by Kathie Malley-Morrison, Pat Daniel, and Joe Kandra
Please join us in celebrating the move of Engaging Peace to its new home with Mass Peace Action (MAPA). This cartoon reflects our intent to join not only with MAPA but also with countless collaborators in the broader peace movement.
Let a million flowers of peace bloom!
Our thanks go to all of you who participated in the Engaging Peace mission by submitting articles, comments, poems, artwork, videos, cartoons, and donations. Thanks also to the volunteers, interns, and board members* who supported this work. Our effort to engage peace would not have continued for more than 10 years without you.
Many thanks also to all of you who read our posts and learned about how the plutocrats, the military industrial complex, the war profiteers, and the corrupters of human beings and environments promote moral disengagement in ordinary people, making them believe that doing harm is doing good.
Thank you also for reading the many stories by and about ordinary people who have become morally engaged, who speak truth to power, who strive to live by the Golden Rule, and who recognize that we are all members of the same human race and that we are all responsible for the environment in which we live.
Your own peace activism is now more important than ever. Please continue your own grassroots efforts and join with other peace and social justice groups in your own community, state, and nation.
Peace and love,
The Engaging Peace Team (Kathie, Pat, and Joe
* Special thanks to current and past members of the EP board of directors: Alice LoCicero, Doe West, Susan Strobel, and Dot Walsh.
P,S. Please come see Pat, Joe, and me at our webinar for Mass Peace Action Thursday May 27 at 7. Click here for the announcemnt and registration link. We’d love to see you there.
There are many others, but what I’ve described
are ten important examples of the mind games that war profiteers have
used and will use to pursue their aims. Because these appeals
often have the ring of truth even though they’re as flimsy as a conman’s
promises, combating them can be daunting. But we shouldn’t be discouraged.
Scientific research on the psychology of persuasion offers a guide to how we
can hold firm against the war machine’s self-serving propaganda.
One key is what psychologists call “attitude
inoculation.” The basic idea comes from the familiar public health approach
used to prevent contracting and spreading a dangerous virus. Consider the flu
vaccine. When you get a flu shot, you’re receiving a modest dose of the actual
influenza virus. Your body responds by building up antibodies, which will prove
essential in fighting off the full-blown virus if it later attacks as you go
about your daily life. A flu shot doesn’t always work, but it
improves your odds of staying healthy. That’s why we’re encouraged to get one
each year before the flu season begins.
Consider, then, that the war profiteers’ mind
games are similarly like a virus, one that can “infect” us with false and
destructive beliefs. Here too, inoculation is the best defense.
Having been warned that this “virus” is heading our way—spread by the enormous
megaphones of the military-industrial complex—we can become vigilant and
prepare ourselves for the onslaught by learning to recognize these mind games
and by building and practicing counterarguments to them.
For example, contrary to the claims of
warmongers, the use of military force often makes us more vulnerable, not
less: by multiplying our enemies, placing our soldiers in harm’s way, and
distracting us from other pressing needs. Likewise, military action can be a
profound injustice in its own right—because it kills, maims, and
displaces untold numbers of innocent people, with many becoming refugees, and
because it drains resources from critical domestic programs. So
too, distrust of a potential adversary is hardly sufficient grounds
for military assault, especially when opportunities for diplomacy and
negotiation are prematurely pushed aside. And when it comes
to superiority, unilateral aggression certainly doesn’t represent the
best of our values, and it often diminishes our image and influence
in the world beyond our borders. Finally, there’s a proud history of
non-violent civil resistance, with successes large and small, and it shows us
that the people—educated, organized and mobilized—are far
from helpless against even unbridled and abusive power.
Counterarguments of this sort—and there are
many—are the “antibodies” that we need when we’re faced with all-out mind game
assaults from the war machine and its supporters. Just as importantly, once
we’ve inoculated ourselves against them, we’re able to become “first
responders” by actively participating in the crucial discussions and debates
that are necessary to persuade others that it would be worth their while to try
looking at the world differently from the way the war profiteers want
us all to see it. In these conversations, it’s especially important for us to
emphasize why representatives of the war machine want us to cling to
certain beliefs, and how they are the ones who benefit when we do. In
general, when we encourage skepticism and critical thinking in this way, it
makes us less susceptible to misinformation from those looking to take
advantage of us for their own selfish purposes.
I’ll conclude by briefly quoting two very different people.
First, returning to West Point, there’s this from a cadet who graduated over a
hundred years ago: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every
rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and
are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” That was retired General
Dwight Eisenhower, shortly after being elected President in 1952. And second,
the late anti-war activist Father Daniel Berrigan reportedly gave the shortest
high school graduation speech ever in New York City. All he said was this:
“Know where you stand, and stand there.” Let’s do that together. Thank
you.
Let’s move to the third core concern manipulated by the war profiteers: distrust. We tend to divide the world into those we find trustworthy and those we don’t. Where we draw that line matters a lot. When we get it right, we avoid harm from those who have hostile intentions, and we’re able to enjoy the rewards of collaborative relationships. But we often make these judgments with only limited information of uncertain reliability. As a result, our conclusions about the trustworthiness of particular people, groups, and sources of information are frequently flawed and problematic, especially when others with ulterior motives—warmongers immediately come to mind—have influenced our thinking.
For instance, “They’re Different from Us” is
one distrust mind game that war profiteers rely on when trying to win over
the public’s support. They use it to encourage our suspicions of other groups
by arguing that they don’t share our values, our priorities, or our
principles. We see this regularly, including in the highly lucrative business
of promoting Islamophobia, and also when other nations are repeatedly
characterized as primitive and barbaric. This mind game works because,
psychologically, when we don’t perceive someone as part of our
ingroup, we tend to view them as less trustworthy, we hold them
in lower regard, and we’re less willing to share scarce
resources with them. So, convincing the American public that a group is truly
different or deviant is a significant step toward diminishing our concern for
their welfare.
At the same time, representatives of the war machine turn to a
second distrust appeal—the “They’re Misguided and Misinformed” mind game—to
smear anti-war opponents. They spur distrust toward these critics by arguing
that they lack sufficient knowledge, or suffer from unrecognized biases, or are
the victims of others’ intentional misinformation—and that, as a result, their
dissenting views are unworthy of serious consideration. So, for example, the
war profiteers disparage and try to discredit anti-war groups like World Beyond
War, Code Pink, and Veterans for Peace with demonstrably false claims that the
activists don’t understand the real causes of the problems they seek to fix,
and that their proposed remedies will only make matters worse for everyone. In
fact, the actual evidence rarely supports the positions of endless war
enthusiasts. When this mind game is successful, the public disregards important
voices of dissent. And when that happens, crucial opportunities for tackling
out-of-control militarism and advancing the common good are lost.
Turning now to the fourth core
concern, superiority, we’re quick to compare ourselves to others, often in
an effort to demonstrate that we’re worthy of respect. Sometimes this desire is
even stronger: we want confirmation that we’re better in some
important way—perhaps in our accomplishments, or in our values, or in our
contributions to society. But in these efforts to bolster our own positive
self-appraisals, we’re sometimes encouraged to perceive and portray others in
as negative a light as possible, even to the point of dehumanizing them. And
since the judgments we make about our own worth—and the qualities of others—are
often quite subjective, these impressions are also susceptible to manipulation
by the war machine.
For example, the “Pursuing A Higher Purpose”
mind game is one way that war profiteers appeal to superiority in order to
build public support for endless war. Here, they present their actions as an
affirmation of American exceptionalism, insisting that their policies have deep
moral underpinnings and reflect the cherished principles that lift this country
above others—even when what they’re defending is the pardoning of war
criminals; or the torturing of terrorism suspects; or the internment of
Japanese-Americans; or the violent overthrow of elected leaders in other
countries, to name just a few instances. When this mind game succeeds, contrary
indicators—of which there are a lot—are disingenuously explained away as
the mere, small imperfections that always come with the pursuit of collective
greatness. Too often, the public is fooled when greed is disguised in ways that
tap into our sense of pride in our country’s accomplishments and its influence
in the world.
Representatives of the war machine
simultaneously aim to marginalize their critics with a second superiority
appeal: the “They’re Un-American” mind game. Here, they portray those who
oppose them as disgruntled and unappreciative of the United States and the
values and traditions that “real Americans” hold dear. In doing so, they take
particular advantage of the public’s entrenched respect and deference toward
all things military. In this way, they prey on the allure of what psychologists
call “blind patriotism.” This ideological stance involves the staunch
conviction that one’s country is never wrong in its actions or
policies, that allegiance to the country must be unquestioning and absolute,
and that criticism of the country cannot be tolerated. When this mind
game is successful, anti-war forces are further isolated and dissent is ignored
or suppressed.
Finally, in regard to our fifth core concern,
real or perceived helplessness can sink any undertaking. That’s
because believing we can’t control important outcomes in our lives leads to
resignation, which wrecks our motivation to work toward valuable personal or
collective objectives. Social change efforts are severely hampered when people
feel that working together won’t improve their circumstances. The belief that
adversity can’t be overcome is something we fight hard to resist. But if we
reach that demoralizing conclusion anyway, its effects can be paralyzing and
difficult to reverse, and warmongers use this to their advantage.
For instance, the “We’ll All Be Helpless” mind game is one way
that war profiteers appeal to helplessness in order to win over to the public’s
support. They warn us that if we fail to follow their guidance on purported
national security matters, the result will be dire circumstances from which the
country may be unable to ever escape. In short, we’ll be much worse off, and
without the capacity to undo the damage. The threat that so upsets advocates of
endless war may be a proposal to restrict domestic surveillance; or an effort to
intensify diplomatic overtures rather than military interventions; or a plan to
place limits on runaway Pentagon spending; or calls to reduce our nuclear
arsenal—all reasonable paths to protecting human rights and encouraging peace.
Unfortunately, prospects of future helplessness are often frightening enough
that even deeply flawed arguments against worthwhile recommendations can seem
persuasive to an apprehensive public.
At the same time, the war machine works to disempower its critics with a second helplessness appeal: the “Resistance Is Futile” mind game. The message here is simple. We’re in charge and that’s not going to change. Innumerable lobbyists, high-tech displays of “shock and awe” weaponry, and not-so-subtle carrots and sticks with our elected officials are used to create an aura of invincibility against anti-war efforts that aim to moderate the military-industrial complex’s outsized footprints and profits. They work to demoralize, sideline, ostracize, threaten, and intimidate those who seek to restrain them. This ploy works if we’re convinced that we can’t succeed against the war profiteers, because then our change efforts quickly grind to a halt or never get off the ground.
Note from Kathie MM: Visit Engaging Peace Friday for the final post in Dr. Eidelson’s current series. And think activism.
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.