In a World of Corporate-Backed Politicians, Beware the Sounds of Sirens

Odysseus is tempted by the swirling Sirens in Homer’s The Odyssey.

by Roy Eidelson

“Citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for more meaningful democracy.” — Noam Chomsky, 1989 (Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies)

My copy of Homer’s The Odyssey, a remnant of high school Latin days,has been gathering dust on a shelf for decades now. But I’ve been thinking more about the book in recent years, especially as my writing has increasingly turned to the psychology of propaganda. In that context, one of the epic poem’s most provocative passages chronicles the brief encounter between Ulysses and the Sirens during his ten-year voyage home from the Trojan War.

The two Sirens—peculiar creatures, part human and part animal—sit in a meadow where they warble songs that are, quite simply, lethal. Even the most disciplined sailors are drawn to the shore by the irresistible sounds, and they never depart. As Homer describes it, “There is a great heap of dead men’s bones lying all around, with the flesh still rotting off them.”

But Ulysses and his crew escape this fate, thanks to guidance from the goddess Circe. Her advice is clear and effective. Upon approaching the Sirens’ island, the crew should put wax in their ears and then bind Ulysses securely to the ship’s mast. In this way, he alone can safely listen to the enchanting songs, which purport to bestow wisdom and foretell the future.

So why consider this 3,000-year-old story now? Because for many Americans hoping to help steer our beleaguered country toward greater justice and equality, a pair of modern-day—albeit figurative—Sirens are seemingly always poised to draw us off course. Indeed, their beguiling appeals and promises will only grow louder and more persistent as we move ever closer to Election Day 2020. 

Not surprisingly, the first—and more ruthless—of the two is Donald Trump, with full-throated support from the Republican Party leadership. His repetitive refrain of fearmongering and racist dog-whistling—all under the guise of “Making America Great Again”—lures not only the intolerant but also some who are insecure and despairing. By contrast, the second can be found within the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Sadly, its own chorus promotes skepticism toward any progressive proposal—for example, a Green New Deal or Medicare for All—that could disrupt a status quo very favorable to the super-rich and powerful. 

These two Sirens certainly don’t sing identical songs. But both rely on the same choir directors for their music: namely, the behemoths of corporate America, including Wall Street, the oil and gas industry, military contractors, health insurers, Big Pharma, and media conglomerates. That’s why we’re serenaded with “only a huge defense budget can keep us safe;” “higher taxes on the wealthy will cripple our economy;” “a single-payer healthcare system can never work here;” “climate change disaster can be averted with small steps;” “minimum wage hikes will force mass layoffs;” and other similar claims. All are broadcast far and wide, even though they lack substance and run counter to the common good. 

Defenders of the billionaire class, from both sides of the aisle, also have prepared verses to advance the prospects of their don’t-rock-the-boat candidates. So we can expect to hear much of the following in the months ahead: dismissive critiques aimed at progressive leaders—young and old—whose vision and fearlessness threaten the existing order; angry condemnation of those who note troubling inconsistencies in the words and actions of so-called mainstream politicians; duplicitous efforts to label leftist reformers as out-of-touch “extremists” whose dangerous ideas won’t sell in Middle America; and overblown tributes focusing on “civility” and “bipartisanship” rather than the unflinching pursuit of justice and the public interest.

An abundant supply of wax and sturdy rope isn’t the answer for resisting the collective confusion and destruction wrought by today’s Sirens. That’s because we can’t afford to close our ears to their self-serving messages that mislead so many, nor can we afford to listen to their lies and distortions without responding. Unlike the challenge faced by Ulysses and his crew, these are voices that must be defeated, not merely escaped. 

A contemporary Circe might therefore offer a different recommendation for our circumstances: what psychologists call “attitude inoculation.” The basic idea comes from the familiar public health approach used to prevent contracting and spreading a contagious virus. Consider the flu vaccine. When you get a flu shot, you receive a modest dose of the actual influenza virus. Your body responds by building up the antibodies necessary to fight 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. 

The favorite mantras of today’s corporate-backed politicians are much like a virus that infects the public with false and harmful beliefs about what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible. So here too, inoculation is essential. Knowing that these hazardous appeals are heading our way, we must be vigilant and prepare in advance for the onslaught by learning to recognize deceitful claims and by developing cogent counterarguments to them. Once we’ve personally acquired this psychological “immunity,” then we’re ready to be first responders when it comes to inoculating others. 

To be clear, the Sirens I’ve described are far from the only obstacles to a brighter collective future, one in which hardship, mistreatment, and crushed aspirations are no longer a routine part of so many lives. But their manipulative pleas and cautionary tales, contrived to divert and divide, are undeniable threats to progress on the urgent journey before us.

********

Roy Eidelson, PhD, 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. He is the author of Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible.

Forewarned is Forearmed: Get Ready for Political Mind Games in 2019. Part 2

Image licensed under CCA-Share Alike 4.0 Internatl. Culture Jam activism sticker mentored by Avram Finkelstein, Center for Artistic Activism. Author: BettyTkao.

by Roy Eidelson

[One percenter mind games continued from December 26, 2018]

Distrust

“They’re Devious and Dishonest.”  From condemning labor activists to vilifying racial justice advocates, one-percenters will portray their adversaries as treacherous, devious, and evil in intent. With this mind game, they’ll encourage us to be suspicious and unsympathetic toward those who are facing difficult circumstances or insurmountable hardships. When this appeal works, we’re more likely to turn our backs on the victims of the self-aggrandizing rich and powerful.

“They’re Different from Us.” Whether they’re stigmatizing immigrant groups or progressive reformers, the 1% will describe those they deplore as unworthy of our trust, casting them as different and out of touch with what most Americans want. Whenever this deceitful ploy is successful, it leads potential allies to view each other as adversaries. In this way, natural coalitions that could develop among individuals and groups opposed to today’s plutocrats are squelched or destroyed.

“They’re Misguided and Misinformed.”  From the corruption on Wall Street to the further militarization of foreign policy, one-percenters will argue that their critics are misinformed and unreliable, and that their judgments are not to be trusted. Whenever we’re persuaded by such defensive appeals, we discount or entirely disregard important voices of dissent. Crucial opportunities for tackling inequality and advancing the common good are lost as a result.

“Trust Us.”  Whether it’s billionaire union-busters or lobby-backed politicians, the 1% will promote themselves as paragons of integrity. They know their efforts and policies will be much harder to counter if we mistakenly view them as trustworthy and selfless in word and deed. The weight of evidence doesn’t support this favorable image, but that reality doesn’t matter if we fail to recognize their devious misrepresentations, hollow promises, and corrupt enterprises.

Superiority

“They’re Losers.”  From reviling the homeless to disparaging the unemployed, today’s plutocrats will portray those who are down-and-out as inferior to the rest of us. With this mind game, they’ll encourage us to stand aloof from decent people who deserve our compassion and solidarity. And by boosting our own sense of self-worth, they’ll aim to discourage us from recognizing that the massive concentrations of wealth and power in this country reflect ruthless exploitation and unconscionable disregard of the needy.

“We’ve Earned It.”  Whether CEOs are defending their astronomical pay or claiming the mantle of indispensable job creators, one-percenters will fraudulently argue that they’ve earned everything they have through determination and fair play—and that they deserve our praise rather than criticism for their actions and choices. These assertions of superiority go hand in hand with the pursuit of ever greater dominance. As long as their self-glorifying narratives go uncontested, extreme inequality will remain a disturbing fixture of our society.

“Pursuing a Higher Purpose.”  From promoting inequality-boosting right-to-work legislation to defending human rights abuses, the 1% will insist that their actions embrace and protect the values we cherish. But prioritizing big-money interests subverts the vision of a nation of equal opportunity, where people from all walks of life join together for the common good. Despite this glaring contradiction, greed-driven appeals often succeed because they tap into our sense of pride over our country’s accomplishments and influence in the world.

“They’re Un-American.”  Whether they’re railing against desperate immigrants or kneeling football players, one-percenters will stoke intolerance by presenting their critics as inauthentic and unpatriotic Americans. They recognize that their rule will be jeopardized if unwelcome change-seekers gain broad support. So they’ll condemn those individuals and groups that refuse to silently accept hardship and mistreatment, characterizing them as ungrateful outsiders who fail to appreciate all that’s good about the United States.

Helplessness

“Change Is Impossible.”  From catastrophic climate change to inequality-boosting globalization, the 1% will insist that the world is shaped by forces much too powerful to be tamed by human intervention. Closer analysis, however, reveals that they lack the motivation—not the capacity—to exert influence over these disturbing phenomena. Indeed, even when they’re not the direct cause of others’ misery, too often they’re bystanders unwilling to use their enormous resources to benefit the common good.

“We’ll All Be Helpless.”  Whether they’re opposing gun reform measures or minimum wage hikes, one-percenters will warn us that changes will produce harmful repercussions that we’ll all be powerless to combat. The goal is to frighten us into accepting a status quo that serves their own interests but causes widespread damage to the public good. They hope that concerns about future helplessness will lead us to turn our backs on those suffering under the current system.

“Don’t Blame Us.”  From environmental disasters at home to reckless militarism overseas, the 1% will be quick to claim there’s nothing they could do when circumstances take a turn for the worse. Given their inordinate wealth and power, these cries of helplessness and blamelessness merit careful scrutiny. Although they strut the stage boasting about their purported talents and accomplishments, today’s plutocrats head for the shadows when it’s time to accept responsibility for their policy failures.

“Resistance Is Futile.”  Whether it’s protecting tax cuts for billionaires or flooding political campaigns with cash for future favors, the 1% will try to convince us that we’re helpless to wrest our lives and our country from their control. If we believe we’ll never succeed, our change efforts grind to a halt. But we should remember that one-percenters are susceptible to the disempowering effects of perceived helplessness too—if we can demonstrate our own collective power.

Resisting the 1%’s Mind Games

To reiterate: Any effective strategy for turning the tide on the 1% in 2019 depends upon countering and neutralizing these mind games. Concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness deserve to be important guides in policy debates and in efforts to advance the general welfare. But today’s plutocrats cunningly exploit these concerns solely for their own benefit, disregarding the harmful consequences that befall everyone else.

What, then, can we do? First, we should understand that the 1%’s mind games are much like a rampant virus that can infect unsuspecting people with false and democracy-endangering beliefs. Second, we should take the steps necessary to psychologically inoculate ourselves. That’s best accomplished by learning to recognize these flawed, manipulative appeals wherever they appear—in the media or in our neighborhoods—and by preparing forceful counter-arguments to them. And third, having become skilled “first responders,” we should organize others in our communities to do the same. The mission starts now.

Roy Eidelson, PhD, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, and the author of the new book POLITICAL MIND GAMES: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible. His website is www.royeidelson.com and he’s on Twitter at @royeidelson

This article was originally published on Counterpunch at https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/20/get-ready-for-these-political-mind-games-in-2019/

Political Mind Games: The Kavanaugh File

James Earle Fraser’s statue The Contemplation of Justice, which sits on the west side of the United States Supreme Court building, on the north side of the main entrance stairs. The sculpture was installed in 1935. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: Mark Wade.

By Roy Eidelson, PhD

When it comes to preserving their extraordinary wealth and power, the 1% count on manipulating the public’s understanding of what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible. My research shows that their favorite “mind games” often target our doubts and concerns in five domains: vulnerability (Are we safe?), injustice (Are we being treated fairly?), distrust (Who can we trust?), superiority (Are we good enough?), and helplessness (Can we control what happens to us?).

One-percenters are most accustomed to using deceitful yet psychologically persuasive appeals to control the narrative about big-picture issues ranging from domestic policy to national security. But in recent days, we’ve seen them turn to the same playbook in an effort to quell the controversy generated by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s credible allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee h Let’s consider several examples.

Source: U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (public domain)

Vulnerability. The 1%’s “It’s a False Alarm” mind game is typically used to downplay the societal harms caused by their self-serving priorities. Regardless of the evidence, they insist that adverse events—such as the ravages of climate change—are greatly exaggerated. So too in the Kavanaugh context. For instance, GOP operative Gina Sosa dismissively argued, “Tell me, what boy hasn’t done this in high school?” Similarly, conservative evangelist Franklin Graham claimed, even if the allegations are true, “There wasn’t a crime that was committed.”

Injustice. With the “We’re the Victims” mind game, one-percenters assert that they’re targets of mistreatment rather than perpetrators of wrongdoing. This artful role-reversal is witnessed whenever economic inequality takes center stage. That’s when they complain about receiving unfair criticism for billionaire tax cuts and no appreciation for the hard work that supposedly made them so wealthy. GOP Senators have employed this turnabout tactic in their defense of Kavanaugh. Lindsey Graham referred to the allegations as “a drive-by shooting” and Bob Corker lamented, “I can’t imagine the horror of being accused of something like this.”

Distrust. Another recurring mind game of the 1% is “They’re Devious and Dishonest.” Here, they assert that those who oppose their agenda—low-wage workers, prison reformers, anti-war activists—are deceitful and unworthy of the public’s trust. Their efforts to discredit Kavanaugh’s accuser are no different. Senator Orrin Hatch claimed that Dr. Ford’s allegation “reeks of opportunism”and President Trump tweeted: “If the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents.”

Superiority. In this domain, a favorite mind game of one-percenters is “Pursuing a Higher Purpose.” They insist that tainted actions—such as the torture of war-on-terror prisoners—must be evaluated within the context of the greater good and America’s enduring exceptionalism. In similar fashion, Kavanaugh’s defenders insist that his behavior from decades ago should be taken in stride. Conservative columnist Dennis Prager contended that the charges should be ignored because he’s “led a life of decency, integrity, commitment to family, and commitment to community that few Americans can match.” And Senator Hatch argued, “I think it would be hard for senators to not consider who the judge is today… Is this judge a really good man? …By any measure he is.”

Helplessness. Finally, with the “Resistance Is Futile” mind game, the 1% send a clear message to friend and foe alike: We’re in charge and that’s never going to change. Sometimes they drive this point home with threats; at other times, they turn to naked assertions of authority. Powerful defenders of the status quo regularly rely on this appeal when their policies—or their preferred candidates—are challenged. So it’s no surprise that Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell offered this reassurance to a Values Voters Summit audience: “In the very near future Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court…Don’t get rattled by all of this. We’re going to plow right through it.”

Other manipulative mind games also tap into issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. But these five examples should be sufficient to demonstrate a key point. There are striking and disturbing parallels between the 1%’s broad, ongoing assault on our democracy and their targeted maneuvers aimed at overcoming serious, legitimate questions about Brett Kavanaugh’s suitability for the Supreme Court. In both the war and the battle, they know that psychologically compelling appeals to our core concerns can carry the day—even when they’re as flimsy as a conman’s promises. That is, unless we’re ready for them.

Roy Eidelson, P.h.D., has been a practicing clinical, research, and political psychologist for over thirty years. His new book is titled Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible. Roy’s work focuses on “psychology for progressive purposes”—applying psychological knowledge to issues of social justice and social change. He is the former executive director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania and a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, an organization that works to address a range of pressing issues including poverty, racism, militarism, and climate change. He is also a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, where along with colleagues he has been an outspoken advocate in opposing torture and restoring psychology’s commitment to do-no-harm ethics.

Note from Kathie MM: Regarding the image for Dr. Eidelson’s post, I think it is all too sadly relevant that the person contemplating justice is a woman.  What connections do you make in this regard? (I think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)

“They’re Different from Us”: The Profiteers of Prejudice

 

March for justice after the greensboro massacre. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: The Romero Institute

By Roy Eidelson

They’re Different from Us.” It’s a favorite mind game of the 1% when they want to stifle broad opposition to their agenda. By manipulating our understanding of what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible, this psychological appeal takes advantage of prejudice to promote distrust and division within and across communities.

Today’s elites know that solidarity with the disadvantaged and mistreated is jeopardized whenever differences like race, gender, and religion are emphasized and exaggerated. That’s why so many one-percenters highlight these differences while downplaying similarities in the concerns and aspirations we all share. If this ploy works, it divides groups that might otherwise form a more united and more potent resistance. When such coalitions fail to materialize, the winners are the defenders of extreme inequality who’ve long ago forsaken the common good.

What makes these “They’re Different from Us” appeals psychologically effective is that we tend to view ingroup members more favorably than outgroup members. When we’re persuaded that someone belongs to the same group we do, we usually perceive them as more trustworthy, we hold them in higher regard, and we’re more willing to share scarce resources with them. In part, this positive bias reflects our belief that these individuals have a lot in common with us. Even if we’ve never met them, we imagine that their values, attitudes, and life experiences are probably similar to our own. However, if we see people as members of a different group instead, then we don’t care as much about their welfare and there’s a greater chance that we’ll view them as potential adversaries rather than allies. Such divisiveness is exactly what the 1% want.

The ambitions of one-percenters don’t require that they all hold explicitly racist or prejudiced attitudes about Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims, or other groups—although some obviously do. But even those who don’t can still take advantage of the fact that bigotry in the United States continues to divide individuals and groups whose collective futures could be brighter if unwarranted suspicions gave way to mutual respect and support. Law professor Ian Haney López has described this approach as strategic racism: “purposeful efforts to use racial animus as leverage to gain material wealth, political power, or heightened social standing.” Journalist Naomi Klein has similarly noted, “White supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia have been the elite’s most potent defenses against genuine democracy.”

Today it’s clear that the leadership of the Republican Party and many titans of corporate America are comfortable supporting—or at least acquiescing to—a litany of racist and discriminatory White House policies. Their reward includes billionaire tax cuts, windfall profits, deregulation of their industries, and other favors reserved for them alone. For some this is perhaps a devil’s bargain; for others, it’s undoubtedly considered a win-win situation.

If we want to focus on the kind of differences that truly matter, we should turn our attention to the striking divergences between the documented policy preferences of the 1% compared to the rest of us. In a nutshell, Americans in general are much stronger supporters of a higher minimum wage, labor unions to strengthen workers’ rights, affordable healthcare for everyone, a more progressive tax structure, higher taxes for high-income earners and corporations, government initiatives to decrease unemployment, and a stronger social welfare safety net for those facing adversity. These are all worthy and achievable goals. The first step is to recognize and reject the manipulative “They’re Different from Us” mind game that’s designed to divide us.

Note from Kathie MM:  This is a condensed version of an article originally published on Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201806/they-re-different-us-the-profiteers-prejudice