Bernie Sanders – Engaging Peace

Beware the Bipartisan Legion of Doom: Corporate Democrats and Trump’s GOP

Posted on March 4, 2020March 4, 2020 by kathiemm

“Unlike their predecessors on the mat,” writes Eidelson, “today’s Legion of Doom don’t rely on brute strength and frightening visages to subdue opponents. Rather, their seeming stranglehold on our politics comes from the bottomless wealth of the self-serving 1% and from the use of manipulative narratives.” (Image: Wrestlefest/Screengrab)

by Roy Eidelson

In professional wrestling circles, the “Legion of Doom” is a name that conjures up the fearsome physiques and painted faces of one of the great tag teams of all time. In the political arena today, the same moniker aptly describes an even more daunting and dangerous duo: the profits-over-people corporate wing of the Democratic Party and the belligerent, bigoted, and brutal GOP of Donald Trump. There’s really no better way to describe a pairing that literally imperils our democracy and our planet at the same time.

The foundation for this forbidding alliance—”bipartisanship” at its worst—is simple. Both of these powerhouses are beholden to the same benefactors: an assortment of status-quo-defending behemoths that includes Wall Street, the oil and gas industry, health insurance companies, Big Pharma, military contractors, and mainstream media conglomerates. They therefore share the same no-holds-barred commitment: making sure that progressive victories are few and far between.

Of course, unlike their predecessors on the mat, today’s Legion of Doom don’t rely on brute strength and frightening visages to subdue opponents. Rather, their seeming stranglehold on our politics comes from the bottomless wealth of the self-serving 1% and from the use of manipulative narratives—”political mind games”—designed to mislead us about what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible.

“Both of these powerhouses are beholden to the same benefactors: an assortment of status-quo-defending behemoths that includes Wall Street, the oil and gas industry, health insurance companies, Big Pharma, military contractors, and mainstream media conglomerates. They therefore share the same no-holds-barred commitment: making sure that progressive victories are few and far between.”

As a psychologist, I’ve studied these propaganda appeals. The ones that tend to be most effective in confusing and misdirecting us target five core concerns that govern how we make sense of the world—namely, issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Each is linked to a basic question, like this.

First, are we safe? The Legion of Doom are ready with the answers that best serve their corporate backers. Sometimes that means fearmongering about how progressive policies will threaten our wellbeing. Encouraging panic over Medicare for All fits the bill—even though tens of millions of Americans lack the health insurance they need. At other times, they instead offer unfounded assurances to allay our legitimate fears. Thus, they falsely insist—contrary to scientific data—that the destructive consequences of climate change are overblown and no cause for alarm.

Second, are we being treated fairly? Here the Legion of Doom are quick to prey on our uncertainties about right and wrong. One frequent ploy revolves around disingenuous claims that they’re fighting for justice. Corporate school reformers become ultra-wealthy entrepreneurs by promising to help underprivileged children, and massive defense contractors fill their coffers by posing as defenders of human rights. Another ploy involves misleading arguments in which shameful injustices—unconscionably extreme inequality, astronomical CEO salaries—are portrayed as the just outcomes of so-called free markets.

Third, who should we trust? Our doubts in this arena are soft targets for the Legion of Doom’s manipulative appeals. So they tell us that particular groups—perhaps communities of color, or immigrants, or those who are poor—are “different” and that their grievances are best viewed with suspicion. And they warn us that progressives and other critics of the status quo are purportedly dishonest, misguided, or misinformed—despite overwhelming evidence that the current system rewards the few by depriving the many.

Fourth, are we good enough? Often the Legion of Doom aim to win our loyalty with deceitful declarations that everyone benefits from the greed-driven pursuits they present as high-minded endeavors. They defend health insurance giants with false notions of protecting “choice,” and they promote anti-labor “right to work” laws with cunning tributes to “freedom.” At the same time, they depict dissenters as unappreciative and “un-American”—even though alternative policies like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal are broadly popular and would improve countless lives.

And fifth, can we control what happens to us? Here the Legion of Doom turn our concerns about helplessness to their advantage. Sometimes they duplicitously insist that transformative changes—a living wage for all, an end to homelessness, healthcare as a human right—are pipe dreams impossible to achieve due to unconquerable forces. At other times, they instead warn us that a progressive agenda will jeopardize our autonomy, as though returning power to the people would be a step away from—rather than toward—greater democracy.

All of these manipulative mind games (and more) are central to the Legion of Doom’s 2020 electoral strategy. Establishment Democrats have already unleashed them in an effort to undermine progressive primary candidates at every level—most notably against Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. If he and others nonetheless emerge victorious, the GOP is patiently waiting its turn before November’s general election. They’re ready with a second barrage of these propaganda ploys, all aimed at wrestling our hopes for meaningful change into submission.

But another round of potentially catastrophic Legion of Doom victories doesn’t have to be our destiny. This status-quo-defending, donkey-and-elephant tag team—committed to continued self-aggrandizement rather than solidarity with those who have less—can be defeated. First, by resisting and debunking their misleading appeals, and by helping others to do the same. Second, by offering an honest and compelling alternative narrative, one with the straightforward message that insecurity, mistreatment, and crushed aspirations shouldn’t be a routine part of so many lives. And third, by building a coalition of Americans that’s large enough, diverse enough, and fearless enough to show the Legion of Doom that their domination of our politics is over. As Bernie Sanders said at a recent debate, quoting Nelson Mandela, “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”

Roy Eidelson is the former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility. His latest book is Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible.

This essay was first published on Common Dreams Views, Tuesday, March 03, 2020.
Work published on Common Dreams is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Psychology’s “Dark Triad” and the Billionaire Class, Part 1

Posted on October 25, 2019October 25, 2019 by kathiemm

by Roy Eidelson

They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made. — F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby

The Outrage of Billionaires

The data are stark and compelling. The richest 400 families in the United States own financial assets that exceed the wealth of the bottom 60% of all American households combined. U.S. billionaires pay taxes at a lower effective rate than working class families. The CEOs of S&P 500 companies, averaging over $14 million in annual compensation, make roughly as much in a single day as their median employee earns in an entire year. At the same time, research shows that such extreme inequality between rich and poor is a driving force behind many of society’s most profound and corrosive ills. These disparities are associated with diminished levels of physical health, mental health, educational achievement, social mobility, trust, and community life. They’re also linked to heightened levels of infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse, crime, violence, and incarceration.

In light of these realities, it’s no surprise that some political leaders are calling for dramatic policy changes designed to tamp down economic inequality. Equally unsurprising, some members of the so-called billionaire class in this country are outraged by these proposals. Responding to Senator Bernie Sanders’s comment that he doesn’t think billionaires should exist, Stephen Schwarzman — the billionaire CEO of the private equity firm Blackstone Group — told a New York City audience, “Maybe Bernie Sanders shouldn’t exist.” On the Fox Business Network, Ken Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot, angrily called Sanders a “blowhard” and asked, “What the hell has he done for the little people?” And CNBC host Jim Cramer reported that Wall Street executives — privately discussing the aspirations of Senator Elizabeth Warren — had told him “she’s got to be stopped.”

Complaints like these are nothing new from America’s super-rich. Almost a decade ago, Schwarzman (noted above) compared the possible elimination of a favorable hedge fund tax loophole to “when Hitler invaded Poland.” A few years later, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, now-deceased billionaire venture capitalist Tom Perkins wrote, “I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its ‘one-percent,’ namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one-percent, namely the ‘rich.’” And fellow billionaire Sam Zell told Bloomberg News, “This country should not talk about envy of the one-percent. It should talk about emulating the one-percent.”

But should we really be trying to emulate the one-percent? Perhaps not. Psychological research suggests that the super-rich, as a group, aren’t necessarily the role models we collectively need if our goal is to advance the common good and build a more decent society. In particular, one reason to be skeptical involves a constellation of interlinked personality traits — Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism — that psychologists call the “Dark Triad.” The originators of the term summarize it this way: “To varying degrees, all three entail a socially malevolent character with behavior tendencies toward self-promotion, emotional coldness, duplicity, and aggressiveness.”

Let’s now consider each of these three components separately, in regard to what they may tell us about the one-percent.

Machiavellianism

The first trait of the Dark Triad — Machiavellianism — refers to one’s willingness to deceitfully manipulate and exploit people and circumstances for personal gain. In an illuminating series of studies, psychologists have found that this tendency is more common among those with greater wealth and status.

These researchers compared the actions of participants categorized as either “upper class” or “lower class” — based on measures of socioeconomic status — in a variety of different situations. For example, one study used the age, model, and appearance of cars as a proxy for the drivers’ wealth. Those driving more expensive vehicles cut off pedestrians and other cars more often at a busy intersection. In a second study, higher social-class participants reported a greater likelihood of engaging in various unethical behaviors, such as keeping extra change that was mistakenly given to them by a cashier. In a third study, half of the participants first compared themselves to people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder, while the other half instead compared themselves to those at the bottom of the ladder. Afterward, those in the second group — now primed to see themselves as better off than others — took more candy from a jar they were told had treats intended for children in a lab nearby. In yet another study, participants were instructed to play the role of an employer involved a hypothetical salary negotiation with a prospective employee. They were told that this job hunter was specifically looking for a long-term position — and that this available opening would only last six-months. The researchers found that those higher in social class were more likely to deceptively withhold this important information from the applicant. A final study involved a game of chance using the computerized rolling of dice. Here too, the participants higher in social class cheated more often in order to receive a modest cash prize.

With findings like these, is it surprising that many huge corporations — controlled by individuals with extraordinary personal wealth — have employed Machiavellian tactics that fail to honor the public trust? There’s no shortage of high-profile examples. At Enron, officials fraudulently propped up the company’s stock price, leading thousands of unsuspecting employees to lose their retirement savings when the company collapsed shortly thereafter. General Motors turned a blind eye to manufacturing defects and then, despite the heightened risk of driver injury and death, engaged in a years-long cover-up. R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies spent decades withholding scientific evidence and misleading the public about the harmful effects of smoking. Large for-profit colleges and training institutes have lured students into expensive programs with deceptive advertising, have offered them false assurances of future employment, and have saddled them with lifetimes of debt. During the financial collapse a decade ago, investment banking giant Goldman Sachs recommended and sold to its clients billions of dollars of deceptively valued securities tied to risky home mortgages — in order to unload these toxic assets from its own accounts. And pharmaceutical giant Purdue Pharma continued to aggressively market OxyContin for years after the company learned that the drug was highly addictive, contributing to tens of thousands of deaths from prescription opioid overdoses.

Note from KMM: Pegean says: Reprinted with permission from Psychology Today, October 25, 2019.To be continued.

The new brunch

Posted on April 17, 2017 by kathiemm

By Deborah Belle

If rallies are the new brunch, then I partook twice on Tax Day. I had long planned to attend the afternoon Tax Day rally on the Cambridge Common to insist that Pres. Trump disclose his tax returns. Then a friend asked if I would like to go to a morning rally in resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline. The protest would urge people to divest from and close their accounts with TD Bank, one of four banks funding TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I went to both.

The day could not have been more beautiful, with the forsythia in full bloom in front of the bank. After opening prayers and sharing the scent of sweetgrass burning in a jar, we stationed ourselves with signs near the TD bank at the Alewife Brook Parkway Shopping Center in Cambridge.

There, we took turns leading call and response chants and swayed to Native American music. Responses to our signs and our chanting were generally positive, often enthusiastically so. Joggers, bicyclists, and people driving cars often gave us a thumbs-up or a shout-out. We concluded the rally with further prayers for Mother Earth, for the water protectors, and for the ultimate success of climate activism.

After a quick lunch I was off to Cambridge Common, where thousands were assembled, including a sizable contingent of Veterans for Peace with their flags waving beautifully in the breeze.

The excellent master of ceremonies was Michael Connolly , the newly elected brilliant state representative for parts of Cambridge and Somerville. I had heard Michael a few years earlier when he was running for Cambridge City Council, and was very disappointed when he didn’t win. A short time later he ran for state representative with the support of Our Revolution , the Bernie Sanders spin-off group that provided funds and especially volunteers. Michael is now waking up the state legislature with his important insights, wit, and drive.

Speakers argued in favor of a People’s Budget, rather than the military-heavy budget we now have, support for those who have been incarcerated, and strengthening public education against the threat of privatization. A message from Martin Luther King’s speech of just over 50 years ago was invoked: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

Wonderful signs abounded, including one with pictures of Putin and Trump reading “Married, filing jointly.”

Speakers pointed out that during Republican President Eisenhower’s administration, the top tax rate was 90%. What could we do today if we had that kind of money from billionaires and wealthy corporations? Instead, they do not pay taxes at all, trillions of dollars are stashed away in tax shelters, the poor and middle class are compelled to pay more, and essential services decline.

Babies, children on their parents’ shoulders, and adorable dogs added to the joy of the day. At one point a red-tailed hawk flew gracefully close to me, landing in a nearby tree, then took wing again and circled over the crowd. Perhaps it was curious at this remarkable gathering of humans.

I stayed a bit longer, sharing a wonderful time of solidarity with those around me. I left feeling strengthened for another week in the Era of Trump.

Honoring a national hero, Part 1.

Posted on August 8, 2016August 9, 2016 by kathiemm

by Kathleen Malley-Morrison

What a stinking mess this election year has been! People on all sides fed up with governmental corruption, enraged by an economic system that seems biased against them, terrified by the threats personified by groups labeled as terrorists, longing for past days when they felt they had at least some control over their lives and their futures, and looking for someone, anyone, who can get them out of this mess and back to “normal.”

And for some of us there is the dismay that Bernie Sanders–our beacon of hope, our image of progressive values, our embodiment of a more genuine democracy—was cheated out of the chance to become our leader. But he is not the national hero who is my focus today.

My national hero of the day is Andrew Bacevich, a retired career officer of the U.S. Army, a man of enormous courage who has been speaking out against American militarism for decades. Bacevich has just published a brilliant article on the decay of American democracy, which should be required reading for all.

The main questions Bacevich proposes are:

“How did the party of Eisenhower, an architect of victory in World War II, choose as its nominee a narcissistic TV celebrity who, with each successive Tweet and verbal outburst, offers further evidence that he is totally unequipped for high office? …. Similarly, how did the party of Adlai Stevenson, but also of Stevenson’s hero Franklin Roosevelt, select as its candidate someone so widely disliked and mistrusted even by many of her fellow Democrats?”

Bacevich’s analysis of the characters, strategies, and flaws of both Clinton and Trump are chillingly convincing and well worth reading; however, he warns us:

“But let’s not just blame the candidates. Trump and Clinton are also the product of circumstances that neither created. As candidates, they are merely exploiting a situation — one relying on intuition and vast stores of brashness, the other putting to work skills gained during a life spent studying how to acquire and employ power. The success both have achieved in securing the nominations of their parties is evidence of far more fundamental forces at work.”

In my next post, I will share his views on those forces.