Dick Meyer warns of the danger of scapegoating today:
Wall Street Blame Game: Tag, You're It
"This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president," Jim Cramer, one of the great cheerleaders of the early 21st century bull market, said of President Obama on television the other day.
Herbert Hoover must be so relieved. And let the scapegoating begin.
...
The idea of blaming one person for the downfall of the economy with a gross domestic product of about $14 trillion, powered by 300 million people and engaged in complex global commerce is nuts — whether that person is Bush, Obama, Alan Greenspan, Bernard Madoff, Osama bin Laden or the editors of opinions at The Wall Street Journal.
...
His enemies and critics are just doing to Obama what Bush's enemies and critics did to him. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make up the infantilism of American politics. It has been a long time since an American president fended off the piranhas of public opinion and propaganda to be effective deep into an administration.
There is one very important thing right with Dick's post and one crucial thing very wrong. As I have noted a number of times, when Societies are stressed, they tend to regress. Less mature, childish, reactions become common place, rationality is relaxed in favor of scapegoating, demonizing and splitting; when the regression is severe, the results can be quite dangerous, as I noted in Terror and Societal Regression, which commented specifically about our post-9/11 reactions as a society:
After a national trauma, there are a number of signs of "large group" regression. (I will not here go into some of the characteristics of what constitutes a large group; it relates to elements that I have referred to in the past as our tribal nature; see also here.) The panel chair, Vamik Volkan, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and founder of the Center for the Study of the Mind and Human Interaction at the University of Virginia and Emeritus Training and Supervising Analyst of the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute, described 14 major symptoms of large-group regression:
1) Rallying around the leader.
2) Losing individuality.
3) Severe splitting. This can occur as a polarity between "us" and "them" or within society.
...
14) Heightened importance of the leader's personality. When a large group is regressed, the personality organization of the leader becomes extremely influential, as he or she can tame or inflame the regression. Contrast Slobodan Milosevic's use of violence and terror with Nelson Mandela's use of nonviolent means.
[For the complete list of symptoms of large group regression, see Terror and Societal Regression; further considerations of this topic are collected at Societal Regression.]
When societies regress, splitting and attendant scapegoating are common early features of the regression. Dick Meyer is absolutely correct to be concerned about the tendency, yet he misses a crucial element of the discussion.
It is not the spitting of those in the private sector that is most dangerous but the splitting that occurs as an instrument of political power by those who control the government. The fact that the Wall Street Journal or Jim Cramer may be attempting to demonize Barack Obama (and, since the stock market is a leading indicator, expressing concern s about the future direction of the economy, this point is debatable) is much less significant than a concerted, White House directed effort, in league with compliant supporters in the media, to demonize Rush Limbaugh. This is dangerous territory for a new administration to enter. It has the capacity to spin out of control as well as to boomerang upon its perpetrators.
When splitting is done unconsciously, it is often difficult to become aware of the tendency. For example, I see Barack Obama and his administration as taking a radical turn and scapegoating their opponents in order to enact their policies without significant opposition. I am generally in agreement with the Wall Street Journal and others that the administration's apparent ineptness has alarmed the markets and is responsible for the continued downward slope of the stock market. I recognize that this recession started under George Bush and, in fact, has roots going back 20 years, but worry that Obama, et al, either do not know how to stop the descent or are comfortable with a collapsing market and liable to lead us into a depression from the current recession. Because of such growing concerns (as well as worries about Obama foreign policies) I understand I am predisposed to see him in more black and white terms; this could quite easily lead to splitting where all poor outcomes are attributed to Barack Obama and all good to the libertarian and conservative opposition to him. On a personal level this could lead to my blog becoming strident and partisan (which might actually increase my readership) but would have little further consequences since I am in no position to do much to alter the current trajectory.
On the other hand, those who unconsciously idealize Barack Obama and demonize his opponents have a much greater potential to adversely effect our social functioning. Much of the MSM, by virtue of their unconscious (and perhaps consciously partisan) idealization have fallen far short of their responsibilities to shine a light on the Obama administration's shortcomings. Further, by enlisting in his effort to demonize the "designated enemy", ranging from the campaign and MSM assaults on "Joe the Plumber" to the current orchestrated campaign to vilify Rush Limbaugh, the MSM furthers polarization and splitting.
If I am splitting, or even if Rush Limbaugh is falling victim to the regressive tendency toward splitting, the outcome is incapable of damaging our political system. On the other hand, if Barack Obama and his administration unconsciously splits and consciously scapegoats people, the damage to his presidency and to our system of government can reverberate and undermine the legitimacy of the system.
As evidence of how dangerous this kind of behavior in our leaders can be, recall the last President who engaged in wholesale splitting and scapegoating. Enemies lists and designated scapegoats were early stages in the development and elaboration of a paranoid worldview that led to disaster. Barack Obama imagines himself to be FDR; let us hope he does not change into Richard M. Nixon.
Recent Comments