Iran Protests, Insurrection Talk & the Cockpit Wings Rule

David (00:00) If this week felt like getting dragged behind a moving car by your attention span, yeah, same. Every few hours it's a new, we're doing this now. Big threats, big declarations, lot of chest thumping that somehow also has this jittery, insecure energy underneath it. Like somebody keeps grabbing the microphone because silence would be worse. So today we're going to talk through a few of those moments of Iran, the whole insurrection language at home, and the weird little trophy collection vibe have to keep showing up. And just stay with the pattern of it. Not predictions, not outrage, Just what the hell is this doing for them and why does it feel like this to watch? Welcome to Strength the Nation. Let's go. David (01:16) Hey, it's David. got my 20 plus in the military I am a board certified am pretending like I don't have a problem because it is still pretty early in the morning due to all of our schedules, but I'm drinking Americano, in this huge, huge coffee cup. The biggest coffee cup I could have, Rob (01:30) Yeah. somewhere north of 300 milligrams of caffeine right there. David (01:37) I'm feeling or I will be towards the end of this would be the opposite of our usual shows. my coffee maker does a nice will comment on it. it does a lovely job of just taking whatever shitty bean I put into it and making it into extra really good cup of coffee. don't know what magical elves live inside that machine, but it does a wonderful job. Amit (01:38) you Rob (01:40) Mm-hmm. Yeah. Amit (01:58) what it would do if you actually put in good coffee. David (02:00) I know, but I'm not going to do that. am an adult man. And so my coffee is black, no sugar, because. Amit (02:07) You Rob (02:07) Mm-hmm. David (02:08) I'm a I'm not drinking dessert for This is my Rob (02:08) You're an out of a and you know, the see this, but you're drinking out of grenade shaped cup. that really doubles down on the manliness. Amit (02:12) It's your cheeto ride! I know. Surprised it doesn't David (02:15) That's It was the. Amit (02:17) say take a number for complaints. David (02:19) It was was the biggest cup that I had, but also I think it really compensates for other things. This is. Sure, This is the bourbon of coffee. Americanos in a grenade shaped cup the size of. state of Texas. Rob (02:19) Yeah. Gotcha. Your small penis. Yeah. Yep, sounds appropriate. Hey, it's years in the military, years in psychiatry, board also, because of schedules, it's still early where I'm at. So I'm working on, I don't know, maybe my fifth cup of black coffee, no sugar. David (02:48) like a man's got. Rob (02:49) don't have a grenade cup. David (02:50) You need a grenade cup. I'll send you one. And you know, I will too. That's the problem. I said it. I'm going to do we have a guest today, a fan favorite of our show, love him, other people do too. So we begged him to come he begrudgingly agreed. Amit (03:00) Thank Hey guys, I'm Amit. I'm a psychiatrist, almost 20 years in the business, most of it in And I am glad to be back on the show. David (03:11) Great to have you. been a really interesting been trying to plan out what our episode was gonna be. damn it, seemingly every couple of hours, something new would come up and I just, you know, this episode almost got really overloaded because of all the news that was happening. But big thing we wanna talk about is what's going on in. Iran. in this psychological, mean, Hey, we can talk about the details, I care more about the a quick rundown. So Iran has been having a lot of protests lately government, just economically they've been really spiraling for a now they're having a lot of protests and their government is actually trying to put down those protests. violently and a lot of people are current administration Stated they would be providing a lot of support keep protesting. on our also having lot of protests our own Minnesota administration actively trying to put those most recently been invoke the insurrection that threat. These things seem a little I would say as a psychiatrist, let's talk about what's going on Robbie? Rob (04:19) would use the concept of the persona, and this is something I think all of us can identify with, that who I am on this show versus who I am my day job versus who I am when I'm just with my kids versus who I am with my mom. there there's a slightly different of me that I show and this that's pretty normal for most people. Now, Jung would problem comes in when your personas start to deviate significantly to the point where what we're seeing here is some inconsistency in persona, that on one hand, spectacle. making these threats saying that the administration supports democracy abroad, makes threats really no demand to follow through with them. You can say anything you want, but then of our country, showing less tolerance for one of the tenets of democracy, which is our citizens' right to demonstrate. and, democratic standards should be not necessarily put down. difficult to call this an insurrection. but that lack of consistency, it's a concern. I'm going to, probably keep talking about this over this coming year. kind of takes me back to the, avatar episode in which, We talked about how so much has been projected onto the administration and holding up that projection is very heavy. I think this lack of consistency there's been almost a frenetic sense this past several weeks, but the sense where that from their standpoint, they're trying to portray confidence and power. from my standpoint, what I'm seeing is, like little Dutch boy that runs around and sticks his fingers in the in the dykes. so I'm seeing frenetic energy. Amit (06:00) you David (06:02) this particular has so many psychological hard to pick just one and stay, focused on it. this attempt to project power externally, it really has that feeling that it's coming from Amit (06:06) Yeah. David (06:14) this losing of internal control, the domestic power is starting to wane. of the things doesn't get brought up a in 2025, the administration had promised a that it turns out only 622,000 deportations were made, which huge number. mean, a small amount, it fell. short of what their goal was. They're not talking about that. And so this projection of power as you're losing that internal control. And it's a lot easier to project that foreign policy power when it doesn't mean anything There's a lot of nuance to happening when you're the president in the United States, you've got Congress, the judiciary, people who were actively opposing you from all over the place, making your job a lot harder. All you want to do is do it your way. But in a foreign realm, you just have to say, Hey, stop that. And we're coming if you don't like it. And that really simplifies the messaging and shows I have power. have the ability to go in and attack. Now to this there's been new reports to date. that we've actually gone and assisted any protesters in Iran. But it could happen. Amit (07:31) Now two different fronts here, Rob mentioned earlier, does this actually mean in terms of what's going on in the response by the administration. I don't know if there's really any even consideration of this as the same issue, but we're treating it differently. I think it's all about projection of We can project power this way outside the country and this is at the world stage. and we can be seen as competent and powerful. And we can also do the same within our states. think labeling something as an insurrection, for example, takes away that democratic part of whether it's a peaceful demonstration versus this is a legitimate protest. that out of the equation. And it's just a matter of quelling the part that you see as wrong, whether that's abroad or internally. And so I don't think there's even like a consideration of, this is potentially hypocritical. I think it's just a matter of we do the exact same thing abroad and we're showing power in the home front as I think that's sort of the dynamic from our leadership currently. then in terms of the deportations, 600,000 is a lot of people. you you could portray that as, hey, how successful we are. But if you very publicly announce that you want a million and you 60 % of doesn't sound quite as good. So now you've painted yourself into a corner, You promised dominance and you David (08:32) you could or could not have been successful enough. But if you very publicly announced that you wanted millions in cash, you some That's the kind of legacy that you're talking Amit (08:46) So where can you actually look like you're at the helm of the foreign policy. So, have one person at the microphone, one military chain of command and no course second guessing in real time, whatever you're doing on the outside front. can look at it both Rob (09:00) make actually, not actually, not like I'm surprised you make a good point. But you make a good point. You make a good point in that I portrayed it as an internal lack of consistency, but you identified no, actually, there is a great deal of consistency. And really what the issue is, the consistency is a show of dominance. The problem is there's no guiding this. values that are guiding it other than dominance. if democratic values were what triggered this warning to Iran that we stand with democracy at home and abroad, that would be consistent as long as there was also a confidence in what they were doing that they could tolerate dissension at right, absolutely. is internal consistency. It's to a value set other than dominance. And also, Amit (09:42) Yeah. David (09:52) It's consistently inconsistent. Rob (09:55) predicted $1 trillion in savings and I think maybe hit the 15 bucks and 30 cents or something mark and watch they actually saved. think the problem so much is that they undershot I think the problem is they made up a overestimated the problem. How many bad hombres were running around the United States illegally was Amit (10:11) Yeah. Rob (10:17) wildly overestimated because think they have done thorough job in rounding up those who are illegal. Amit (10:21) They're hard to find, They're hard to find! They're not hard! Rob (10:27) Yes. Amit (10:27) we also have one of the heterogeneous populations in the even when you talk Politics spy work and our ability to infiltrate other areas It's hard to do that when everybody looks the same, you know, and you have people who don't how do you fit in? And so same thing with heart-figure people you say hey this certain population is here illegally, you know what, 20 % of the population in the state or 50 % looks about the same, you can no longer rely on that old habit of you look a certain way, therefore I'm going to David (11:00) don't think that's actually stopped him to be honest. think looking a little bit different has actually plan or the strategy Amit (11:05) Right. I mean, it's a sort who's actually right or wrong there, right? Because you get everybody getting caught in that. David (11:11) No, it's not. This isn't about who's right or wrong. It's just, it's really, we're looking at why is the behavior happening the way that it's happening? Well, when you, promise that dominance and then don't deliver and then feel the pressure of not having delivered that you look for external sources to sort of validate your power and to show Amit (11:30) Yeah. Rob (11:30) Yeah. So, Mitz got me thinking now. know, I walked into this episode thinking about the, right, I know, he kickstarted my brain along with the five cups of coffee. walked into this episode more thinking about the inconsistency and meant. But now, I guess I see it just different. Amit (11:35) you David (11:35) Finally thinking. Rob (11:48) is consistency and that consistency is displays of dominance. So help me put some flesh on this. I have voiced concerns, about the lack of a sense that policy guides this administration, that there's a consistent set of values and goals. there is consistency and that is demonstrations of authority, demonstrations of power. What's underlying that? what's that getting the administration psychologically, power, because the problem is that you display power and then you have to move to the next display of power and the next display of power. It never ends. we're definitely seeing something along those lines with further threats of taking Greenland again, I think someone needs to show the administration a globe that actually shows the relative size of Greenland versus the flat map looking size of Greenland. It looks massive on a flat map. In reality, think it's about the size of Montana or something like that. So it's not as big. However, neither here nor there. David (12:49) Why do you keep getting this wrong? I corrected you. It's the size of Texas and Alaska It's quite, yeah, yeah, it's the size of both. I said this last time. Amit (12:51) Thank Rob (12:52) How did you? combined, is it? Okay, well, I know it's the world's biggest island, but it is not nearly as massive as a flat map makes it look, but ⁓ I stand corrected. Amit (13:00) Yeah. But I don't know if landmass is really what he's looking for, I mean, I don't know about this, but I don't know about the resources, the actual physical location. Yeah, I think that's important. think one of your points in the last episodes Yeah, right, right. Yeah, but I mean, that is the next front, right? Like the Earth medals and all that, that becomes next stage for David (13:14) They have a lot of natural resources there. Rob (13:17) Yeah. Minerals. Kind of like oil. David (13:25) Well, it's a, it's a. Rob (13:30) Potentially, I honestly, I watch driving that I'm less interested in, but we've threatened Greenland, we've threatened Iran, we've threatened Cuba, where these displays of dominance keep coming up. Now there's a display of dominance, a threat to put down dissension in Minnesota. So underlying this need for dominance, this need for these displays of dominance, why? David (13:30) Well, it's an Amit (13:35) Yeah. All at the same time. Rob (13:54) What's that getting them? Because it's not a policy. Amit (13:57) make America great again. if all those things pan out and let's say that Cuba bows down, Iran bows down, right? You get Greenland. all those hypothetical situations, if that happens, you have an extremely effective leader, right? That shows the validation our current administration requires, right? Rob (14:17) I guess I'm going to argue that it's feeding an that these are all coming back to feeding an ego. And I think we're going to talk about some other ways that that's been happening. David (14:17) Well, I think... Amit (14:20) Yeah. Yeah. David (14:27) angle that I see it, anxiety, it's a frantic attempt to calm fear that you're losing power elsewhere. And so you're looking to stabilize an image domestically. you're looking to stabilize that from perceived Rob (14:39) disorganized psyche. David (14:45) failures of policy exist domestically. And so what do you look for? You look for power externally. You look for something that you can control the narrative a lot more. And when you're outside of our country, it's much easier to say, going to go of land think we all understand if, if we take Greenland, possible recourse does Greenland have to stop us? What military? NATO, who gives a fuck about NATO's power, I think, from their perspective, which is we are NATO. the military. if we want to take that island, we'll take the damn realize, we're not looking at this from Rob (15:12) NATO. The rest of NATO. David (15:28) A logical perspective. We're looking at this from a power Yeah, we need Right Rob (15:31) That's what I'm wanting your help with actually is when I'm seeing a patient and their behaviors are illogical and frenetic I start wondering is personality structure that their organization and I'm not talking disorganization in a psychotic patients who have psychotic disorders are disorganized in their thought I'm talking more about a psychic that David (15:50) Mm-mm. Rob (15:55) When someone's personality is challenged, they are perpetually trying to assuage their own internal anxiety needs. And that leads to illogical behavior because they're just grasping at anything that might calm them down, might make them feel better, prop up their ego a little bit longer. And what I guess as we're talking is coming into focus for me that this is an administration that is really centered around a singular individual. And so much of the things we're seeing seems, and this goes back to my avatar theory, but seems to be increasing disorganization an increasing need. to prop up an ego. When I say ego, I don't mean that so much in a narcissistic way. I mean a sense of self that, know, our ego is that front facing you look at yourself in the mirror and you think I, I is your your sense of is a sense of self that is disintegrating all this input, all these things that are happening to get Amit (16:50) Yeah. Rob (16:59) feedback that tightens up that ego seems to be at play psychodynamically underneath all this illogical frenetic dominance and the like. Amit (17:10) I mean Rob as you said there's anxiety and frustration when things aren't going right as you want them to a leader and so if things aren't going well because a lot of processes domestically right there's courts there's Congress all these Litigations that can impact policy and even rule it back. But when you're talking Globally, it's much much easier to kind of pick a point and then move forward with it you can't look decisive fast enough basically in domestic but abroad it's like it's clean. It's just one decision boom and it's done I think that concern that Probably a lot of people have and I have is there's a lot of things happening all at once and as you process one David (17:45) I have, there's a lot of things happening all at once. And if you process Amit (17:51) comes out. And I think the pace and sort of incoherence of the direction of the policy is creates a lot of confusion, not us, but think globally as well. Because if we have, for example, Denmark saying, we can't necessarily trust our NATO allies, problematic David (17:51) another comes up. I think the sort incoherence of the direction of policy creates like a vision, not for us, but I think will be involved because if we have, for Denmark saying, hey, we can't necessarily trust our NATO right? That's Amit (18:10) there's many examples of other areas where we're trying to also exert where it's helpful as a data partner to be on the same a lot happening at once, which I think becomes problematic. And then I think for the administration as how do you keep track of it? How do you ensure success in all those areas? sort of promising some action in all those theaters, right? So what happens when eventually you have peace talks and say, oh, now Greenland is off the table, right? Blah, blah. How do you portray that? I think are things that we're gonna have to deal with. David (18:38) one of the things that I see escalating or making it all worse that as the internal control is being you you have the to hit the million deportations in the first year. are starting to, come back at you. the prices are actually going are not where you would like them to be in spite of saying, Hey, everything is great. You have distrust. level a 17 % rate from that. when you had Congress that was essentially willing to sign on anything, Amit (19:07) a demo. Rob (19:09) It's trust in the government in Amit (19:15) it. Rob (19:16) . David (19:16) There's starting to be actual pushback from Congress and you have a looming midterm election coming your power could potentially be cut extensively. And now you're talking the potential for impeachment. You're talking more litigation, more actually looking into the things that have been done over the last couple of Amit (19:29) Yeah. David (19:38) is really Rob (19:38) More actual government? think the mineral, it's a red herring. mean, I just, I think it's a red herring. David (19:40) The internal pressure is starting to build up. And so now you're looking at anything that can be considered power. If there's an asset tied to it, minerals, oil, something else. It is, no it is a red herring, Rob (19:57) It's a justification on something else. Another thing that came out this week was a poll that basically says 68 % of Americans think the last year was a failure. That has to hit really hard at this administration. these these failures, failure to. David (19:57) It- of course. Rob (20:13) find that trillion dollar savings, failure to get the one million deportations, failure domestically to improve the lives of Americans that you promised, failure to end the war in Ukraine. all these promises that were so obviously not fulfilled because they were excessive promises. So that's striking at the ego integrity. Amit (20:35) But Rob, what happens when even one of those outlandish promises becomes reality? it's almost like a Hail Mary, right? Like you have this massive goal that you somehow pull out of thin air and it worked, And I think possibly part of that, to call you there. David (20:49) It works you understand the nuance of the promise if you're throwing a Hail Mary, you have multiple receivers in the area. You know, you have a defense, but there's a strategy to a Hail Mary. jump up and pop it up in the air and hope when your guys comes down with it, it's not throw a clean pass, there's no nuance to this. This was an oversimplification of a problem. Amit (20:56) Thank David (21:10) Which Donald Trump is amazingly good at. He's very, very good at identifying the issues that people have. He's very, very good at saying, this is the problem that I see. This is what people are complaining about, and this is what we should fix. What he is struggled with is the execution of a plan or even coming up with a plan to solve those problems. So he, he over promises he's now under delivering, but now he's looking to external sources to help calm himself in these failures and to avoid those failures. But the truth is the American people, and he knows this about people, if we're distracted by external issues, then we're not gonna look so closely domestically. most awesome things that could happen to him is if another country were to actually attack us in retaliation for something that we're doing, because nothing, draws everyone together quite as nicely as a foreign invasion. it's the error of attacking another country on their soil. Rob (22:07) Well, and even if, I mean, even if one of these. outlandish promises come to be. I guess my point is, is that when you have a, and I'm referencing the administration as a whole, when you have a fragile ego no win lasts very then you have to move on to the next thing to feed that fear of not being what you portray. remarkably good at portraying himself as an effective leader. He is remarkably bad at the mechanisms of being an effective leader. Remarkably bad. Inside of his administration even, because it's not policy driven. power driven. And we have all these people that have come together inside this administration with completely different goals and completely different is no consensus inside adds to the overall fragility of this administration from a psychodynamic standpoint this fragile ego that just has to keep grabbing for the next thing to make it feel okay about itself will never succeed you if you have a fragile ego, you'll never feel you were right that foreign displays of power are easier than achieving success internally because the mechanisms of government make it challenging inside the country. David (23:29) I disagree only in one piece. I don't know that it's all power driven. I think it's anxiety driven at this point with power being the way that they're using to assuage that anxiety. I don't think it's the power they're like, we want to take over the world. I don't think that's the case. I think it's, really anxious about our status right now. And so we're going to use our power to calm that by searching outward. Rob (23:39) Yes. Yes. puts a point on what I was trying to get at. So yes, I concur. David (23:54) Yeah. what's really interesting at this point as you tear down, why are we doing certain things? there is some illogical logic to them. But like when you look at Venezuela, why go into Venezuela? Well, originally it was drugs, which that wasn't it because it wasn't the right kind of drugs. So then it was, well, it's oil. Well, it's not really oil. That's an asset, it's not really oil. In fact, our attention is being pulled off of that because was it really oil? Well, the reality You're not going to bring our oil companies in there to fix their infrastructure in a short period of for free. I mean, it's going to $10 billion go in and actually that infrastructure to make that oil feasible. Not to mention it, then it's still, it's Venezuela's oil. was it really that? Well, I think the news coming out that Machado, the opposition leader who won the election originally gave her Nobel peace prize to Donald Trump and he accepted it, which is, well, it reminds me of when Dwight Schrute. Rob (24:49) You Amit (24:52) He looked very happy, except for you. David (24:56) from the office said, yeah, I flew a plane once. And then goes on to say, well, my dad took me to the cockpit and they gave me a set of pilot wings and I was gonna land the plane too, but then my dad made me sit the feeling that it has to watch that, even the Nobel Peace Prize committee came out before that and said, this is not transferable. Rob (25:16) It's in the books. David (25:16) There's no changing of hands, have... Amit (25:18) award does not transfer the actual recognition. David (25:20) Yeah, it can't be Yeah. But what's, interesting is that it's really looks like the only reason we go after Venezuela is for that piece, right? It's there is that. Well, that's what it looks like now, with everything that we're doing externally, it has some kind of tie to some other anxiety that was, that needed to be assuaged. And so. Amit (25:31) It's interesting. David (25:43) When we look forward to like, well, what are the PowerPoints that they're going to do in the future? I'd say look back to the past and has wronged quote unquote administration when they're looking exert this external power. That's what it looks like to me. Rob (25:58) Nobel Peace Prize one was I think my favorite story of the week. I know personally, yeah, I personally derived more than a few laughs. And I, you know, I'm always amazed how my kids can sit by themselves watching TikTok and laugh out loud. It just, it completely stuns me because I've. Amit (26:00) Thank That is just a. Rob (26:15) I've never been able to do that. It's almost like you need other people around to enjoy that or to stimulate laughter. I find things amusing. This has literally made me LOL. I mean, I have literally laughed out loud on this when I saw it. so anxiety, okay. I'm 100 % behind you. Amit (26:34) Nothing helps anxiety more than getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Rob (26:38) Well, I mean, it's the equivalent. like, could find an Olympic gold medalist that that are it's down on their luck and I could buy their gold that does not put me in the record Amit (26:41) That's a little bit cool, that list. Super Bowl trophy, David (26:49) Are you saying you didn't win the decathlon in the 1982 Winter Olympics, Robbie? Now you're changing my life right now. Hold on, hold on. You got the plaque on the wall and everything. I mean, granted, the picture is not of you, but you've told me so many times. What a great... Amit (26:51) you Rob (26:53) Exactly. Right. mean, I could hold up the gold medal. Right. I can do that. Well, yeah, look at my medal. mean, I can get on eBay and buy a silver medal. That does not mean I was awarded the silver medal. I didn't do that work. Amit (27:06) He never said what this David (27:14) Why would you buy a silver medal? What would be the, I guess nobody would really check, right? Like that would be, impressive enough that people would be like, wow, but not impressive enough that they would go and look it up. Like I'd say, get the bronze, man. Like just go buy bronze and say, want it. Nobody's gonna fact check that shit. Nobody, Amit (27:16) You The prices have up, the historical highs. Rob (27:20) I'm just saying... Yeah. Yeah, I mean. I mean, technically I can buy a ribbon a uniform that says I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. David (27:40) Yeah, but who says I didn't, Rob (27:41) is completely meaningless a historic standpoint. The only history this makes is a ridiculousness of it. So it's completely meaningless, but it was an assuaging of anxiety standpoint. It's meaningful from maintaining the ego integrity of an individual. And that's the only meaning that was there. David (28:00) I don't see it that way. I disagree, but I don't think it's a swaging anxiety at that point because it's not something, the way that I see it from a family system perspective. I see two people, see Delci previous vice president who's now the interim president of Venezuela. And you see Machado the Nobel peace prize and handed it Amit (28:11) Yeah. Yeah. David (28:22) what I see is two divorced parents who are fighting to get the love of their child and trying to get that person on their side because both of them would like their country back. they're fighting before the court hearing to get their child's approval so that they can win the house. that's in where. Amit (28:41) I mean, gift of a Nobel Peace Prize to your kid definitely should improve your standings. David (28:47) what's me is child is the one who ultimately holds all the power at that point. And when the child knows start to really play on that. But this actually, I think feeds into the we're trying to reject. And actually, I guess you're right. You're actually now that I've talked it through now, you're right. it's a swaging anxiety through a different angle, right? Because you have the child, Donald Trump, who has these two people, the the two adults who are fighting over his appreciation and love, giving him platitudes, giving him gifts, saying, my God, you're so wonderful. just falling over each other to get the appreciation of the child who holds all the cards the child appreciates, like loves that attention and isn't planning to give up that power anytime soon. Unless one of them makes the critical error of burning out in the fight. So unless they do it together and agree like adults should, and figure how to resolve this, they want the child to resolve the issue. Who gets the family house, who gets the country, who gets to be in charge? Well, right now the child is in charge. The child the de facto owner of that control. And so it does right. This does assuage anxiety it plays in everything else because now he can say, look, I'm the one running their country. I'm the one deciding. and whichever parent gives up in this fight first, the other one's going to win. And I think they both probably know that. So I don't know. Either one will, but from a child perspective, I'm going to default. Amit (29:53) Yeah. David (30:15) to the child and adolescent psychiatrist. Amit (30:18) this is, mean, triangulation, right? This is kind of what's going on. I you hit that on the head when there's an exam in the system, you kind of, have two people who are vying for control and there's a lot of uncertainty. And then how do you address that? Typically we find a third party that you can blame or get validation from. And that's What we're seeing play out here is that by involving this third party, the two of them can feel like, we're not going by each is how we make sure get outcome we need without necessarily having this dangerous relationship here finding each other. want bring up is, a lot of symbolism here, right? mean, obviously, no doubt, peace price means something. And what does it mean for possessing the actual prize, even though it doesn't really confer legitimacy, not noble or just because you have the prize, we just talked about that. However, does it show something? It's a photo op for sure. And if you can show that, does that confer competency? Does that confer success? That, like we're getting this and this is a validation of us as a nation or as leadership where we're doing something right. David (31:28) this is like a weird web of psychological defense mechanisms, confluence of them, right in one piece, because the anxiety that's being assuaged for the two parents is being assuaged by not having to fight with each other, but involve a third party, the child, which is the administration. Amit (31:46) Yep. David (31:46) To make the decision for them and all they have to do is convince the child to do what they want I think in this situation they're not going to but the anxiety for the child in this one is kind of outside of that system and they're the triangulation for the child It's not about they don't have anxiety over this they love this but the words things it's it's waging that anxiety is from the more domestic internal policy that's happening and the failure of it They're saying look I have power here Amit (32:01) Right, it's complex, yeah. David (32:12) What I think is really interesting is now that the Nobel Peace Prize medallion has been handed over, the prize title doesn't, symbolically put the administration in a perspective where they a lot of anxiety over not getting that and I really, really wanted it. But now that I have it, I wonder if they're going to are we still talking about Venezuela without any resolution to it? Like, I feel like they're just going to wake up. one day and say, I got what I wanted. I'm good now. Rob (32:39) have to move on to the next thing. Absolutely. Now, I'm going to push back a little bit because I think the child does have anxiety. When a child is in a triangulated system and the parents are utilizing them, the child, to play out a dynamic between the two, the child certainly enjoys it, but they're a child. And somewhere inside of them, they also know there's no adults in charge here. I'm in charge of this system and I can't hold this up. David (32:40) Yeah. Amit (32:46) That's it. You consistency, you need to have some sort of schedule as a child to feel safe. However, there's a lot of responsibility there as well because what's ultimately In the moment, you might agree with the parent and you have that validation, you have that don't think in this situation that's quite neatly there because I don't think Donald Trump really cares what the other two think other than the immediate validation. David (33:26) I don't think it's there yet. think what Rob just said is something that will play it's not there yet because we're still in that honeymoon phase of, look, all the cool shit that my parents are giving me, I'll let them keep this up for a while until I get what I want. And then decision needs to be made. I think... Rob (33:41) What? here's- Amit (33:43) Right, but the thing is like that situation classically what's happening is the child either becomes the bad unite against, hey, this is the problem, not us. This family member is what's causing all our issues. And then you kind of do that, right? And then that person becomes identified as the person to treat. Or you can look at it that the child now has to figure out, hey, something went wrong. Was it me? Like I made the decision for these two to, you know, separate or that I was a factor in something happening. It's really out of their control, right? a child, they don't really control any of that, but they're made to feel that way because of the importance placed upon them being a confidant given all of emotions and the presence that make them feel validated, like, I am really important and I'm making decisions. David (34:28) I see this being more of, for a child, yes, but the child doesn't hold any power in this situation. The child is the administration and the child will feel the anxiety of having to make this decision. but this particular child is also involved in bunch of other power moves. have a feeling that this particular child is going to either. Amit (34:33) Right. and the repercussions. David (34:50) because they got what they wanted, just completely give up on it and say, are we still talking about this? Or a bigger power move out of it calms the anxiety internally and it becomes necessary from their perspective to do something, then the power move comes in just like Greenland, just like Iran, just like threats on Cuba. That's where you'll see Amit (34:52) you Yeah, let's move on. David (35:14) child, the administration do something big to show I have power here. But I think that will probably, I think it's unlikely that these parents are going to come together. And so it's either going to be one of them turning or perceived to be turning on the child or they're just going to child's going to be like, Rob (35:32) I guess that's the one weakness in this analogy is that the parents we're talking about have no power. They really don't have much authority other than what they can give, fundamentally don't have power. Amit (35:37) Yep. Rob the same David (35:41) Well, one of the parents left the house and the other one didn't. And so if it comes down to the word child just says, you know what, I'm fucking bored of you both. It's more or less more which well, could be. But but something could present that creates a need or the necessity for more power move. Amit (35:47) to me. Yeah. Rob (35:51) Yeah, which is where it's gonna be. Amit (35:53) Yes. Yes. Rob (35:55) this. Amit (35:59) Yeah. David, for me, it's almost a reverse. For me, it's more about Donald Trump being the parent and the other two being the children who are vying for attention. All right. What can I do to get daddy's approval? What can I do to be in good graces? Because that will mean that I am the favorite. In this case means run the country. Right. Rob (36:19) Well, David (36:19) Well, could, yeah, that could Rob (36:20) and. David (36:21) be a shift that happens. My guess is though, because the the bigger power move at that to actually hand it to the person who's not in the room, who's not physically there. That would be the bigger power hand everything over to the previous be the easier. don't care about this anymore. Just go about your business and I'm to leave it alone and say that you support me. And therefore we're all good and thumbs up. The bigger power move to calm anxiety would be no, I'm going to opposition leader because that's a bigger move. So I think we'll have an idea of where the anxiety exists or where the attention exists. when we have some sort of if put into power, then you know, there's a lot more internal anxiety. Amit (37:09) Right. David (37:09) But if Rodriguez retains power, it's because the attention is, they don't, they don't need to call them anything. Amit (37:14) Why do you think there's more anxiety but much out of getting into power? I'm just trying to figure out David (37:19) Because a bigger power move. To remove one government, to reinstall a new government, that's a bigger dick move. That's a big power But to just say, nah, nevermind. The people that we overthrew, you're good, you keep it. That's saying, I lost my attention, I don't care anymore. And that's saying, I don't have anxiety internally to have to do something big. But if you're gonna overthrow the other side, that's a big move. That takes a lot more support. Amit (37:43) But doesn't it sound like the current administration though? Like, wouldn't that be probably the David (37:48) Both of those sound like the current administration. Both of them do. It's is the internal anxiety? Where's the domestic Because either way, the administration can say, I'm in throwing platitudes. They're both throwing gifts. They're both saying, you're so wonderful. but it's easier to just give it to who's already there. Amit (38:09) it or even put a veil of justification on this, you can say, hey, this is the Nobel Prize winner for opposition under duress, probably is the world's choice, The more humanitarian choice. But again, I don't think that's necessarily the aim, even though it probably David (38:07) anxious anymore. Well, the details are irrelevant psychologically. It makes more sense. If, if you need a power move to install the opposition, if you're saying I'm anxious, I need to show everyone that I have power elsewhere because I'm not controlling everything internally. You're going to go with the Machado thing. If you're saying, I don't care about this because either I don't have anxiety anymore or I have enough power moves elsewhere, then you're going to leave Delta Rodriguez. Amit (38:51) I think he does say something if he can say, hey, we restore democracy somewhere, right? This is for the greater good. David (38:58) That's the power move. Yeah, that's the power move that's saying look we did this the reason that I see it that way is because it's still not an America first perspective none of this is this all goes to what the MAGA perspective has been and so if you're overthrowing another government and switching it out with the new one You're saying that's a big power move because I don't have control internally. But if you're letting it alone, then you're going, look, America first. I got rid of their leader. They have a new leader who I agree with and we support. And that's America first don't have to invest our resources to do it to the same extent. And it's an easier move. Amit (39:35) I think that's a good point David. maybe that's what ties into all that oil and mineral stock as well, right? This is why it's America first because we are getting oil. We are doing this and this makes our country better. And I think that's somewhat of a way to tie this in. David (39:49) Mm-hmm. that's, Rob (39:50) In the reality, the fact that we are the world's largest oil producer and that they only contribute about 1 % of the world's oil gets lost. this oil is just not a, it's not the thing. That's not what's driving this. Just like the idea that Greenland has minerals as if you just walk around picking them up off the ground. ⁓ That doesn't, isn't driving this. David (40:04) Not at all. No, I think... Yeah. Well, I think the targets, if you look at the pattern of why these targets, a personal aspect that like, gets you targeted by this administration for the big power moves. it's something that came from the past that is still trying to be resolved. That just happens to work into the narrative of I need to show a display of power. Well, Venezuela. somebody had the Nobel Peace Prize and we wanted the Nobel Peace Prize. there's not a good reason for it. There's no logic to it. it's a power move we can make now that will be really easy to do theoretically, Probably a lot more complex if you're going to do it, but the idea is, this will be What are they going to do about it? Amit (40:47) you Rob (40:50) giveaway is also the lack of consistency in the rationale. So, you know, we've dealt with Venezuela, how that it's been an inconsistent rationale for why we're involved in Venezuela and what we're doing there and what we're getting from it. David (40:55) Mm-hmm. Rob (41:06) And the rationale for Greenland also has been inconsistent. It started off as a national defense thing. The answer to that national defense thing is, hey, it's already NATO owned. If anyone attacks Greenland, they attack all of NATO. You can put as many bases there as you want. You can do whatever you want up there for national defense. So that disappeared as a rationale. And now we're to minerals as a rationale. So if there's an inconsistent rationale, then what we have to think as a voting population is there's something else driving this and what's driving it is what you've just laid out. David (41:39) Well, as a psychiatrist, that's what we're thinking. Isn't it when somebody keeps telling you all these different reasons that for an action that they're taking that doesn't seeming to have any true benefit to that person. Then we're thinking, there's a lot of anxiety underneath that. That's trying to be covered the tens of listeners. They're listening to the conversation, perspective. Politically, don't, it's just interesting to watch this, but you can see where this is going. Rob (42:08) valid point. mean, we've been talking about the administration, which could lead some to believe that we're on the other side or something. And that's really not the point of what we're talking about. We're talking about the psychodynamics of this. And it just so happens those are the ones that are in our face at this particular time. again, came into this thinking one way and it's changed my perspective. There is consistency here. Amit (42:32) You're welcome. Rob (42:34) Yeah, there is consistency here. And if I was doing psychotherapy, this consistency would eventually become obvious to me over time. But as in psychotherapy, you get what the patient brings to you. And it takes time to see the inconsistency and the jumping around. And eventually, follow the trail backwards to whatever the core issue is. core right now, at least world according to Rob, is that we have poor ego integrity that is experiencing existential fear. know, going back to the Bowens thing, I was talking about the child. Well, it's a good example of triangulation, but in this case, they don't have the power that a parent would have the two players. But I do feel like there is a child who has all of a sudden been put in charge of the house and the weight is too much to carry. weight, just like if it were in a real world scenario where a child is having to manage mom and dad and is the point of the triangulation, they sense the overwhelming responsibility of maintaining that there's no adults in the room. And I feel like the administration feels like at their core, there's no adults in this room. We're actually in charge and there's so much falling apart. David (43:48) See, the only reason I do think it makes sense from that analogy is that I see the parents being in the middle of a really nasty divorce and they're trying to win a prize like the family home, their country, their power is limited in that situation because it's ultimately... the child, and maybe it's the child's testimony or whatever that decides who ultimately gets it. but in that situation, they're still fighting with each other rather than both coming together and agreeing who's going to do this, because who's going to run this. The child is the one who's making the decision. Rob (44:15) Right. I feel like we're trying to justify your chariot analogy. I don't think our listeners want want the specifics on that. We can disagree whether the dynamics really fit. It's a good example of I didn't say you were wrong. David (44:26) I'm I'm just, you told me I'm wrong. I'm telling you you told me why I'm wrong. I'm telling you why you're wrong. You asshole. You old, you old cuss. no, I Rob (44:42) What I'm saying is from, for David (44:43) no, no. Rob (44:45) an ongoing standpoint for us is seems to be happening is have a government whose policy right now is dedicated to propping and assuaging the existential anxiety our leader. And that's a problem. David (44:59) Yeah, It might be a problem. agree. And I mean, it really, I think we're, we've talked that to death and I think we're now I guess the only thing we could do fairness, because it does feel like we're beating up on the administration. I do think it may be important to point out. Rob (45:00) They might be. We have. Amit (45:08) Hahaha David (45:18) the other side what they're not doing. So why not do that? Rob (45:24) turn to, in our system, we do have two parties, and they tend to be adversarial. And so let's turn to the other side. Let's assess how the other side is managing these power plays that we're all observing, how they're standing in front of it trying to. Amit (45:40) Don't do That's response. Don't do it. terrible. David (45:44) just displays of moral outrage. It's everything is, is awful without calling out what's actually happening. And really when you lack power, which is where they're at right now, they have, they have no real control and no power. And so they're really pushing this moral over it. Amit (45:56) Yep. Could you say that there's just, you know, restraint and maybe taking the moral high ground or is that even effective? Rob (46:10) So unfortunately, in a system such as ours that runs on two-year election cycles, performance is From a psychological standpoint, I would argue that the only winning strategy is internal consistency, have a set of values, have a set of policies that you believe in. Amit (46:27) Thank Rob (46:31) that you stay consistent Amit (46:32) I think we've seen recently that it's not necessarily your own consistency. I don't think that's necessarily the winning play. It's being in touch with what is actually helping out your actual constituents, in very local sense, not necessarily a national sense. I think we see some conflict as well. Because I think you'll be like the same person over and over again if they're like, hey, you're bringing jobs to my area and lowering taxes. I think that's a winning strategy no matter what. But that doesn't necessarily mean you're staying consistent with the topic of the day. David (46:49) Well, I think... looks like the response let's do our best to figure out how get power unfortunately, when one side who lacks power is watching the other side who has all the power melt down. and realize this is coming from a perspective of the responsibility of all parties is to their constituents, to their country. But the one party is watching the other party melt down. And because that party has all the power and they hold none, rather making Attempts to calm the entire system. They actually spark more meltdown which will impact the entire system in hopes that they regain power and it's a selfish move that doesn't fulfill their mission which is to help everybody Amit (47:40) Yeah. David (47:52) justify position in saying, we don't have any power. So rather than trying to prevent the meltdown, we want the meltdown to happen because that will give us power and that will give us the ability to help everybody. But in the moment, it doesn't help everybody to just stoke the fire. And that's do. Amit (48:10) I think the David. mean, it's either seen as being a weak response, right? You're not really doing much, you're just kind of saying things, or so is taking the moral high ground and now you're And I think that necessarily help the Democrats any when they do that. In pisses people off when they hear, hey, you you are... downplaying our day-to-day struggles because you just take this moral high ground that we shouldn't do things this way. And it's not getting down to the level of the day-to-day people. I think that response is not necessarily great because what people remember is the decisive what our current administration is doing and people remember that. It sinks in with people's emotions, respond a lot more to those emotional signals than to weak memos. David (48:54) both sides is have the best possible outcome for everybody. Amit (48:59) I don't think we have been doing that for a while, unfortunately. David (49:01) No, of course not. we can still look at it that way, we can understand that if there is a failure on the other side, it's not because they are incapable of doing anything. It's because they're actually trying to help the meltdown so that they can gain power, which is selfish, which is not helpful. Amit (49:13) Go! get things that have nothing to do with the current bills, right? I mean, that's just sabotage to the whole process. David (49:23) Yeah. Well, but in from their perspective, psychological, it makes sense. they're hoping get a role so that they can have power, but it inserts more chaos into a system that is already chaotic and hectic and breaking down. And it isn't necessarily going to result in the people a lot of confidence in them. Amit (49:41) you can make a lot of rhetoric this is how things should be and this is terrible. And maybe it makes you feel righteous, That you said the right thing and this is things should be. But you didn't actually make any real change. Nothing actually has been processed. You haven't really put your own skin out there in terms of, we want to take these actions. And without that, you're not really changing it. You feel good, but you the... the system. David (50:04) Well, in lacking a coherent narrative that's one piece you could even do is say, yes, we don't agree with this, but this is, this is how we might do this differently this is a function of the system we live in and the echo chambers that we have, which is spark that moral outrage, get yourself on camera, get your name recognition, get this illusory truth effect of the more you hear something, the more true it becomes. Amit (50:14) I'll learn that. David (50:26) So you're fighting fire with fire, but when it comes down to what are we actually going to do, the message isn't clear. where you can be most helpful. Rob (50:35) Well, it's challenging to talk about a party as an individual. if again, if I was in psychotherapy with somebody right now and they were in the midst of a nasty domestic disagreement, you can certainly listen to one and they talk about how bad the other one is. then you listen to the other one and they talk about how bad the other one is. The only solution is for each individual to live. a sovereign life in which they are responsible for themselves and living consistent with their ethic, et cetera, and the spouting back and forth becomes silly if I an individual or helping them establish that, what I would be trying to get them to do is to live their own life by their own ethic. And that was kind of what I was meaning earlier. Now, I'm not saying that this an election standpoint, but I am saying that these individuals have been elected to lead this nation. And it's a complex full of have to at the district level all the way up to the national level, and that's a Amit (51:34) Yeah. But Rob (51:39) What we're not seeing the other side is taking advantage of this meltdown. And I think it was even James Carville, famous who says, when the other side is making a mistake, get out of their way. Amit (51:52) haha David (51:53) so the change I want to make though, to your analogy is that even if there's two individuals and we're watching them fight and we want them to be sovereign, it doesn't work here because there's actually a child, the public, the United States that they are responsible for. And so when you're watching these two their shared responsibility is to make decisions for the country, for the child. Amit (52:10) this follow. David (52:14) than watching one of them melt down, right? But they're not, yeah, but they're not because if, yeah, exactly, the one parent is melting down and everything they're doing is to just feed their ego and to assuage their own anxiety and the other parent is sitting there going, yep, watch this motherfucker go, I'm gonna get custody. isn't conducive to a Rob (52:16) But that is being an adult. And that's what I would tell them. You have to be an adult. You have to take care of your responsibilities. That's my point. That's my point. Neither side is. Amit (52:39) Yeah. David (52:41) that situation for the child either because ultimately what ends up happening is the projection then goes on to the other when they're responsible and they may not be able to hold that projection. Rob (52:41) I agree. Amit (52:43) Be done. Well, in the long term, just going to the child systems here, that's what the child learns is effective. That's how you do things, And that's highly dysfunctional. You need to portray what a regular adult relationship looks like so the child actually learns from it, not what the dysfunctional relationship is, which is why best advice I can give parents going through messy divorces, you guys need to actually show consideration and respect for each other when you're with the child even if you don't feel that way towards each other. Go to couples therapy. The basics are not happening, So you got two individuals, The first thing I tell people is stop using extremes. Like don't use absolutes. Like I don't want to hear never's and always, like you do this. David (53:32) never speak in absolutes. Amit (53:34) That's right. To each what happens when you have pure absolutes, it's an immediately defensive thing when it's being told about you. You always do That's just not true. It's never true, Respect. You got to show respect and you have to listen. You can't just talk. Otherwise, the other person will not listen. Those are some very basic things in couples therapy where I feel none of that is happening when we have these dialogues. David (53:56) so to pull this, I don't know if it's full circle, but they bring this back to them from that analogy. and you made me think of this, so thank you. But that just means like what we're seeing now, the triangulation that we're seeing at least from my perspective, the triangulation that we were seeing in Venezuela is the exact same triangulation here where the people are the child and the child loves the parents fight over the child and give them whatever they want. Amit (54:17) lol social media. David (54:21) and they get to pick which parent ends up being in charge, It's a constant flip flop. the voting public is maybe responsible because they keep electing parents who based off of their projections of that parent put too much, Amit (54:26) I'll give you your presents David (54:35) onto the parent to where that parent melts down and then they kick it over to the other parent and this keeps happening back and the child gets anxious, the child is still holding all this power to then put the parent in a position. wow. Full circle. Amit (54:51) I think though currently it's more of a matter of you have one child with one parent another child with the other parent and it's hard to make a change because change and uncertainty is scary. So you'd rather stick with what you know than try to find someone or to move and I think that's where we see that perpetuation a lot of times at the same people keep on getting elected even though their policies may not necessarily work or they cause a lot of chaos. David (55:18) collective voting public would be one child. And so they ultimately choose Now the system requires that. Yeah. Yeah. They just go well. Amit (55:24) And people aren't necessarily switching. It's the extremes and they stay that way, right? You got your Republicans, you got your Democrats and most of them are going to stay that way. David (55:33) So do we have any conclusion to this Rob? Opine? Amit (55:36) It's very complicated in conclusion. Rob (55:38) I have several thoughts that my sense is having lived on this earth for half of a century and witnessed a lot of politics is that there is an exaggerated dynamic that's happening at this moment. I think it ends up traveling backwards to the nature of how the administration is approaching. And I'll use the term policy, even though I don't think policy is driving much of it, but the behaviors that they're engaged in, which then travels back to feeding the integrity of this avatar, this individual who we've projected quite a bit on, who invited that projection weight is too heavy. So I think... All of it fits maybe not in a nutshell, it's a complex set of things. It's nuanced. We're just going to stick with the nuance. David (56:24) so all right well I think we've talked a lot about this I don't know if we have a conclusion I don't know if we have or anything else but let's get to prescriptions anyway Rob (56:29) Hahaha! Amit (56:33) So David (56:34) going to call this the cockpit wings rule. Throw them back to Dwight Schrute thing. you're wearing the little plastic wings, you're not allowed to announce you're the pilot. Meaning if you got handed a symbol, a compliment, a photo op, a shiny object. Amit (56:41) I'm sorry. David (56:46) Don't turn it into, basically ran the whole thing. And if you catch yourself saying, I basically ran that, you have to immediately add one sentence about what you didn't do. So I didn't plan it, I didn't land it, I didn't do the hard part. It's not self-flagellation, it's just keeping the trophy from driving the car. Amit (57:04) Great. Rob (57:04) Yeah, so I have one. Society must recognize that consistency is the real measure of competence, not spectacle. If a stance only works as a symbol, it's not a policy, it's a crutch. And we're seeing a lot of spectra. Amit (57:18) got one too. So if you feel out of control, don't collect foreign trophies, label one drawer. So we're having anxiety about external politics, it's spiking. Your mastery increases, You can't control Iran policy, but you can organize a drawer. This tiny, complete little task restores the sense Rob (57:34) Absolutely. Amit (57:37) that you can make decisions and see results, no bureaucracy, no courts, just you, a drawer, and labels. Rob (57:44) As soon as we finish, actually, because my anxiety is a little high, I'm going to go reorganize my sock drawer. It's in dire need. David (57:51) You can put labels on it. Rob (57:52) I may not label, but I'm definitely gonna lay it out in color coordinated. Amit (57:57) My movie is 3D printing all these like organizers so he's just putting them in the drawers and Rob (57:57) Yep, refold them. ⁓ Sounds like a plan. David (58:03) I think you need to reorganize your shoes. You have more shoes than my wife and my daughter combined. Rob (58:08) I've got a lot of shoes. They all have uses. David (58:10) I have shoes too, brown, black, white. Rob (58:13) Yeah. David (58:13) Covers me in all situations. Rob (58:15) My eight pairs of running shoes probably are excessive. I'll admit that. David (58:18) Yeah, that's what I was talking about. The running shoes. The running shoes, not the other ones. All I think this concludes our episode. Thank you to everybody who stuck around. and smash that subscribe button, share with anybody you love or hate. not? Rob (58:21) Yeah. you Amit (58:35) Just mask me, let everybody hate. They'll love it. David (58:37) Absolutely. And thank you to Amit for the discussion. This was a great discussion. We did not talk about everything we wanted to, but I don't care. thank you so much, Amit. Hope to have you back in the near future. And that's it. So thank you. Cue up that music and we are out. Amit (58:49) So to be here.