I posted this in full because it does refute what Rossiter says and if true that four distinguished scholars reached said conclusions, it appears to at least compromise his reactive diatribe, (although I must say that I think the medical profession like the clergy should stay out of politics in general.) That you will not accept this as a refutation is moot since you seem so fond of arguing black is white. Doctors are somewhat prone to the conceit that because they acquire a Medical License with occasional life or death decisions in their hands that places them to the right hand of God. We see this in Rossiters categorical imperitives "it is so because I say it is so"...
We do not need to play your game of trying to get you to see reason and you play the iconoclast and refuse to concede anything. The awful truth is your wretched far right conservative views belong in the 13th century and the hijacked vehicle for this viewpoint, the once proud Republican Party has been unofficially renamed "Titanic 2" and has just entered the ice pack. Lets hope something more modern and rational is recoverable from the wreckage.

"Little known shrink and political hack Dr. Lyle Rossiter has released a new book entitled "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" that is designed to feed the red meat hunger of Right Wing ideologues at a time when the Conservative movement is on the ropes after seven years of incompetence and corruption under George W. Bush.
Most of its claims are not so subtle reversals of the conclusions reached by four distinguished scholars that were funded by the US Government in a study to discover the roots of conservatism.
The report "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" cost $1.2 million and was supervised by the National Foundation as well as the National Institutes of Health. It found that conservatism is essentially a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
In an article published in the highly respected peer reviewed scholarly journal "Psychological Bulletin" the authors state:
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes."
Among the sufferers of this heart-breaking malady the researchers studied President George W. Bush and found him to be a "textbook case" of the madness. Among the early warning signs that he exhibits is "his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance." The scientists believe that it was Bush's aversion to shades of gray and the need for "closure" that led him to ignore intelligence that contradicted his beliefs about Iraq's non existent WMD's.
At the time that this report came out conservatives were outraged and dismissed the whole thing as merely the opinion of the scientists involved. It is highly amusing now to watch conservatives fall all over themselves to tout Dr. Rossiter unscientific and undocumented political scree simply because it gives them comfort in the face of their impending humiliation at the polls come November."


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/250462#ixzz47SMHCrx4

It's one of the few things liberals have in their arsenal. Try to discredit the source. I'll bet Moldy and Kev haven't even read the book, let alone the article I posted. Typical liberal BS.

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

FOREWORD.
Many of us are familiar with the left-wing’s penchant for referring to rightwingers
as “right-wing nuts”. It is harder for liberals to refer to those holding Ph.D.s as
“nuts”, but I have known some of the latter who were a little strange. However, would
a left-winger refer to a psychiatrist (who naturally holds an M.D.) as a nut? Especially
one who has forty years experience as a forensic psychiatrist (who diagnoses nuts).
It’s an interesting question, because what we have in this book, The Liberal
Mind5, by Lyle Rossiter, is a right-wing psychiatrist who shows persuasively that the
thought processes of the average liberal are, in fact, a mental disorder. It’s a disorder
not unlike a personality disorder. And, of course, Rossiter has dealt with personality
disorders for forty years, since criminals usually display them. So, here we have a
psychiatrist saying most liberals are nuts. And, he can prove it. What a turn of the
tables.

http://alphaaquila.org/Library/synopsis_rossiter.pdf

So basically Rossiter is saying that ISIS/ISIL is correct and sane, and that all of us more liberal countries that are opposing them are certifiably insane. While this is partially a troll, you need to understand that conservatives just as liberals are degrees from a point of view and not absolutes. (Sorry for the big boy words.) Obviously one man with a PHD in something does not get to set the rules for the whole of the science. Coes the DSM IV or DSM V say that liberalsim is a mental desease? The answer is no. He is just a biased hack that wrote a book. In psychiatry there is a long tradition of personal bias being one of the hardeset things to overcome. Obviously he has not.