Patriotism is broadly defined as one’s love and devotion to their country. The political arena magnifies charges of a candidate as either being patriotic or the converse. Two days before the 2008 presidential election John McCain is attempting to paint Barack Obama as less than patriotic. This charge is levied because of Obama’s recent comment about feeling his faith in America had been vindicated after his primary win in Iowa.

McCain’s point is that a true patriot never questions his country. His speeches are rife with overt and subliminal messages about his absolute devotion to his country. This begins to look like blind patriotism. Given the unequivocal nature of blind adherence we can begin to consider some shortcomings.

Let’s liken the country to our family. Typically, being proud and devoted to your family and children might appear admirable. Loyalty has its virtue. But a lack of critical assessment might enable some very problematic concerns. If we defended our children at all costs, against all charges, we’d be enabling them. If there were complaints from their friends, their teachers or others and we blindly defended them against all charges what result might that have upon them?

From my experience, a very negative effect. We learn and grow form accepting and looking at constructive criticism. This in turn may lead to valuable self-reflection. We might well consider that children who are defended at all costs–in the spirit of familial patriotism–would be severely limited in their progression toward healthy adulthood.

Might not the same happen with blind patriotism? Ironically, defending our country against reasonable self critique will render us a weakened, less vital nation. If our national psyche is so defended as not to be evaluative, then are we any different than an individual who is highly defended? When a person, a family or a nation turns inward, in a self-protecting manner, it cease to evolve and accommodate the vicissitudes of change.

To battle for the presidency around issues of who is more patriotic is not only a scurrilous distraction, it is short sighted and infantile. Believing that our country can never be imperfect, let alone wrong is frankly a state of pathological denial. Which is whay most of the world is hoping for an Obama victory. Patriotism nears its highest value when it is generative, permitting honest evaluation, not blinded to its rightness.

In my therapy practice my attention is often focused upon clarity of communication. It’s the cornerstone of successful relationships and a subject that was glaringly omitted from our education. This is a complex subject, but with a little work we can make great strides.

Nowhere is this issue more evident than in the politics of the day. The candidates, their surrogates and the media pundits are all egregiously deficient in some fundamental facets of dialogue. The exchanges, and particularly the heated ones, are absent what I refer to as shared meaning. Listening to argumentation without any agreement as to what we’re actually disagreeing about is absurdly frustrating.

For example, Congressperson Bachmann recently charged Barack Obama with being anti-American. She then ventured further and suggested that there should be a media investigation as to other members of the House and Senate who are similarly anti-American. Thus the battle is engaged, the culture divided, patriotism and anti-Americanism rants unfurled. Yet, no one actually asks her what she means by the term anti-American. Without a shared understanding of what she is suggesting there can be no reasonable dialogue.

The reactivity of the moment prevails and opposing positions become more entrenched; and little is learned. Certainly no minds become changed, for there is no meeting of the minds. If I were interviewing her I’d inquire as to what she means by anti-American. Hopefully, she might come to see that her position is untenable, if not incoherent. I’d ask, “so if the government were ruled by liberals and progressives, and the conservatives were inconsolable and vehemently opposed to their government, would they be anti-American?”

From there, if our communication were coherent, Ms. Bachmann might come to see that she confuses anti-American with what is really anti-conservative. It’s likely that she therefore equates conservatism as being the core American value To proclaim that Mr. Obama and other members of Congress have values and beliefs that are in stark opposition to hers, is an understandable statement. From that position, a dialogue that has meaning might ensue.

Shared meaning doesn’t suggest agreement, it only provides clarity as to what one is suggesting. And moreover, it helps the speaker identify their beliefs more lucidly. For instance, is being anti-current government the same as being anti-American? If a Hitler prototype gained control of the U.S. would being anti-American then be a good thing? So by delving into meaning we actually being to relativize and contextualize our statements, so they become more sensible.

Certain words and phrases are intended to incite knee jerk reactions. The Republicans are far more adroit and inclined in this way than the Democrats. To charge one with being a socialist provokes such a reflex amongst many people. Yet if we paused to consider the term socialist, these same people might be astounded to see how our country is quite embedded in socialism. Our schools, post offices, libraries, police and fire departments, motor vehicle departments and the myriad of other governmental agencies that organize are lives are indeed, socialist. How wonderful might it be if rather than defending against the word, we opened it up to more scrutiny.

When we stop and inquire as to meaning, there flows a level of communication that makes sense, that has a coherence. Without sharing meaning, any meaningful flow of dialogue is immediately disrupted, and the lack of ensuing sense—becomes non- sense.

Early in his primary campaign Barack Obama urged that there wasn’t a blue America and a red America, but one America. His exhortations toward unity, transcending a split country were inspiring. His was a fresh mindset that seemed to catapult the divisions of us vs them, right against wrong. Recent events have caused me to reconsider this belief.

The crowd baiting by McCain’s surrogates, including Ms. Palin, stirring egregious charges that Mr. Obama is alternatively, a terrorist, a communist, a Muslim and a traitor glaringly speak to the fervent ideological and culture division of the two Americas. More fundamentally, I have come to consider what may be at the core of the potentially explosive divide.

It is one’s worldview that informs their opinions. To that end, people tend to see reality through the filter of either being co-operative or competitive. In other words, people are inclined toward being competitively or cooperatively driven. These are the prominent motifs of how we see interaction.

Democrats, given their penchant toward humanism and the optimism of the human spirit, incline toward cooperation. If you believe that humankind is potentially good you see through the prism of cooperation. It moves you toward the common good. This mindset more inclines people toward internationalism, whereby there may be sufficient national pride, but one’s relationship with the larger whole is apparent.

Alternatively, people who envision reality as informed by competition tend to be more individualistically oriented. It’s more of an us against them, a me and against you attitude. From this perspective the world is divided into good and evil, right and wrong. You’re either pro-American or anti-American. There’s less tolerane for shades of gray. You’re with us or against us. Hence, battle lines are drawn and realities constructed.

These points of view are basically influenced by the nature of one’s ego state. A healthy and evolving ego doesn’t need to define or characterize itself by it’s opposite. It’s well-being is more self reflective and the cooperative spirit isn’t challenging to such an ego. The less mature ego requires an enemy or an opposing point for its self-reference. It literally defines itself by its opposite. I’m good since I can point my finger at what’s bad. As such, it is driven by the competitive mode, which defaults to us against them, right and wrong.

The two Americas can be characterized by differing states of ego maturity. The cooperative ego can engage paradox and welcomes complexity. Good and bad, blue and red tend to retreat from prominence. The competitive ego is allergic to complexity and reduces phenomena to simplistic matters. The enemy has to be maintained to secure and balance the less evolved ego. The debate between McCain and Obama as to whether the President should speak with nations like Iran or other stated enemies illuminates this difference. The threatened ego cements the enemy status and thus forces the oppositional confrontation; sometimes culminating in violence or warfare.

The more mature ego believes that dialogue can move the parties into a more cooperative experience, resolving dispute or at least ameliorating it. America—and perhaps much of the world—divides into differing ego states and thus sees reality from starkly different views.

As a psychotherapist, I have worked with many individuals who are high powered, high income Wall Streeters. Even in the best of times, many of them are beset with emotional and psychological challenges in spite of their enormous wealth. Given the literal free fall of the economy that we’re currently experiencing, many are now facing the hugest hurdle of their lives; and I’m not simply speaking financially.

Those who are so fortunate to earn vast sums of money and accumulate enormous assets tend to place a disproportionate amount of their attention on what should simply be one facet of their lives. As unimaginable as it may be, billionaires may still suffer from self-esteem issues that plague many of us. Those who are driven to succeed in such a way are often compensating for other deficits in their lives. These may include challenges with interpersonal relationships and emotional intimacy. People who tend to be strong type A personalities are so inclined because they are very uncomfortable in the more intimate exchanges of relationships, so they default to the arena in which they feel more comfortable.

Of course there are many exceptions to my suggestion; people who have great financial success and strong and rewarding relationships. Yet, I find that this is more often the exception.

The key to happiness is a well-balanced life in which we honor diverse aspects of our being. Over emphasizing the material over the immaterial, things over relationships, severely constrains our life experience and turns us into money making automatons. Earning substantial money is fine, but not at the expense of a deeper and fuller life. The extreme orientation toward material wealth for some people denies them their very humanity. Just recall the stories of millionaires jumping out the windows of the skyscrapers where they worked in 1929 as the market collapsed. Losing their wealth rendered their lives unlivable. That clearly underscores the lack of balance. They were their money. Without it, they were existentially speaking, nothing at all.

Many holocaust survivors, left without family or friends and literally penniless, chose to move forward and face life after having experienced the most unthinkable horrors. Some succeeded. This is a choosing. And a profound one at that. Financial setbacks, absent the death and destruction of the holocaust, begin to pale in comparison.

I fervently believe that every crisis presents an opportunity. They are merely differing aspects of the process. Do we choose to focus on the crisis or do we ask what the opportunity may be? What opportunity could arise from the loss of one’s fortune? To begin with, the potential for recreating one’s life in a more balanced and authentic manner. The loss creates the opportunity for reflection and reconsideration as to what a life well lived looks like. An awakening if you will.

The crisis may in fact become the golden opportunity. As such, circumstances permit a brand new starting point in life. A time to take charge of your life and a mindful choosing of how you wish to live it. Indeed, without these crises life tends to just get stuck in the groove and we are more the actor of our lives than the master.

Let’s consider the word crisis. Crisis suggests an acute, unwanted experience or circumstance that takes us out of our comfort zone. And typically, we’re looking at loss of some kind. The crisis may be of a financial, relationship, health or spiritual nature. Ordinarily, we try to avoid this as best we can. Yet, the paradox is that growth and fundamental levels of change only tend to occur when we are out of our comfort zone. In chaos theory this requires a tipping point, in which we are thrown into the unknown, the discomfort of new territory. And this is precisely where transformation occurs. The financial crisis at hand presents a golden opportunity to re-balance our lives and take a more masterful position in how we choose to live. Without the crisis we are inclined to stay in the comfort of the predictable, but distant from the opportunity for growth.

I find it helpful to consider the phrase..I’ll be happy when…….. As we go through life we ordinarily fall into the trap of supposing that happiness will come with a future event. I’ll be happy when I fall in love, when I get my dream house, when I earn more money….Yet, that type of happiness is elusive. It remains beyond our reach, dependent upon yet more success. The financial crisis that many are experiencing presents a potential for reframing happiness and crafting a life in accordance.

It has become glaringly apparent to me that the orientation and values of the Democratic and Republican parties might be distilled down to the issue of whether one blinks or not. This difference was illuminated last night during Sarah Palin’s first interview. When asked if she were ready for the job, she indicated that she didn’t blink when asked to become McCain’s running mate. She went further to indicate that she was wired in that manner. Many members of the Republican party value the instinctive, no blink, macho response. Indeed, it is seen as masculine and patriotic.

The mindset of the non-blinkers is that real men (and women) don’t blink, they don’t think… They already know… a priori. Such a worldview distinctly separates good and bad, virtuous and evil. To blink is an effete dalliance and not to be trusted.

The blinkers are inclined to be reflective and contemplative. They are derided by the non-blinkers as elite intellectuals or to use the street word–wussies. They are charged with being soft on the enemy and not up to the job.

These distinctions are at the heart of the culture clash in the United States and the driving force in the presidential campaign. If a poll were taken that inquired as to whether one valued blinkers or non-blinkers, we’d readily be able to infer which candidates they were voting for. The real issue isn’t the economy, energy policies or terrorism. The unconscious motivator in the electoral process is whether you’re a blinker or not.

A non-blinking reflective might argue that the world escaped nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis due to the prevalence of contemplative individuals running our country. A blinker thinks beyond the immediacy of their reaction and considers unintended consequences; an instinctive non-blinker pulls the trigger and deals with the mess later. If we’re luck enough to have a later.

Q: From Amy – So much of what one reads about improving life, achieving goals, etc involves positive attitude, often with advice to surround oneself with positive people, to cut negative personalities from one’s circle. It’s not always so simple - what tips can you offer for thriving while living with/supporting a depressed spouse. How can one push the negative energy away without pushing the person away?

A: Dear Amy,

I chose your question firstly because it is highly relevant and secondly because it looks at a seeming paradox. When confronted with opposing notions—both seemingly true—we become confused..

Surrounding ourselves with positive energy is of course important and helpful. Yet at times we may have friends, relatives or spouses who through not fault of their own fall prey to their own negative energy. What are we to do?

Balance is the key. Maintaining our own core balance through life’s travails enables a self-reliance that benefits us. In your circumstances, resisting being pulled into the black hole of your husband’s despair serves two purpose; your own well-being and survival and a healthy model for him. Your caring for him must be integrated with your own healthy autonomy.

The impact of his depression upon you cannot be understated and as is the case for most caregivers, you need to value yourself. This is a very personal choice and everyone must find their own truth and balance through these challenges.

Mel

* * * *

Question of the Week is a regular feature of our community where people ask me questions of just about anything: relationships, health, life. Often, the questions we ask are far more valuable than the answers we seek. In that spirit, I invite you to participate. Every week I select the most interesting and provocative question to be shared here on my blog. The winner also receives his or her choice of:

• The Power of Mind DVD or CD
• The Art of Intimacy, The Pleasure of Passion Book
• 10-Minute Consult with me

Of course, if you have a private question that you’d rather not have publicized, feel free to contact me here.

Once a year, the president is required to have their annual physical check up. We want to assure ourselves that our leader is in proper working order; at least physically. Our orientation toward the physical at the cost of ignoring the psychological/emotional is both short sighted and potentially calamitous. We are at far greater risk of disaster due to a president’s emotional distress or psychological disorder than from disease or even a heart attack. A competent vice-president is at least theoretically able to step in as an able replacement. But the consequences of executive actions derived from a challenged psyche could literally end life on this planet.

I propose that an emotional and psychological evaluation be required not only of sitting presidents but the party’s nominees for the office. Much has been written and suggested recently about John McCain’s erratic temperament. He is said to be reactive and not given to self-reflection. He sees reality in stark black and white contrasts and his approach to international challenges are inclined toward bellicosity and militarism. His singing— bomb, bomb, bomb..bomb Iran..sung to the Beach Boys melody— concerns me greatly. War and death are hardly joking matters. Given the traumatic experience of his years of confinement and torture as a prisoner of war, I might wonder how this has informed his worldview. Is his penchant toward militarism as opposed to diplomacy influenced by the trauma of his captivity?

Possibly, but we can’t necessarily conclude so. After all, Nelson Mandela, although not tortured, was confined for a greater length of time and is not similarly inclined toward conflict. But shouldn’t we be asking these questions?

It is utterly irresponsible and beyond dangerous to elect individuals to our highest office without any attention to their emotional/psychological condition. The fate of the world hangs on their decisions. Doesn’t is serve us to know the psychological filter through which they operate?

Just consider that the NFL does psychological evaluations of prospective players so as to protect both their image and their investments. And we simply assume that our presidents are psychologically well. This is lunacy.

Grave matters of war and economic crises are not simply decided upon by rational intervention but more often influenced by personal biographical history and by the recesses of one’s unconscious. Olive’s Stone’s movie W illuminates how interpersonal family relations not only impact an individual, but ultimately may be at the source of decisions to go to war. It might appear that Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was as much influenced by his compensatory need to compete with and seek approval from his father as by other competing considerations. Attacking another country may be more influenced by early childhood memories of parental authority and punishment than by failed diplomacy. I for one am more concerned with how our president’s think than by what they think.

Q: Does passion have to die?

A: This week’s question is provocative in that it challenges a commonly held belief. Almost all beliefs are self-fulfilling prophecies. If you believe it, you’ll experience it accordingly.

Regrettably, it is true that passion withers in most long standing relationships. Yet, this is due to how we operate in our relationships. If we fall into the doldrums of predictability we will experience the death knell of passion. As well, we tend to stop prioritizing our relationships once they’ve been secured. To keep passion alive requires maintaining the presence and aliveness we first experienced when we met, a new way of being in a relationship.

* * * *

Question of the Week is a regular feature of our community where people ask me questions of just about anything: relationships, health, life. Often, the questions we ask are far more valuable than the answers we seek. In that spirit, I invite you to participate. Every week I select the most interesting and provocative question to be shared here on my blog. The winner also receives his or her choice of:

• The Power of Mind DVD or CD
• The Art of Intimacy, The Pleasure of Passion Book
• 10-Minute Consult with me

Of course, if you have a private question that you’d rather not have publicized, feel free to contact me here.

A Recent New York Times science article informed that if concrete is kept vibrating, it won’t become set and retains a liquid form. This concept intrigued me and I considered that perhaps the same might occur with our thinking. Keeping our thinking in the process of vibrating would suggest, metaphorically that we wouldn’t fall prey to dogma or “concretizing” our beliefs. Moreover, our learning would be in a perpetual condition of evolving.

The absence of mental vibration predisposes us to get stuck in a virtual groove of thought, and hence, experience. From such a fixed state, we struggle with change. To vibrate in such a manner is to engage perpetual questioning; but not from a point of insecurity, doubt or analysis. The goal is to embrace an open minded inclination to wonder to oneself. A relationship with inquiry paves the way for such vibrating. Inquiring minds seek new questions rather than longing for answers. The answer ends the inquiry and the vibration halts. Reaching temporary and relative answers for awhile, a resting place if you will is fine. But embracing the quest for new considerations keeps the movement alive.

Learning to engage paradox stretches the mind beyond the limits of logic and rationality which so constrain us. Conjecture, re-framing and preparing for shifting insights are the vehicles for such oscillations. Learning to suspend our assumptions and beliefs and reevaluate them become the vehicles for such shifts. Since reality presents as an inexorable flow, it might be wise to align our thinking as such.