Tag Archives: Politics

A Leftward Shift on Key Moral and Political Issues

June 2, 2015

As our society becomes increasingly interconnected and generational shifts occur, we’re witnessing continued evolution in peoples attitudes and behavior about “moral” issues, as well as increasing acceptance of diverse values and ways of life. This recent Gallup survey highlights the direction of these shifts. It reports that “Americans are more likely now than in the early 2000s to find a variety of behaviors morally acceptable, including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage and sex between an unmarried man and woman. Moral acceptability of many of these issues is now at a record-high level.”

At the same time, another Gallup survey finds that more Americans now rate themselves as socially liberal than at any point in Gallup’s 16-year trend, and for the first time, as many say they are liberal on social issues as say they are conservative. This reflects a shift from older surveys that tended to show greater numbers who identify as conservative on social and political issues. Currently, thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999.

Moreover, according the Gallup report, Americans are becoming more liberal on social issues, as evidenced not only by the uptick in the percentage describing themselves as socially liberal, but also by their increasing willingness to say that a number of previously frowned-upon behaviors are morally acceptable. The biggest leftward shift over the past 14 years has been in attitudes toward gay and lesbian relations, from only a minority of Americans finding it morally acceptable to a clear majority finding it acceptable.

The key trends that Gallup cites include:

The substantial increase in Americans’ views that gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable coincide with a record-high level of support for same-sex marriage and views that being gay or lesbian is something a person is born with, rather than due to one’s upbringing or environment.
The public is now more accepting of sexual relations outside of marriage in general than at any point in the history of tracking these measures, including a 16-percentage-point increase in those saying that having a baby outside of marriage is morally acceptable, and a 15-point increase in the acceptability of sex between an unmarried man and woman. Clear majorities of Americans now say both are acceptable.
Acceptance of divorce and human embryo medical research are also up 12 points each since 2001 and 2002, respectively.
Polygamy and cloning humans have also seen significant upshifts in moral acceptability — but even with these increases, the public largely perceives them as morally wrong, with only 16% and 15% of Americans, respectively, considering them morally acceptable.

For a longer description of the survey’s findings, click here.

Credit: CPD Archive

Both Too Much And Too Little Power Are Linked With Mental Illness

December 16, 2014

Too often, the mental health field overlooks the significant role that social conditioning plays in the development of emotional disturbance…or psychological health. Social status, perceived or real power and how they are valued by society can accentuate existing pathology or stimulate pathological attitudes and behavior. A new study by the University of California at Berkeley found new evidence of how that happens.

This study of 600 young men and women concluded that one’s perceived social status — or lack thereof — is at the heart of a wide range of mental illnesses. And, that the findings make a strong case for assessing such traits as “ruthless ambition,” “discomfort with leadership” and “hubristic pride” to understand psychopathologies. “People prone to depression or anxiety reported feeling little sense of pride in their accomplishments and little sense of power,” said senior author Sheri Johnson said. “In contrast, people at risk for mania tended to report high levels of pride and an emphasis on the pursuit of power despite interpersonal costs.” The study was published in the journal Psychology and Psychotherapy:Theory, Research and Practice.

Studies have long established that feelings of powerlessness and helplessness weaken the immune system, making one more vulnerable to physical and mental ailments. Conversely, an inflated sense of power is among the behaviors associated with bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, which can be both personally and socially corrosive.

The summary provided by Berkeley pointed out that Donald Trump’s ego may be the size of his financial empire, but that doesn’t mean he’s the picture of mental health. The same can be said about the self-esteem of people who are living from paycheck to paycheck, or unemployed. Continue reading →

The Republican Party’s Descent Into Unreality Undermines Our Two-Party System

That we lack an effective two-party political system today is a significant loss. The Republican Party has been on a downward slope towards unreality and irrelevancy, thanks to the right-wing element that’s taken over the party and marginalized the remnants of the GOP of Dole, Bush the elder; even Reagan. In his recent New York Times column, Paul Krugman writes, “The sad truth is that the modern G.O.P. is lost in fantasy, unable to participate in actual governing.” He adds, “I’m not talking about policy substance. I may believe that Republicans have their priorities all wrong, but that’s not the issue here. Instead, I’m talking about their apparent inability to accept very basic reality constraints, like the fact that you can’t cut overall spending without cutting spending on particular programs, or the fact that voting to repeal legislation doesn’t change the law when the other party controls the Senate and the White House.”

Krugman highlights a serious and sad condition that exists, today — with yet-to-be-seen consequences. Click here for his complete essay, “Republicans Against Reality.”

The Rise of McCarthy Tactics From Some Republicans

When an elder politician like “Mr. Republican” Bob Dole says “I think they ought to put a sign on the national committee doors that says closed for repairs…” you know we’ve entered Bizarro World. Especially when he added, in that same FOX interview, that neither Reagan, Nixon nor himself could “make it in today’s GOP.”

it’s worth examining what’s driving that trend, and a more serious one: A group of influential Republicans are creating a new norm of juvenile, schoolyard-name-calling behavior. And they’ve been churning out innuendos about Democrats consorting with the enemy — such déjà vu tactics harking back to the days of Joe McCarthy. There are political motives for this oddly, self-destructive path. But there’s another source worth considering as well: The mental and emotional drivers that may underlie the resurgence of McCarthyism at this particular point in our culture. It amounts to a kind of arrested development, borne of a crumbling identity of manhood; one that has always linked class status, power to control and dominate, and self-interest with a righteous sense of high moral stature.

I’ll explain below, but first take a look at some recent examples of the slurs and innuendos reminiscent of McCarthyism:

After attacking Chuck Hagel’s character during his Senate confirmation, Rep. Daniel Issa went on to call Obama’s press secretary a “paid liar.” And discussing the IRS scandal, he implied — in a typical McCarthy innuendo, that it’s “a problem that was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters — and we’re getting to proving it.” (My italics, to illustrate the deliberate suggestion of associations). Despite these insinuations of high-level corruption, the originator was revealed to be a conservative Republican who sought greater clarification of the criteria for granting tax-exempt status. Continue reading →

Does Meditation Make You More Politically Liberal?

A new research study finds that people become more politically liberal following meditation or other spiritually oriented experiences. The findings concerning political orientation can be questioned because of how the researchers constructed the study, but I think they reveal something of broader significance: that meditation and developing one’s inner life has a transformative effect upon emotions, mental perspectives and behavior, in general. And that can lead to politically liberal positions in our current political culture.

First, the research findings: In a series of studies, researchers at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management initially assessed people’s differences regarding their “religious” vs. “spiritual” orientations. The researchers defined “spirituality” in terms of direct experience of self-transcendence and the feeling that we’re all connected. In contrast, “religiousness” was defined as a code of conduct that’s part of a tradition.

In my view, the two definitions are not at all mutually exclusive, and that contaminates, somewhat, the findings associating political conservatism with religiousness, and spirituality with political liberalism. The researchers explained those in terms of underlying values, that conservatism and religiousness both emphasize the importance of tradition, while liberalism and spirituality both emphasize the importance of equality and social harmony.

The Key Finding
When participants in the study meditated they subsequently reported significantly higher levels of spirituality, and they expressed more liberal political attitudes. That is, meditation led both liberals andconservatives to endorse more liberal political positions. Continue reading →

Gun Violence And Its Social Roots

It’s quite likely that nothing at all will happen following the Newtown elementary school killings, in terms of curbing gun violence. But if there is a sea change of attitude and action, it would result from a critical mass of Democrats and Republicans who summon the courage to oppose the NRA’s threats to defeat their reelection campaigns, and then enact and enforce reasonable gun laws. Such laws would occupy the “middle ground” that respects the rights of sportsmen, target-shooters, and hunters, as well as those who want to possess firearms for protection of their homes; and yet, limits the availability of assault-type weapons that serve none of those purposes. At the same time, legislators’ actions would also include creating additional resources for mentally disturbed people, including helping families, schools, and the general public recognize potential signs of disturbance and greater sources of help. Legislation that protects the public from the easy availability of assault weapons and multiple rounds of ammunition would recognize the rights of people to be protected from the use of such weapons for killing.

But keep this in mind: Most mentally disturbed people never become violent. In fact, most killings aren’t committed by the severely mentally disturbed. Moreover, we can’t predict who might become violent. We know that certain combinations of emotions, such as intense anger, fueled by alcohol or drugs, may result in violence. But many people fit that profile and never commit a violent act, let alone murder anyone.

A deeper, more complex issue is harder to address. It concerns underlying cultural attitudes and norms within American society that Continue reading →

Why People Are Likely To Believe Political Lies

Have you ever wondered why people are persuaded by outright lies during political campaigns? And why lies tend to “stick” even after they’re debunked by facts? Some new research sheds light on why this happens, at least in terms of people’s thought processes, if not their underlying emotional drives.

It’s a major phenomena: Prior to the 2012 election campaign, the most glaring lies in the political arena were that Obama is a Muslim and that global warming is a big hoax. For example, a Pew Research poll found that 30 percent of all Republicans described the president as Muslim. And others, such as Sen. James Inhofe have regularly called climate change “the greatest hoax” of all. And recently, Rep. Paul Broun — who sits on the House Science Committee, ironically — argued that evolution and the big bang are “lies from hell.”

Currently, as the presidential campaign went into high gear after Labor Day, both sides regularly accuse each other of engaging in outright lies and extreme exaggeration about their positions and “facts,” while insisting on the truthfulness of their own. Media outlets such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and NPR have been providing fact-checking analyses about statements from President Obama and Gov. Romney as a means to restore some degree of truth.

Lies tend to stick in people’s minds, and can sway the outcome of elections, as well as public opinion in many arenas. So, what happens within our minds and emotions that make us receptive to lies, and then resistant to information that exposes the truth? Continue reading →

Why People Are Likely To Believe Falsehoods And Misinformation

Do you wonder why misinformation and outright lies about known facts often take root in people’s minds? What may come to mind immediately are recent examples: the claim that President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S., and that climate change is a hoax. Some recent research sheds light on what happens cognitively, that may underlie believing falsehoods.

Researchers led by Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia, reported in the journal Psychological Science, found that “Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true — it requires additional motivational and cognitive resources,” according to a summary of the research reported in Science Today. Moreover, If the topic isn’t very important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more likely to take hold.

For the research findings, as summarized in Science, Continue reading →

Strong Emotions Can Make People’s Brains “Tick” Together

Some interesting new research from Aalto University and Turku PET Centre finds that

Sharing others’ emotional states provides the observers a somatosensory and neural framework that facilitates understanding others’ intentions and actions and allows to ‘tune in’ or ‘sync’ with them. Such automatic tuning facilitates social interaction.

I think an important implication of these findings for political and social movements is that positive, joint action can result from being “tuned-in” to each other, but this can also facilitate shared, mass delusions and beliefs. The research was described in Medical News Today:

Human emotions are extremely infectious. For instance, emotional expression like seeing someone smile often also triggers a smile in the person observing. These emotional synchronizations could be of help in social interactions. For example, if all members in a group share the same emotional state, their brains and bodies process the environment in a similar way. Researchers have now discovered that strong emotions can literally synchronize different peoples’ brain activities.

In their study, the researchers measured the participants’ brain activity by using functional magnetic resonance imaging whilst they were viewing either short pleasant, neutral and unpleasant movies.

The findings revealed that strong, unpleasant emotions in particular synchronized the frontal and midline regions of the brain’s emotion processing network, whilst highly stimulating events synchronized activity in those networks in the brain that were involved in attention, vision and sense of touch.

Observers who share other people’s emotional states become a part of a somatosensory and neural framework. This enables them to understand other people’s intentions and actions, allowing them to ‘tune in’ or ‘synchronize’ with them. Adjunct Professor Lauri Nemmenmaa from Aalto University states that this ability to automatically tune in enables social interaction and group processes.

Nummenmaa concludes stating that the finding is a key implication for current neural models of human emotions and group behavior, as it broadens the understanding of mental disorders with abnormal socioemotional processing.

Why Obama and Romney Both Misunderstand “The American Dream”

As Romney begins his pivot, he and President Obama are highlighting their competing visions for growing prosperity and riches: One, building from the bottom up; the other, trickling from the top down. The data show that Obama’s argument is more correct, but don’t look for any bipartisan compromise towards creating a sane fiscal policy. Nor, for that matter, towards progress on any other major issues. From a political psychology perspective, one can interpret the policies adovcated by the Republicans� as increasingly extreme and reactionary.� They are likely to create suffering for large segments of society. At the same time, the party is resuscitating social issues from decades ago.

These have dangerous consequences, and you can’t help wondering what’s driving their positions with such zeal. There are many sources, but a major one is psychological.� It has three strands which culminate in policies that pervert what politicians like to call �The American Dream� � the possibility for all members of society to build a successful and fulfilling life. But that dream is increasingly pointed towards the few who can become rich, at the expense of the many. Let’s look at the three psychological strands that underlie that twist, and how they impact people�s work and lives.

Little Boys Play-Acting As Grown-Ups

The younger Republicans often sound like little boys making demands and arguments that they imagine big, grown-up men do and say when they have power, like �I will have my way, and you must obey me.� Interestingly, most of them are baby boomers now in their midlife years. Perhaps this reflects a psychological and cultural theme of this generation worth exploring. But their posturing does appear to reflect a twisted sense of what it means to be a psychologically mature adult man, who — in reality — must be able to engage with collaboratively to achieve anything. Continue reading →

Study Finds That Liberals Remember Dreams More Than Conservatives

Here’s some interesting research: �A study has found that �self-described liberals remember their dreams more than self-described conservatives. �In addition, they have more frequent lucid dreams. �It occurs to me that those whose world view and ideology are more traditionally liberal are more tuned into their inner life – their sense of interconnection, and empathy for others; able to see other’s needs and points of view. �It’s not that conservatives lack an inner life; but it might have become more repressed or smothered by their embrace of values and ideology that promote and reinforce self-interest. �Here’s the link to the research, as reported in the Wall Street Journal:

Romney and Gingrich Share an “Inner Life” Problem

Both liberal and conservative political writers have been commenting on the negative public reactions to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, despite their being the leading Republican contenders for their party’s nomination. For example, conservative George Will portrays Romney as the person�we don’t trust�–�writing�of the�“… impression many Republicans seem to have of his slipperiness…(and) the suspicion that there is something synthetic about him.”�Liberal Eugene Robinson describes Gingrich as the person�we don’t like, citing both�Fox and CNN polls�showing that Gingrich has about a 57% disapproval rating.

But there’s something both Gingrich and Romney share — though in opposite ways — that contributes to these negative perceptions: It’s a problem within the�inner life�of each, as it drives their outer life personas and behavior.

In essence, Mitt Romney is perceived by many as stiff and too scripted; unable to connect with ordinary people or be spontaneous in his interactions with them, even when trying to be humorous. Writing in the�National Review,�Jonah Goldberg�refers to Romney’s�“… 2 percent milk personality… his authentic inauthenticity problem isn’t going away. And it’s sapping enthusiasm from the rank and file.”�I don’t think Romney’s patrician background can account for this. The Kennedys, for example, generated a strong sense of connection with the lives of ordinary people, despite their wealth.

On the other hand, Newt Gingrich has, in fact, aroused a strong connection with Republican voters, who seem to feel a shared anger and resentment about current problems. And yet, he’s simultaneously perceived as arrogant, grandiose and unstable — both by the very voters who support him as well as by conservatives. For example,�Wall Street Journal�columnist Peggy Noonan�describes him�as�“… a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, ‘Watch this!'”�and Charles Krauthammer�writes�that“Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s — but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline.”

So, what’s their inner life problem? To explain, your inner life is Continue reading →

Why the Republicans’ View of “Success” Is a Path to Self-Destruction

After watching the recent Republican debates, last week’s New Hampshire primary and the campaigning since then, I’m convinced that the GOP is on a path to self-destruction. And that’s regrettable. It deprives the country of a serious debate over different views about the roles of government, business, labor and citizens in general in dealing with the problems we face. Of course, that debate would assume that there’s an agreed-upon set of realities about the current world.

Unfortunately, that’s a tall order. It’s more likely that Mitt Romney, if he’s the candidate, and his party will present a vision that’s largely disconnected from — even denies — facts and realities about today’s world. Therefore, they’re likely to offer solutions to problems that derive from their alternate reality.

One way to explain this oddity is from a political psychology perspective. That is, let’s examine the emotional attitudes and beliefs that may underlie the Republican Party’s view of reality and the solutions they offer to problems as they define them. For example, the party appears wedded to a singular view of what “success” in life is, and should be. And yet, that vision is increasingly disconnected from emerging new realities. Those point to the need for a broader, more inclusive view of success in today’s world, and how to achieve it.

The New Normal

You’ve probably noticed the following: Continue reading →

Why Our Political Culture Looks Insane

The ugly spectacle of political gridlock reflects a political culture best described as insane. It’s increasingly disconnected from realities of our current world. We’re living in the midst of massive, worldwide transformation towards a highly intertwined and increasingly transparent world. The impact of this transformation is visible in economic shifts, new political movements, changing social norms and personal values, business practices and in individual behavior.

The products of this transformation call for policies and actions that respond to them in pragmatic, positive ways. But here in the U.S., our political culture of both left and right operates as though these new realities either don’t exist or don’t matter; as though the old order still prevails.

Examples of the political insanity include:

From the left, President Obama is attacked for not achieving and pushing for a more progressive agenda, despite a range of accomplishments that he’s achieved. But the greater insanity is that he’s operating with the new “requirement” instituted by Republicans: That every piece of legislation must now be able to overcome a filibuster threat, rather than be hammered out through compromise and then subjected to a majority vote.

�On the right, the Republican/Tea Party vilifies Obama’s “socialist,” “anti-American” or — in Newt Gingrich’s description — “Kenyan, anti-colonialist” agenda, despite an ironic reality to the contrary: President Obama’s policies and behavior are much closer to those of a moderate Republican of yore; the kind that doesn’t exist anymore.

Then there’s the ongoing clown show — Republican presidential hopefuls who argue for returning to policies that — as data show — have created the economic mess we’re now in. Moreover, they try to outdo each other to embrace anti-science, anti-knowledge positions, whether about climate change or evolution; and they vocally embrace anti-human rights positions when those rights concern gays and lesbians.

Contrast the above positions and policy objectives with some of the transformations whose impact is increasingly visible in everyone’s lives. On the surface, they appear disparate; unrelated. But collectively, you can see a theme: A rising change of mentality. That is, a mixture of values, world outlook, emotional attitudes, and conduct. It’s simultaneously a response to and a driver of the rise of interconnection and interdependency. And it has cascading political, economic and social implications.

Here are some of the seemingly unrelated shifts that reflect the reality of today’s world: Continue reading →

Why People Are Caught Between Public Lies And Private Truths

The latest “sex and power” scandals flashing across the media in the last few weeks underscore just how commonplace, even repetitive, they’ve become. Some are new, like the sexual assault charges against former IMF President Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or Arnold Schwarzenegger’s revelation that he had fathered a child with a former member of the household staff. Some are recycling, like John Edwards’ indictment or Newt Gingrich’s presidential aspirations, which revive�memories about his�lying about an affair while impeaching President Clinton for lying about an affair.

The list goes on, the latest being the Anthony Weiner’s “rolling disclosure” episode. The�Washington Post recently compiled may of the scandals into a�nice summary –�for those who are interested in keeping track.

But I think this steady stream of sex-related scandals is just the most titillating and graphic part of something more widespread and troublesome in the lives of many men and women today: the gap between people’s�public lies and�private truths.

That is, many people live with contradictions between their inner lives (the truths about their desires, emotional experience,�self-image and ideals) and what they do with those truths behind the scenes, hidden from view (their private selves), and the lives they conduct publically, in their�career paths, their relationships with their families or others they deal with and the positions they espouse or advocate (their public selves).

Public lies that contradict private truths have been part of our culture for some time. But in my work with people over the last few decades, I’ve seen it grow more rapidly since 9/11 and the economic/political events of the last few years. As I reflected on the reasons for this gap, how it damages people and our society, Continue reading →

Why The Tea Party/Republicans Fear A Transforming America

In the aftermath of the interim budget agreement, it’s clear that a new reactionary ideology has taken root in Tea Party/GOP policies. Psychological drivers are always present in political or personal ideologies and policies. I think it’s useful to expose and understand those within the positions of this new incarnation of the Republican Party, in order to order to counter them with constructive, positive alternatives.

In brief, the Tea Party/GOP is pushing for economic and social policies based on�fears: Fears of massive transformation, turmoil and chaos underway in our society. And, fears about how those transformations will impact lives largely defined by self-interest, power and money. Some fear-generated policies are consciously created; others,�unconscious. That is, some reflect a yearning for restoration of a way of life that no longer works in today’s changing society and globalized world. Other policy positions reflect conscious manipulation of those fears; But all driving the positions the Tea Party/GOP demands and is determined to enact.

I call their ideology and policies “reactionary” because they are a retreat away from creating positive,�resilient responses to large-scale upheaval and change; and towards objectives that fail to address the sources of problems they aim to fix. Worse, their view of the impact their policies would have upon society doesn’t correspond to factual reality – as a broad range of commentators, both�conservative and�liberal, have pointed out.

For both reasons, one may describe the policies and ideology of the current Republicans as, psychologically speaking, delusional.

Understanding What The New Reactionaries�Fear

We’re living through Continue reading →

Obama’s Call to “Win the Future” Requires a New Definition of “Success”

When President Obama urged Americans to “win the future” in his recent SOTU address, he called upon the innovative, communal spirit that’s enabled us to “do great things.” Ironically, that part of his message exposes a glaring contradiction: How we’ve defined achieving “success” in our lives has become outmoded and maladaptive in our 21st Century world. To meet the challenges of our “Sputnik moment,” we need to revamp our thinking about what success is, as well as what psychological orientation is necessary to achieve it.

Consider this: The old, conventional view of a successful life is mostly defined by financial and self-interested criteria — getting, consuming and possessing for oneself. As Ronald Reagan once said about pursuing the “American dream” everyone “...wants to see an America in which people can get rich.”

But as President Obama pointed out in his address, “That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful.” The reality of today’s interconnected, highly interdependent world, greed is not good. It’s psychologically unhealthy; it undermines the values, mindset and actions people need to strengthen in order to meet the challenges we face as individuals and as a nation.

That is, our security, success and well-being now require strengthening communal values and behavior; working towards common goals, the common good. Acting on self-interest alone, especially in the pursuit of personal power, steady career advancement and money Continue reading →

Is Serving The Common Good An “Un-American” Activity?

One likely spin-off from the recent election will be a creeping redefinition of programs and policies that serve the common good as “un-American.” Some of the Tea Party’s most vocal members, including Rand Paul, Michele Bachmann, and others have already suggested having a “conversation” about privatizing or phasing out medicare, social security and even abolishing the Department of Education.

So I’d like to move the “conversation” along and state outright that, yes, promoting the common good is, indeed, un-American. And, that recognizing it as such is a good thing. Here’s why: The Republican/Tea Party’s stated vision for “taking America back” is a doctrine of extreme self-interest and greed. It both reflects and fuels what I described in a recent post as a “social psychosis” in personal and public life.

This “pro-American” vision is maladaptive to the realities of today’s world and our own changing society. Self-interest and the pursuit of individual power are twin agents for subversively undermining a healthy, thriving society. But that vision is likely to be with us for some time, with potentially devastating consequences.

However, there’s also a rising shift towards serving the larger common good throughout our society. I described the evidence for this in a subsequent post. And it is, indeed, un-American, with respect to the extreme Republican/Tea Party doctrine.

That is, serving the common good goes against grain of thinking that Continue reading →

A “Social Psychosis” Rises In Our Culture

Much of the ongoing debate in political, business and social/cultural arenas is rooted in an underlying disagreement about what best serves national interests and individual lives. Is it promoting the common good, or serving self-interest?

As interdependence and interconnection on this planet become ever-more apparent, new challenges and conflicts arise for personal life, the role of government and the conduct of business leadership. In response to these new realities, people’s attitudes and behavior are shifting more towards serving the larger common good; now necessary for successful, flexible and psychologically resilient functioning.

However, these shifts clash with a long-prevailing ideology, that the primary pursuit of�self-interest best serves the public interest and personal success. That ideology has also prevailed in our views of adult psychological health and maturity. In essence, the pursuit of greed, self-centeredness and materialism have become the holy trinity of public and private conduct. And it’s generating a growing “social psychosis.”

That is, the benefits of self-interest in personal lives and public policy supposedly trump any that accrue from serving the common good; the latter would undermine the former, if put into practice. For example, the argument against helping the unemployed, extending health insurance for all Americans or addressing climate change is that they would hurt the economy and therefore negatively impact your well-being and life success.

To question or critique this ideology might even be called “un-American.” That would be correct; a good thing, actually, because the values and conduct that seem to have “worked” for so long now falter in today’s rapidly changing world. No longer do they ensure long-term success, well-being or security. Several observers have written about the faltering of the old system in today’s world. For example, Jeff Jarvis of CUNY, who has�written about a

…great restructuring’ of the economy and society, starting with a fundamental change in our relationships — how we are linked and intertwined and how we act.

Or Umair Haque, who has been describing

…the new principles of a new economy, built around stewardship, trusteeship, guardianship, leadership, partnership.

in his Harvard Business School�blog posts.

The Social Psychosis Backlash
The reaction to the growing interconnection is a creeping “social psychosis.” Like the frog in the pot of water who doesn’t notice the slowly rising temperature Continue reading →

Reasons Behind The Need To Portray Obama As Anti-American

Newt Gingrich�s recent comments alleging that Obama’s is driven by “Kenyan anti-colonial” attitudes, when combined with increasingly bizarre statements from Tea Party candidates, suggest something that isn�t apparent on the surface:� That we�re witnessing the �last gasp� of a dying, descending set of attitudes and values regarding individual and public policy, including what it is to be an American.

I think these kinds of statements reflect growing desperation about sweeping changes in our society.� That is, the country is steadily shifting towards a diverse population, and acceptance of that diversity.� And, towards growing recognition of the need to serve the larger common good; that we�re all in the same boat in this globalized world, and we will stand or fall together, as President Obama recently stated.

But it just doesn’t look like that shift is happening at present, because the period we’re living through is one of a growing but temporary backlash against those changes, from �people who view them with fears and a sense of loss.� They should be understood, but not condoned or excused.

A good illustration of the reactionary thinking in response to steadily growing social change is the essay that Gingrich based his comments on � A Forbes cover story on �How Obama Thinks� by Dinesh D�Souza.� A Columbia Journalism Review article by Ryan Chittum calls it a ��shameful piece on Obama as the �Other,�� and �The worst kind of smear journalism.�

Chittum writes, �How Obama Thinks� is a gross piece of innuendo�a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia. �Forbes for some reason gives Dinesh D�Souza the cover and lots of space to froth about the notion popular in the right-wing fever swamps that Obama is an �other�; that he doesn�t think like �an American,� that his actions benefit foreigners rather than Amurricans. It�s too kind to call this innuendo. It�s far too overt for that.

D�Souza�s distortions and lies are clearly designed to make Obama appear to be anti-American, and anti-white; someone different from �us� who�s bent on carrying out the African tribal mission of his father (whom he met one time, briefly, at age 10). Chittum�s analysis and dissection of D�Souza�s story is worth reading. Here�s the full article from the Columbia Journalism Review.

Why Some Believe Obama is a Muslim – New Research

Here’s some interesting new research from a study of the psychology behind smear campaigns, led by Michigan State. �It �examined the rising numbers of people who believe the falsehood that President Obama is a Muslim. �The findings indicate that people are more likely to accept �such false representations, both consciously and unconsciously, when they are reminded of ways in which Obama is different from them — whether from racial, social class or other differences, according to Spee Kosloff and his colleagues from several other universities, who conducted the study.

“Careless or biased media outlets are largely responsible for the propagation of these falsehoods, which catch on like wildfire,” said Kosloff. �”And then social differences can motivate acceptance of these lies.”

“When people are unsatisfied with the president — whether it’s the way he’s handling the economy, health care or Afghanistan — our research suggests that this only fuels their readiness to accept untrue rumors,” Kosloff said. �”As his job rating goes down, suggesting that people feel like he’s not ideologically on their side, we see an increase in this irrational belief that he’s a Muslim,” he added. “Unfortunately, in America, many people dislike Muslims so they’ll label Obama as Muslim when they feel different from him.”

The findings are reported in the American Psychological Association’s�Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. �The acceptance of falsehoods is particularly relevant because a Pew Research Center poll in August �found that 18 percent of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim — up from 11 percent in March 2009 — even though he’s a practicing Christian.

A complete summary of the research is available in Science Daily.

Fooling “All of the People….”

It�s quite an achievement: �Today�s Republicans � members of the Party of Abraham Lincoln, after all — are steadily disproving one of Lincoln�s most quoted lines: �� You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.�

The current version of the GOP is doing a good job at trying to fool all of the people, all of the time. �And, with the help of many Democrats, who give new meaning to the term, �fellow travelers.�

Case in point: The issue of the soon-to-expire tax cuts for the rich.� The Bush tax cut legislation of 2001 included a provision that they would expire at the end of 2010, and tax rates would then revert to 2000 levels.� The Obama administration wants to keep the tax cuts in place for the middle class, who would benefit from them during this continued economic near-depression; but let them revert back to previous levels for those with very high incomes, when they expire at the end of this year.

But guess what?� The Republicans, together with a number of Democrats, are fighting vigorously to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. �Republicans and their Democratic allies argue that it�s more beneficial to the economy to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy � those making over $2 million a year — �because that would help �small business.�

Tell me, how many small business owners make that kind of income? And how would we make up for the loss of revenue?� By taking away benefits for the middle and lower classes, in the form of food stamps and other benefits or services.

This is where trying to �fool all of the people all of the time� comes in:� The entire argument is disguised in Orwellian terms, as necessary and good way to benefit everyone. �Writing in the New York Times, Paul Krugman exposes this with a good analysis of the deception and corruption behind it all.

For example, he points out that continuing the tax cuts for the rich would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that�s the least of it: ��estimates are the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent.� (and) the average tax break for those lucky few � the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year � would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

Krugman is right on target when he points out that

�it�s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren�t likely to spend a windfall.� No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy.

He also points out that this reflects our corrupt political culture,

� in which Congress won�t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

So, what will prevail:� The corruption, deception increasingly rampant in our culture � disguised in Orwellian terms, as �helping� you, the average American?� Or Lincoln�s observation?

Stay tuned�.

The Unspoken Source of Opposition to the Proposed Islamic Center

There’s one glaring omission in the stated opposition to the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero. �It’s the unspoken implication that Islam is, by definition, a fanatical, terrorist religion.

As I read and hear about the reasons offered by those opposing the Center, they usually conclude with such descriptions as �”insensitive,” “inappropriate,” or “insulting” to the memory of those whose lives were lost in the 9-11 attacks. �And yet, I haven’t heard any real explanation of what, exactly, would be �”insensitive,” and so forth, about the proposed presence of an Islamic Center in the vicinity of Ground Zero? �The most they say or imply is that its presence would be wrong, by definition, because of its location. �But those opposed don’t really say what that connection is, in their minds, that makes its location wrong or “unwise.”

To put this in a broader context, look at the recent speech by New York Mayor Bloomberg. �He presented both a passionate and reasoned, principled explanation why it should be allowed; and why doing so is fully consistent with American values and history. �Following that, President Obama affirmed much of the same set of principles in support of the Center — until he backtracked the next day, under the not-unexpected Republican and right-wing opposition.

Here’s what I believe is the unspoken source of the opposition: Equating fanatical, extremist Muslims with Muslims, per se. �That’s why some have used the analogy of erecting a Nazi center next to a concentration camp. �Or a monument to the KKK next to a civil rights memorial. �The analogies are bizarre, and reveal the bigotry and ignorance behind them. �That is, the heart of the argument against the presence of the Islamic Center is that it would be “insensitive” because �the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks were Muslims. �Now take that link to it’s conclusion. �Aside from the fact that Muslims were among those killed in the attack, the opponents seem reluctant to state that they are arguing that Islam, as a faith, is embodied in the terrorist attacks. �This would be like saying that because some Christians are fanatics, and some of those support killing of doctors who perform abortions, that therefore Christianity, per se, is a fanatical religion.

The triumph of emotional reactiveness and sentiment over our professed American values is very troubling. �If the opponents to the Center acknowledged outright that they’re equating fanatical Muslims and the Muslim faith in general, at least they would demonstrate logical integrity — along, of course, with outright bigotry. �But we would see what their true position is, rather than hearing them evade explaining just why they believe the presence of the Center would be “insensitive.” �This closet prejudice reminds me of Colin Powell’s retort to those claiming that Obama was �a secret Muslim, during the 2008 campaign. Powell asked what if �Obama was, in fact, a Muslim? So what? �What’s the point? � The same questions should be asked today of those who couch their opposition in words that don’t make explicit their implied conclusion.

Mayor Bloomberg was right on target when he explained the higher principles and context of this issue. �It’s worth reading. �Click here for the full speech. �Here’s a small portion of what he said.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ �’What beliefs do you hold?’

The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

Well said, Mayor Bloomberg.

Political Pandering Continues To Trump Middle East Peace Advocacy

A major ongoing tragedy of American political culture is fear of the political consequences of even appearing to give equal weight to both Israeli and Palestinian concerns. �Such fear always trumps advocacy of what is needed from both sides to create a lasting peace.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, describing the recent meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, provides a good example.� With a tinge of ironic humor, Milbank writes that

A blue-and-white Israeli flag hung from Blair House. Across Pennsylvania Avenue, the Stars and Stripes was in its usual place atop the White House. But to capture the real significance of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit with President Obama, White House officials might have instead flown the white flag of surrender.

Milbank was referring to the Obama administration�s decision four months ago to condemn Israel over a new settlement.

The Israel lobby reared up, Netanyahu denounced the administration’s actions, Republican leaders sided with Netanyahu, and Democrats ran for cover.� So on Tuesday, Obama, routed and humiliated by his Israeli counterpart, invited Netanyahu back to the White House for what might be called the Oil of Olay Summit: It was all about saving face.

He continues:

The president, beaming in the Oval Office with a dour Netanyahu at his side, gushed about the “extraordinary friendship between our two countries.” He performed the Full Monty of pro-Israel pandering: “The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable” . . . “I commended Prime Minister Netanyahu” . . . “Our two countries are working cooperatively” . . . “unwavering in our commitment” . . . “our relationship has broadened” . . . “continuing to improve” . . . “We are committed to that special bond, and we are going to do what’s required to back that up.”

Milbank then targets the core problem, writing that

Obama came to office with an admirable hope of reviving Middle East peace efforts by appealing to the Arab world and positioning himself as more of an honest broker. But he has now learned the painful lesson that domestic politics won’t allow such a stand.

And that feeds the continuing tragedy � for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and for all of us.� Our political leadership engages in one-sided political pandering, based largely on shoring up political support.� In so doing, it fails to promote peace and reconciliation, which should be the aim.� But doing the latter requires acknowledging that BOTH sides have engaged in destructive actions and atrocities, and that BOTH sides have legitimate, valid interests.

When one attempts to do so, however, one risks Continue reading →

Obama’s Handling Of The Gulf Disaster: The Psychology Behind The Criticisms

Criticism of Pres. Obama�s leadership during the Gulf of Mexico disaster has been mounting in recent weeks.� People are worried and concerned about the huge, unrelenting flow of oil and what it may do to our entire ecology.� The President�s press conference mitigated some of those criticisms, but many view his response as too little, too late.� They ask why didn�t he take command and speak to the nation several weeks ago?

A great deal of the criticism is justified, and it�s coming from both right and left.�It includes not only his personal leadership but more broadly, the role and response of the federal government.

But I think there�s another, additional basis for the criticism:� The psychology of people�s fears when they�re confronted with such disasters, and how that shapes what they look for in a leader.

That is, the psychology of the criticism directed at Obama reflects something deeper than questions about BP�s performance and/or untrustworthiness, given the cozy relationship big oil has had with the federal government.� It�s also deeper than debate over what government�s proper role should be in dealing with this or other man-made disasters.

To explain, let�s take a look at some criticisms coming from both the left and the right:� On May 17, MSNBC�s Chris Matthews erupted in anger at�the oil disaster. He railed about the profits BP reaps as it fails to fix it, but also criticized the Obama administration for letting BP control the disaster response. �Calling this �disaster capitalism,� (from Naomi Klein�s The Shock Doctrine) he questioned why the President doesn�t just �nationalize that industry and get the job done,� adding that in China, �they execute people for this.�

That�s typical of Matthews� sometimes over-the-top passion, but he�s been making solid criticism of the President for, in essence, looking like an observer, standing on the sidelines, instead of getting in there and doing something.

Similarly, other critics have openly wondered why Obama hasn�t shown more passion, like pounding the table, showing outrage; perhaps shouting.

Some conservative critics have Continue reading →

The Tea Party � Believing Its Own Delusions?

Following his victory over the establishment�s candidate in Kentucky�s Republican primary for the US Senate, Tuesday, Rand Paul repeated the familiar Tea Party mantra that his victory shows the Tea Party movement is sweeping across the country; that we�re going to �take America back!�

Well, OK, but take it back from what? And to what?

Well first, I think that many of those drawn to the Tea Party are genuinely concerned about the rising scope and size of government and want lower taxes.� Some have become fired up with rage about that (while also, of course, wanting to keep all the benefits and support that Big Government provides, as Louisiana Gov.Jindel recently discovered).

And some are so fired up that they just want to get rid of everybody on the Hill and the inhabitant of the White House � all those who are taking our country in the �wrong� direction.

But let�s take a look at what the Tea Party�s dominant ideology includes, with respect to what it thinks is the wrong course; what they advocate it it�s place; and, especially, what the Republican party is embracing as it bends over backwards to drink from the Tea Party�s cup (sorry for the mixed metaphors.)

Take Utah Republicans.� There�s a movement afoot to repeal the 17^th Amendment.� Having trouble remembering which one that is?� Well, it�s the one that gives people the right to vote for and select their Senators.� That�s right – elect their Senators.� Taking away that right is a favorite of Tea Party supporters, and they�re getting Republicans to join with them.

It gets better.� On the other side of the country, the Republican Party of Maine has adopted some Tea Party proposals of its own. It�s official platform calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve; demands an investigation of “collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth;” insists that “healthcare is not a right;” calls for the abrogation of the “UN Treaty on Rights of the Child” and the “Law Of The Sea Treaty;” and says we must resist “efforts to create a one world government.�� There�s more.� If you�re interested, here�s the whole thing.

The Maine Politics blog calls the official platform for the Republican Party of Maine �a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.� It quotes Dan Billings, who�s served as an attorney for the Maine GOP, describing the new platform as “wack job pablum” and “nutcase stuff.”

In contrast to the claims of Tea Partiers around the country, Washington Post columnist E.J.Dionne has pointed out some actual facts.� He writes:

�…there was evidence on Tuesday that there are limits to the anti-government mood that is supposedly sweeping the country. �In Arizona — nobody’s idea of a liberal state — voters supported a temporary increase in the sales tax from 5.6 to 6.6 cents on the dollar, to raise $1 billion annually. This, coupled with a large tax increase on businesses and high-income earners endorsed by voters in Oregon earlier this year, suggests a pragmatic electorate that is far less reflexively opposed to taxes or government than Tea Party cheerleaders would have us believe.

He also points out that:

The most significant result for the fall was the Democrats’ success in holding the western Pennsylvania House seat left vacant by the death of John Murtha. Democrat Mark Critz won an impressive nine-point victory over Republican Tim Burns by distancing himself from Obama and liberal positions on guns and abortion, but also by running a relentlessly economic populist message on jobs and outsourcing.

Circling back to the rising star Rand Paul, the new candidate has also made it clear that he opposes the Civil Rights Act.� That�s the Act that most of the then-Republicans voted for, back in the days when Republicans were strong supporters of civil rights, back before the party morphed into a bastion of right-wing mostly southern white men.� Paul emphasizes that opposing the Civil Rights Act is not racist.� Go figure.

If you look at some hard data about what is, in fact, transforming our society, in contrast with what the Tea Party sees, it�s hard not to conclude that their appeal is to a small number of people and will remain a fringe movement.

Sometimes we become so convinced of our own convictions, when they are shared by others, that we seduce ourselves into seeing a movement that will transform the world.� There’s a long history to such delusions.

The sad consequence for our two-party system is that the Republican Party is allowing itself to upend it�s own principles and ideals as it tries to capture this “movement,” and thus risks marching into oblivion.

Obama, Empathy And The Supreme Court Nominee

Well, people, it looks like the fight over the �e-word� has started again.� Remember last year, when President Obama said that the capacity for empathy was an important criteria for selecting a Supreme Court nominee?� He was quickly attacked by those who apparently heard �empathy� as a code word for some kind of ideological bias.� And shortly after, Obama backed off from using the term.

Last June, I wrote here about why I thought he should keep on using the word empathy, not back away from it.� I have a particular interest in the subject, having written about our national �empathy deficit disorder� in The Washington Post a few years ago — and which I recently updated on my Psychology Today blog. �During last year’s Supreme Court nomination process, critics distorted what empathy is. �It’s �actually the capacity to experience what another person experiences. �It’s what gives you the capacity for wisdom, perspective and sound judgment; not bias or distortion or being bamboozled into the other’s point of view.

Nevertheless, as Obama decides who to nominate as Justice Stevens� replacement, it�s like Yogi Berra said: �It�s d�j� vu, all over again.�

To wit:�A recent article in �The New York Times asks if �Obama is looking for empathy �by another name.�� The piece, by Peter Baker, points out that

A year after Mr. Obama made �empathy� one of his main criteria in picking his first Supreme Court justice, he is avoiding the word, which became radioactive, as he picks his second nominee. Instead, he says he wants someone with �a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.�

Baker goes on to say,

The issue is more than semantic. �The president emphasizes that while adhering to the rule of law, judges should also be able to see life through the eyes of those who come before the bench. His critics call that a prescription for twisting decisions to reach a desired outcome�..

The dispute became so contentious last year that even Mr. Obama�s nominee for the court, Sonia Sotomayor, disavowed the notion of empathy during hearings before her confirmation, saying that �judges can�t rely on what�s in their heart.�

In the same vein, Lee Epstein, a constitutional scholar at the Northwestern University School of Law, said in the Times piece, �You hear �empathy� and you don�t think impartiality, judicial temperament.�

And getting right to the �heart� (whoops, sorry!) of the matter,

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. �It seems to be calling again for judges to be less committed to fidelity to the law and calling for them to reach decisions that somehow endeavor to decide who ought to win.�

All of this posturing should be exposed for the ignorance and manipulation it contains, and presented in hopes that the public will buy it. �We need to emphasize why empathy is a plus, an inborn capacity, and the basis of healing the serious wounds in our global society, as Jeremy Rifkin has written in The Empathic Civilization. �But as�far as the relevance of empathy to the Supreme Court issue, The Nation�s �Katrina vanden Heuvel,�writing in The Washington Post, put it in proper context:

Is it better to have a corporate stooge on the bench than someone capable of understanding how his or her decisions will affect 300 million fellow citizens? Better to have a biased judge than a humane one, a dishonest justice instead of one who�s insightful? �It� goes to show how hysterical those critics have become about empathy.

It�s sad and discouraging to witness fear-fueled distortions coming from elected officials and others. �I hope that President Obama returns to his well-founded support for empathy as a criteria. �It’s especially important at this time in our history when we need more, not less empathy, not only in a Supreme Court justice, but in our society at large, to help face and solve major problems that confront us – economically, socially, psychologically. �As I wrote previously, in the Bible King Solomon asked God for �a heart that listens.� Notice that he didn�t ask for �a head that thinks.� Continue reading →

The Psychology Of Public Policy

The other day Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stirred up some interesting reactions. �He said in a speech that Americans are faced with having to accept higher taxes or readjustments in programs like Medicare and Social Security, in order to avoid ever-increasing budget deficits that will be catastrophic.

Now I’m not an economist (see former Undersecretary of Commerce Ev Ehrlich’s blog for such matters). �But I started thinking about Bernanke’s comments — and the reactions from some Republicans and assorted “anti-tax patriots” who came out with guns blazing (metaphorically….so far) — from a psychological perspective. �I find some psychological attitudes and ideology about the role of individuals in society driving the reactions to what Bernanke raised. �They’re visible as well in the angry, hostile response to the health care legislation and, more broadly, the fear and loathing of “government takeover.”

Here’s what Bernanke said:

“These choices are difficult, and it always seems easier to put them off — until the day they cannot be put off anymore. But unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.” �And, “To avoid large and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”

In The Washington Post story reporting Bernanke’s speech, writers Neil Irwin and Lori Montgomery�point out that:

“…the economic downturn — with tumbling tax revenue, aggressive stimulus spending and rising safety-net payments such as unemployment insurance — has driven already large budget deficits to their highest level relative to the economy since the end of World War II. This has fueled public concern over how long the United States can sustain its fiscal policies.

The upshot of what we’re facing appears to be this: Our current way of life is unsustainable. �So what’s a possible remedy, according to Bernanke and others? �Raising taxes, not lowering them. �Cuts in Medicare benefits. �Raising the retirement age. �And bringing rising health care costs down. �To �do any or all of that requires a different mentality about our responsibility and obligations to others in our society. �And it’s not pleasant. �That’s the psychology part.

That is, we’re highly attached to the ideology that we are and should be separate, isolated individuals; that each of us should look out for one’s own self-interest. �And we define that largely by material acquisition and money. �Hence, opposition to “redistribution” of wealth, even though that’s exactly what we do via taxes that support all the services that we expect society to give us. �We also define our self-interest as psychologically healthy, mature, even; the hallmark of a succesful life. �Those that don’t do as well are not my problem.

Except now they are: �We’ve been hit with the reality that our world is so interconnected that someone else’s “problem” is also our own. �To�consider subordinating some of our personal wants and goals for the larger common good feels foreign and frightening. �Yet that’s exactly what we’re faced with doing. It begins with shifting our mental perspectives towards recognizing that we’re all in the same boat — not just we Americans, but all of us in this global community. �And it means stimulating the emotional counterpart of that perspective — the hard-wired capacity for empathy. �And then, making the sacrifices that result from embracing the new realities. �The economic collapse has made the need for those shifts very apparent. �We’re faced with learning to sacrifice in ways that we’re not used to doing, in order to thrive as individuals and a society in the world as it now exists.

But such shifts meet with strong, ingrained resistance and denial. �They’re fueled �by unrealistic, almost delusional notions that pursuing self-interest at all costs will lead to success and well-being. So, for example, Republicans pounced on the suggestion of increasing taxes. �They also went after�remarks by�Paul A. Volcker earlier this week, who spoke very directly in favor of higher taxes. �He said that the U.S. might have to consider a European-style sales tax, known as a value-added tax, to close the budget gap. �He said “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes.”

That’s a pretty direct, unvarnished statement of reality. �But Republicans accused Obama of plotting a big tax hike, for nefarious purposes. �”To make up for the largest levels of spending and deficits in modern history, the Administration is laying the foundation for a large, misguided new tax, a first-time American VAT.” Sen. Charles E. Grassley said in a statement.

Onward goes the struggle between facing reality and dealing with it, or not facing it….and still having to deal with it

Welcome To The New “Real America”

In two recent New York Times columns, both Frank Rich and Charles M. Blow dug beneath the current surge of anger and right-wing extremism and came up with some penetrating insights about the sources of the outrage; insights that are also the tip of an iceberg: �Both of their analyses reflect a broad, sweeping evolution within the mentality of men and women that’s been taking place beneath our feet for the last several years.� I�ll describe some of those broader changes below, but first let�s look at what Rich and Blow describe.

Rich points out that the �tsunami of anger� today is illogical, in the sense that the health care legislation is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare.� He also reminds us that the new anger and extremism predated the health care debate:

The first signs were the shrieks of �traitor� and �off with his head� at Palin rallies as Obama�s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since � from Gov. Rick Perry�s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to �You lie!� piercing the president�s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

He�s pointing out that major changes are occurring in the demographics of our country.� These changes � and others, concerning what people look for in relationships and in their careers — �are beginning to have major impact on us psychologically, including our psychological health.� For some, they generate tremendous fear that can give rise to hatred and aggression; a desire to �take back our country.�

Rich points out that:

Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven�t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

Then, in a similar analysis, Charles M. Blow writes in his column:

It�s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of �take our country back.� The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn�t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill�s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It�s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Blow cites a recent Quinnipiac University poll that found Tea Party members to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country�s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and �less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.� �Blow points out that this is at the very time

when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite), less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

Well said.� Mounting demographic and psychological research are confirming and extending what Rich and Blow describe.� In fact, several strands of change have been underway and coalescing into a changing psychology of people � their emotional attitudes, mental perspectives, values regarding work and relationships, and behavior towards people in need or who suffer loss. �These are shifts within a wide range of thought, feelings and actions.� Here are some of them: Continue reading →

Thoughts On Political Intolerance and Bigotry In Today’s Culture

In a recent op-ed piece in The New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert wrote that the G.O.P. has become

…the�party of trickle down and weapons of mass destruction, the party of birthers and death-panel lunatics. This is the party that genuflects at the altar of right-wing talk radio, with its insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry.

Glenn Beck of Fox News has called President Obama a �racist� and asserted that he �has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.�

Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential candidate, has said of Mr. Obama�s economic policies: �Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.�

The G.O.P. poisons the political atmosphere and then has the gall to complain about an absence of bipartisanship.

And over the weekend, such civil rights leaders as John Lewis were subjected to racial slurs; Congressman Barney Franks was slammed with homophobic labels as he walked to the Capitol. �Much of this occurred with the egging on of Republican House members, shouting and sign-waving from the balcony, as they watched Tea Party members engaging in what Michael Steele described as just “stupid things” being said by “idiots.” But they aren’t. �They are statements of bigotry and racism.

The interesting thing, psychologically, is what propels this in 2010, and how pervasive such intolerance is, in our country. �I think it may be more widespread in appearance than in reality, however, though it certainly looks like the former. �And Herbert is dead-on when he writes,

…it is way past time for decent Americans to rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears. And it is time for every American of good will to hold the Republican Party accountable for its role in tolerating, shielding and encouraging foul, mean-spirited and bigoted behavior in its ranks and among its strongest supporters.

I think the real trends across our culture are in opposite directions — towards greater, not lesser tolerance; towards awareness that we’re all interconnected in this globalized world, and that we rise or fall together, as a species. Continue reading →

Awakening The Common Good In Our Self-Serving Culture

The eminent historian Tony Judt, author of the seminal work Postwar, about the dynamics of Europe since World War II, has written an important new book, in my view, Ill Fares the Land.� The New York Times has called it a ��bleak assessment of the selfishness and materialism that have taken root in Western societies (that) will stick to your feet and muddy your floors. But the Times adds that �Ill Fares the Land is also optimistic, raw and patriotic in its sense of what countries like the United States and Britain have meant � and can continue to mean � to their people and to the world.�

In his review, Dwight Garner explains that Judt is describing the �political and intellectual landscape in Britain and the United States since the 1980s, the Reagan-Thatcher era, and he worries about an increasing and �uncritical adulation of wealth for its own sake.� What matters, he writes, �is not how affluent a country is but how unequal it is,� and he sees growing and destabilizing inequality almost everywhere.�

It�s heartening to see at least one �public intellectual� � a vanishing breed � lay out in a direct, forceful argument the accumulating toll of greed and self-centeredness that has dominated our recent political and social landscape.� Judt describes these themes as �elevated to a cult by Know Nothings, States� Rightists, anti-tax campaigners and � most recently � the radio talk show demagogues of the Republican Right.�

Judt observes, for example, that the notion that taxes might �be a contribution to the provision of collective goods that individuals could never afford in isolation (roads, firemen, policemen, schools, lamp posts, post offices, not to mention soldiers, warships, and weapons) is rarely considered.�� Click here for the full Times review.

I think Judt�s theme about serving the �common good� is growing throughout our culture.� It�s increasingly visible, for example, in the recognition that humans are �wired� for empathy and for serving something larger than their just their own needs — many of which are socially conditioned to begin with and fuel self-centeredness and narcissism.

In that vein I wrote about healing our �empathy deficit disorder� in my previous post, and author Jeremy Rifkin has argued much more broadly and in great depth about the rise of an �empathic civilization” in his major, well-documented new book.

I also see the awakening of interconnectedness and service to the common good increasingly visible in the rise of a new business model � one that combines having impact on the common good as well as achieving financial success.� The green business movement incorporates much of this emergence, as well as related trends towards sustainable investment, social entrepreneurialism and venture philanthropy.� I would add to those the growing recognition of the need for a psychologically healthy management cultures, as well.

Interesting, also, in Judt�s book is his argument that the left and right have switched sides, in a sense.� That is, he explains that today the right pursues radical goals, and has abandoned the �social moderation which served it so well from Disraeli to Heath, Theodore Roosevelt�to Nelson Rockefeller.� He argues that it�s now the left that is trying to conserve �the institutions, legislation, services and rights that we have inherited from the great age of 20th-century reform.�� For another interesting take on the �reversal� of the left and right from the 1960s to the present, see economist Ev Ehrlich�s two-part essay on his blog, Ev Ehrlich’s�Everyday Economics.

It sounds lame, but true: We�re sure living through some interesting times�.

“Terrorism” — A Politically Useful Label?

The distinctions we’re hearing between”terrorism” and “criminal acts” go beyond the issue of whether to try certain defendants in military or civilian courts. �It appears that when it serves the Cheney/Tea Party political purposes, some acts of murder and destructiveness against Americans — attempted or consumated — are called “terrorism,” while �other similar acts – �such as those of Joseph Stack, who flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas, killing someone in a suicide mission; or Amy Bishop, the professor who shot and killed several colleagues when denied tenure — are labeled as simply criminal acts of �individual, emotionally disturbed people.

Aside from understanding the �psychology of people engaging in such acts (an important issue, itself), whether they act as individuals or part of an organized group, �many in the media appear to swallow this portrayal whole – accepting and repeating the same alleged distinction. Even Homeland Security Secretay Napolitano has joined in, recently stating on NPR’s Diane Rehm show, for example, that Joseph Stack’s actions were those of a “lone wolf,” carrying out a “personal agenda.”

Of course, all this gives more cred to part of the right wing’s core agenda – convincing the public that the Obama administration is “soft” on terrorism, despite all the hard evidence to the contrary. �The recent uproar over Cheney The Daughter’s portrayal of some Justice Department lawyers as part of the “al-Qaeda 7” is another example of this strategy. Unfortunately, �Napolitano, as well as some journalists and politicians, are playing right into this by trying to make a politically safe but dubious distinction between certain “terrorist acts” and “terrorism.”

An interesting distinction, perhaps, except to those who end up dead either way.

“Birthers” and The Black Man In The White House

The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Gene Robinson has a great piece about the paranoia of the “birther” movement — those, including members of Congress, who claim that President Obama was not born in the US, is an alien, not an American citizen, a “Manchurian candidate” after all, and so forth. �http://tinyurl.com/ktstgj

A recent poll shows that the overwhelming majority of those who believe in this conspiracy are Southern Republicans. �I think it’s pretty clear what’s behind this movement, and why some members of Congress go along with it; or refuse to repudiate it. �It’s the simple fact that we’ve elected an African-American President of the United States. �As Chris Matthews has pointed out on “Hardball,” �this alleged “controversy” is not about documentation; it’s about pigmentation.

That’s a polite way of saying “racism.” �I think the “birther” believers are really saying to themselves (and to each other) “Oh my God, there’s a black man in the White House!” �So they’ve got to de-legitimize him.�I hope that more public figures expose this for what it is, and not skirt the issue. �Or give credence to it, as Lou Dobbs has been doing on CNN. The larger issue, though, is that our country is undergoing massive transition and evolution in many areas. �We are moving away from a dominant white male culture. �It’s estimated that in about 40 years white people will be in the minority. �Already, five states have non-white majorities.

This is our future — we’re headed towards a multi-racial, multi-ethnic America. �While the fears of those who view this as threatening can be understood, the expression of those fears through hatred, conspiracy theories and potential violence should not be tolerated.

Will Climate Change Denial Doom The Planet?

I co-wrote this piece with Ev Ehrlich for the Huffington Post.

Referencing the fate of Superman’s home planet, Krypton, we draw a parallel to the non-fictional world of today, regarding the psychology of climate change deniers .

PROGRESSIVE IMPACT

Douglas LaBier's Essays & New Findings About Psychologically Healthy Lives And Society In Our Interconnected World