowing any commitment to ratifying it. It is of great comfort, in the circumstances, to learn that the Liberals have been consulting an expert in “deliverology.” For this is a government that is plainly in need of professional help.

[Rue]

The theory of cognitive dissonance comes from Leon Festinger not Sigmund Freud. Freud was psychiatrist, Festinger a social psychologist.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Rue

[Shady]

Most of us knew that Justin is an empty suit. He's just confirmed it to most of the rest over the last 4 months. If he had any real grasp of reality and governing, he never would've made so many stupid and unattainable promises during the campaign. Or perhaps he'll just say anything to get elected, which is a distinct possibility as well.

[Big Guy]

There is a web site that has been tracking the progress of the Liberal promises and the results. It appears to be as impartial as I can find. I would recommend it to our readers:

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

[On Guard for Thee]

Most of us knew that Justin is an empty suit. He's just confirmed it to most of the rest over the last 4 months. If he had any real grasp of reality and governing, he never would've made so many stupid and unattainable promises during the campaign. Or perhaps he'll just say anything to get elected, which is a distinct possibility as well.

If you want to discuss stupid and unattainable promises, lets take a moment and talk about Harpers little snitch line.

[Argus]

If you want to discuss stupid and unattainable promises, lets take a moment and talk about Harpers little snitch line.

Did it cost billions of dollars?

[On Guard for Thee]

Did it cost billions of dollars?

Luckily we'll never find out.

[Queenmandy85]

Remember Harper's promises regarding income trusts, and equalization formula adjustments for resources to Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan? The last ballots had hardly been counted when he broke those promises. To quote the great John Crosby, "If we told you what we were going to do, you never would have voted for us."

Joe Clark worked hard to keep his promises and was defeated because of it.

[Rue]

Actually as this is a thread on using psychological analysis to explain Trudeau's behaviour why don't I. I think its fun to actually respond to the thread. You know respond to the thread topic. Imagine that.

I would argue Trudeau is a text book "vulnerable narcissist".

Narcissists crave social attention as they are convinced of their own self importance. and so they are attracted to jobs where they can be celebrities and politicians.

In Trudeau's case his narcissistic bubble that created his narcissistic personality came by being born into an environment where he was told of his own importance-his status as the Prime Minister's child engrained that as did his lifestyle and trust fund. His family legacy convinced him of his own importance and his narcissistic bubble tat served to gratify his every whim and protect him protected from the daily life the rest of us undergo came with his silverspoon.

His life as PM echoes his childhood. He has no need to cook, make dental appointments, clean or maintain his home, fix anything, worry about paying bills. Just like his childhood he is surrounded by underlings who do that for him.

Now in Trudeau's childhood he had lackies. Now he has taxpayers pay for his lackies. Trudeau as a child was thrust into a rle of convinced self importance not just from his role as PM's son but because his father left his mother and he filled the vacuum playing her partner and emotional caretaker.

Today he has replaced mother dearest Maggie with Canada. He sees his role with Canada as it once was with Maggie as its caretaker. its saviour, the one who will make everyone feel o.k. just as he used to sit and tell Maggie things would be o.k.

However like the narcissist he is, inside underneath the role of social leader at ease and proud of himself and his accomplishments, he has deep seated insecurities. His lisp, his uh uh uh studder, his effeminate slouching posture and walk, his need to constantly touch and hug people, his need to constantly be in pictures of centre stage at events where people smile with him and at him show this.

The preoccupation he has for being in photo ops belies a fear of rejection and his fear of being rejected grows and intensifies with each day in office.

He's called a vulnerable narcissist because of his obsession with needing ti be liked and accepted.

His policies with Syrians reflect his own lack of reality. In His life he was brought up where having free dental and medical care, food, shelter, were all givens and so he can't imagine why anyone has a problem with the idea Syrians should be given all the things he thinks he has and considers a given.

Trudeau was born into a world of a trust fund-a guaranteed income so for him its only normal Syrians come and are put on a guaranteed income only we call it welfare.

Trudeau is genuine in his behaviour. He does not do what he does because he is mean spirited. He does what he does because he thinks he is destine for the role and thinks he is being a kind leader but herein lies the irony.

As is the case with narcissists he lacks empathy. He can never see the world from the eyes of someone else. It just won't happen. What he sees he can't possibly imagine someone else can not see. What he thinks and feels, he can not possibly think someone else could disagree with.

So with each passing day in public office, people find more and more things they don't agree with him over, he will come into a serious emotional conflict which he will take personally.

As his desire to be loved, admired, and supported by others shrinks, his insecurities and fears of rejection will grow causing him to try force others to see the world from their own point of view. The real Trudeau, the nasty, impatient, intolerant, one, has yet to come and when it does come it will come just as it did with Obama and Putin, by acting out in an arrogant and antagonistic manner.

Trudeau like all narcissists once they sense they are under fire or rejection become suspicious, manipulative, and aggressive in addition to lacking humility and an inability to understand the emotional states of the people closest to them.

John McCallum provided a classic example of that hissing at journalists that he was an economist when they questioned him on not being truthful of the numbers of refugees being taken in.

Now the above is not Freudian theory but it reflects standard psychology today that describes the narcissist and in particular I subscribe to the narcissist description in the DSV Diagnostic Manual or as described for example by Susan Krauss Whitbourne, Ph.D or studies conducted in April 2014 at the University of Georgia by psychologist Joanna Lamki.

Trudeau is not difficult to read. He's not an evil person but he's childish, narcissistic, sheltered and like most spoiled rich children who presume they know best for us all, crash and take the sycophants they surround themselves with on the way down.

It would also not surprise me as well if in months to come his wife shows signs of mental illness and or leaves him. Trudeau is a paradox. He surrounds himself with strong women in his cabinet but his wife and mother are noteably frail and overly dependent on him playing the traditional role of weak adoring figures so in fact he resents them for putting pressure on him and will snap at them and be quite cold and petulant.

Make no mistake the man behind closed doors is no in touch with his feminine side lover boy-he's a cold, self centered, spoiled, demanding boy prone to tantrums when he does not get his way.

Interestingly Harper is a very different profile. Harper genuinely did not need to be liked. He did not surround himself with yes men0he cacooned himself and ran everything. Harper was a control freak not a narcissist. Harper was far tougher in emotional profile than Trudeau.

Harper is the turtle to Trudeau's hare. So unlike Trudeau he did not come into office hopping about and zipping all over the place he went slow and steady and retreated into his shell to preserve his sanity. Trudeau has no shell-he has no real intimate support network. His wife depends on him to be strong not the other way around. He can't lean on her or his mother.

So who does that leave him with? Interestingly you never ever hear about his brother. Not a peep. Never once was his brother side by side him at any political event.

[The_Squid]

Harper promised to reform the Senate...

Instead, he was involved in the bribery of a Senator.

[cybercoma]

overthere, can you provide a link to Coyne's article, please?

[poochy]

Trudeau, same as Harper, someone so evil, so vile, and the best you can do is say Trudeau is no worse, cognitive dissonance is a disease of the left. You can see it in almost any thread, there is no logical consistency in almost anything they argue, the liberals got elected, they lied to do so, they always do, and the same people always beleive they did it for the right reasons.

Edited February 21, 2016 by poochy

[Smallc]

Which is much different that people on the right, of course.

[On Guard for Thee]

Trudeau, same as Harper, someone so evil, so vile, and the best you can do is say Trudeau is no worse, cognitive dissonance is a disease of the left. You can see it in almost any thread, there is no logical consistency in almost anything they argue, the liebrals got elected, they lied to do so, they always do, and the same people always beleive they did it for the right reasons.

Having varied ideas is not cognitive dissonance. And it's certainly more interesting than the one size fits all droning the conservatives, especially the last governments version, seem to not be able to rise above. Perhaps it has to do with the discrepancy in educational levels.

[poochy]

Which is much different that people on the right, of course.

Sorry, you used to have somewhat of a rational opinion on things, but not so much anymore. You're too busy trying to justify your vote and not nearly as concerned about the results so far, we told you so. O, and yes, as an ideology the left is far less consistent, and this is a left wing liberal party, so you choose, either they can't reconcile their beleifs with their actions, or they lied to get elected. yep. no better than Harper. Why don't you comment on that rationale, how logical is it to have a hate on for our previous 'dictator' PM, and in defense of the the new guy claim he is just the same as the last guy everyone was afraid of. Or don't bother, the explanation won't make any sense anyway, and that's the point.

Edited February 21, 2016 by poochy

[Smallc]

O, and yes, as an ideology the left is far less consistent

The difference is, I can see that both sides have their issues and things that their 'right' about.

Trudeau, and every Liberal, is a human - just like every Conservative. I expect about of the same number of failures, inconsistencies, and successes - especially in early days. I'm under no illusion that this government is perfect - but I'm certainly under no illusion that the last one was either.

[SunnyWays]

The difference is, I can see that both sides have their issues and things that their 'right' about.

Trudeau, and every Liberal, is a human - just like every Conservative. I expect about of the same number of failures, inconsistencies, and successes - especially in early days. I'm under no illusion that this government is perfect - but I'm certainly under no illusion that the last one was either.

Two completely different animals. With Harper, you knew what you were getting. Like him or hate him, he knew his files and for the most part, explained his positions well. Clearly, he was the leader and had the final say. As is so very evident with each passing day, with Trudeau - we don't know what we are getting - because the decision-making (such as it is) is being orchestrated by the back-room boys led by Gerald Butts - and communication is fractured. Just in the past couple of days,, Domenic LeBlanc said the assisted-suicide legislation would be a whipped vote - and gave reasons why. Now he's changed his tune and said he spoke prematurely. More incoherence.......

[Smallc]

Two completely different animals. With Harper, you knew what you were getting.

Did you know him that well in 2006?

Like him or hate him, he knew his files and for the most part, explained his positions well.

That's funny, because I remember his as the government that couldn't talk their way out of a paper bag. Witness the F-35 file, for example.

Clearly, he was the leader and had the final say.

Clearly, that is one style of leadership - and one that Canadians came to dislike.

As is so very evident with each passing day, with Trudeau - we don't know what we are getting - because the decision-making (such as it is) is being orchestrated by the back-room boys led by Gerald Butts - and communication is fractured.

Under Harper, he ran the show. With Trudeau, each minister is responsible for their own department, and they actually have to run it. Humans don't always do things perfectly, so in early days, theirs bound to be some slip ups, just as their was for the Conservatives. The other part is just conspiracy nonsense that Conservatives keep trying to push.

Just in the past couple of days,, Domenic LeBlanc said the assisted-suicide legislation would be a whipped vote - and gave reasons why. Now he's changed his tune and said he spoke prematurely. More incoherence.......

You mean there was backlash and he changed his mind, like on so many files for the Conservatives?

[overthere]

overthere, can you provide a link to Coyne's article, please?

Yes, my apologies for the oversight http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-why-the-liberals-say-one-thing-and-do-another-blame-it-on-cognitive-dissonance

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, so many many posts in this thread refer to Harper.

Folks, he is not the Prime Minster any more. He has no influence on the actions of the current PM, who is entirely free to act on his own agenda and does.

[Smallc]

The deficit growth has little to do with new spending and everything to do with a financial picture eroded by at the very least, $5B a year.

The timeline of refugee arrivals had everything to do with what was mostly irrational fear on the part of the populace.

The F-35 stuff is making something out of legal speak.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

The F-35 stuff is making something out of legal speak.

How is it "legal speak"?

[Smallc]

How is it "legal speak"?

They can't explicitly exclude the jet, even if they want to - you've said it yourself.

[Derek 2.0]

They can't explicitly exclude the jet, even if they want to - you've said it yourself.

Didn't they do exactly that during the election? Likewise, suggest they would realize enough savings to invest in the navy....considering that with our weak dollar, all American and European alternatives are now outside of the spending envelop, that is now unlikely.....could this be yet another case of Liberal promises meeting reality, and henceforth, being "adjusted"?

[Smallc]

Didn't they do exactly that during the election?

They weren't the government then. They could basically say whatever they wanted without legal consequence.

Likewise, suggest they would realize enough savings to invest in the navy....considering that with our weak dollar, all American and European alternatives are now outside of the spending envelop, that is now unlikely.....could this be yet another case of Liberal promises meeting reality, and henceforth, being "adjusted"?

The dollar wasn't at it's current low when they made their platform.

[Smallc]

Oh, and F-18 is still within our budget - there just won't be any money left over.