A Critical Analysis of “The Pathology of Liberalism” by Joan Swirsky

By Michael Gryboski

September 4th, AD 2009

In the culture wars of America, liberals and Fundamentalist Christians often find themselves at odds with each other. This conflict is most pronounced regarding church-state issues. Groups identified as socially and politically liberal will have fundamentalism as their great enemy, referring to them in their press releases and position papers. When reporting on a development in the evolution-creation debate, Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State remarked, “Americans want quality science, not religious fundamentalism masked as science, taught in public schools.”¹ People For the American Way recently analyzed opposition to health care reform and noted that “Religious Right leaders have eagerly embraced a right-wing free-market fundamentalism to oppose federal government efforts to expand access to health care.”² Religious Liberal and former Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong referred to fundamentalism as “an enemy to all faiths.”³

With Liberal groups and activists often having the much dreaded fundamentalist Christian cause as their target, this explains why many conservatives and fundamentalists would be happy to read the words of Joan Swirsky, who argues in an essay that liberalism is not only wrong, but a mental illness. For religious fundamentalists and conservatives, this explains the apparent vitriolic and hateful words as well as erratic actions of political liberals, be they bloggers, community organizers, or even members of Congress.

Before delving into the opus in question, a little background on the author is necessary. According to her personal website, Joan Swirsky is a New York journalist who received the Long Island Press Award on seven occasions. She wrote numerous articles for mainstream and conservative media sources, including the work set to be analyzed here. In addition to journalism, Swirsky has a medical background, first as a registered nurse and then as a practicing psychotherapist.⁴ This means that she does have a level of authority in writing about psychological matters. However, as shall be noted, her opus, entitled “The Pathology of Liberalism”, holds certain inherent problems in its methodology. In attempting to prove that liberals are mentally ill, Swirsky’s work ignores the hateful statements of conservative pundits, the fact that virtually all her authoritative sources cited are politically biased, and the acts of liberals who do indeed support this country.

I. Vitriolic Language

As proof of psychopathology Swirsky mentioned the many personal attacks various liberals have uttered against then president George W. Bush. She provides quotes from various liberal activists, columnists, and high-ranking members of the Democratic Party. Though many argue that these are words taken out of context, odds are good most of them are indeed legitimately used as proof of vicious rhetoric on the part of liberals. These harsh words are offered as proof that liberals are mentally ill. Writes Swirsky:

”Who but an out-of-control child – who didn’t know any better – would compare our heroic fighting troops to Nazis? Liberal Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) did… Who but a spoiled ‘princess’ would call the leader of her country a failure, a fraud, and incompetent? Liberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) did… And who but a jealous tomboy would insist, again in a time of war, that the Commander in Chief is the worst president in our nation’s history? Liberal Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has done just that.”⁵

Swirsky concludes the section thusly, “All of these children – er, politicians – have gone to great lengths to undermine President Bush, often in foreign countries and always in contradiction to the unspoken but historically honored rule to support a president in time of war – or at least to refrain from insult.”⁶

During the Bush Administration there was plenty of rhetoric spoken by left-leaning politicos that was not civil, this cannot be denied. However to attribute it to being a crucial component of liberal ideology is a bit problematic, given one point that Swirsky ignores: conservative pundits and politicians have been just as vitriolic as the liberals. Although many statements and speeches could be used from the past, ones that Swirsky should have been well aware of when writing her essay, words during the current administration pose some good contemporary sound bites. To put it using her reasoning,

Who but a jealous child would hope that the one who beat them in a competition would suffer because of their success? Rush Limbaugh, who said of President Barack Obama, “I hope he fails." ⁷

Who but a fantasy-obsessed scared little child would claim that President Barack Obama was a foreigner and plotting to ruin our country? Conservative columnist Jerome Corsi, who regularly writes for World Net Daily and regularly attacks the moral character of President Obama.⁸

And who but a spoiled “princess” would resort to calling the head of her household a liar? Well, that would be none other than Swirsky herself, who referred to Obama in an article of hers as such and also called the president (in a time of war, mind you), “just another Socialist-cum-Marxist-cum-Communist.”⁹

To clarify, I do not believe Limbaugh is a jealous child, Corsi a fantasy-obsessed scared little child, or that Swirsky is a spoiled “princess.” All three are mature adults who may hold some faulty viewpoints, but nevertheless are mentally competent. Yet Swirsky’s reasoning against liberals could just as easily be applied to conservative figureheads like Limbaugh, Corsi, and others. Let’s not also forget the lesser known activists seen in news today, the anti-Obamacare protestors at the town hall meetings found across the country. These people readily use Nazi comparisons, hateful rhetoric, and engage in anti-rational activity. Yet few would consider themselves politically liberal. Yet they act, according to Swirksy’s standards, just like liberals.

Questionable Sources

Swirsky does not exclusively rely on her own words. Rather, at various points in the essay, she quotes passages from the works of various individuals she deems authoritative. This makes sense, since any essayist making an argumentative point should use evidence from without their own words. Otherwise, it is mere conjecture and there is a loss of validity. However, in many instances those who quote and cite in their works use sources that agree with them. Each has their own reasons for doing this, but it presents a problem. Since these sources agree to begin with, the element of objective information is lost and the non-likeminded will most likely (and most justifiably) reject the arguments made by the essayist because of this.

Swirsky’s essay cites sources, quotes them in fact. However, each source is ideologically compromised. Among her sources include Vasko Kohlmayer, a man oft identified with the political right. The Kohlmayer article that Swirsky quotes from did come from a nonpartisan source, however it was published with the following disclaimer, “The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and do not represent the opinions of World Defense Review and its affiliates. WDR accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content of this or any other story published on this website.”¹⁰

The next source she quotes as authoritative is Evan Sayet, who’s personal website notes his strong ties to the political right, including his numerous articles for conservative outlets, connections to the George W. Bush Administration, conservative comedy tour entitled “Right to Laugh”, and several photos of him with notable conservative pundits.¹¹ The next source cited is Rabbi Aryeh Spero, a talk radio personality who is currently president of Caucus for America. This is a conservative organization that seeks among other things “Clarifying and fighting for what Americanism is. Unmasking the true intentions and motivations of a cynical, elitist corps working to transform America into a variant of European secularism and socialism. Bolstering the spirits of those beleaguered by blame America first political correctness and its never-ending attacks on beloved American institutions and traditions.”¹²

And on this pattern goes. Raymond S. Kraft, a conservative writer. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, conservative writer. All of them have firm connections to the right and have written for rightwing publications. Not that the views they expressed are inherently wrong. To the contrary, these are people who are intellectually reasoned human beings. That is not the problem. The problem is that while competent they are politically biased and would obviously support or espouse any position that denigrates their opposition. What truly conservative pundit or writer or author would dare defend the sanity of liberals to their peers, just like what truly committed liberal pundit or writer or author would dare defend the sanity of conservatives to their peers? Absent from the essay are any nonpartisan or liberal sources affirming the diagnosis Swirsky offers. This means that once one leaves the ideological huddle endorsed by Swirsky her thesis is questioned by people of extensive psychological backgrounds.

Points of Problem

For Swirsky, Liberal Democrats in Senate are mentally ill. The evidence? They are against the United States and for the terrorists. Swirsky makes a point to stress that liberals have decided to ally themselves with America’s enemies rather than support their homeland in time of war. Writes Swirsky, “Instead of seeing the epic struggle we are now engaged in as an opportunity to stand with America for the spread of freedom and for defeating our enemies, liberals choose to stand against everything that is good and great and exceptional about our country.”¹³

Yet Swirsky leaves out certain objective facts regarding Senate liberal behavior regarding the war on terror. For one, there is the Patriot Act, a law that undoubtedly Swirsky and her peers see as being beneficial to America during the war on terror. The 2001 Patriot Act passed Senate with 98 yes votes. Most tellingly, those who voted in favor of it included the very liberal senators Swirsky denounced in her essay, Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY).¹⁴ When the Patriot Act came up for renewal in 2005, 89 senators voted in favor, including notable liberal Democrats Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV), and the first black president of the United States, then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).¹⁵

Regarding the Joint Resolution to go to war in Iraq, once again a position seen as an attribute of mental sanity by Swirsky and her peers, liberal Democrats voting yes included Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), noted by Swirsky as one of the wealthiest politicians in Congress.¹⁶ So even though many liberal Democrats in both houses of Congress have voted in favor of these and other measures that are seen as pro-military or pro-defense, Swirsky maintains that as part of their psychopathology liberals in and out of Congress are working to make the USA fail. Granted, there are most certainly liberal extremists who fit this category of anti-Americanism quite well, but then again there are conservative extremists who are equally culpable. Remember: Timothy McVeigh was to the right of the political spectrum.

A Different Conclusion

The essay of Swirsky does not vindicate the thesis of liberalism as mental pathology. The reasoning offered could just as easily be used against various right-wing ideologues. For example, the inherent gloom attributed to liberals regarding America’s future under the Bush Administration can be just as easily found among conservatives under the Obama Administration. If anything, what Swirsky has shown in her research and writing is what a political entity will do when it does not have power. Swirsky does a good job showing how a large ideological movement that is not in power acts; maybe some day Swirsky shall realize that these behaviors can be found in any out of power political front, conservative or liberal.

Sources:

1. “Religious Right Opponents Of Evolution Lose Control Of Kansas Board Of Education”, Americans United, August 1st, AD 2000, http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2000/08/religious-right.html, accessed August 31st, AD 2009.

2. “To Hell with Health Care Reform: Religious Right Leaders Attack Obama, Spout GOP Dogma about ‘Socialism’ While Fanning Flames on Abortion”, Right Wing Watch, http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rww_in_focus_to_hell_with_health_care, accessed August 31st, AD 2009.

3. Spong, John Shelby, “Fundamentalism an Enemy to All Faiths”, Newsweek, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_shelby_spong/2009/04/islamic_law_in_pakistan.html, accessed August 31st, AD 2009.

4. http://joanswirsky.com/bio.htm, accessed August 31st, AD 2009.

5. Swirsky, Joan, “The Pathology of Liberalism”, Family Security Matters, February 5th, AD 2007, http://www.fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=697390, accessed September 1st, AD 2009.

6. Swirsky, http://www.fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=697390, 09/01/2009.

7. “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails”, January 16th, AD 2009, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html, accessed September 1st, AD 2009.

8. An extensive list of Corsi’s columns found here: http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=246, accessed September 1st, AD 2009.

9. Swirsky, Joan, “Obama Lied—The Economy Died”, Canada Free Press, July 24th, AD 2009, http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13145, accessed September 1st, AD 2009.

10. Kohlmayer, Vasko, “Democrats, terrorists and 'brotherly way'”, World Defense Review, November 30th, AD 2006, http://worlddefensereview.com/kohlmayer113006.shtml, accessed September 3rd, AD 2009.

11. http://www.evansayet.com/about_us.cfm, accessed September 3rd, AD 2009.

12. http://caucusforamerica.com/opinion.cfa.php, accessed September 3rd, AD 2009.

13. Swirsky, http://www.fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=697390, 09/01/2009.

14. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313, accessed September 3rd, AD 2009.

15. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029, accessed September 3rd, AD 2009.

16. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237, accessed September 3rd, AD 2009.