Tag: political psychology

Resisting the Mind Games of Donald Trump and the One Percent, Part 1

Posted on by kathiemm
Title page of A Century of Life, Health and Happiness by C. L. Blood , an American con artist and self-styled physician (with no credentials) who operated in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Accused of blackmailing, tax evasion, and fraud, among other things. 1880. In the public domain.

by Roy Eidelson

Smooth-talking con artists are familiar figures in American folklore. The well-dressed hustler arrives in an unsuspecting town. He pitches some miracle cure or get-rich-quick scheme, door-to-door or from atop a soapbox. Then before his customers realize they’ve been duped, he steals away in search of his next mark. It’s a risky vocation, one that demands quick feet, a keen understanding of human nature, and a talent for telling stories that both arouse and reassure.

But when it comes to profiting off people’s hopes and fears, by far the most successful purveyors of lucrative lies and false promises are some of the denizens of this country’s palatial estates, corporate boardrooms, and corridors of political power. And unlike their small-time counterparts, they’re never on the run — despite the misery they leave in their wake. Enter Donald J. Trump, soon to be the 45th President of the United States.

In a country beset by extreme and distressing inequality, America’s premier hustler sold the electorate a wagonload of beguiling and deceptive tales about what’s gone wrong, who’s to blame, and how he’ll make things better. He persuaded not through rational argument, analysis, and truth-telling, but rather by manipulating our imperfect reasoning and our unreasoning emotions. Although this playbook has been around for a long time, Americans have never witnessed this level of mastery before. Trump’s unanticipated success dramatically illustrates the importance of understanding the “mind games” that allowed him to win, despite breaking almost every rule of evidence, logic, and propriety.

In my research as a psychologist, I’ve found that the psychological appeals used by those eager to maintain or extend their extraordinary wealth and power tend to target five key concerns in our daily lives: issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Each is a fundamental lens through which individuals and groups make sense of the world, evaluate their circumstances, and decide what actions, if any, to take. Each is also linked to a basic question we ask ourselves every day: Are we safe? Are we treated fairly? Who should we trust? Are we good enough? Can we control what happens to us?

In my next post on engagingpeace, I consider several examples of how Trump targeted these concerns in charting his path to the White House.

Originally published in Counterpunch, December 22, 2016.  Reprinted with permission.

=Roy Eidelson is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, former executive director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. Roy can be reached by email at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com and on Twitter @royeidelson.

More articles by:Roy Eidelson

 

Your father taught you WHAT? Part 1.

Posted on by kathiemm
Psychologist George Lakoff, author of Moral Politics. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Author: Jere Keys from San Francisco,

 

By Kathie Malley-Morrison

In its inaugural issues, Engaging Peace introduced the work of cognitive political psychologist, George Lakoff—particularly his work on political conservatism and liberalism.  Our presentation of his theory included posts on Why We Fight, Countering the Ubiquitous Argument, A New Way of Thinking, and Values and Rhetoric.  Today we begin sharing highlights from Lakoff’s psychological analysis of today’s conservative Republicans, such as the supporters of Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Bottom line, according to Lakoff, is that conservatives generally grow up in a strict father family system. In his view, “In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right.”

Lakoff goes on to say, “The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a well-ordered world, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate. The hierarchy is: God above Man, Man above Nature, The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak), The Rich above the Poor, Employers above Employees, Adults above Children, Western culture above other cultures, America above other countries. The hierarchy extends to: Men above women, Whites above Nonwhites, Christians above nonChristians, Straights above Gays.”

In regards to renditions of those values in this election year, Lakoff says, “We see these tendencies in most of the Republican presidential candidates, as well as in Trump, and on the whole, conservative policies flow from the strict father worldview and this hierarchy.”

Lakoff also notes that, “Family-based moral worldviews run deep. Since people want to see themselves as doing right not wrong, moral worldviews tend to be part of self-definition — who you most deeply are. And thus your moral worldview defines for you what the world should be like. When it isn’t that way, one can become frustrated and angry.”

What do you think of Lakoff’s views?  Do you know any conservative Republicans,  personally?  If so, do you know anything about their families, their personal histories?  To what extent do they seem to support  a strict father morality, a father (authority) knows best morality, a WASP-centered morality? Are they frustrated and angry? Are they going to vote this year?