Liberal Voting Hazardous To Mental Health

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Interesting study on mental illness in California, from UC Berkeley:

http://www.petris.org/Docs/MentalHealth.pdf

The counties with the best mental health are some rural Sierra foothill counties and the conservative-voting Riverside, San Diego, and Orange counties.

The counties with the highest rates of mental illness are San Francisco and Alameda (which includes Berkeley). Those counties had the highest rates of votes for John Kerry in the latest election (both around 80% for the Democrat).

Now, of course, not all (or even most) Democrats are nutcases, but what is it about northern California-style leftism that corresponds so closely with mental illness? It's a serious question. Does leftist ideology lead to madness (i.e. by encouraging paranoia) or is it the other way around -- do paranoids or schizophrenics naturally gravitate towards a Michael Moore-style, conspiracy-theory worldview?

Also, my (totally unscientific) sense is that, on the aggregate, leftists have a higher rate of marijuana use, which is associated with schizophrenia. Might that be having an effect?

[john doe]

I don't know how many people here have heard of Michael Savage, the national radio talk show host based in San Francisco, but he has claimed for years that liberalism is a mental disorder. Not that I would agree with him much more than 50% of the time (he has his own level of ultraconservatism), but perhaps he is right on this point. I have found that most liberals can't be convinced they are wrong on ANY point, no matter how much proof you show to the contrary. Maybe it is a disease.

[Guest curvette]

I don't feel inclined to read all 47 pages of the report, but...my thoughts:

I'm frankly stunned. With the exception of San Diego and Sonoma, ALL of the healthy counties are quite a ways inland. Could it be partially related to the fog or coastal climate?

This study also seems to deal very largly with general depression more than the more disturbing mental illnesses. I wonder how the overwhelmingly conservative (and depressed) Utah would measure up.

I also must say that I grew up in the Bay Area. The weather was so nice, and everything so green and beautiful that I NEVER remember feeling depressed when I lived there. In fact, I never felt depressed until I moved North and had my first baby!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by john doe@Jan 21 2005, 05:20 PM

I have found that most liberals can't be convinced they are wrong on ANY point, no matter how much proof you show to the contrary. Maybe it is a disease.

Unfortunately, staunch conservatives can be just as stubborn and hard headed. Any mindset, if taken to the extreme, can turn into a type of disease (sometimes contagious!)

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 21 2005, 01:24 PM

Interesting study on mental illness in California, from UC Berkeley:

http://www.petris.org/Docs/MentalHealth.pdf

The counties with the best mental health are some rural Sierra foothill counties and the conservative-voting Riverside, San Diego, and Orange counties.

The counties with the highest rates of mental illness are San Francisco and Alameda (which includes Berkeley). Those counties had the highest rates of votes for John Kerry in the latest election (both around 80% for the Democrat).

Now, of course, not all (or even most) Democrats are nutcases, but what is it about northern California-style leftism that corresponds so closely with mental illness? It's a serious question. Does leftist ideology lead to madness (i.e. by encouraging paranoia) or is it the other way around -- do paranoids or schizophrenics naturally gravitate towards a Michael Moore-style, conspiracy-theory worldview?

Also, my (totally unscientific) sense is that, on the aggregate, leftists have a higher rate of marijuana use, which is associated with schizophrenia. Might that be having an effect?

Maybe it's that the homeless and disadvantaged (who have a high number of mentally ill in their ranks) are drawn to places where a liberal mentality results in a greater likelihood of finding free food and healthcare and shelter opportunities.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 21 2005, 06:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 21 2005, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 21 2005, 01:24 PM

Interesting study on mental illness in California, from UC Berkeley:

http://www.petris.org/Docs/MentalHealth.pdf

The counties with the best mental health are some rural Sierra foothill counties and the conservative-voting Riverside, San Diego, and Orange counties. 

The counties with the highest rates of mental illness are San Francisco and Alameda (which includes Berkeley).  Those counties had the highest rates of votes for John Kerry in the latest election (both around 80% for the Democrat). 

Now, of course, not all (or even most) Democrats are nutcases, but what is it about northern California-style leftism that corresponds so closely with mental illness?  It's a serious question.  Does leftist ideology lead to madness (i.e. by encouraging paranoia) or is it the other way around -- do paranoids or schizophrenics naturally gravitate towards a Michael Moore-style, conspiracy-theory worldview?

Also, my (totally unscientific) sense is that, on the aggregate, leftists have a higher rate of marijuana use, which is associated with schizophrenia.  Might that be having an effect?

Maybe it's that the homeless and disadvantaged (who have a high number of mentally ill in their ranks) are drawn to places where a liberal mentality results in a greater likelihood of finding free food and healthcare and shelter opportunities.

Actually not a bad theory, and one which I'd overlooked.

[Guest curvette]

They didn't include the homeless in their study. They specified that.

[Amillia]

I am with Curvette on all of her posts on this one! Rock On Curvey!

[Cal]

PD---may I read into your posting that you do not have the same aversion to ultra-right wing radicalism that you do to left wing radicalism. In other words, one extreme is not as harmful as the other?

[Cal]

Originally posted by john doe@Jan 21 2005, 05:20 PM

I don't know how many people here have heard of Michael Savage, the national radio talk show host based in San Francisco, but he has claimed for years that liberalism is a mental disorder. Not that I would agree with him much more than 50% of the time (he has his own level of ultraconservatism), but perhaps he is right on this point. I have found that most liberals can't be convinced they are wrong on ANY point, no matter how much proof you show to the contrary. Maybe it is a disease.

If not being able to be convinced you are wrong is a disease, then what is YOUR problem?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 21 2005, 06:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 21 2005, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 21 2005, 01:24 PM

Interesting study on mental illness in California, from UC Berkeley:

http://www.petris.org/Docs/MentalHealth.pdf

The counties with the best mental health are some rural Sierra foothill counties and the conservative-voting Riverside, San Diego, and Orange counties. 

The counties with the highest rates of mental illness are San Francisco and Alameda (which includes Berkeley).  Those counties had the highest rates of votes for John Kerry in the latest election (both around 80% for the Democrat). 

Now, of course, not all (or even most) Democrats are nutcases, but what is it about northern California-style leftism that corresponds so closely with mental illness?  It's a serious question.  Does leftist ideology lead to madness (i.e. by encouraging paranoia) or is it the other way around -- do paranoids or schizophrenics naturally gravitate towards a Michael Moore-style, conspiracy-theory worldview?

Also, my (totally unscientific) sense is that, on the aggregate, leftists have a higher rate of marijuana use, which is associated with schizophrenia.  Might that be having an effect?

Maybe it's that the homeless and disadvantaged (who have a high number of mentally ill in their ranks) are drawn to places where a liberal mentality results in a greater likelihood of finding free food and healthcare and shelter opportunities.

That is one of the best responses so far. I respect the fact that you didn't jump on a bandwagon of the slippery slope falacy of "A democrat is a liberal, a liberal is socialist, a socialist is a communist, a communist is a pinko nut head".

The frankly, I am repelled by extremism on BOTH sides and am willing to say that it reflects an unbalanced mind no matter which extreme it is.

[Cal]

PD,

Which particular liberal issue or position do you think is responsible? Could it be their stand on abortion? Or is it environmentalism? Actually, it drives me a little crazy hearing about the Bush administrations handling of the Clean Air Act. But, I doubt I'll end up in the loony bin over it.

Actually, conditions like schizophrenia, have strong genetic ties, and I doubt there is a mental health professional to be had that would say "You know, I always suspected that it was those democrats spreading all this mental illness".

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

For whatever reason, it's the counties with the high proportion of left-wing radicals that have a high loony rate. I don't much like right-wing radicals either, but for whatever reason, the counties where they're concentrated don't seem to have the same correlation with mental illness. If right-wing extremism correlated with mental illness, Yucaipa in Riverside County would suffice to knock that county into the nutso category with Alameda and San Francisco. Instead, Riverside County is at the top of the "healthy" list.

Upon reflection, I don't think voting Democrat makes you crazy. I think that a particular type of Democrat -- the conspiracy-minded, apocalyptic fringe -- is a magnet for the mentally ill. I mean, if you're a paranoid schizo who thinks the CIA is out to get you, you wouldn't naturally be inclined to vote Republican, that party being (unfairly) associated with CIA skulduggery. ("Unfairly," because CIA has devolved, post-Church Committee, into bureaucratic clock-watchers, a species which invariably votes Democrat.)

On the other side, I think it's probably also true that it's the more hard-core Christian traditions that attract the mentally ill. I mean, has there ever been a Presbyterian Lafferty?

Which particular liberal issue or position do you think is responsible?

No particular "liberal" issue -- but leftist ideology (as opposed to "liberal") draws heavily on Marxism, with its apocalyptic quasi-theology of class struggle. There seems to be a broadly held, strong human impulse to hate somebody, to blame your troubles on someone else. You could make a case that some conservatives' opposition to mass immigration draws on that (although I think there's more to it, there being some genuine costs of mass immigration that are generally ignored.) My impression is that hard-core leftists (which constitutes a greater proportion of the Democratic party than real right-wing extremists constitute of the Republican party) are more likely to consider their opposition -- all of it -- not only misguided, but evil. I, on the other hand, believe most of my opponents are acting in good faith (the Chomskys and the Clarks being a couple of exceptions). I have had several leftists get seriously unbalanced on me when I challenge their assumptions. I notice that the political-science section at Borders has far more radical books now than there were in the 90s, where books representing the liberal side were more moderate (if still wrong.)

Someone once said that the party in power will be arrogant, while the party out of power will be insane. Maybe that has something to do with Berkeley's findings.

[Cal]

That last line makes sense.

I don't consider the liberalist ideology you describe to have anything to do with being a democrat. That position is so far from what most mainstream democrats believe as to be irrelevant to the discussion. There may be some sort of connection between mental illness and what you are identifying as an extreme leftist life orientation--however, I don't think that the issue is that linear. I don't consider the extreme paranoid, anti-government types to have anything to do with the Democratic party, nor the thinking of thoughtful democrats.

In my opinion, there is nothing nutty about a political philosophy that includes a genuine belief that the government should foster, pomote and fund worthy social programs for the benefit of the less fortunate and that favors civil rights.That philosophy is actually closer to the real ideas of Christianity--care for the poor and the less fortunate--make the world a place of equal opportunity for all, not just the "have", but for the have nots.

There is nothing nutty about believing that a better society over all is created by making sure that the less fortunate are not forgotten. That most people that would endorse that philosphy happen to be democrats, and that paranoid, anti-CIA nut cases both vote democratic hardly makes them equal.

Frankly, I really don't see anything in that report or even the demographics you have identified as providing anything but a coincidental grouping. That certain kinds of people gravitate to a certain geography hardly says anything about the merit of that philosophy.

Perhaps what is involved is that more heavily democratic areas are more tolerant and less judgemental of divergent views and life styles. And what would that say about democrats? That they are less judgemental, more (dare I say) Christian in the true sense of the word?

[pushka]

Well said Cal...I agree with every word... and anyway...who believes statistics these days? they are almost always flawed...

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 22 2005, 02:07 PM

In my opinion, there is nothing nutty about a political philosophy that includes a genuine belief that the government should foster, pomote and fund worthy social programs for the benefit of the less fortunate and that favors civil rights.That philosophy is actually closer to the real ideas of Christianity--care for the poor and the less fortunate--make the world a place of equal opportunity for all, not just the "have", but for the have nots.

Perhaps we can gain some insight to the results of the study by extending that philosophy out just a bit...

A good deal of government fostering, promoting and funding social progams for the less fortunates necessarily entail forcibly taking from those who have and those who produce and transfering it to those who lack and those who don't/can't/won't produce. It stands to reason that those who think they deserve or are entitled to the fruits of another's labor would be drawn to liberal strongholds where they have a greater chance of living off the producers labor.

I think you could make a case that more pragmatic, work-for-what-you-get types tend to be more conservative and are mentally healthy than those that believe others-owe-them and are correspondingly more liberal; and such liberal types needn't be homeless, just so philosophically inclined.

I'm not saying that the case - just wondering.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 22 2005, 11:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 22 2005, 11:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 22 2005, 02:07 PM

In my opinion, there is nothing nutty about a political philosophy that includes a genuine belief that the government should foster, pomote and fund worthy social programs for the benefit of the less fortunate and that favors civil rights.That philosophy is actually closer to the real ideas of Christianity--care for the poor and the less fortunate--make the world a place of equal opportunity for all, not just the "have", but for the have nots.

Perhaps we can gain some insight to the results of the study by extending that philosophy out just a bit...

A good deal of government fostering, promoting and funding social progams for the less fortunates necessarily entail forcibly taking from those who have and those who produce and transfering it to those who lack and those who don't/can't/won't produce. It stands to reason that those who think they deserve or are entitled to the fruits of another's labor would be drawn to liberal strongholds where they have a greater chance of living off the producers labor.

I think you could make a case that more pragmatic, work-for-what-you-get types tend to be more conservative and are mentally healthy than those that believe others-owe-them and are correspondingly more liberal; and such liberal types needn't be homeless, just so philosophically inclined.

I'm not saying that the case - just wondering.

Snow--yes, that is your justification for opposing social programs for the less fortunate and denying help to the needy. The "they brought it upon themselves, so they deserve what they get". If you will look in your own beloved BoM you will find out what JS or the Nephites, whichever you prefer, thought of that philosoply.

Second your phrase.....

others-owe-them and are

....implying that democrats feel that OTHERS owe them. This democrat doesn't think OTHERS owe me anything---on the contrary, I believe that I OWE a small part of what this country has given me TO THE LESS ABLE AND LESS FORTUNATE.

Likewise, as a practical matter, it is in the best interests of the country as a WHOLE to have a better educated, less dependent populace. The only way you get that is to help those who are struggling to get absorbed into the middle class by, say, learning the language better (made possible by things like evening adult education classes funded by the State and Federal Gov. --all of us, in other words) You spend some money to make sure that those, whose children don't benefit from a role model in the home who went to college, get some encouragement and vision of what is possible with continued education, and you make that education affordable enough for those kids to get that college degree.

These are the kind of things I am talking about. You seem to think that I favor massive payouts of cash to the indolent. I don't, neither did Bill Clinton, by the way. You will he recall that he pushed and achieved at least some welfare reforms that limited the amount of time that you could collect federal welfare. Yes, we don't need starving children because some parent can't or won't work. Making sure kids have at least minimum health care and food is in ALL our interest. Remember, there will always be people that don't want to work---that doesn't mean we let them all starve to death. It's not a perfect world. We aren't that kind of country---I thought we were a "Christian" country. Isn't caring for the poor and needy, and doing good for others, the essence of Christianity? If not, I must have completely misread the NT.

If you want to look at it from a religious point of view--I don't remember Jesus asking the people he fed and healed whether they had contributed to their own condition. Nor do I think he would have opposed giving of the public coffers for the heath and education of the children of the less able.

You use the term "force" with regard to the well-off giving tax money, some of which goes to social welfare (by the way, that amount pales in comparison to the cost of the military budget--which I agree is necessary---but a few bucks to keep kids from starving, suffering or wallowing in ignorance is hardly much of a sacrifice for most of us). I think if you calculated how much of your tax dollars so "forcibly" removed from you go to feeding and educating the poor, you might realize that it is FAR less than the tithing you pay to your church and a relatively small part of your overall taxes.

My final question: When Jesus said feed the poor and remember the needy, do you think he cared whether you did it by paying tithing to your church or giving the money through the government.? Do you really think God makes such a distinction?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

My final question: When Jesus said feed the poor and remember the needy, do you think he cared whether you did it by paying tithing to your church or giving the money through the government.? Do you really think God makes such a distinction?

I would say yes -- because you don't really "give" the money that goes through the government. You don't have any choice in the matter. And coupled with the Democratic support for progressive taxation (a good thing, up to a point), the government approach doesn't even involve a person giving his own money through the government to help the poor. It involves a person getting to feel charitable because he supports giving another (richer) person's money to help the poor.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 23 2005, 10:56 AM

Cal,

My final question: When Jesus said feed the poor and remember the needy, do you think he cared whether you did it by paying tithing to your church or giving the money through the government.? Do you really think God makes such a distinction?

I would say yes -- because you don't really "give" the money that goes through the government. You don't have any choice in the matter. And coupled with the Democratic support for progressive taxation (a good thing, up to a point), the government approach doesn't even involve a person giving his own money through the government to help the poor. It involves a person getting to feel charitable because he supports giving another (richer) person's money to help the poor.

As to choice, well, yes we ultimately do. We vote for the legislators that write the tax code....se the people, decide how we will be taxed and how the tax money will be used. It seems a blit less voluntary, but if we look at it as a democracy, together, we decide how we will deal with the porr and needy. It is similar in the church, yes, you don't have to pay your tithing, but try getting a temple recommend with out it---not so voluntary afterall---especially if you believe that the non-tithe payers are going to burn in hell---that is pretty coercive don't you think?

Also, when you give tithing it goes through church bureacracy, and individually we dont control how it is spent either. Now, fast offereings are supposed to go more directly to the needy, but even there, it is the Bishop that decides how it is going to be used, not the individual members.

As to the fact that the rich will give more, that is the "priviledge" you get for being able to take advantange of the opportunities created by our system and government. Personally, I don't feel charitable just because I advocate the rich giving more, I feel logical.

I see it this way: The success of capitalism requires that certain parts of the society, no matter how hard they work, earn LESS than the part that owns the means of production. Without that arrangement, those that own the means of production couldn't possibly become rich---they would have to pay too much for labor. Therefore, for the system to work, some people have to accept less pay, for equal or more work. The pact THIS country has made with its workers, to get them to accept this arrangement is to 1) at least pay them a wage good enough to survive and 2) to use SOME of the money earned by those that profit most from the system to give those who have yet to be able to benefit, at least the CHANCE for them or their children to SOMEDAY benefit---through educational opportunities and health care for their children. I don't think that is too much to ask from the "haves"--and if the "haves" would quit complaining about it, I would have one less issue to post about.

[Snow]

Relax a bit Cal,

Your bringing all sort of stuff into your response that are beyond the scope of my post. I didn't say that Democrats think others owe them. However if I was a person who was on welfare or and did feel I had the right to live off the fruit of others labor, then I would probably migrate to the Democratic party instead of the Republican. That's a reasonable thought, isn't it.

I think we can all agree that transfer of wealth is appropriate and desirable to some extent. The question is what level of transfer is the right one.

Take your idea that we need to provide language classes to immigrants. I agree. But I myself learned a foreign language. It was sink or swim. If the government stopped providing all sorts of govermental services in Spanish and the only way to access governmental assistance was get in in English, then Spanish immigrants might learn the language as quickly as Burmese immigrants (whose language is not a threshold language).

Likewise, take away the incentive to live off transfer of wealth payments or make people work their behinds off to get them and either they will make it on their own or at least earn the welfare they get.

Now this is a personal complaint because I work in healthcare. In California, Orange County we have Cal-Optima which is an HMO for medicaid (medical welfare for the indigent). Patients pay nothing to have it, the benefits and coverage FAR exceed what any other health plan pays for, plus medical providers have to do things for Cal-Optima patients that they don't or can't do for their other patients - shorter waiting time guarantees, quicker appointments, faster return phone calls. On top of the that, many many Cal Optima patients are jerks, rude and demanding and very inappropriate and unrealistcally so, much more so than patients who actually earn their own insurance. The bottomline is that welfare patients can get all sorts of healthcare that people who earn their own healthcare cannot, and then they are jerks about it. That perverse and immoral.

In the long run I think many of our transfer of wealth policies CREATE a permanent underpriviledged class. Doing what we do for/to them is not Christlike, it is sad and destructive.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 23 2005, 12:05 PM

Relax a bit Cal,

Your bringing all sort of stuff into your response that are beyond the scope of my post. I didn't say that Democrats think others owe them. However if I was a person who was on welfare or and did feel I had the right to live off the fruit of others labor, then I would probably migrate to the Democratic party instead of the Republican. That's a reasonable thought, isn't it.

I think we can all agree that transfer of wealth is appropriate and desirable to some extent. The question is what level of transfer is the right one.

Take your idea that we need to provide language classes to immigrants. I agree. But I myself learned a foreign language. It was sink or swim. If the government stopped providing all sorts of govermental services in Spanish and the only way to access governmental assistance was get in in English, then Spanish immigrants might learn the language as quickly as Burmese immigrants (whose language is not a threshold language).

Likewise, take away the incentive to live off transfer of wealth payments or make people work their behinds off to get them and either they will make it on their own or at least earn the welfare they get.

Now this is a personal complaint because I work in healthcare. In California, Orange County we have Cal-Optima which is an HMO for medicaid (medical welfare for the indigent). Patients pay nothing to have it, the benefits and coverage FAR exceed what any other health plan pays for, plus medical providers have to do things for Cal-Optima patients that they don't or can't do for their other patients - shorter waiting time guarantees, quicker appointments, faster return phone calls. On top of the that, many many Cal Optima patients are jerks, rude and demanding and very inappropriate and unrealistcally so, much more so than patients who actually earn their own insurance. The bottomline is that welfare patients can get all sorts of healthcare that people who earn their own healthcare cannot, and then they are jerks about it. That perverse and immoral.

In the long run I think many of our transfer of wealth policies CREATE a permanent underpriviledged class. Doing what we do for/to them is not Christlike, it is sad and destructive.

I agree the world is full of jerks. That doesn't really change my position, with which you don't totally disagree, so perhaps that is a good place to move on to other things.