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

“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.

The “Just Enough” Policy: Behavioral Control of Collective Protest through Minimum Reward, Part 1 of a 3-part series

Author: James Montgomery Flagg. 1917. In the public domain.

By Anthony Marsella, Ph.D.

What does it take?

What does it take to awaken the American (USA) people to the egregious political, economic, and moral abuses and violations of their Constitutional rights and privileges? What does it take for the American people to demand changes in existing government and corporate political, economic, and social policies and actions limiting accountability, transparency, and participation?

What does it take for the American people to successfully reduce the concentration of power, wealth, and position favoring a few and denying equality and opportunity for the masses? Why are American people failing to respond to the numerous crises in American society that reveal widespread corruption, cronyism, and incompetence in public and private institutions and organizations?

Why are Americans savoring the fruits of consumerism, materialism, commodification, competition when the consequences of these institutionalized values are destructive for individuals and the social fabric? These questions are but a few of the many questions being asked daily across America and the world. At issue is the disproportionate presence of silence and passivity, and the absence of activism.

I am not discussing, nor am I advocating, widespread rebellion or revolt, even as some voices have called for these as solutions in the face of a creeping oppression. Rather, I am seeking an understanding of why so few protests have emerged and been sustained across time and place?

No one can deny the existence of protests from both “liberal/progressive” circles, (e.g., Occupy Wall Street, Wisconsin Teacher Unions, LBGT organizations) and conservative/tea party circles (e.g., regarding border immigration, abortion rights, gun ownership rights). Yet, in my opinion, these protests have been focused on specific causes, often informed by narrow ideological reasons. I am seeking an understanding of sources that could undertake a broader and unified protest, seeking to re-claim and to improve upon America’s inspired heritage of human rights — a protest to reclaim “moral authority,” “national identity,” and “social and civic responsibility,” not through guns, violence, and anger, but through virtue.

It must be asked whether current divisions across gender, racial, ethnicity, social class, political, wealth, regional, and religious boundaries have limited any collective citizen response challenging the concentration of power, wealth, and position that seeks national and global domination. In my opinion, the concentration denies citizen participation by controlling means, motives, and consequences of national activism, especially by creating divisions across diverse population sectors. Although developing diverse identities is to be encouraged because diversity is the essence of life itself, a sense of unity is lost as too many are denied equality.

And how does the fractioning of a society lend itself to external control and domination by those with wealth, power, and position? For me, the answer is simple: “A society can assume unlimited diversity, as long as it provides equal access to opportunity.”

It is the disproportion in opportunity, rights, and freedoms that lead to resentment, struggle, and violence. The USA needs a national vision identity that recognizes and accepts the conditions required for civility and citizen accommodation in our global era, including (1) an appreciation of the value of diversity, (2) a willingness to accept an interdependence ethic, (3) the commitment to nonviolence/nonkilling, and (4) a belief in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Unfortunately, what has emerged in the USA is a “limited good” mentality1 in which gains by one group or sector are considered losses by another, because there is only so much “good” to go around. But while this may be, in part, an accurate appraisal of our global situation, there are forces at work that seek control stemming from the age-old divisions rooted in concentrations of power, wealth, and position. Choose your century, country, or cause, and “concentration” will always be the root of problems.

In today’s global era, filled with challenges that defy solution (e.g., population increases, poverty, violence, wars, environmental pollution, crime), “control” by a few (e.g., 1%, bankers, dictators, corporate royalty, Davos faction, monopolies) has become the means and the end. In the USA, which leads the world in military force, financial wealth, corporate cartels, and exportation of popular culture, “control” is essential to preserve an existing state of affairs that denies equality, and promotes homogeneity.

The USA has the world’s largest military budget, highest medical costs, greatest number of prisons and prison inmates, and greatest divisions of wealth (e.g., 1% versus 99%). What this enables — indeed ensures — is the opportunity to implement a “Just Enough” approach to keeping collective control.

NOTE:

  1. George Foster (1965). Peasant society and the image of limited good. American Anthropologist. Limited good refers to the concept that in peasant societies the world is seen as a “competitive” place in which “goods” are limited, and so distrust, envy, jealousy, and resentment are fostered. Hmmm?

 

Anthony Marsella, Ph.D., a member of the TRANSCEND Network, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii, and past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu. He is known nationally and internationally as a pioneer figure in the study of culture and psychopathology who challenged the ethnocentrism and racial biases of many assumptions, theories, and practices in psychology and psychiatry. In more recent years, he has been writing and lecturing on peace and social justice. He has published 15 edited books, and more than 250 articles, chapters, book reviews, and popular pieces. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.

This is the first in a three-part series originally published on https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/06/the-just-enough-policy-behavioral-control-of-collective-protest-through-minimum-reward/

Countering the ubiquitous arguments

STOP AND READ THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE: DO NOT THINK OF AN ELEPHANT. NOT NOW, NOT LATER.

By Sarah Bleicher and Kathie Malley-MorrisonGeorge Lakoff: Don't Think of an Elephant!

In Don’t Think of An Elephant!,* George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist and professor at U.C. Berkeley, provides an accessible guide to how conservatives think and how progressives can counter those seemingly ubiquitous conservative arguments.

This book is ideal for anybody who wants to promote his or her values effectively. Lakoff is clear, persuasive, and logical, with good suggestions to help progressives communicate in terms anyone can understand—something conservatives are very good at.

One key idea from the field of cognitive linguistics that Lakoff emphasizes is “frames” and their role in politics. Frames are the whole array of knowledge in which any one word is embedded. When you think of an elephant, you are likely to think of large floppy ears, trunks, circuses, etc.

Whenever you use a word, you evoke a frame. One problem for progressives is that even when they try to reject a conservative viewpoint—i.e.,  negate a frame—they in fact evoke that frame.

How many of you, despite our warnings, thought of an elephant as you began reading this post? One of Lakoff’s basic rules is don’t use the language of the other side. If you want to argue with a war hawk, don’t say, “War protestors are NOT wimps and cowards!” Think of the frames you set in motion. What other words might you use to evoke frames that weaken the opposition’s arguments?

Lakoff argues that “America must become a moral leader using fundamental human values: caring and responsibility carried out with strength to respond to the world’s problems.” In this book, George Lakoff provides guidance for showing respect, responding to arguments by reframing,  talking about progressive values, and saying what you believe.

*Review of: Don’t Think Of An Elephant!/ How Democrats And Progressives Can Win: Know Your Values And Frame The Debate: The Essential Guide For Progressives

Sarah Bleicher, an alumna of Boston College, took Psychology of War and Peace with Kathie Malley-Morrison at Boston University