Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » MikeH » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
MikeH's Journal
Posted by MikeH in General Discussion
Wed May 18th 2011, 09:45 PM
Response to OP: Ended a 27-year friendship today.
It definitely sounds like it was the right and healthy thing for you to end your friendship, though it doesn't sound like he was really a particularly good friend. However even if he were a good friend it would have been quite appropriate for you to reevaluate your friendship. I don't think one can maintain a friendship with somebody whom one is not able to respect, and it definitely sounds like that is the case with this particular former friend.

I myself ended a 30 year friendship in 2005 after my friend voted for Bush a second time in 2004. I became friends with him in the mid 1970's when we were both students and both working at the same place at part time jobs that were sponsored by our state university. He was a fundamentalist Christian but did not fit the worst stereotypes of people of that persuasion. At the time I met him I was serious about Christianity but had problems with fundamentalist Christianity. He was accepting of that, and was also accepting when I later became unhappy with Christianity in general. He was actually a good friend; he was "there" for me many times over the years.

I was disappointed that my friend was going to vote for Bush in 2000 (anybody but Gore, and he was strongly against abortion), but I was willing to accept it at the time. However I was very much bothered when I got together with my friend in October 2004, and he indicated, without any hesitation, that he was going to be voting for Bush again. It bothered me that he did not seem to have any serious struggle with the idea of voting for Bush a second time, or any doubts or second thoughts.

I might have been able to accept it if my friend, even if for whatever reason he had problems with voting for Gore or Kerry, were unhappy with Bush in 2004 and had a hard time deciding whom to vote for and ended up voting for Bush. I expect I would have been very disappointed, but I probably would have been able to accept it and might still be able to discuss things with him. (Since we live in California, which went for Kerry, I would not have any problem with his vote having decided the election.) What really bothered me was that my friend had no hesitation in saying that he was going to be voting for Bush a second time.

And I was particularly bothered that my friend had supported the war in Iraq. He felt that it was right and necessary to oppose the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, just like it would presumably have been right to stop Hitler in the 1930's and to (hopefully) prevent World War II.

However the one thing he said that really disturbed me was that he thought it was OK that we went into Iraq even though we did not find the purported weapons of mass destruction, because intelligence is not an exact science. To me that sounded like a way to excuse someone who was "his type" of pResident (i.e. ostensibly a fundamentalist Christian, against abortion, and did not have an affair in the White House like the immoral Clinton). I also seem to remember that he was not particularly bothered by reports of torture; I don't recall his reasons. (Incidentally I am very disturbed that Obama has continued the war policies of the Bush administration, and I think that what was wrong for Bush is also very wrong for Obama.)

In early 2005, being upset about Bush's second term, I e-mailed my friend to let him know that while I enjoyed our friendship in the past, I had to reevaluate whether I wanted to continue to be friends with him. I could not respect his politics any more. And even though I had serious issues with fundamentalist Christianity, I had previously been able to respect my friend despite his being a fundamentalist Christian. We were able to agree to disagree, and respect our differences about that matter. However I could not respect my friend's fundamentalist Christianity any more after he voted for Bush a second time. Even though my friend was himself not bigoted, intolerant, or "in-your-face", I could not accept my friend having unhesitatingly voted for the candidate who was strongly favored by those in the Religious Right who are these things.

I respected my friend otherwise but could not respect his religion or politics any more. I proposed to my friend that if we got together we could talk about old times, and about work, school, and people we both used to know. However I did not want to hear his thoughts about any controversial issue, and I did not want to hear about either my friend's or his family's church or Christian activities (and I said that to my friend knowing that his wife has a singing ministry that is very important to her). Sometimes limiting topics of conversation works with families.

As it turned out my friend and I mutually agreed to end our friendship. My friend did not want to maintain a friendship if his friendship was going to be reevaluated based on religious or political differences, or if we couldn't talk about certain things.

My friend and I ended our friendship on amicable terms, and we both agreed we could fondly remember our past relationship, and we exchanged best wishes for each other's futures.

I liked and respected my friend otherwise, but his voting for Bush a second time and being in favor of the Iraq War were not acceptable to me. And I especially could not and still cannot respect the religious faith of anybody who would support either Bush or the Iraq War.
Discuss (1 comments)
Profile Information
MikeH
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
1123 posts
Member since 2002
San Diego, California, USA
Male
Learning from Hitler and his childhood
What point is there for us today in learning about Hitler and his history? For me, the main point is this: our knowledge will serve as a warning against our blindness and encourage us to give it up once and for all and to struggle against collective repression. This is what I do consistently in all my books in order to help people understand the psychodynamics of the mistreatment of children and its immeasurable danger for society, as demonstrated by Hitler's case. My explanations are by no means intended to suggest pity for a man as merciless as Hitler.

it was in large part owing to Hitler and his history that I became aware of the dangers of our traditional morality. We are exhorted to honor our parents and never question them no matter what they have done. Yet when I realize that millions of human beings had to die so that Adolf Hitler could keep his repression of childhood trauma intact, that millions were subjected to humiliation in concentration camps so that he never had to recognize how he had once been humiliated, then I believe that one can't point out these connections often enough in order to shed light on this unconscious production of evil. How should young people be expected to recognize and reject inhumanity and crime if these continue to be disguised instead of being pointed out as plainly as possible? Only when young people are permitted to know exactly what happened and how it could happen, only if they don't allow anything to stifle their curiosity and are not afraid of the truth, can they free themselves from the burden placed upon them by their forebears' blindness.

Alice Miller
Adolf Hitler: How Could a Monster Succeed in Blinding a Nation?

See also
For Your Own Good: Preface to the American Edition

For Your Own Good: Adolf Hitler's Childhood: From Hidden to Manifest Horror
The "Final Solution", Adaptation to Society's Norms, Morality and Duty, and Childhood Feelings
People with any sensitivity cannot be turned into mass murderers overnight. But the men and women who carried out "the final solution" did not let their feelings stand in their way for the simple reason that they had been raised from infancy not to have any feelings of their own but to experience their parents' wishes as their own. These were people who, as children, had been proud of being tough and not crying, of carrying out all their duties "gladly," of not being afraid--that is, at bottom, of not having an inner life at all.

...

This perfect adaptation to society's norms--in other words, to what is called "healthy normality"--carries with it the danger that such a person can be used for practically any purpose. It is not a loss of autonomy that occurs here, because this autonomy never existed, but a switching of values, which in themselves are of no importance anyway for the person in question as long as his whole value system is dominated by the principle of obedience. He has never gone beyond the stage of idealizing his parents with their demands for unquestioning obedience; this idealization can easily be transferred to a Führer or to an ideology. Since authoritarian parents are always right, there is no need for their children to rack their brains in each case to determine whether what is demanded of them is right or not. And how is this to be judged? Where are the standards supposed to come from if someone has always been told what was right and what was wrong and if he never had an opportunity to become familiar with his own feelings and if, beyond that, attempts at criticism were unacceptable to the parents and thus were too threatening for the child? If an adult has not developed a mind of his own, then he will find himself at the mercy of the authorities for better or worse, just as an infant finds itself at the mercy of its parents. Saying no to those more powerful will always seem too threatening to him.

...

Morality and performance of duty are artificial measures that become necessary when something essential is lacking. The more successfully a person was denied access to his or her feelings in childhood, the larger the arsenal of intellectual weapons and the supply of moral prostheses has to be, because morality and a sense of duty are not sources of strength or fruitful soil for genuine affection. Blood does not flow in artificial limbs; they are for sale and can serve many masters. What was considered good yesterday can--depending on the decree of government of party--be considered evil and corrupt today, and vice versa. But those who have spontaneous feelings can only be themselves. They have no other choice if they want to remain true to themselves. Rejection, ostracism, loss of love, and name calling will not fail to affect them; they will suffer as a result and will dread them, but once they have found their authentic self they will not want to lose it. And when they sense that something is being demanded of them to which their whole being says no, they cannot do it. They simply cannot.

Alice Miller
For Your Own Good: The Central Mechanism of "Poisonous Pedagogy"
Other tyrants and their childhood
In the lives of all the tyrants I examined, I found without exception paranoid trains of thought bound up with their biographies in early childhood and the repression of the experiences they had been through. Mao had been regularly whipped by his father and later sent 30 million people to their deaths, but he hardly ever admitted the full extent of the rage he must have felt toward his own father, a very severe teacher who had tried through beatings to "make a man" out of his son. Stalin caused millions to suffer and die because even at the height of his power his actions were determined by unconscious infantile fear of powerlessness. Apparently his father, a poor cobbler from Georgia, attempted to drown his frustration with liquor and whipped his son almost every day. His mother displayed psychotic traits, was completely incapable of defending her son and was usually away from home either praying in church or running the priest's household. Stalin idealized his parents right up to the end of his life and was constantly haunted by the fear of dangers that had long since ceased to exist but were still present in his deranged mind. The same might be true of many other tyrants. The groups of people they singled out for persecution and the rationalization mechanisms they employed were different in each case, but the fundamental reason behind it was probably identical. They often drew on ideologies to disguise the truth and their own paranoia. And the masses chimed in enthusiastically because they were unaware of the real motives, including those operative in their own biographies. The infantile revenge fantasies of individuals would be of no account if society did not regularly show such naive alacrity in helping to make them come true.

Alice Miller
The Political Consequences of Child Abuse
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
The Usual Suspects
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.