Not too long ago I read some comment on an article in the Huffington Post by a conservative who stated that President Obama was the "worst" president ever. As is usually the case, the claimant provided no parameters for this judgment. Nor did he provide any examples. Some people seem to think that if they state something often enough, that it makes it true. But it got me to thinking. If we take the basis for the common criticisms of Obama, who, I wondered, would be considered the worst president using those criteria? It quickly became apparent who the worst had to be.
Obama is criticized for raising the debt too much. The worst president raised the debt much more on a percentage basis than Obama, even after he campaigned for a balanced budget. In fact, when he left office, the debt was much larger a percentage of the economy than it is now, the worst, in fact, in US history. Nope, this guy was much worse than Obama.
Another complaint about Obama is how bad the economy is now. Critics like to point out that a member of his administration claimed the unemployment rate wouldn't get above 8% if the stimulus bill were passed. It got up to 10.3% and is now still 8.3%. Well, that's nothing. After 8 years in office, unemployment was around 12% for the worst president.
Another criticism of Obama is that he is dividing the nation, engaging in class warfare. Yet in his last major negotiation with the Republicans, the Republican leader John Boehner later said that he, Boehner, got 98% of what he wanted. The worst president rarely if ever negotiated with his opponents. He also openly engaged in class warfare. He railed against what he called economic royalists. In one speech he famously said, I know that some people hate me because of my policies. "I welcome their hatred!" Much worse than Obama for sure.
Obama is criticized for being a socialist and wanting to impose European policies on America. If that were true of his health care bill, private insurance companies would be outlawed and we would have a government run health care system like most all of Europe. The worst president's major social legislation was adopted almost completely from European examples, with little difference from them. His critics not only called him and his policies socialist, they said they were the forerunners of communism. The critics said that the worst president's policies were ruining the nation.
According to his critics, Obama's attempts to regulate the financial institutions are a terrible assault on free enterprise that will stifle the economy. Ah, but the worst president went far beyond that. His major financial regulations were more stringent than Obama's bill. The worst president also established not just one, but a whole slew of new regulatory agencies. He also did a lot to help labor unions, something Obama hasn't even attempted. Again there is no contest.
People have complained about Obama continuing the war in Afghanistan, even though most people no longer support that war. That's nothing. The worst president, despite overwhelming public sentiment against war, actively sought to get the United States into an unpopular war even while the US was at peace. Moreover, he goaded other nations to the point that they attacked US forces. And yet, although the worst president wanted the US to get into war, when we were attacked, we were caught by surprise. I know it is unbelievable,but it is true.
Critics on the left have complained that Obama has not changed enough the policies of the Bush administration that some claim deny civil liberties. Critics on the right warn that Obama may take away your guns and round up dissidents. Well, the worst president outdid all that. Without trial or any legal justification, the worst president rounded up and jailed over 100,000 people without any proof as to their danger. It was probably the worst case of denial of civil liberties in US history.
There's even more that doesn't have an Obama equivalent. The worst president had traveled widely in Europe and even spoke some European languages! Talk about someone being too European! The worst president tried to pressure the Supreme Court to rule the way he wanted and even went so far as to try and change the number of justices, so he could appoint a majority of justices. Finally, the worst president created a regional government business which included a power company and provided other services that are traditionally the province of private enterprise. He really and truly was a socialist.
If you haven't guessed by now, the worst president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) who is widely considered by historians to be one of our greatest presidents. Winston Churchill called him "The greatest man I ever knew." This is not to suggest that Obama is or ever will be considered as great as FDR, but to show how FDR was far to the left of Obama. In fact, when you examine Richard Nixon's policies, he was to the left of Obama. What this does show is how far to the right the Republican Party has gone and how out of touch with reality if has become. Thomas Sowell, a leading conservative intellectual, who is a economics professor at Stanford, in his column recently wrote complaining about the ruinous policies of Roosevelt and how he should not have intervened so much in the economy. Here's the kicker. He was complaining about Teddy Roosevelt, not FDR. That's where conservatives are today. they want to return to the day of the robber barons, monopoly capitalism and no government regulation whatsoever.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSERVATIVE POLITICS
First, let me admit that I am not a psychologist. Thus, my ruminations may carry even less weight than usual. I leave that to you, the reader, to decide.
Not long after he announced his coming retirement, Rep. Barney Frank was being interviewed on an MSNBC show, I don't recall which one, and he said, " I think our (the Democratic Party) motto should be, 'Hey, we're not perfect, but those other guys are crazy.' " Given the position of the Republican Party and its putative leaders, Frank's statement doesn't seem like an exaggeration. Among the leaders in the polls for the Republicans during the campaign season have been Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and, now, Rick Santorum. Has there ever been a sorrier group of contenders for president in a major party than this? I certainly can't think of one. Only Romney seems presidential and his position on any issue seems to depend on what day it is. Worse are some of the ridiculous statements and positions by these candidates. Just the other day Bachmann said that a welfare recipient misusing welfare money was more important than unemployment. I have been pondering for some time now the question of how did this once great party come to this. Further, why is is that many people support conservative candidates and policies that are clearly inimical to their own interests?
I think the answers lie in the psychological realm and a man named Frank Luntz. There are well known psychological terms such as projection, cognitive dissonance, the authoritarian personality, and denial which I will be examining.
Although the Republican Party has been drifting toward the extreme, it is the economic crisis, I believe, which has pushed it over the edge. Some commentators have noted how in other countries, such as England and Greece to name two, the economic crisis has led to civil unrest including large scale riots. The American public has seemed passive when compared to other societies in the last few decades. I think in the US what we have is akin to PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Or, among some sectors of the population, something like a neurotic breakdown. For a significant sector of the population, politics is non-rational and, in some cases, even irrational.
We have seen in past economic crises how the stress has led to a populace turning to a demagogue. Even in this country during the Great Depression we had tens of millions who believed a crackpot named Father Coughlin. When the economy seems to be falling apart and your life is going along with it, it is natural to look for villains. Successful politics appeals to the emotions, not just the intellect. And when things are falling apart, it is convenient to blame those who are "others." "They" are not one of us, so "they" must be the ones responsible. So anti immigration and xenophobia always rise during these times.
So, who is Frank Luntz and why is he important. He is a Republican political consultant who has an impressive ability in the use of political linguistics. He uses focus groups to test out new language and slogans. He knows how to appeal to basic fears and how to steer emotions. He will give marching orders to Republican office holders and candidates on what terminology to use. For example, because of the economic meltdown, he has recently advised Republicans to stop using the term capitalism and to use the term free markets instead. The Republicans have been remarkably successful in using emotional hot buttons to gain political support.
This is why there has been the concerted effort to deny legitimacy to President Obama. If he isn't a citizen and/or a Christian, then he is one of those "others" who seek to ruin the country. This is why you hear so many Tea Partiers and other conservatives say that "We have to take our country back," as if Obama had taken power in a coup rather than be elected by 54% of the people. This is why you see them making such absurd statements that Obama is a socialist and a fascist. As an aside, one of the things I know most about is modern political ideologies and the history of the 1930's. Before a couple of years ago, I had never read or heard anyone maintain that fascism was a leftist ideology. In fact the opposite is true and people at the time considered it to be rightist. Now conservatives in growing numbers are maintaining that fascism is leftist so that it fits into their narrative that Obama is a socialist and a fascist. I have had people argue with me that the official name of the Nazis was National Socialist Workers Party, as if that erased all doubt. Well, there are countries which have called themselves democratic people's republics which are neither democratic nor republican.
John Dean, of Watergate fame, has written an interesting and important book entitled Conservatives Without a Conscience. In it Dean examines a large body of social science research on authoritarianism, especially the authoritarian personality. What he concludes is that the vast majority of the Republican Party is made up of authoritarian personalities. What this means in practical terms is that they follow orders, they do not question authority, and they do not accept dissent. This is why Republican talking points are so important. We now know that the Bush White House would send to Fox News almost daily, the language and theme for the day which would then be repeated over and over on Fox and by other right wing outlets. When top officials and media sources are saying the same thing, the authoritarian personality will not question the veracity of the information. And those who do question it must be un-American. This is especially true when those talking points reinforce the emotional feelings and the narrative adopted by the recipients of the message.
This is where denial and cognitive dissonance come in. Cognitive dissonance means that once a person has reached a firm conclusion, if they receive new information that conflicts with that conclusion, rather than admit their first conclusion is wrong, they will deny the validity of the new information. Thus, scientists saying there is global warming must be doing it in order to get government grants. Studies that conflict must be invalid or slanted to fit some "liberal agenda."
Further, as a corollary, and I was amazed when I read this, if a person has done something harmful to another, rather than face up to their misdeed, they will believe that the person harmed was evil and deserved the mistreatment. I originally found it hard to believe that people could be that irrational, but then I thought about it and realized how, in my own life, that would explain some things that had previously seemed unexplainable. Further, we see it in political discourse. If you read conservative political thought, a common theme is that, basically, there are no victims. If a person is poor, it's their own fault. Lost your job, must be a personal failing. Woman gets raped, well she shouldn't dress provocatively. And so on. It fits into their narrative that we don't need government, only personal improvement. If people weren't so lazy, we wouldn't need unemployment benefits, welfare, etc.
However, if such a misfortune happens to a conservative, then those rules don't apply. This is where denial come in. A recent poll asked recipients of Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits if they received any government benefits. From 39% to 43% said "no", depending on the program. Only the lazy and shiftless receive government handouts, so, rather than put themselves in that category, these people denied that what they are getting was a government benefit. Thus, Republican voting states (red states) receive more in government funding than they pay in taxes while Democratic voting states (blue states) receive less and yet the Republicans don't see any conflict in their positions. Likewise, red states have a higher divorce rate and watch more pornography than do blue states. And yet the Republicans see themselves as morally superior to the Democrats whom they view as licentious. As the old saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Projection is another thing I run into frequently. People of all political persuasions use projection which is assuming that other people view things and react to events the same way that they do,. In politics, I think it is more marked among conservatives, however. For example, many times when I get in a discussion with conservatives, they will assume that I take a particular position because it will benefit me personally. The idea that you might support a certain position in order to benefit others and society as a whole seems totally foreign to them. This is because they see things only in terms of how it will affect them. They have a narrow and selfish view of politics and assume that everyone else does. Liberals recognize that some people are selfish, but that there are many who are altruistic.
I think it is no coincidence that there a large overlap of conservatism and evangelical Christianity. Both are based on belief, not facts and rationality. Both meet an emotional need to explain a world they cannot understand in a way that is comforting and supportive. Both rely on cognitive dissonance and denial to deal with obvious conflicts (is it an eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek?).
The result is a significant portion of the population which is immune to facts and reason. In fact, they can hold on to opinions that are completely contradicted by facts and reason because of their emotional needs and those psychological factors which I have discussed. The Democrats need a Frank Luntz to fashion a positive message that resonates with the emotional needs of people. The Occupy Wall Street movement has provided an impetus and Obama seems to finally realize that his success will need to follow the populist road laid down by OWS. The Democrats need to emphasize the reason for the economic crisis and that government is the only institution strong enough to combat rapacious financial instiutions which represent only the 1% and have no interest in the 99%. Since Obama has taken that approach, his poll numbers have risen significantly. Plus, he has the advantage that history and facts are on his side. One can only wonder why it took so long for him to see what was necessary and obvious.
Not long after he announced his coming retirement, Rep. Barney Frank was being interviewed on an MSNBC show, I don't recall which one, and he said, " I think our (the Democratic Party) motto should be, 'Hey, we're not perfect, but those other guys are crazy.' " Given the position of the Republican Party and its putative leaders, Frank's statement doesn't seem like an exaggeration. Among the leaders in the polls for the Republicans during the campaign season have been Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and, now, Rick Santorum. Has there ever been a sorrier group of contenders for president in a major party than this? I certainly can't think of one. Only Romney seems presidential and his position on any issue seems to depend on what day it is. Worse are some of the ridiculous statements and positions by these candidates. Just the other day Bachmann said that a welfare recipient misusing welfare money was more important than unemployment. I have been pondering for some time now the question of how did this once great party come to this. Further, why is is that many people support conservative candidates and policies that are clearly inimical to their own interests?
I think the answers lie in the psychological realm and a man named Frank Luntz. There are well known psychological terms such as projection, cognitive dissonance, the authoritarian personality, and denial which I will be examining.
Although the Republican Party has been drifting toward the extreme, it is the economic crisis, I believe, which has pushed it over the edge. Some commentators have noted how in other countries, such as England and Greece to name two, the economic crisis has led to civil unrest including large scale riots. The American public has seemed passive when compared to other societies in the last few decades. I think in the US what we have is akin to PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Or, among some sectors of the population, something like a neurotic breakdown. For a significant sector of the population, politics is non-rational and, in some cases, even irrational.
We have seen in past economic crises how the stress has led to a populace turning to a demagogue. Even in this country during the Great Depression we had tens of millions who believed a crackpot named Father Coughlin. When the economy seems to be falling apart and your life is going along with it, it is natural to look for villains. Successful politics appeals to the emotions, not just the intellect. And when things are falling apart, it is convenient to blame those who are "others." "They" are not one of us, so "they" must be the ones responsible. So anti immigration and xenophobia always rise during these times.
So, who is Frank Luntz and why is he important. He is a Republican political consultant who has an impressive ability in the use of political linguistics. He uses focus groups to test out new language and slogans. He knows how to appeal to basic fears and how to steer emotions. He will give marching orders to Republican office holders and candidates on what terminology to use. For example, because of the economic meltdown, he has recently advised Republicans to stop using the term capitalism and to use the term free markets instead. The Republicans have been remarkably successful in using emotional hot buttons to gain political support.
This is why there has been the concerted effort to deny legitimacy to President Obama. If he isn't a citizen and/or a Christian, then he is one of those "others" who seek to ruin the country. This is why you hear so many Tea Partiers and other conservatives say that "We have to take our country back," as if Obama had taken power in a coup rather than be elected by 54% of the people. This is why you see them making such absurd statements that Obama is a socialist and a fascist. As an aside, one of the things I know most about is modern political ideologies and the history of the 1930's. Before a couple of years ago, I had never read or heard anyone maintain that fascism was a leftist ideology. In fact the opposite is true and people at the time considered it to be rightist. Now conservatives in growing numbers are maintaining that fascism is leftist so that it fits into their narrative that Obama is a socialist and a fascist. I have had people argue with me that the official name of the Nazis was National Socialist Workers Party, as if that erased all doubt. Well, there are countries which have called themselves democratic people's republics which are neither democratic nor republican.
John Dean, of Watergate fame, has written an interesting and important book entitled Conservatives Without a Conscience. In it Dean examines a large body of social science research on authoritarianism, especially the authoritarian personality. What he concludes is that the vast majority of the Republican Party is made up of authoritarian personalities. What this means in practical terms is that they follow orders, they do not question authority, and they do not accept dissent. This is why Republican talking points are so important. We now know that the Bush White House would send to Fox News almost daily, the language and theme for the day which would then be repeated over and over on Fox and by other right wing outlets. When top officials and media sources are saying the same thing, the authoritarian personality will not question the veracity of the information. And those who do question it must be un-American. This is especially true when those talking points reinforce the emotional feelings and the narrative adopted by the recipients of the message.
This is where denial and cognitive dissonance come in. Cognitive dissonance means that once a person has reached a firm conclusion, if they receive new information that conflicts with that conclusion, rather than admit their first conclusion is wrong, they will deny the validity of the new information. Thus, scientists saying there is global warming must be doing it in order to get government grants. Studies that conflict must be invalid or slanted to fit some "liberal agenda."
Further, as a corollary, and I was amazed when I read this, if a person has done something harmful to another, rather than face up to their misdeed, they will believe that the person harmed was evil and deserved the mistreatment. I originally found it hard to believe that people could be that irrational, but then I thought about it and realized how, in my own life, that would explain some things that had previously seemed unexplainable. Further, we see it in political discourse. If you read conservative political thought, a common theme is that, basically, there are no victims. If a person is poor, it's their own fault. Lost your job, must be a personal failing. Woman gets raped, well she shouldn't dress provocatively. And so on. It fits into their narrative that we don't need government, only personal improvement. If people weren't so lazy, we wouldn't need unemployment benefits, welfare, etc.
However, if such a misfortune happens to a conservative, then those rules don't apply. This is where denial come in. A recent poll asked recipients of Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits if they received any government benefits. From 39% to 43% said "no", depending on the program. Only the lazy and shiftless receive government handouts, so, rather than put themselves in that category, these people denied that what they are getting was a government benefit. Thus, Republican voting states (red states) receive more in government funding than they pay in taxes while Democratic voting states (blue states) receive less and yet the Republicans don't see any conflict in their positions. Likewise, red states have a higher divorce rate and watch more pornography than do blue states. And yet the Republicans see themselves as morally superior to the Democrats whom they view as licentious. As the old saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Projection is another thing I run into frequently. People of all political persuasions use projection which is assuming that other people view things and react to events the same way that they do,. In politics, I think it is more marked among conservatives, however. For example, many times when I get in a discussion with conservatives, they will assume that I take a particular position because it will benefit me personally. The idea that you might support a certain position in order to benefit others and society as a whole seems totally foreign to them. This is because they see things only in terms of how it will affect them. They have a narrow and selfish view of politics and assume that everyone else does. Liberals recognize that some people are selfish, but that there are many who are altruistic.
I think it is no coincidence that there a large overlap of conservatism and evangelical Christianity. Both are based on belief, not facts and rationality. Both meet an emotional need to explain a world they cannot understand in a way that is comforting and supportive. Both rely on cognitive dissonance and denial to deal with obvious conflicts (is it an eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek?).
The result is a significant portion of the population which is immune to facts and reason. In fact, they can hold on to opinions that are completely contradicted by facts and reason because of their emotional needs and those psychological factors which I have discussed. The Democrats need a Frank Luntz to fashion a positive message that resonates with the emotional needs of people. The Occupy Wall Street movement has provided an impetus and Obama seems to finally realize that his success will need to follow the populist road laid down by OWS. The Democrats need to emphasize the reason for the economic crisis and that government is the only institution strong enough to combat rapacious financial instiutions which represent only the 1% and have no interest in the 99%. Since Obama has taken that approach, his poll numbers have risen significantly. Plus, he has the advantage that history and facts are on his side. One can only wonder why it took so long for him to see what was necessary and obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)