Resisting the Mind Games of Donald Trump and the One Percent, Part 3

Title page of The Golden Fleece by William Vaughan (1577-1641). 1626. In the public domain. Memorial University of Newfoundland website (and there is fleecing going on in the public domain today too). us-public-domain-tag

My last post shows how lies and manipulations have the country into a state of ever-growing fear and anger.  Unfortunately, without active resistance, the current crisis may go….

From Bad to Worse

To be clear, it certainly makes sense that our core concerns — about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness — should be front-and-center when it comes to thoughtful deliberations about matters of public policy and the common good. Meaningful, far-reaching progressive change requires nothing less. But it’s profoundly destructive — and deeply immoral — when these concerns are instead exploited in a manipulative and disingenuous manner to advance narrow interests that bring harm and suffering to so many. That’s the legacy of Trump’s successful presidential campaign. It’s also a disturbing preview of what we should expect from him and his administration going forward.

At the same time, we shouldn’t mistake Trump’s targeting of these concerns as unique. Indeed, back when he was known as just an ethically impaired real estate mogul and entertainer, other plutocracy-enabling leaders in both major parties were relying on similar psychological mind games: to block climate change initiatives (Senator James Inhofe in 2003: “Could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.”); to justify voter suppression tactics (Texas Governor Greg Abbott in 2006: “In Texas, an epidemic of voter fraud is harming the electoral process.”); to defend discriminatory law enforcement practices (former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on stop-and-frisk in 2014: “Every American has a right to walk down the street without getting mugged or killed.”); to oppose wage hikes (New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2012: “Here’s what’s going to happen — they’re going to have to lay people off.”); to preserve healthcare as a profiteer’s paradise (Senator Rand Paul on healthcare as a right in 2011: “I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery.”); to protect tax breaks for the super-rich (U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, on the estate tax in 2015: “The death tax is unfair and in conflict with the American Dream”); to turn public education over to greedy privatizers (former Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan on the 2010 premiere of a pro-charter school, anti-teachers’ union film: a “Rosa Parks moment”); and to galvanize support for deadly wars of choice (President George W. Bush in 2002: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”). Those are just a handful of examples.

In some ways, then, Trump’s move to Washington will simply reinvigorate a well-entrenched predatory agenda that already enriches the few at the expense of everyone else. But there’s also something that clearly makes him qualitatively worse than many other prevaricating one-percenters: he brings to the White House a toxic brew of bigotry, belligerence, and brutality. This has obvious and far-reaching significance. It means that those who are now disadvantaged — especially people of color and other marginalized groups — will face even tougher times ahead as scapegoating and misdirected hostility intensify.

But Resistance Isn’t Futile

There are avenues for withstanding and rebuffing the coming onslaught. The mind games used by Trump and others like him are primarily designed to mislead, to confuse, and, most importantly, to suppress broad opposition to extreme inequality and the withering of democracy. That’s why their worst nightmare is the formation of strong coalitions that bridge stubborn cultural, racial, religious, gender, and class divides. Building and nurturing these coalitions must therefore be a top priority. It’s an endeavor that will require unwavering support for those most immediately at risk and, simultaneously, a clear recognition of what we share in common: voices that have grown weaker, opportunities that have grown scarcer, and children whose futures have grown dimmer. In short, organized and unrelenting resistance will be a key element in obstructing the new administration’s calamitous ambitions.

It will be equally important to directly counter and debunk the President-Elect’s continuing barrage of duplicitous psychological appeals. During the election campaign, this effort proved inadequate. In part that’s because there was a widespread failure to fully appreciate the extent to which Trump’s false claims and assurances rang true for millions of disgruntled voters eager for change. Just as problematically, his final opponent was ill-suited to persuasively offer a compelling alternative narrative, one that would energize an electorate yearning for a candidate who’d take their fears, doubts, frustrations, and hopes seriously.

The 2016 election is over. Now it’s time to work together to make sure that Donald Trump’s hollow tales lose their luster and his self-aggrandizing motives are laid bare for all to see. In the weeks and months ahead, Americans of all stripes must come to realize that, through artifice and manipulation, super-sized hucksters have fleeced and betrayed the country and the people that made their staggering wealth and power possible.

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

 

Who are the real environmental terrorists??? Part 2.

 

An estimated crowd of 35-50,000 gathers near the Washington Monument on Feb 17, 2013 to protest the Keystone XL pipeline and support action on climate change.
Image by Jmcdaid and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Identifying the real environmental terrorists, the despoilers of planet earth, the greedy deniers of climate change who toss the future of our world to the smoggy winds, is not such a difficult task. The more critical question right now is who will take them on? Who will work to end the madness?

A recent report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication reveals that there are a lot of Americans who say they will take action.  Based on their research, the program reports that nearly 30% of Americans have joined or would join a campaign to convince elected officials to take action to reduce global warming.

And, perhaps most important, “One in four Americans would support an organization engaging in non-violent civil disobedience against corporate or government activities that make global warming worse (24%) and one in six (17%) say they would personally engage in such activities.”

Certainly Americans and others around the world are personally engaging in protests against Big Oil, Big Coal, Gigantic Corporate Media and other mega-groups too big for their britches.

In a recent Truthout article, Jeremy Brecher gives us some cause for optimism. From May 4-15, 2016, just a couple of months from now,  environmental groups from around the world, including Greenpeace, will hold a global week of action called Break Free From Fossil Fuels.

The profiteers who wreak havoc on our environment will want to call the protestors environmental terrorists if they put a foot over the wrong line, but the environmentalists are not going to let the power brokers define them.  As Brecher says, “Break Free From Fossil Fuels participants will define themselves to the movement, the public and the courts not as criminals but as law-enforcers trying to enforce legal rights and halt governments and corporations from committing the greatest crime in human history.”

Those of us who want the earth to survive would do well to support that movement.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Who are the real environmental terrorists??? Part 1.

Anti-fracking demonstration outside New York Governor Cuomo’s office, Third Avenue, Manhattan, NY. 9 Oct 2012.
Image by Adam Welz and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Terrorism is bad, right? Anyone labeled a “terrorist” should be avoided at all costs, treated like a pariah, knocked out, locked up for life, right? Well, not necessarily. It depends on who is using the label and why.

People in power, particularly powerfully abusive people, eagerly throw the terrorist designation at anyone who confronts them, however non-violent the confrontation may be.

One blatant misuse of “terrorism” is perpetrated by exploiters, abusers, and destroyers of our environment. This particular group of environmental evil doers revels in its zealous application  of the terms “environmental terrorism” and “eco-terrorism”  to anyone they don’t like.  Do they unleash those epithets to describe:

  • The freaky frackers that violate health and safety rules and regulations, poison the atmosphere, pollute the soil, endanger drinking water, and dispose of waste products improperly? 
  • The coal companies, financed by big banks, that blow off entire mountaintops, clearcut thousands of acres of forest, and pollute drinking water with their waste?
  • The industries contributing to the ever-increasing dangers of global warming?

No.

How do members of the military industrial complex and corporate media use the term “environmental terrorism”?

They apply it to groups and individuals such as the following, classified by the FBI as special interest domestic terrorist groups

What do you think? Who are the real environmental terrorists? What groups are threatening our survival?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

The unpublicized victim of war

“Though mankind has always counted its war casualties in terms of dead and wounded soldiers and civilians, destroyed cities and livelihoods, the environment has often remained the unpublicized victim of war.”  –United Nations

Tuesday November 6 is International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. First designated by the U.N. General Assembly in 2001, this day each year offers an opportunity to consider the many ways in which war and the environment are inextricably intertwined:

  • Armed conflict, as well as weapons production and testing, lead to environmental pollution and other forms of ecological devastation.
  • Wartime tactics include deliberately targeting ecosystems (e.g., draining marshland or burning cropland) to inflict pain on the opposition and gain military advantage.
  • Military use of fossil fuels is a prime contributor to climate change.
  • Conflicts over natural resources (e.g., oil, water and minerals) are leading causes of war.
  • Profits from the exploitation of natural resources are used to fund armed conflicts.
  • Prevention of war requires protection and stewardship of environmental resources.

Engaging Peace has explored many of these issues in previous posts:

  • The U.S. war in Iraq has left a trail of environmental devastation and adverse health impacts for survivors.  (For example, see post on Fallujah.)
  • The U.S. military is the single biggest contributor to global warming pollution. (See 2011 Earth Day post).
  • Resource extraction in the Democratic Republic of the Congo fuels rebellion and relies on child labor.
  • Nuclear war has the potential to annihilate entire populations of people and wildlife, poisoning their ecosystems for generations.
  • Efforts to unite the peace and environmental movements recognize that preventing war helps to preserve the environment–and vice versa.

A healthy ecosystem and access to natural resources are necessities for a peaceful world. Likewise, eliminating war would significantly impact the health of the planet.

How might your own peace activism embrace the goals of environmental activism?

Dr. Pat Daniel, Managing Editor of Engaging Peace