In general, I dislike appeals to psychology in politics. I don't mean this as a criticism of those who work in psychology out of a sincere desire to help particular individuals who are suffering. I'm talking about the attempt to paint your opponents as crazy. Most likely your opponents aren't crazy; they're driven by interests that diverge substantially from your own, to the point that the course of action that seems obvious and correct to you seems crazy to them.
Nevertheless, as the excellent British documentary
The Century of the Self points out, psychology captured the imagination of the leadership in the early 20th century and never let go of it. It captured their imagination partly because it terrified them, suggesting that the human beings they led were actually wild animals driven by unconscious forces that were basically irrational. However, the real key to the elite love of psychology was the fantasy of control it offered: as those few who understood the secret drives and forces at work, we could master and manipulate them -- and, thereby, exert real control over the rest of humanity.
Today I see this at work on both the left and the right. At Hot Air today,
here's a whole post about how much mental illness there is on the left. On X, here's a post about why Democrats are having trouble with young men that asserts,
inter alia, it's
because young men are crazy. Especially the white ones.
Third, we’re facing a mental health and social isolation crisis. Young men are lonelier and struggling with mental health issues at higher rates, partly fueled by social media and the erosion of traditional community institutions (churches, men’s groups, etc.). White men in America are four times more likely to commit suicide than any other group. This is a national crisis, and we’re barely talking about it.
Fourth, there’s an identity crisis. Gender roles and societal expectations are shifting (which is a good thing!), and young men are left wondering where they fit in. Without positive role models, many gravitate toward toxic figures like Donald Trump, because at least someone is speaking to their frustrations—however inartfully (which is being generous). Democrats haven’t done enough to offer better alternatives, though I think we’re starting to, with people like Tim Walz, Pete Buttigieg, and Doug Emhoff stepping up as strong role models.
Fifth, forming relationships—especially romantic ones—has become harder. Economic pressures and the rise of online dating have created new dynamics that are disincentivizing young men (and women, for that matter) from building meaningful connections. This only adds to their sense of isolation and fuels resentment, particularly toward women and those who are economically better off....
We can’t keep acting like white men don’t have real issues. Everyone is suffering from something, and everyone deserves to have that suffering addressed by their government. If we address these issues with the same seriousness we give to other communities, we won’t win them all—but we don’t have to. We’re building a multicultural coalition to move this country forward, but we can’t ignore the real challenges young white men are facing.
An aside: I'm not sure that anyone deserves to have the government address their suffering -- haven't they already suffered enough?
Leaving that alone, though, the Hot Air post begins on the relatively solid ground that a lot of actual diagnoses have been given to young liberal women. Even that is doubtful to me: I think you get a mental health diagnosis essentially anytime you ask for one, because that's the only way to get your insurance to pay for whatever it is you want, and the psychologist/therapist/doctor/whomever wants to get paid. Thus, I don't think 'more mental health diagnoses' actually demonstrates more mental health issues: I think younger people are more likely to seek out psychology/therapy than older people, women than men, and liberals than conservatives for what amount to cultural reasons. If old conservative men went to therapy at the same rate as young liberal women, in other words, I'd assume they'd receive diagnoses of some sort at the same rate -- i.e., approximately 100% of the time, so that the money can flow.
It is interesting that Hot Air views the gender issue as already a mental health issue, while the liberal poster views the changes in gender identity as a good and healthy thing that is nevertheless provoking mental health issues (apparently by not providing 'better alternatives,' which may begin with the fact that the poster himself seems to think that fake-combat-veteran-and-non-CSM Walz represents a better alternative).
What really is driving this deep division isn't, I submit, craziness. It's interest. The administrative state directly employs or supports a vast percentage of our population. Its interests and theirs are aligned to such a degree that they will tend to support it.
Because that state has become ossified and thereby nonfunctional, however, it is harming us all. Also, as Weber knew from the beginning, the administrative state is inherently corrupt, and creates a class of administrators that rules in its class interests in a way that diverges from the public good. The interest in significant reform (or replacement) is therefore also quite large.
Both of these collections of interests are rational, rather than the working of some deep irrational urge. We do need reform, but those deep and powerful reforms will definitely disrupt the rice bowls of tens of millions of people. It's going to cause real pain when the reforms come.
To my way of thinking it still needs to be done, and ultimately it's better to do it in a planned and intentional way than to wait for the eventual unplanned collapse. I can easily understand why public school teachers shudder at the thought of a thoroughgoing reform of the way we educate children, though; or academics of academia; or Federal/state employees of the civil service; or those who have obtained degrees in social sciences the revocation of the power of Human Resources over corporations and society; or those who are heavily invested in the big corporations, the loss of regulatory barriers to entry for new competitors; etc.
Clearing all that away is wise and necessary, but the considerations about how much suffering it will entail are rational ones. Your opponents may sometimes scream and wail as they contemplate it, but they are not thereby crazy.
