In what appears to have been a sociopathically twisted interview, Martin Bashir of MSNBC interviewed Dr. Stanton Peele, who describes himself as an “addiction specialist,” to, lo and behold, diagnose members of the “Tea Party,” also known by their other name, the American People, as “addicted to having their own way,” a condition which will supposedly render them “psychopaths.”
[youtube m6sdiNfeRpY]
First, I don’t know of any mainstream American who feels like he or she has “had his own way” much lately. Second, clearly, Bashir and his guest have the wrong patient on their couch.
Anyone who has struggled through a family member with an addiction- whether to alcohol, drugs, food, gambling, or any other out of control behavior- knows the ropes. If you don’t have an addict in your immediate family, but you’re an American who is aware of your surroundings, you now know them, too.
We have just experienced the first real intervention, organized by the unorganized “Tea Party,” on behalf of the real patient, our establishment Washington politicians, who are addicted to spending and the power that emanates from it. The intervention that has just been performed on Washington came with all the characteristics that are typical of most interventions.
First, there is the “identified” patient, i.e., the family member who is the addict. This person is steeped in “denial” of his addiction. The family who has brought him to the office has been through hell with him. He has done any number of things to them in order to maintain his addiction, which is “number one” in his life. He has lied to them, hidden things from them, stolen money from them, made pledges to them that he would stop his addictive behavior, and then broken those very pledges.
The family has shared the sacrifice of the addiction in that, until now- this intervention- they have looked the other way and continued to tolerate the abuses of the addicted member. They have made excuses for the lies, the secrecy, the money that was wasted and needed to pay bills, or debts, owed to others. They have exhibited their own denial of the addiction through their reluctance, time and time again, to confront their family member, for various reasons.
Some have been fearful of the actual confrontation and the ensuing anger and chaos. “Anger doesn’t solve anything,” they say. “It’s irrational. Besides, no families are perfect.” These members are the most anxious during the actual intervention. They are afraid of the expression of strong emotions. “I don’t care what happens as long as everybody stops arguing,” they are prone to declare.
Some family members are tired and worn out; their past efforts and words to try to influence change have fallen on deaf ears; their threats to leave the family, perhaps to find others who will treat them better, have been empty. There is no certainty that others will be different. “It doesn’t matter what I say, or do,” these members complain. “Nothing ever changes. He promises he’s going to change, and, for a little while, it seems like he does, but then it’s back to the same thing as always. Status quo.”
Some family members are fearful of the change that comes after the intervention. As bad as the addiction is, it’s the only thing the family knows. Everyone has learned to work around the addicted member, albeit dysfunctionally. To confront him, might mean they would all have to change. This would especially be hard for those who have assumed an authoritative role in the family, those who consider themselves to be in charge of the others, giving them direction. It sounds strange, but these family members might even lose out if some “irrational,” “angry” family member were to be too confrontational and really try to change the family system. These family members may even try to suppress a change by ridiculing the organizer of the intervention. “She’s always been kind of naïve. She has this fantasy that he can change.” These members enjoy their role of superiority and fear that it will be diminished if the intervention works. Their fears tell them that their best interests are served if the intervention is unsuccessful.
Some of the family members feel best when they are protecting the dependent addict. “He can’t help himself,” they protest. “You’re bullying him,” they argue to the organizer of the intervention. “Stop terrorizing him! Can’t you see he’s sick and needs us to take care of him. He can’t make decisions on his own.” These members must make sure the addict remains dependent, so they can continue to serve as his nanny. They need to feel needed.
The first part of the intervention has occurred. There is no certainty of recovery, but the initial step is critical. The “identified patient” is talking about his problem and may be open to treatment. The family has now openly discussed the “addiction,” and called it what it is. Though all the family members were present for the intervention (after all, failing to show up would not look good), not all of them will continue to support the drive to change. Those who do not will become disconnected from the process and, ultimately, from the potential recovery.
Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.