Symbol of anti-communist, anti-authoritarian, anti-totalitarian resistance. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: Nguyen1310
by Kathie MM
Authoritarian governments dislike facts and the promoters of facts—particularly independent journalists and scientists, because independent journalists and scientists are often the promoters of facts and scientific findings that do not feed into the self-serving agendas of the autocrats.
Among the scientists whose psychological insights on authoritarianism we have shared on engaging peace are Roy Eidelson , Anthony Marsella , and George Lakoff , all of whom have grave warnings about threats to democracy and human rights.
Today, for the lovers of peace and justice who are appalled by the authoritarian forces ruling our country today, here is some advice adapted from George Lakoff’s formula for flipping negative attacks by authoritarian power mongers into positive progress for Americans:
Don’t help spread negative messages by re-tweeting them or forwarding them with their own abominable negative language and disinformation intact.
Do focus on the correct information, the alternative messages designed to promote peace and justice.
Do talk to people about what’s happening in the country right now.
Frame your arguments, your recommendations about healing our government, in your own words, focusing on the good things you want to see happen rather than the bad things being promoted by the authoritarians. In addition,
Crowds of anti-Trump and pro-Trump protesters meet at the Minnesota State Capitol. March 4, 2017, This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Author: Fibonacci Blue from Minnesota, USA.
by Roy Eidelson
Trump’s high-profile attacks on the protesting NFL players who “take a knee” give direction and inspiration to his authoritarian supporters. Using the flag and anthem as compelling but deceptive props, he and his surrogates smear critics as inauthentic, ungrateful, and unpatriotic Americans whose views and preferences undermine the country’s greatness. The onslaught against these athletes is just a microcosm of the dishonest offensives that target the broader Black Lives Matter movement. For instance, former Fox News star Bill O’Reilly told his TV audience that the movement is “essentially a hate America group.” Current network kingpin Sean Hannity compared Black Lives Matter to the Ku Klux Klan. And frequent Fox guest Rudy Giuliani argued that the group is “inherently racist” and “puts a target on the back of police.”
The reality is quite different. Launched by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi after the killing of teenager Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman back in 2012, Black Lives Matter is “an ideological and political intervention” and “an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.” The group’s policy recommendations include criminal justice reforms; demilitarization of local police forces; community oversight in cases of police misconduct; greater investments in education, jobs, and health services; and a commission to study reparations for harms suffered by descendants of slaves. Fortunately, despite ongoing right-wing efforts at misrepresentation, a Pew Research Center poll from last summer shows that far more Americans support the movement than oppose it—and this is especially true among younger adults.
But overt racism isn’t the sole engine that drives opposition to Black Lives Matter and the NFL player protests. Like every social movement, these efforts represent a threat to those who benefit most from the status quo. Atop that list are Trump himself and other tremendously wealthy Americans who choose to exploit their political power in order to advance selfish interests at the expense of the greater good. For them, billionaire tax cuts are worth any price and outspoken celebrities, including professional athletes, are a serious annoyance. That’s because they turn the public’s attention away from the mass consumerism that one-percenters work hard to cultivate and also give voice to the mistreatment of millions who, in light of their circumstances, might otherwise never be heard. In short, authoritarians and plutocrats find common ground and shared purpose in the ruthless betrayal of democratic principles and equal justice under the law.
Pro-Donald Trump rally in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2017. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Author: Ted Eytan from Washington, DC.
by Roy Eidelson
Note from Kathie MM: The theme of engaging peace, since its inception, has been “From study to action . . . Choosing peace for good.” Dr. Eidelson’s two-part essay, like his earlier ones (e.g., see here , and here ) illustrates effectively how psychological research studies can help us understand how ordinary people can become supporters of dangerous people and policies that threaten not only democracy and human rights but also classic ethical principles such as the Golden Rule. As for action, engaging peace’s goal has always been to support nonviolent resistance to the violence so often embodied in the isms–racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, fascism, etc. (and, consort to all of them, militarism). The insights in this article should help you do your part.
Authoritarians, Plutocrats, and the Fight for Racial Justice, Part 1
by Roy Eidelson
On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump routinely lashed out at protesters brazen enough to disrupt his choreographed rallies. In Birmingham, Alabama, he shouted, “Get him out of here. Throw him out!” The next day he added, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.” In Burlington, Vermont, Trump ordered his security personnel to “Throw them out into the cold…Don’t give them their coats. No coats! Confiscate their coats.” In Las Vegas, Nevada, he told the crowd, “I’d like to punch him in the face” and reminisced about earlier days when demonstrators would be “carried out on stretchers.”
Trump’s belligerent stance toward dissent provides context for the National Football League’s decision last week: players on the field will now be required to stand during the national anthem. In adopting this restrictive policy, billionaire owners of professional sports franchises have chosen to serve as Trump’s newest security guards, responsible for keeping all reminders of today’s racial injustice and police brutality as far from the fifty-yard-line as possible. Not surprisingly, Trump was quick to publicly endorse the change: “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there, maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”
Such pronouncements from the most powerful person in the world are jaw-dropping. Yet Trump’s strongman antics haven’t actually changed very much from his days inflaming the crowds—“Lock her up! Lock her up!”—in Birmingham, Burlington, Las Vegas, and beyond. What is different now, however, is that President Trump sees the entire country—over three-hundred million strong—as his own gigantic arena. Those who share his intolerant, racist, and plutocratic agenda are always welcome to participate in his round-the-clock “Make America Great Again” soapbox performances. For anyone else, the gates are closed. The alternatives he offers range from disregard to demonization to deportation.
Regrettably, Trump’s divisive language and outlandish policy prescriptions resonate well with the many Americans who give undue and uncritical support to those in positions of power. Excessive deference makes us surprisingly easy targets for manipulative appeals designed to stoke our fear, distrust, and contempt of others who are “different.” Indeed, a psychological mindset called right-wing authoritarianism, characterized by a strong tendency to condemn anyone who questions established authority, is more common than we might wish.
Psychologist Bob Altemeyer has identified three specific markers of this mindset. The first is authoritarian submission, which involves strict obedience toward the designated leaders of a group. The second is authoritarian aggression, which takes the form of deep hostility toward those who appear to fall short of the group’s rigid standards. The third marker is conventionalism, which revolves around dutifully honoring and observing the group’s traditions and norms.
Right-wing authoritarians—members of the neo-Nazi, white supremacist “alt-right” are perhaps today’s most extreme examples—consider group boundaries to be sacrosanct. They value conformity and find diversity alarming. For them, clear and firm borders protect those inside the circle from those who are outside and are deemed undeserving of inclusion. Research has linked this psychological profile to ugly prejudices—including toward people of color, immigrants, those who are unemployed, and people with disabilities. But the specific prejudices aren’t entirely fixed. Since these individuals submissively look to their leaders to tell them which groups to reject, they’re primed to change course or focus when directed to do so.
Note from KMM: Are you satisfied with the way things are going in this country today? or wondering what the heck went wrong and why we seem to be in such a mess? if you want some answers and want to know what to do about everything that has gone awry, read D. Roy Eidelson’s new book: POLITICAL MIND GAMES: How the 1% manipulate our understanding of what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible.
Post by Roy Eidelson
Giant corporations are raking in record profits, while millions of Americans remain scarred by the Great Recession and a recovery that has left them behind. Mammoth defense contractors push for more of everything military, while programs for the poor are on life support. Global polluters are blocking effective responses to climate change, while the disenfranchised suffer disproportionately from environmental disasters and devastation. Influential voices ridicule those who are disadvantaged by prejudice, by discrimination, and by dwindling resources. All the while, our middle class is shrinking, imperiled, and insecure. This is not the America most of us want.
It’s really no secret that certain individuals and groups — the Koch brothers, Walmart heirs, some Wall Street CEOs, prominent politicians (many Republicans, and some Democrats too), big-business lobbyists, right-wing think tanks, Fox News — use their wealth and influence to pursue a self-serving agenda that betrays the common good. Indeed, they’ve been doing it since long before Donald J. Trump moved into the White House. But what often flies under the radar is the extent to which they rely on psychologically manipulative appeals to advance their narrow interests at the expense of the rest of us. Examples include “The dangers of global warming are overblown,” “Voter fraud is a rampant injustice,” “Workers protesting low wages are devious and dishonest,” “We’ve earned every dollar and deserve your praise, not criticism,” and “Everyone will be helpless if gun reformers have their way.”
In my new book, POLITICAL MIND GAMES: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible, I explain the psychology behind the success of today’s plutocrats in marketing their false claims — and what we can do to counter them. Offering a research-based framework, I show how the 1% exploit five fundamental concerns that govern our daily lives: issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. These concerns are soft targets for manipulation because each is linked to a basic question we ask ourselves as we try to make sense of the world around us. Consider:
Are we safe? Whether as passing thoughts or haunting worries, we wonder if we’re safe, if the people we care about are in harm’s way, and if danger lurks on the horizon. Our judgments on these matters go a long way in determining the choices we make and the actions we take. But we’re not particularly good at assessing our vulnerability. Among the ways that the 1% use this shortcoming to their advantage is by promoting alarmist accounts of the perils associated with change.
Are we being treated fairly? Cases of mistreatment frequently stir our anger and our desire to bring accountability to those we hold responsible. But our perceptions of what’s just and what’s not are far from perfect. This makes us ripe for exploitation by those eager to shape our views of right and wrong. That’s a key tactic for today’s plutocrats, and portraying their own selfish actions as efforts to address injustice—on our behalf—is just one of their ploys.
Who should we trust? We tend to divide the world into people and groups we deem trustworthy and others we don’t. When we get it right, we can avoid harm from those who have hostile intentions, while building valuable relationships with those who enhance our lives. But here too our judgments are sometimes unreliable. Among the ways the 1% exploit our doubts is by intentionally fostering distrust in order to divide the ranks of their adversaries.
Are we good enough? We’re quick to compare ourselves to others, often with the hope of demonstrating that we’re worthy of respect or admiration. But the impressions we have about our own worth—and the positive or negative qualities we see in other people—are intrinsically subjective. As a result, they’re susceptible to manipulation. One way plutocrats capitalize on this is by insisting that those who are struggling to get by are simply inferior to the rest of us.
Can we control what happens to us? Feelings of helplessness can pose a substantial obstacle in both personal and collective initiatives. When we lack confidence in our capabilities, we’re more inclined to give up and abandon our goals, and less likely to show resilience in the face of setbacks. The 1% take advantage of this inclination in several ways, including by telling us that stark inequalities are the result of powerful forces beyond everyone’s control.
In responding to these questions, today’s plutocrats are masters at using duplicitous mind games—like “It’s a Dangerous World,” “No Injustice Here,” “They’re Different from Us,” “Pursuing a Higher Purpose,” and “Don’t Blame Us”—to lead us away from a more equal and more decent society. Their answers are designed to manipulate our perceptions and emotions while distracting us from careful evaluation of arguments and evidence. Rather than viewing concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness as guideposts for improving the general welfare, the 1% exploit them to advance their interests and derail effective opposition to their rule.
Political Mind Games was written with a clear purpose: to help inoculate the public against the 1%’s self-serving appeals. When we expose and debunk their mind games, the plutocrats’ empty rhetoric loses its allure, their selfish motives are laid bare, and everyone can see clearly how a privileged few have fleeced and forsaken the country—and the people—that made their enormous wealth and power possible. In turn, this recognition lays the groundwork for the coalition-building and collective action that can restore and reinvigorate our democratic principles and commitments.
Dr. Roy Eidelson has been a practicing clinical, research, and political psychologist for over thirty years. His work focuses on 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. He is also a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, which advocates against complicity in torture and in favor of restoring psychology’s commitment to do-no-harm ethics
Note from KMM: Are you satisfied with the way things are going in this country today? or wondering what the heck went wrong and why we seem to be in such a mess? if you want some answers and want to know what to do about everything that has gone awry, read D. Roy Eidelson’s new book: POLITICAL MIND GAMES: How the 1% manipulate our understanding of what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible. 