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.

Kerala: The graveyard of all war propaganda, Part IV

6th century Ladkhan temple, infinite two knots symbol of karma rebirth cycle and interconnectedness, Aihole Hindu monuments Karnataka. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Author: Ms Sarah Welch.

by Ian Hansen, PhD

Particulars and Universals

Kerala is a geographically tiny state in a large country—India—that doesn’t make the news much in spite of having over a sixth of the world’s population.  As such, Kerala is a very particular place.  When I was a graduate student in cultural psychology, I remember my advisor telling me that another particular place, Japan, is considered the graveyard of all great social theories.  This is in part because as an “interdependent” or “collectivist” culture, Japan fails to conform to many of the theories of human psychology backed up by data gathered in individualist cultures (particularly the United States).  It is also in part because idiosyncratic Japan often defies expectations about what an interdependent or collectivist culture should behave like.  I have now come to think that almost any distinctive cultural-political-economic entity, closely examined, will seem like a graveyard of all great social theories.  Examinations of the particular tend to trouble pretenses to the universal.

Japan’s 127 million people—1.7% of the world’s population—are more plentiful than Kerala’s 35 million.  But if Japan’s population is not to be sneezed at, then neither is Kerala’s.  A whole movement in psychology—cultural psychology—has drawn much energy from studying fractional exceptions like Japan and Kerala to the apparently universal.  And cultural psychology is gradually shaping the sense of the “actually universal” in general psychology, with psychology textbooks highlighting cultural differences in psychological processes, and cultural psychologists even becoming well-known public intellectuals like Jonathan Haidt1.

Now Japan specifically is a political ally of the United States, so studying it can feel like looking at some of the charming differences enjoyed between allies.  Even with Modi’s India also being a US ally, Kerala’s particularities—including its role as a pocket of resistance to Modi’s Hindu nationalist fascism within India—are more politically troublesome to study.  Though most psychologists are nominally “liberal”, a plutocratic militarist structural academic climate still hangs heavily over the psychology profession.  So Kerala will probably not be a household word among even cultural psychologists anytime soon.  Kerala’s benign-looking manifestations of communism, Islam, etc. will probably not be considered sexy by those whom many US psychologists beg hat-in-hand for grant money, status and fame.  If the political economic will were there, though, more cultural psychological attention to the study of Keralan particulars—and Kerala-illuminated universals—could skewer some paradigms to potentially explosive effect.

Scientifically speaking, I think Kerala could illustrate how apparently shocking exceptions to the supposedly universal can sometimes mask an illuminating embodiment of the actually universal.  In this case, the shocking universal that Kerala embodies exceptionally is that most ideologies are okay, and peace between them is better than the alternative.  More specifically, most of the ideological principles we humans have been stealing, raping, torturing and murdering for over the last century are both (a) pretty good, and (b) would have been better served by peaceful integration, or at least live-and-let-live coexistence.  Insofar as Kerala illustrates both the pretty-goodness and should-have-tried-to-get-alongness of the big three value foundations for the last century’s massive ideological projects, Kerala can be considered a cultural psychological goldmine.  Or rather it could be considered a self-interest-threatening landmine if what you want is the military, corporate or CIA funding that can make you a household name in psychology.  That’s because Kerala is, as per my title, the graveyard of all war propaganda.

Footnote

1. Haidt’s case illustrates the costs of once plucky and gadfly-like cultural psychology going mainstream.  Being a US public intellectual and a successful psychologist at the same time appears to require more fealty to structures of power in the US (the military, the intelligence agencies, and the peculiar form of “capitalism” practiced by US financial institutions and corporations) than is required for public intellectual success in other disciplines.  To some extent, Haidt embodies the gadfly critiques of cultural psychology.  He became a wealthy, famous public intellectual even while offending many rank-and-file psychologists with his attack on an apparent hegemony: the overwhelming prefer-Democrats-to-Republicans “liberalism” of rank-and-file US psychologists.  But perhaps his underdog success capitalizes on the fact that the psychology profession is minimally accountable to its rank and file.  With regard to the more powerful sources of hegemony affecting how psychology operates as a profession, Haidt has demonstrated considerably less inclination to offend them.  Even cultural psychology’s ideological organizer, Richard Shweder (whom Haidt studied under), appears to have felt the zeitgeist calling him to flatter these sources of power.

Ian Hansen, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Behavioral Sciences Department at York College, City University of New York, with a research focus on social psychology, religion, ideology, tolerance, and support for peace and pluralism. His core research interest is investigating psychological “odd bedfellows” phenomena with regard to religion and ideology.  He is also an active member in Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and served as its 2017 president.  

Feel the pain

Guest Post from the Steering Committee of Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR)

PsySR_Banner

Today’s post is a statement from the Steering Committee of the Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR), of which I am a member. As an organization focused on psychology’s contributions to peace and positive social change, PsySR is keenly aware of the profound psychological impact of living in a war zone, including the following:

 

  • Psychological distress in war zones is often as great as the physical suffering that receives more widespread attention. For some, including children, coping with issues of family separation, multiple losses, and bereavement can be even more unbearable than other health-related concerns.

 

  • People already under stress before an attack – from severe poverty, chronic exposure to harsh imposed restrictions, and past bloodshed – are likely to have stronger and more overwhelming psychological reactions to violence.

 

  • Prolonged fears of attack, powerful feelings of helplessness, and deep worries about family and community heighten the damaging psychological effects of life-threatening events and can contribute to ongoing cycles of violence.

 

  • The magnitude of psychological suffering in war zones can be mitigated somewhat by people’s immediate and continuing access to individual and family supports, along with broader efforts that are locally, culturally, and psychologically-informed.

 

As a result of the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, psychological suffering has overtaken communities across the Palestinian territories and Israel this summer. However, we believe that external financial support for community healing is particularly essential in Gaza. In our judgment, this is not only because Israeli forces have engaged in the disproportionate use of violence in recent weeks, including reported attacks on schools, hospitals, ambulances, and health professionals, but also because of the exceedingly difficult socioeconomic circumstances and the harsh and seemingly hopeless conditions brought about by the decades’ long occupation.

Ultimately, a just and lasting peace and a brighter future for Palestinians and Israelis alike will require that these psychological consequences and considerations receive serious and sustained attention.

With a special emphasis on vulnerable groups including children, women, and victims of torture and human rights violations, the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP) provides crucial and irreplaceable mental health services to thousands of Gaza residents. These services will be even more broadly and desperately needed in the days and months immediately ahead. Throughout its history, the GCMHP has also been firmly committed to nonviolent resistance and to working for a world where Palestinians and Israelis can live together in peace.

The Programme has suffered extensively from the fighting this past month, with several staff, including the director, suffering family losses. In times such as these, external aid can be important beyond the purely financial support by serving as an expression of caring and compassion from the outside world.

Organizing help for the GCMHP is one way that we, as psychologists and mental health providers, can counter the despair and hopelessness bred in all parties by this renewed outbreak of violence between Israel and Hamas. In so doing, we make a statement in support of human rights, mutual recognition and security, and a pathway to the reconciliation that must underlie a sustainable peace in this region.

Donations should be made by check payable to the Gaza Mental Health Foundation and mailed to the Gaza Mental Health Foundation, PO Box 380273, Cambridge, MA 02238. Please include your name, address, telephone number, and email address. 100% of your donation will be sent to GCMHP. Your donation is tax-deductible to the extent provided by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

For more information about this PsySR initiative, please email gazamentalhealth@psysr.org. A PDF version of this statement is available here.

   The Steering Committee of Psychologists for Social Responsibility

August 13, 2014

 

What is your TAQ (Torture Awareness Quotient)?

June is Torture Awareness Month.

Let’s see how you can do on our Torture Awareness quiz.

Choose the best answer to each of the following items:

  1. “Extraordinary rendition” means
    1. a so-so version of your favorite song
    2. forcible transfer of a person from one country to another without any judicial or administrative oversight.
  2. Since 9/11, the U.S. government has repeatedly violated both international and domestic prohibitions on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
    1. true
    2. false
  3. Torture does not violate international laws if it is done for purposes of national security.
    1. true
    2. false
  4. Torture does not violate international laws if it is intended to get information just in time to stop some imminent threat to harm large numbers of people.
    1. true
    2. false
  5. “Enhanced interrogation” is a euphemism for torture.
    1. true
    2. false
  6. Solitary confinement is torture
    1. true
    2. false
  7. Force feeding someone who refuses to eat is not torture.
    1. true
    2. false

Answers:

1: b;   2: a;   3: b;   4: b;   5: a;   6: a;  7: b

Some useful sources and resources:

1.Huffington post article

2. Amnesty International

3. Amnesty International

4. National Religious Council Against Torture

5.Physicians for Human Rights

6. PBS

7. UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights

Also learn about the role of the  Psychologists for Social Responsibility in fighting against torture and the role of some psychologists in inflicting torture.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology