America as a Battered Woman

by Robert L. Kocher

I remember this country when it was sane. That was more than 40 years
ago. The end really started with John Kennedy. The minute I first heard
him, I recognized there was something terribly wrong with that man. He
was lying to me without shame or conscience. He did not have respect for
me or for the presidency. It was the same impression I received, more
strongly, upon seeing or hearing Bill Clinton. I did not like or agree
with Harry Truman. Truman was somewhat misguided, naive, and had a lot
more guts than brains. But he was consistent from day to day, amenable
to logic, was honest about himself, and had some sort of internal
standards and structure that were stable and could be relied upon. Harry
Truman was always Harry Truman. Love him, or hate him, what you got on
Thursday was the same as what you got on Monday was the same as what
took place behind the scenes, and there was no deception. I did not
receive the impression I was listening to a hard core psychopath behind
a glib facade with Truman as I did when listening to Kennedy and
Clinton. Harry Truman was, if nothing else, sane.

There is a story about someone seeking to ingratiate himself by making
the mistake of offering Truman women on the side. An indignant Truman
replied that he married his high school sweetheart and he didn?t play
around on her, and she didn?t play around on him. Wouldn?t it be like
dying and going to heaven to hear something like that again?

Suppose it were now 60 years ago. Suppose I were to go about the town
where I lived saying I knew for certain that the President of the United
States was really a madman who ran around laughing and masturbating in
the Oval Office in front of naked girls. In a short time I would have
been brought before a panel of psychiatrists, so as to let the court
determine the competence of my mental functioning. If I persisted in my
assertions during psychiatric examination I would be told I was crazy,
because any sane mind would realize no such thing could possibly be
happening in this country. If I further argued that it was true and I
had evidence to prove it, right here in an investigation called the
Starr Report, and millions of people supported the president in his
endeavors, it would have been looked upon as conclusive evidence that my
delusions were so highly developed as to be intractable, and that I was
a possible danger to myself or society. Quite seriously, I might have
wound up in a state mental hospital for the remainder of my life raving,
“But it?s all true!, Here?s the evidence!” Undoubtedly the doctors,
nurses, and other patients would mumble, “Sad case. He?s been in here
for 40 years raving and trying to convince people that such a thing is
even possible. The worst and funniest part of it is that he keeps
insisting we have the wrong man institutionalized. He thinks the
President of the United States is the one who should be in here while he
should be let out.”

This country has changed. What once would have been considered the
ravings of a delusional psychotic, or the plot and visual imagery of a
grotesquely surreal movie, is now reality. The president and his
spokespersons such as James Carville and columnists such as Eleanor
Clift mock us and say that we are crazy. But, we aren?t crazy: it?s
real. The crazy part is that it is real and millions of people are
defending it.

Something very important has been lost in this that will affect the
future stability of the country. The unthinkable has become reality.
Henceforth in this country, what would formerly be dismissed as
delusional can no longer be so easily dismissed. In the past the
political stability of the country has been protected by an aura of the
presidency and the belief that there was some sort of purification
process that weeded out the extremely unfit or irresponsible. This had
the secondary effect of diminishing the credibility or acceptance of
erratic or delusional elements in the country critical of the
government. There was a time when grotesque or paranoid speculation
about presidential or governmental action would be dismissed by faith in
a sane reality. It would be dismissed by saying Eisenhower, Truman,
Reagan, or whoever was president could never do something like whatever
it happened to be. With the Clintons we have reached the final point
where that brake on political irrationality has been destroyed. A sense
of stable reality has been lost. In a distorted condition of
accusations¾ or speculations and counter-accusations¾ it has become much
harder to decide which side should be dismissed as being nuts. This
pertains not only to matters of personal behavior, but, having elected
someone who went to Moscow to protest and undermine an American war
effort as a left wing student, it pertains to deeper political issues
and questions about justifiable doubts regarding the basic allegiance of
the president and government to this country.

An Abusive Marriage

I know a woman who had been in a highly abusive marriage that is
instructive. Her husband would come home drunk in the middle of the
night in a mindless rage, slap her around, and cut the rings off her
fingers with a bolt cutter. In the morning he would demand forgiveness
between stern lectures on how she provoked him and how the problem was
really her (in what was really an attack upon her basic sanity). She
began to question, and fight for, her mental stability after a short
time in that marriage. Her entire life became too warped to be
understandable or acceptable to her mind. It was like an ongoing bad
irrational nightmare that she woke up to instead of having slept
through. After a period of time, she did wonder whether she had gone insane.

Many of the people I have talked to or have written me have asked the
same question that woman asked herself. Am I nuts, or are the inmates
running the asylum?

An experienced law officer will tell you, the most difficult or
dangerous call to answer is a domestic violence situation. The most
dangerous person in that situation is often the woman who has been
beaten and abused because, in the warped inverted mentality she develops
to adapt to the irrational condition of her marriage, she will often
turn against the police officer in defense of the husband who is killing

The typical abused woman is in the position of being helpless and having
to deal with an irrationality she can neither confront nor reason with.
She swallows it at the cost of her own sanity. As she becomes more
ground down she loses the will, the self confidence, and the mental
acuity to extract herself from her situation.

Bill Clinton and the radical left are much like the husband in an
abusive marriage, and produce the same effect. The next morning Bill
engages in twisted denial combined with demands for forgiveness, and
angry finger-shaking assertions of being provoked or imposed upon by
having to answer questions no person should ever be asked. The idea that
those questions are the legitimate result of his behavior that nobody in
reasonable mental condition would become involved in is declared not to
be an allowable consideration. No one is to question Bill Clinton, the
authoritarian head of the household and the nation. Furthermore, it?s
all other people?s fault. If we ask what kind of man running for the
presidency would have a strange woman dragged into a hotel room so he
could stick his penis in her face, we are the ones with the mental
problem and are accused of being right-wing extremists. There is a vast
lunatic right-wing conspiracy that is declared the real problem and the
source of provocation by asking what, 45 years ago, would have been
considered absolutely reasonable questions. Even if the corroborating
evidence turns out to be true to the point where a thinly veiled
admission is extracted, the people who made the original legitimate
observations are still labeled as being crazy and conspirators. Bill
Clinton?s direction is to attempt to undermine the basic sanity of
anyone who questions his actions.

In the staged one-way system of communication that we now have in this
country, the Clintons can impose their opinion on us through a TV screen
while there is no way of confronting them back. Like an abused woman,
you can?t get in a word to say about anything. Furthermore, the Clinton
arguments are so filled with lies and irrationality that there is no way
of dealing with them though any rational process. It?s a little like
having a husband who comes in at four in the morning smeared with
lipstick, smelling of strange perfume and sex, and who then accuses you
of being paranoid if you ask what he?s been doing. Rational processes
are not applicable. Today we face someone who denies knowing what the
definitions of “is” or “sex” are. For there to be any discussion of
anything there must be sincerity, maturity, personal integrity, and
recognition of basic reality. None of those are present in Clinton?s case.

To call the law for help in this case is to be betrayed and turned over
the abusive husband. The police officer who shows up is a corrupt Judge
who is one of the husband?s former students. If there is a trial, there
is a judge and jury composed of corrupt and incompetent Senate members.
To appeal to public opinion or outrage is to appeal to a synthetic,
nearly unanimous stage production by supporters on authoritative network
news shows, sitcoms, and talk shows. There is no place to go to find
support for basic sanity.

The National Consequences

The Clintons have worked within a corrupted system with the support of a
corrupt generational radicalism to draw an entire nation into their
insanity. The entire nation is tied up in arguments over things that are
so obvious that no mentally healthy adults should have doubts about
them. Like the husband of an abused woman, the Clintons and their
supporters have succeeded in grinding down the mental health, the
self-respect, and the spirit of this nation.

There is doubt in my mind as to whether the mental health of this nation
can survive the Clintons? insane level of denial and distortion.
Clearly, there is no way any intelligent person in decent mental health
could believe anything the Clintons say in the way of explanation. I
believe what has happened is that the worst of 60s generational
pathology, in which members have not been able to live successfully with
each other, has been moved into the White House. It may be coming to a
choice between the undermining craziness of the Clintons? mental
condition or the mental health of the nation. That is my absolute
belief. Much as that woman had to divorce her husband to protect and
restore her basic sanity, this country must obtain a divorce from Bill
and Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, the Clintons and their allies
must destroy the mental health of the nation to stay in power because no
healthy population would tolerate them.

It is now being publicly alleged by a woman who says she was the victim,
that Bill Clinton raped her. In terms of his past lack of conscience
regarding lying or anything else; in terms of his long-term pattern of a
lack of behavioral limits or lack of inhibition governed by conscience;
in terms of a series of other aggressive acts against women which
closely approached rape, but fell just short of rape; in terms of his
arrogant feeling of immunity from any possibility of accountability; in
terms of his lack of personal class, integrity, or stature; in terms of
all these, if I had to bet my life on the truth or non-truth of the
woman?s statements, it would be that she is telling the truth. This
isn?t Harry Truman we are dealing with. Through a long process, the
Clintons have earned not only suspicion of themselves, but an absolutely
reasonable presumption of guilt. We are at the point where anything is
just more of, or a small extension of, what we?ve seen. What the woman
described is pure callused psychopathic Bill Clinton. If I had to state
one single demonstrated factor in the Clinton personality or history
that would prohibit Bill Clinton from doing what he is accused of, I
honestly could not do so if my life depended on it.

Re-read that last sentence. I defy anyone else, including the would-be
big name psychologists who follow me around, to show such an operative
factor in the Clinton personality. Bill Clinton?s behavioral pattern and
personality more closely approximates that of serial woman killer Ted
Bundy than that of a light-hearted Casanova. Either way, Ted Bundy or
immature Casanova, it is unfortunate that such characterizations arise
as applicable to the President of the United States.

If I may use an unpretentious analogy, the entire process of liberalism
in the last nearly four decades, including the affair with the Clintons,
bears a close resemblance to World Championship Wrestling on TV. The bad
guy wrestler has soap hidden in his wristband and is sticking it in the
good wrestler?s eyes. The referee pretends he can?t see it even though
the crowd points it out. The bad guy?s manager wraps the good guy
wrestler?s foot in the ropes and kicks him when the referee has his back
turned and is conveniently distracted by lecturing the bad guy about a
minor rule infraction. The threats of disqualification by the referee
are perfunctory and never acted upon. When the good guy finally loses
his temper, he?s warned by the referee in earnest that he will be
disqualified. The entire crowd is livid with rage because they can see
the soap in the wristband being stuck in the other wrestler?s eyes while
the referee does nothing about it. It?s an ongoing morality play that
goes on week after week before angry crowds who are enraged because the
bad guys never admit what they are doing and never get caught, even
though it?s obvious to the infuriated crowd. The crowd keeps coming back
every week hoping to receive a moral satisfaction that never comes.

That has essentially become the state of American politics.

Bill Clinton is like that dirty wrestler. What he is doing is obvious to
any sane adult. His wrestling manager is James Carville. The referee is
Judge Wright with support of the media who are in collusion with
Clinton. Enraged people keep returning to the argument hoping for an
admission of what is obvious, but it never comes. People in the crowd
yell, “Hey judge, can?t you see Clinton is lying and ridiculing the
court and the people of this country?” No, she pretends not to see the
obvious. The next round is a tag team match in which Clinton and his
lawyers debate the entire U. S. Senate employing sophisms a child could
see through. In the entire Senate there isn?t a single person able to
state the obvious or essentials for rebuttal. The Senate is unable to
come to the simple valid conclusion that would be obvious to any
kindergarten class?that the Clintons are without conscience, nuts,
dangerous, and shouldn?t be in the White House. So, a bunch of trash who
properly should be laid over a barrel and whipped until they nearly
bleed to death has instead lied with amusement until they have worn down
the country?s capacity for outrage. But this isn?t a staged wrestling
exhibition that we leave after three hours. When it?s over, the country
is stuck with two dangerous psychopaths in the White House who look upon
the people of this country with contempt and ridicule while cultivating
a growing sense of their own megalomaniacal omnipotence. It?s
destruction of this country.

Oppositional Defiance

Bill Clinton is not the real issue. Sex, particular lies, and even rape,
are not the most important threats in this situation. What emerges is an
overall pattern of infantile destructiveness of which the Clinton
phenomenon is but a part. The Clintons are the test or attacking focal
point in a systematic pathological attack upon the institutions and
basic mental health of this country since the ’60s.

For 35 years I have been trying to come up with a pinpointing phrase to
describe the political and social movement that is destroying this
country. Sadistic oppositional defiance is the closest I have been to
come to it. Oppositional defiance is technically a diagnostic term
referring to a mental disorder of childhood and early adolescence in
which, as the name implies, there is a defiant opposition to, and
rebellion against, everything. Regardless of the technical usage, I can
find no better words to describe the personality I see in left-wing
adults. There is a defiant opposition to all rationality. No matter how
correct or obvious something is, it is rejected with argument and
denial. Concurrently, there is an ultimate destructive twist to
everything this personality advocates, which seems to be a source of
personal amusement, adherence to fashion, and feeling of personal
cleverness. It seems as though this personality engages in a defiant
destructiveness that it defies or dares other people to accept the
challenge to do something about. It seems to practice a constant torment
on immobilized individual victims and an immobilized society. The
techniques of immobilization run the spectrum from employing improperly
extended and misapplied moral principles in such a way as to produce,
and then prey upon, people?s guilt (e.g. emphasis upon the unconditional
forgiveness of Christianity exclusive of the recognition of religious
discipline or the qualification of serious remorse¾ or accusations of
hatred), to strategy as simple as demand for gun control to render
victims helpless. In line with this is often the preaching of a social
philosophy of passive non-violence which enables practitioners to
practice subtle indirect forms of exquisite sadism while immobilizing
angry retribution from victims.

The workings of this personality are sometimes part of a game played by
fops who live for little else than party amusement. There is a component
of negative attention seeking in which people¾ who would otherwise have
nothing going for them¾ synthesize a personality for themselves and
attain importance by being the center of aggravation. There is also a
facet of demonstrating one?s intellectual prowess or superiority by
victoriously arguing people into helplessly accepting the ridiculous or
destructive. But the people who conduct such arguments don?t do so with
true intellect, but with denial which they (in their primitive mental
state) think is intellect. We have come to the dangerous point in this
country where if you say there will be a full moon sometime this month,
someone will say “no” and believe it makes them a certified intellectual
while you stammer in exasperation. (In a foppish world where inane
complexly circular denial to the point of mental disorder is considered
a cute form of intellectual creativity, it?s easier to have a realistic
conversation with an uneducated process schizophrenic than to have one
with somebody at the master?s degree level or higher from a liberal
college.) These are people who often displace the dissatisfaction from
empty or dysfunctional personal lives into obsessive dissatisfaction
with, or anger toward, society expressed through indirect
intellectualized channels. There is a complex system of motivation here.
There are also other aspects which are too complex to explain at this

What exists is a group of people, indeed an entire sadistic coalition
and sociopolitical movement, determined to undermine, rip, and tear this
nation apart. It is the foundation of liberalism. They have been very
successful at it.

For 35 years we have lived in a progressively destructive lunatic swill.
It?s in the churches, in the content of our nightly news, on TV sitcoms,
in the schools and universities, and it is the de facto platform and
agenda of the Democratic party. One third of children are born out of
wedlock; educational systems have become politically correct training
camps producing mental and educational incompetents; the country is
overrun by drugs; the churches preach a liberation theology allowing one
third of clergy to engage in sexual affairs with congregation members.
Our social services are overwhelmed by people demanding to live
irresponsible living patterns looked upon as a political and social
right. There is irrational demand for redistribution of income without
demand for participation in sound effort and responsibility. It has all
been underwritten by endless defiant intellectual argumentation.

If you look at the supposedly unsolvable problems that we have today,
from out of wedlock birth rates, to drug problems, to non-functional
educational systems, to most anything; none of these problems were
seriously widespread problems 50 years ago when levels of affluence were
not as high as they were 20 years later. If the problems did not exist
then, how can it be argued that they are inherent in the society and
unsolvable now? The problem with today?s problems is that the problems
are not the problems. The problems are the consequence of the real
problem. If one looks closely, most of the problems facing today?s
society are the secondary consequence of twisted oppositional defiant
arguments rationalizing and imposing support for irrationality and
destructiveness. With the advent of Kennedy?s New Frontier, and
overwhelmingly during Lyndon Johnson?s Great Society, reality-based
reason became vilified while oppositional-defiant intellectuals were
given credibility and license to employ twisted logic to impose twisted
solutions that made initial problems much worse. In each case, the
unreasonable behavior and thought at the basis of a problem was subtly
excused, justified, and sold. The result has been a massive personal and
cultural implosion combined with a triumph of authoritarian twisted
oppositional-defiant insanity.

Teenage Sexuality

There was, and always has been, a difficult period in teenage sexuality.
This is one of the principle life areas that must be addressed in
resolving the growth conflicts of adolescence. The oppositional-defiant
approach was to impose a particular form of sex education. It was
values-free, argued as necessary to avoid offending elements of
pluralistic life-styles. Marriage and monogamy were de-emphasized under
the hyper-extended excuse of separation of church and state. So the kids
are for practical purposes taught that sexual experimentation is nothing
more serious than trying out various options freely practiced elsewhere.
This has the effect of subtly intensifying conflict between impulse and
rational prohibition against permissive sex by weakening the prohibition
side of things. Kids are being desensitized to the idea of exceeding
what are presented as artificial boundaries. (This is coordinate with a
similar atmosphere on TV and in movies. Any good oppositional defiant
will not object to sexual content in those areas. Violence is not to be
welcomed, however, because kids mysteriously pick up those values
immediately. Kids only pick up what oppositional defiant minds say they
pick up.) When it?s all over kids will have been told it?s all right to
engage in sex, here?s your condoms, and we?ll be waiting with an
abortion for which no parental permission or knowledge is necessary.
(This last part is being litigated.) If the family and church upbringing
is strong enough, all this will have no effect?and neither will a
nuclear bomb. The parents who stammer, “You have taken over our children
and are desensitizing them as well as brainwashing them into
irresponsible and meaningless sexuality,” which happens to be the truth,
are labeled right-wing primitives determined to promote sexual ignorance
and impose their values upon the world. When the lifestyle left imposes
their version of sex education, it is somehow not determination to
impose their values on the world.

The result was close to 50 percent of teenaged girls sexually active in
their 16th year. Forty-eight percent of conceptions in this country have
been aborted or eventually born out of wedlock in a hypersexual mess
that would scarcely have been imagined in science fiction 50 years ago.
The specifics will be reserved for another time. The point is: was it
predictable from the oppositional-defiant agenda being pushed? Of
course. Is it terribly abrasive to point out that one source of possible
motivation for all this is that the sooner a girl is sexually active and
has had an abortion, the sooner she is compromised into not challenging
the values and lives of older liberated women who are helping to push
all this?

In May of ’97, a group known as the National Campaign to Prevent Teen
Pregnancy attended a White House reception by Hillary Clinton. The
center of triumph seemed to be that teenagers were now using more birth
control. The barely concealed message was celebration over the fact kids
were engaged in activity necessitating birth control. Has anyone ever
heard Hillary go beyond statements about the inconvenience of pregnancy
and make a strongly defined statement regarding any of the other values
involved? Given the importance of the problem, would some consideration
of sexual morality not be a reasonable consideration? Has Hillary ever
made a definitive moral statement? She won?t because it would stick in
her angry oppositional-defiant throat. Any semblance of traditional
morality is what she and Bill have been defiantly opposing all their
lives. This critical omission establishes the context of a values-free
society devoid of emotional depth. It is subtle promotion. It is part of
a deep twist in liberalism. It is the loudest message from the Clinton
White House. Regardless of any other actions or statements, it has been
the principle direction charted from the Clinton White house. Anything
else is window dressing to make it palatable. (The temptation here is to
mutter, “But look at what she?s married to, and the kind of life the
Clintons lead. What the hell do you expect? She?s selling her own
pathology.” But we don?t do that here.)

That is part of the real Clinton oppositional-defiant political/social
platform. The Clintons are superb exponents of an undermining vicious
oppositional-defiant attack upon sanity, morality, and this society.
That?s what all this is really about.

Fifty-five or 60 years ago virtually every high school graduate could
read or calculate to reasonable extent. The oppositional revolution of
the 60s licensed imposition of the “new math.” And the new reading, the
new social studies, the new touchy-feely feel-good curricula, and the
new ignorance. The arguments for all of it were vague left-wing
psychobabble. When this was imposed, it was difficult not to believe
that serious constructive content and mental discipline was being
purposely deleted from the nation’s classroom. As a foreseeable
consequence, our high schools are now graduating people at half the
educational level of graduates 55 years ago. We now rank lowest in
educational achievement of any industrialized nation. To pursue this
direction nationally for five or 10 years can be looked upon as a
mistake. To pursue such direction for more than 45 years is stupidity,
blind fanaticism, deliberate intent, or a combination of all three.

And so it is with many aspects of American culture and institutions.
Like a battered woman we are confronting something, or surrounded with
something that feels crazy and is crazy. When we look around for
support, we are told we are the ones who are crazy, and that compounds
our lack of confidence and lack of assertiveness. And, again, the most
common questions I receive are parallel to what that woman asked herself
in her lunatic marriage. “Am I crazy, or has the entire country gone
crazy?” “Is there something wrong with me, or something wrong with
everything I’m seeing and waking up to every morning?” The good news is,
if you don?t wonder if there is something seriously wrong with what you
see going on around you, then there is something seriously wrong with
you. The bad news is, if you feel like someone?s systematically trying
to drive you crazy, it’s because they are, and they are dangerous. Years
ago, a generation of oppositional-defiant radical children embarked upon
a crusade to drive the adult world nuts and to destroy anything that
symbolized the adult world. If you feel crazy and feel under attack,
that?s the desired result. Like battered women, we get all kinds of
explanations and thinly veiled accusations that we are the problem. But
the explanations aren?t reality. Reality is what the Clintons, the
Carvilles, and the radical left in this country are trying to talk you
out of reasonably concluding.