Staff Reports
In a time when political correctness reigns supreme, one cannot help but recall a significant moment in 1964 when a now-defunct magazine attempted to smear a conservative icon. The magazine titled “Fact” published a lengthy hit piece asserting that 1,189 psychiatrists believed Barry Goldwater was unfit for the presidency, despite none of them having so much as exchanged pleasantries with the man. This attempt to undermine Goldwater was a blatant, desperate effort to sway voters weeks before Election Day. The result? Goldwater took them to court and emerged victorious, a feat that established “The Goldwater Rule” in the psychiatric community—prohibiting professionals from diagnosing individuals they haven’t treated. In a world where sound ethics matter, this was a triumph for the integrity of psychiatry.
Fast forward to the present, and it seems the Goldwater Rule is all but forgotten. Instead, the airwaves brim with self-appointed mental health experts diagnosing Donald Trump from a distance. This trend raises bewildering questions: has the left really traded in genuine diagnostic rigor for the cheap thrill of armchair psychoanalysis? From narcissism to downright violence, the labels flew like confetti at a political rally, with outlets like Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone taking the lead in this theatrics. Apparently, if you have a degree, a splash of creativity, and the perfect amount of disdain for Trump, you, too, can engage in this now-favored pastime.
There’s Something Weird Going On With the Media Coverage of Kamala Harris and Her Marxist Father, Part IIhttps://t.co/Xct4AfImfn
— PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) October 28, 2024
Yet, one has to wonder—why is the media so enamored by these mental gymnastics when they could be piqued by the enigmatic background of Kamala Harris? When it comes to the left’s vice president, it’s as if the media has collectively decided to look the other way. For instance, Harris has an estranged relationship with her father, a situation that should surely pique the curiosity of a media that’s ever so attentive to the mental health dilemmas of public figures. While she spins fairy tales about her upbringing, complete with affectionate memories of her parents, the details hint at something far more complex—her father didn’t even grace the Democratic National Convention with his presence.
Kamala Harris’s narrative seems almost lifted from a soap opera script, with a dysfunctional family backdrop that anyone could recognize as a recipe for psychological complexity. The notion that her middle-class fairy tale holds any legitimacy borders on ridiculous; rather, it’s the narrative of a shattered family folded neatly into a story of success, minus the bits that could tarnish her image.
Listening to Harris, one might chuckle at the sheer irony: “I come from a middle-class family!” How charming. But what’s charming about a middle-class narrative built on a broken foundation? The scandal of it all is that the media has prioritized every outlandish claim about Trump’s mental health while letting Harris’s saga go largely unchecked. Surely, they must recognize the potential for a compelling story here—a story that doesn’t fit their liberal agenda.
In a world obsessed with the psychological evaluations of public figures, where’s the inquiry into Kamala Harris’s evidently twisted upbringing? Trump may be the subject of excessive diagnoses, but it’s Harris’s childhood that could inspire a true exposé. If the media has the energy for 5,384 theories about Trump’s psyche, why is there not an ounce of curiosity about a woman whose life story is cloaked in contradictions? This discrepancy in journalistic zeal speaks volumes about the media’s priorities, leaving one to ponder: democracy may indeed wither away in shadow, particularly when reporters choose which narratives are worthy of the spotlight.
