In his studies of child development stages psychoanalyst Donald Woods Winnicott, found that children need a transitional object to assist them during a developmental phase that exists between psychic and external realities. A wubby is often used, he says, when a child is forced to accept the fact that he must evolve from complete dependence on the mother. In the phase that occurs before the wubby phase, the child simply wishes for a product, and the mother produces ‘their whole world’ for it without delay. In this phase, the child falsely believes that he and the mother are one organ acting to fulfill his desires and leave him satisfied. Winnicott called this phase, and the satisfaction the infant derives from what it perceives to be its creation of the product through desire, the ‘moment of illusion’. When this moment of illusion is eventually shattered, and the child is forced to acknowledge that simply wishing for a product does not create it, the result is anxiety and frustration.
Liberals are similarly frustrated by the external reality that the government cannot produce ‘their whole world’ for them without delay for the rest of their adult lives. In a manner similar to the child, the liberal believes that they and the government are working in concert for their satisfaction. The concept that the government could not fulfill their end of the bargain were it not for other people’s money is completely foreign to most liberals. To others that recognize these dynamics, the idea that this money is earned by tax payers and taken by government to give to them is seen as a natural, altruistic course of action conducted by the government, and anyone who bemoans this cycle is accused of being either racist or rich and detached from the common man.
To keep this illusion alive, and to thwart Margaret Thatcher’s belief that “socialism is a great idea, until you run out of other people’s money” the U.S. federal government simply borrows the money it needs to fulfill their covenant with the dependents. When an individual, be it a blogger, a pundit, or a politician, states that this cycle of dependency is begining to be untenable, they are hit with ad hominem attacks. They are personally attacked, and everything but their message is maligned and impugned.
When their illusions are diminished, and the child begins to realize that their mother is in fact a separate entity upon which they are dependent, and that they are not one organ acting to fulfill his desires, the only way he can properly deal with that external reality is to create a form of security that replaces the mother-child bond. They need something, in other words, to help them deal with the external realities occurring around them. They assign properties to their wubby, and it assists them in their development process. Liberals use wubbies in a similar manner to assist them in avoiding realities and rationales that dispirit their moments of illusion.
When decades of liberalism begin to show that for every government action there is an equal and opposite reaction in the economy and the market, it is much easier to use a wubby on the speaker than it is to deal with the reality such a speaker espouses.
The base of liberalism is rebellion against the status quo, the establishment, and the powers that be. Rebellion, in this case, is their wubby. Rebellion can be assigned a number of assorted properties, as can that which they rebel against, but at this point in history the status quo, the establishment, and the powers that be are mostly liberal. They control two-thirds of the federal bureaucracy, they control public schools, the unions, and the entertainment field. What do liberals have left to rebel against? Back when I was a liberal, I used to wonder what would happen if the Carlins, the Pryors, and the Cheech and Chongs managed to tear down all of the social mores? What would they rebel against? The answer: never give up the wubby.
‘Be unmindful of progress,’ says the cannon of liberal scripture. When issuing a wubby on a speaker, there is no need to qualify it with the fact that minorities and females have better opportunities than at any time in America’s history. There is no need to mention the fact that politically correct speech codes are so entrenched in the workplace that most people have carried their intimidation over into casual conversations outside their employer’s property. They have won in many industrial and public halls, but they continue to fight the same fights they’ve always fought unmindful of progress. Their game plan never changes. They never give up the Wubby!
If you stand up and declare that you don’t think all this ‘progress’ is working, and liberalism has not made this country a better place, you’ll be subject to wubbies similar to those used in the 60’s. If you say that the policies initiated by LBJ in the Great Society legislation, and progressed for the last forty years, have harmed the black family, liberals will accuse you of secretly wanting to use the ‘N’ word. That wubby still shows surprisingly effective results, as it’s a charge is usually an impossible one to defeat.
State that you believe market forces and a decentralized government are the keys to getting us out of our current morass, and they will accuse you of being rich and thus detached from the common man. This will probably be as damaging an insult for our great great grandkids if we use it properly in the here and now. The ideal philosophy behind this meme is that if one concedes that liberal progress has been accomplished in this country, then others will no longer be as apt to continue fighting. That would be a righteous modus operandi, but for the fact that many of those who pursue this line of thinking would be willing to admit that their methodology has failed in the grand scale. They simply want to continue the fight without fact and analysis that impedes their development, and they will denigrate and dehumanize anyone who stands in their way.
The wubby is a transitional object, usually physical, that takes the place of the mother-child bond (or liberal-government bond). It is an irrational object, and it cannot quantifiably or qualitatively replace a mother (or self-sufficiency), but I challenge you to try to explain that to a young child (or a liberal).