To love another human being vs to love an ideological monument – an authoritarian political leader.

Politics and love are realities belonging to different universes. Politics includes so many people that their ideological sympathies and antipathies, together with their political tastes belong to various hearts and souls and are different – that’s why people prefer different political leaders but are not fixated on them too much. They can agree or disagree with them, but life goes on. Even non-democratic countries in normal circumstances allow the public to have common sense political orientation and control their ideological passions – even in Nazi Germany or Soviet Union admiration for Hitler or Stalin was to a substantial degree only sentimentally existential – the philistine majority of the population can live without political risks and clashes.

A completely different situation comes about when a country becomes over-polarized – when extreme ideological concepts and extreme economic behavior create contradictory ideological currents with the danger of civil war storm and overexcited groups ready to or already started to clash. Then life begins to remind us clash of two men fighting over for irresistibly attractive woman, but with American touch – the competitive, not stormy political situation. Here we have not two men fighting for the beauty of the same woman, but two women (two political ideologies) fighting for the precious position of the pageant winner. As we see, men are disappeared from the centrality (reduced to the position of voters). Here is the difference between personal love and political theatrics. Two clashing political ideologies (two women) start to fight for the superiority of their political ideals – that is for the dominant ideology. The time of two parties in US has come to pass. Now, two groups (two men) fight not for one but for two irresistible women – two superior ideologies – democratic and conservative. Who compete are not just two men (two political parties), but two women (two ideologies). What a mess when love is mixed with politics – when the objects of love is… the top political leader and his despotic ideology.

But politically oriented people, whatever political ideology has them in its grip, should never fall for it unconditionally, with hearts beating too hard. To be passionately in love with the ideological doctrine is not a realistic or pragmatic option. We see this today – when habitual democratic norms of polite and basically humane treatment of one another is undermined by belligerent and insulting style of new administration. Prejudices and superstitions, projection of guilt into another people and pathological suspiciousness has become the verbal poisons which conservative politicians disseminate around. They are feeding on emotional dirt and after anally spread it around. Totalitarian ideal today is private financial success reinforced by the hate for anyone who refuse to join the fiesta of financial gluttony. This behavioral style has deprived our country of morally spiritual dedications. Despotic imposition of financial obsessions and calculations on the population makes US tragically unrecognizable. More people become simultaneously impulsive and scheming, chaotic in their will and dogmatic in planning their life. People are losing their contemplative love for nature. Instead they are dedicated to hyper fitness, athletic posturing, guns and recreational drugs.

Dogmas and stigmas become American’s marks. We are losing generalized uncertainty (inseparable from freedom), which covered the area of sacredness. And we become more and more involved in our political and/or religious ideologies and, of course, with entertainment, consumerism and self-pride and we are full of pompous hopes, egoistic dreams, predatory calculations and hate for various people, groups, nations, etc.

Especially despotically passionate type of conservative ideology came to nest over the US about four years ago. Its first repressive rule and actions was to deprive a substantial part of Americans including refugees, people with green cards and temporary visas – of the right to live in peace and to despotically push them around. A new government started to over-feed the richest segment of the American population with tax-payers’ money, tax breaks, bailouts, and this king’s love generosity was supported by austerity policies for the masses of American population. Putting pauperization on the working people and needy and nurturing the greedy corresponds to the posture of mutual flirting between people of power (rulers) and their “buddies” – the poor loving the wealthy and powerful through the psychological mechanism of identification (some poor deliriously consider themselves the similar souls with the rich and mighty). This illusion made the poor feel that ultimately they somehow will unite with the rich and mighty because they are… their spiritual “relatives” (the both categories hate democrats, democracy and humanistic/liberal education).

Moneymaking helps to rule and ruling helps moneymaking. Rich entrepreneurs prefer to sell to population entertaining items (like digital electronic toys and guns for goons) or extra-consumerist items (tattoos, drugs and cosmetics) instead of investing in improving conditions of life (in the crumbling infrastructures, renewal of old bridges, dilapidating schools, crumbling roads and old buildings, “ancient” pipes) or to improve the quality of food, water and air, medical and psychological handling of drug-addiction, etc.

But the life of mass people could be more real if they could be occupied with the truth of their situation, but they aren’t prepared for this by their country’s education. Instead of building their internal worlds, their souls and understanding of the reality they admire their conservative leaders with closed mind, eyes and ears. These passionate lovers are ready to kill for the sake of those whom they worship. They dream to occupy high positions in their society themselves. They transform their leaders into diamond fetish. They are, as if, washing themselves in their master’s sweat and odor. Like a peasant woman in love with her feudal landlord they are ready for everything and in any way their top leader wants it.

These carriers of idolatrous love for their bosses think they’re masculine. But they’re effeminate in the worse sense. They’re playing macho-masculinity, but under their skin they have a smooth sensitive layer of a trembling femininity.

Passionate love in politics is a perversion. Political leaders are for respect, not for love. But respect is supposed to be not a result of the feminine impulse of melting in front of your boss, but a consequence of serious thinking. Relying on passion is a dangerously wrong way of choosing a political top guy. Identification with a leader is possible only if it depends on a long, scrupulous and non-sentimental assessment of the personality of the leader, his education and sober refinement of his speech.