Who Will Be a Violent White Supremacist? Part 2: Programs that are bound to fail

Global Information Society Watch 2014 – Communications surveillance in the digital age. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Author: Association for Progressive Communications (APC

by Alice LoCicero

Why do so many resources go into counter-terrorism programs that are bound to fail? Here it’s important to distinguish between research programs and community programs that are implemented to identify potential homegrown terrorists. While I think it’s unlikely, for many reasons, that researchers will be able to identify future terrorists anytime soon, well-intentioned people can reasonably disagree on that point. Research done ethically and openly (without deceit) may be justifiably funded.

But when it comes to implementing programs, such as the DHS sponsored Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs funded throughout the US and overseas, they are not only based on deceit and junk science, they are also apt to be harmful in several ways:

  • They increase bias.
  • They cause disruption and harm in communities.
  • They blatantly encourage providers such as teachers, doctors, and mental health professionals to violate their professional ethics by spying on their students, patients, and/or clients. 
  • They target specific communities based on demographic factors. 
  • They deceive the participants and the public.
  • They criminalize normal adolescent development.
  • They criminalize thought.
  • They encourage a colonialist attitude, assuming that communities cannot help themselves, but need mainstream professionals and authorities to design ways to assist them.

After reflecting on the deadly events in Charlottesville, Christchurch, El Paso, Pittsburgh, and other places, many Americans are starting to wonder why the government is spending so much of its resources on spying on Muslim communities. They wonder if it would be better to apply these funds to counter the rise of alt-right extremists. The answer is a loud, “No” for all the reasons above. 

The CVE type programs are in violation of science, human rights, understanding of adolescent development, and the right to explore thoughts and conversation without being criminalized. 

Authoritarians, Plutocrats, and the Fight for Racial Justice, Part 1

Pro-Donald Trump rally in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2017. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Author: Ted Eytan from Washington, DC.

by Roy Eidelson

Note from Kathie MM: The theme of engaging peace, since its inception, has been “From study to action . . . Choosing peace for good.” Dr. Eidelson’s two-part essay, like his earlier ones (e.g., see here ,  and here )  illustrates effectively how psychological research studies can help us understand how ordinary people can become supporters of dangerous people and policies that threaten not only democracy and human rights but also classic ethical principles such as the Golden Rule. As for action, engaging peace’s goal has always been to support nonviolent resistance to the violence so often embodied in the isms–racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, fascism, etc. (and, consort to all of them, militarism). The insights in this article should help you do your part.

Authoritarians, Plutocrats, and the Fight for Racial Justice, Part 1

by Roy Eidelson

On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump routinely lashed out at protesters brazen enough to disrupt his choreographed rallies. In Birmingham, Alabama, he shouted, “Get him out of here. Throw him out!” The next day he added, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.” In Burlington, Vermont, Trump ordered his security personnel to “Throw them out into the cold…Don’t give them their coats. No coats! Confiscate their coats.” In Las Vegas, Nevada, he told the crowd, “I’d like to punch him in the face” and reminisced about earlier days when demonstrators would be “carried out on stretchers.”

Trump’s belligerent stance toward dissent provides context for the National Football League’s decision last week: players on the field will now be required to stand during the national anthem. In adopting this restrictive policy, billionaire owners of professional sports franchises have chosen to serve as Trump’s newest security guards, responsible for keeping all reminders of today’s racial injustice and police brutality as far from the fifty-yard-line as possible. Not surprisingly, Trump was quick to publicly endorse the change: “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there, maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”

Such pronouncements from the most powerful person in the world are jaw-dropping. Yet Trump’s strongman antics haven’t actually changed very much from his days inflaming the crowds—“Lock her up! Lock her up!”—in Birmingham, Burlington, Las Vegas, and beyond. What is different now, however, is that President Trump sees the entire country—over three-hundred million strong—as his own gigantic arena. Those who share his intolerant, racist, and plutocratic agenda are always welcome to participate in his round-the-clock “Make America Great Again” soapbox performances. For anyone else, the gates are closed. The alternatives he offers range from disregard to demonization to deportation.

Regrettably, Trump’s divisive language and outlandish policy prescriptions resonate well with the many Americans who give undue and uncritical support to those in positions of power. Excessive deference makes us surprisingly easy targets for manipulative appeals designed to stoke our fear, distrust, and contempt of others who are “different.” Indeed, a psychological mindset called right-wing authoritarianism, characterized by a strong tendency to condemn anyone who questions established authority, is more common than we might wish.

Psychologist Bob Altemeyer has identified three specific markers of this mindset. The first is authoritarian submission, which involves strict obedience toward the designated leaders of a group. The second is authoritarian aggression, which takes the form of deep hostility toward those who appear to fall short of the group’s rigid standards. The third marker is conventionalism, which revolves around dutifully honoring and observing the group’s traditions and norms.

Right-wing authoritarians—members of the neo-Nazi, white supremacist “alt-right” are perhaps today’s most extreme examples—consider group boundaries to be sacrosanct. They value conformity and find diversity alarming. For them, clear and firm borders protect those inside the circle from those who are outside and are deemed undeserving of inclusion. Research has linked this psychological profile to ugly prejudices—including toward people of color, immigrants, those who are unemployed, and people with disabilities. But the specific prejudices aren’t entirely fixed. Since these individuals submissively look to their leaders to tell them which groups to reject, they’re primed to change course or focus when directed to do so.

The Predator President

Published on Monday, February 27, 2017, by Common Dreams

The Predatory Presidency

Recent executive orders reveal the Trump White House as a ruthless predator set to prey upon the most vulnerable among us.

In the Galapagos Islands, the racer snakes get ready to launch. (Photo: BBC)

The season premiere of BBC America’s Planet Earth II includes remarkable footage from the desolate Galapagos Islands. In one striking scene, baby marine iguanas race across the sand, desperately trying to elude dozens of snakes eager for their next meal. Although such stark life-or-death struggles are difficult to watch, it helps to remember that they reflect nature’s dynamic balance.

Far more disturbing—and unnatural—are the Trump Administration’s similarly ruthless predator-like attacks on whatever groups it chooses as its prey. Adding to their repugnance, several of these assaults over the past month—through a series of executive orders—are inherently racist, seemingly propelled by the ugly 14-word credo of white nationalists everywhere: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Three White House orders stand out. First, there’s the determined pursuit of a Muslim travel ban, one that will prevent thousands of tempest-tossed and despairing refugees from entering the country. Second, there’s the heartless stalking of undocumented Hispanic immigrants, including the near indiscriminate roundup, detention, and deportation of law-abiding men, women, and children. And third, there’s the early blueprint for a “tough on crime” law enforcement crackdown, an onslaught that will inevitably and predominantly disrupt and besiege Black communities and activists.

These three groups, all non-white, have been selected as the initial targets for aggressive and oppressive government action (there will undoubtedly be others). To be sure, this isn’t entirely new. As Langston Hughes wrote 80 years ago, “America never was America to me.” But along with Trump himself, influential White House strategists Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller of the “alt-right” and new Attorney General Jeff Sessions have especially troubling histories of outright hostility and scornful indifference toward those who don’t share their skin color.

We’ve also seen that predators in the wild aren’t the only ones to use trickery, deception, and stealth as complements to brute force. Disguising the real impetus behind these executive orders, the Trump White House turns to sky-is-falling psychological mind games, warning us that these steps are necessary to protect the public from dire threats. The Islamophobia-nurturing Muslim travel ban is deceitfully presented as an essential counter-terrorism measure. ICE raids are defended with the fiction that millions of Hispanic immigrants are “bad hombres” and the rest are a drain on limited public resources. And repressive steps against African Americans are justified through bogus tales of a nationwide crime wave and “carnage in our inner cities.”

 

The purpose of these appeals is simple: to short-circuit the public’s critical reasoning; overwhelm us with emotions of fear and dread; and thereby garner either our active support or acquiescence. Once a crisis environment is created, once we begin to catastrophize and imagine the worst possible outcomes, then even the most extreme measures can begin to seem prudent. This is proven snake oil that’s stood the test of time. Recall that Nazi propagandist Herman Goering acknowledged as much when, during the Nuremberg trials after World War II, he explained:

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

But once we recognize these manipulative psychological ploys for what they are, the path forward becomes increasingly clear. First, whenever possible, we must expose and condemn the racist falsehoods of the President and his cronies. Second, we should counter and undermine the constant fearmongering they use to advance their agenda of intolerance. And third, we need to do whatever we can to help protect the individuals, families, and communities most immediately at risk of ambush and assault.

This may sound like a daunting challenge. Fortunately, however, the mass protests and daily acts of civil resistance throughout the country over the past several weeks have already demonstrated our resolve. They’ve also revealed our capacity to expand our “circle of moral concern,” so that it extends well beyond those we hold most dear or consider most similar to us.

In nature, potential prey instinctually use a wide range of strategies to ward off attacks—from camouflage to traveling in groups to alarm signals to communal defense based on strength in numbers—and they rarely succumb without a fight. With the merciless predators from the White House now on the prowl, surely we must be prepared to do the same.

Roy Eidelson

Roy Eidelson is a psychologist and an associate director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. He can be contacted at reidelson [ at] eidelsonconsulting [dot] com.