by Roy Eidelson
My research shows that the one percenters’ manipulative messages—what I call “mind games”—target five concerns that dominate our daily lives: namely, issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. These are the psychological templates we use to make sense of the world around us. Each is associated with a key question we ask ourselves regularly: Are we safe? Are we being treated fairly? Who should we trust? Are we good enough? And, can we control what happens to us? And it’s no coincidence that each is also linked to a powerful emotion that can be hard to control: fear, anger, suspicion, pride, and despair, respectively.
War profiteers prey on these five concerns with two simple goals in mind. First, they aim to create and maintain an American public that either embraces or at least accepts an endless war mentality. And second, they use these mind games to marginalize and disempower anti-war voices. For each of these five concerns, I’d like to provide two examples of the mind games I’m talking about, and then discuss how we can counter them.
Let’s start with vulnerability. Whether as quickly passing thoughts or haunting worries, we tend to wonder if the people we care about are in harm’s way, and if there might be danger on the horizon. Right or wrong, our judgments on these matters go a long way in determining the choices we make and the actions we take. Our focus on vulnerability isn’t surprising. It’s only when we think we’re safe that we comfortably turn our attention to other things. Unfortunately, however, we’re not very good at assessing risks or the effectiveness of potential responses to them. That’s why psychological appeals targeting these vulnerability concerns are a core element of the war machine’s propaganda arsenal.
“It’s A Dangerous World” is one vulnerability mind game that war profiteers regularly use to build public support for their greed-driven activities. They argue that their actions are necessary in order to keep everyone safe from ominous threats. They exaggerate or entirely fabricate these dangers—whether they’re talking about dominoes falling to the Red Menace in Southeast Asia, or the Axis of Evil and mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, or anti-war protestors purportedly posing a threat to our national security. They know that we’re soft targets for such psychological tactics because, in our desire to avoid being unprepared when danger strikes, we’re quick to imagine catastrophic outcomes no matter how unlikely they may be. That’s why we can be easy prey when they urge us to fall in line, comply with their instructions, and perhaps relinquish our civil rights as well.
At the same time, war machine representatives often turn to a second vulnerability mind game—“Change Is Dangerous”—when they’re trying to marginalize their critics. Here, when a proposed reform would hamper their ambitions, they mislead us by insisting that these changes will place everyone in greater jeopardy—whether the proposal is about reducing our staggering 800 overseas military bases; or withdrawing troops from Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq; or cutting our enormous defense budget. This mind game often works because of what psychologists call “status quo bias.” That is, we generally prefer to keep things the way they are—even if they’re not particularly good—rather than face the uncertainty of less familiar options, even if those other alternatives are exactly what’s needed to make the world a safer place. But, of course, our welfare is not the most pressing issue as far as the war profiteers are concerned.
Let’s turn now to injustice, the second core concern. Cases of real or perceived mistreatment frequently stir anger and resentment, as well as an urge to right wrongs and bring accountability to those who are responsible. That can all be very good. But our perceptions about what’s just and what’s not are imperfect. This makes us potential easy targets for manipulation by those who have a selfish interest in shaping our views of right and wrong to their advantage—and it’s exactly what representatives of the war machine work hard to do.
For example, “We’re Fighting Injustice” is one of the war profiteers’ favorite injustice mind games for generating public support for endless wars. Here, they insist that their actions reflect an abiding commitment to combating wrongdoing—whether they’re falsely arguing that Iran has engaged in unprovoked hostility; or that Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, who exposed U.S. war crimes, deserve punishment for treason; or that government surveillance and disruption of anti-war groups are necessary responses to purported unlawful activity. This mind game is designed to misappropriate and misdirect our sense of outrage over injustice. It takes advantage of our psychological tendency to believe that the world is just, and to therefore assume that those who have obtained positions of power are fair-minded rather than driven by craven self-interest—even though their actions so often harm rather than help the prospects for peace.
Simultaneously, “We’re the Victims” is a second injustice mind game, and it’s used to marginalize critics. When their policies or actions are condemned, representatives of the war machine brazenly complain of being mistreated themselves. So, for example, the Pentagon expressed outrage that the Abu Ghraib torture photos were disseminated without its permission; the White House blusters that the International Criminal Court has a vendetta against innocent American soldiers, or so they say; and bomb-making companies gripe that they shouldn’t be criticized for selling weapons to overseas dictators since our government has authorized the sales—as if that somehow makes it the right thing to do. Claims like these are designed to encourage uncertainty and disagreement among the public over issues of right and wrong, and victim and perpetrator. When this turning of the tables is successful, our concern is directed away from those who actually suffer from our endless wars.
Note from Kathie MM: Tune in Wednesday for Part 3.
