WHY I LOATHE DR. LAURA

by Gerald James
 
 
 

         Dr. Laura is a radio personality whose call-in talk show began gaining popularity a few years ago due to her quick, cut-to-the-chase, ‘psychotherapy’ sound-bite talks with callers in which she
often scolds them for their lack or misuse of morals in the realm of relationships and ethical dilemmas.  After the excessive and, at times, outrageously narcissistic mental health industry explosion in the past few decades, Dr. Laura’s straightforward advice of commonsense and value orientation was a hit.  Her first book, Ten Stupid Things Women Do To Mess Up Their Lives,
became a bestseller, and she began writing others in-between her radio show and appearing on television talk shows.  The morals that Dr. Laura usually promote are drawn heavily from the 10 Commandments (which are the subject of one of her most recent books), and other strict codes of societal, marital, and parental conduct mainly in the patriarchal light of Judaism (to which she converted in 1997).  Her political position is of the conservative Christian-right with strong views that include anti-abortion, anti-feminism, anti-daycare centers, and anti-sex out of marriage.  Her favorite slogan is “I am my kid’s mom,” which attempts to raise the extreme importance of parenting to the forefront of all things.
    Her advice, or “opinion” as she often clarifies, focuses on personal responsibility with high and ultimate regard for any involved children.  A typical caller may ask if she should stay engaged to a boyfriend when he seems to always be yelling at both her and her children (from a previous marriage), or his own children (he has never been married).  In the past, Dr. Laura’s dynamic response was to scold the caller for allowing such a person anywhere around her children, for sleeping with a man out of marriage, for teaching her children bad choice-making, and for focusing her Mothering-energy on this guy instead of her kids who need it the most!  This was all done in a quick, almost surgical, precision of cutting through the caller’s denials and justifications for her (or his) past behaviors.  The core issue was then revealed by Dr. Laura’s skillfully-guided insistence on “what is your question for me?”  Generally, Dr. Laura’s audience has enjoyed the exposure of the callers’ true ‘issues’ and the dramatic demand that she puts on them to act morally responsible for their actions.  The callers, in a not entirely un-masochistic way, seem to also love her heavy-handed approach and often admit that they knew the right decision all along but “just needed to hear it.”
     However, the novelty of this approach slowly waned over the years and Dr. Laura began increasing her aggressiveness to the scale of “Jerry Springer”-style, confrontational excitement.  Her once refreshing admonishment of mental health industry ‘psycho-babble’ (a term Dr. Laura uses often to describe the reality of that industry’s tendency to create its own users by forging ‘problems’ that ‘need treatment’) also increased to militant levels that have begun border on conspiracy theory.

      This aggression of Dr. Laura’s seemed to reveal itself markedly this past year when some shocking truths about her surfaced.  First, a truth that has hounded Dr. Laura ever since she went on the air is that she is not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, rather her doctorate is in physiology (an educated P.E. teacher).  She attempted to circumvent this problem by referring to her “postdoctoral certificate in Marriage, Family, and Child Counseling” (which she holds in the state of California).  However, modifying a MFCC certificate with 'postdoctoral', when the two ascribe to unrelated fields, is misleading.  The majority of her audience believes her to be either a psychiatrist or psychologist with professional education and training in psychotherapy; and Dr. Laura is Clinton-esque in her wordplay attempts to keep their impression of her credentials as such.  The increased attention she has brought herself via her aggression has also increased the exposure of this important fact.
     On top of that, with the release to the internet of some embarrassing nude photos Dr. Laura had taken in the late 1970’s, it was revealed that she had an affair with a man twice her age while still married, but separated from her first husband.  This man, Bill Balance, was the one who helped her start her career in radio.  She then met her current husband, Lew Bishop, and had an affair with him while he was still married.  She lived with him for 9 years before they finally tied the knot due to her becoming pregnant.  The combination of sleeping-with-the-boss, infidelity, ‘shacking-up’, and getting ‘knocked up’ all seemed strikingly hypocritical to her active preaching of high moral behavior.  She didn’t apologize for her past to her audience but blamed it on the result of following her “own moral authority,” and that she’s moved on to higher ground.

     In light of all this, why do I loathe Dr. Laura?  Well, I don’t use the word ‘hate’, first, because that word is part of her problem.  She has turned down a hostile road and I despise her for her failure of compassion and her hypocrisy.
     Compassion means ‘suffering together,’ especially in a therapeutic relationship which is the realm in which she imposes herself.  It is not an apathetic word, but an active one.  The therapist must intimately know the suffering of his or her patient in order to help them find their way out of it.  Dr. Laura has distanced herself from this as far as one can possibly get by speaking at her ‘clients’ over the phone on a radio show, and more importantly, not allowing them to speak back!  She dismisses her caller’s viewpoints at the onset and quickly places their problem in a predetermined category to which she responds with a ready-made, rapid-fire answer.  To push herself off as a psychiatrist with high-handed opinions about the psychological field, and then to make a complete mockery of it is inexcusable.  But even more disconcerting is her increasingly malicious attitude.  Her zero-tolerance of others’ opinions is the frightening stuff of cult leaders.  Absolute standards dictated from such people as Dr. Laura, who portray themselves as moral arbiters of good and bad, sadly breed hate crimes by the dozen.
     Her hypocrisy is nothing more than narcissism.  She consistently makes statements that are at odds with what she does and purports to believe in order to bring attention to herself (or, at least, to feed her hostility).  A prime example are the statements she made recently that “it is pseudo-religiosity to say you forgive (evil acts)”, and “God may forgive their souls, but I hope not” (in reference to the two teen-age Columbine killers).  Shock-intended statements like these are no different than what Howard Stern says on his radio show, just a different venue.  But many of these ‘opinions’ just seem based on pure ignorance, like when she says “(there’s) no way I can make money off of other people’s hardships” in response to someone doing the same thing.  Aren’t ‘people’s hardships’ the whole point of her radio show?  As to the hypocritical shadow of her sordid past behaviors, they are certainly forgivable if Dr. Laura has changed and progressed, which she apparently has.  But what has she progressed to?  What is the difference between living a morally-corrupt life and living high on a narcissistic pedestal?  Even here she hides behind “tough love” just as she did behind “my own moral authority”, which are both the very 'psycho babble' that she criticizes.
     Overall, Dr. Laura provokes hate and contempt.  Not only does she insult and disgrace her own adopted religion but also every religion that believes in compassion.  She coldly removes the spirituality from religion and replaces it with useless dogma.  Her quick-fix, absolutist ‘opinions’ sound good to her callers at first, but you can bet they learn little on how to help themselves.  Any good therapist will tell you that a patient needs an experience, not an explanation, and certainly not a berating.  Her callers only learn how to judge themselves and others in a harsh light of good/bad.  Does this remind one of the Victorianism of the last century?  If it does, Dr. Laura would readily agree that this is a good thing (her most recent tirades have been against the freedom of information, specifically “pornography”, offered by America’s libraries).  Regression to repression doesn’t sound like a good thing to me.

     Perhaps, in the end, her misguided dent in moral and mental health may be beneficial.  Dr. Laura’s irrational example may help speed the process by which psychology reforms itself into  responsible behavioral medicine and by which religion reveals its meaning-rich wonder through metaphor instead of dying in literalism.  She may do this by the striking bad example she poses against the rich, complex, and unique creativeness that is our being.  At any rate, the hate she spills can gladly be done without.
 
 
 
 
 



return to main
 

This page written and maintained by G. James
beajerry@jaws.greatwhite.com