Asylum, Now an American Horror Story

It’s hard to know exactly where the Trump Administration found the inspiration for its newest set of draconian asylum rules. Might it have been a National Geographic special where a giant anaconda encircles its prey, squeezes it to death, and then swallows it whole? Or perhaps a late-night, B-grade horror film in which some evil mastermind drowns his victims by slowly filling a sealed room with water? Regardless, these proposed changes cannot camouflage the racism, xenophobia, and nativist politics behind them. We’ve seen the Muslim travel ban, the attempted rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and the terrorizing of communities by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Now we’re witnessing an assault designed to suffocate the hopes and life prospects of asylum seekers.

The changes under consideration would upend the decades-old and internationally embraced standards of the Refugee Act of 1980, created to protect refugees who have a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Despite the frequent misleading and malicious characterizations from the White House, with rare exceptions asylum seekers leave their homes with few resources other than the keen determination to endure the risks, hurdles, and hardships they inevitably face in reaching and living in the United States. But their motivation is simple: failing to do so is quite possibly the prelude to grievous harm and even death in their country of origin.

Continue reading “Asylum, Now an American Horror Story”

Status Quo Bias and the “Change Is Dangerous” Mind Game


 The following brief excerpt is from Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible by Roy Eidelson. A free PDF version of the book is available here.

With the Change-Is-Dangerous vulnerability mind game, today’s plutocrats defend their agenda in a different way: by insisting that their opponents’ proposals for change will endanger us all. Regardless of the benefits these alternatives could bring, the 1% argue that initiatives inconsistent with their own policy recommendations will have potentially catastrophic consequences for the country. This is true whether we’re talking about tax increases for the wealthy (new investments stifled!), minimum wage hikes (forced layoffs!), curtailment of spying operations (terrorists everywhere!), new regulations to address climate change (U.S. businesses unable to compete!), reductions in mass incarceration (crime waves!), gun control (defenseless citizens!), or lower-cost imported medications from Canada (tainted drugs!).

Such appeals from self-interested one-percenters benefit from what psychologists call “status quo bias.” We generally prefer to keep things the way they are rather than face the uncertainty of less familiar options. In part, this is because we usually experience losses more intensely than rewards. That’s why winning $100 doesn’t feel as good as losing $100 feels bad. In much the same way, we tend to focus on how a proposed change could make things worse rather than better. Familiar expressions like “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know” and “When in doubt, do nothing” capture the phenomenon well. This helps explain why patients are reluctant to change a medication they’ve been taking for years, even if their doctor tells them a newer one works better and has fewer side effects. Likewise, when it comes to elections, incumbents have an advantage over their challengers—even when they’ve disappointed their constituents. Preferences like these may be irrational, but that doesn’t make them any less stubborn or potent.

Continue reading “Status Quo Bias and the “Change Is Dangerous” Mind Game”

Beware the Bipartisan Legion of Doom: Corporate Democrats and Trump’s GOP

 

In professional wrestling circles, the Legion of Doom is a name that conjures up the fearsome physiques and painted faces of one of the great tag teams of all time. In the political arena today, the same moniker aptly describes an even more daunting and dangerous duo: the profits-over-people corporate wing of the Democratic Party and the belligerent, bigoted, and brutal GOP of Donald Trump. There’s really no better way to describe a pairing that literally imperils our democracy and our planet at the same time.

The foundation for this forbidding alliance–“bipartisanship” at its worst–is simple. Both of these powerhouses are beholden to the same benefactors: an assortment of status-quo-defending behemoths that includes Wall Street, the oil and gas industry, health insurance companies, Big Pharma, military contractors, and mainstream media conglomerates. They therefore share the same no-holds-barred commitment: making sure that progressive victories are few and far between.

Of course, unlike their predecessors on the mat, today’s Legion of Doom don’t rely on brute strength and frightening visages to subdue opponents. Rather, their seeming stranglehold on our politics comes from the bottomless wealth of the self-serving 1% and from the use of manipulative narratives–“political mind games”–designed to mislead us about what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible.

As a psychologist, I’ve studied these propaganda appeals. The ones that tend to be most effective in confusing and misdirecting us target five core concerns that govern how we make sense of the world–namely, issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Each is linked to a basic question, like this.

Continue reading “Beware the Bipartisan Legion of Doom: Corporate Democrats and Trump’s GOP”

Bernie, Biden, and My Father


My father was a generous and forgiving man, devoted to his family. Although we didn’t always agree, he taught me a lot about many things, and I always admired his decency, his integrity, and his resilience. In 2014, at the age of 85, he passed away after several years of deteriorating health.

If my father were alive today, I’m sure we’d still be having our weekly Sunday morning breakfasts together. The number one topic–after his grandchildren–was usually politics. So here in January 2020, that would undoubtedly mean two lifelong Democrats (I’m now 66 myself) sitting at his kitchen table, debating the relative merits of presidential candidates Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

But to first take a step back, I should note that my father never would have believed that Donald Trump could become president of the United States. He would have been stunned even more by the bigotry, brutality, and corruption that characterize this White House and its GOP enablers, from Muslim bans to racist tweets to children in cages at the Mexican border to impeachable offenses. After all, I can’t count the number of times my father would reassuringly tell me, “Roy, remember, most people are basically good and honest.”

Over many years, our breakfast conversations took on a consistent form. First, I’d express dismay or outrage over current events–the torture of US war-on-terror prisoners; the deception-driven invasion of Iraq; the callous treatment of Hurricane Katrina victims; Wall Street’s predatory role in the financial meltdown; the unlawful mass surveillance of Americans, the growing divide between “haves” and “have-nots”; and other lesser injustices. My father, even when feeling much the same way as I did, would then typically ask me whether I’d really given sufficient consideration to all opposing points of view. That would eventually lead to my wondering aloud how those viewpoints could possibly be defended by a reasonable person. And often enough he’d smile and calmly respond, “You’re right.”

That single “You’re right” was a cherished prize. It reassured me that he and I were now seeing the world through similar eyes. In contrast, there was also my father’s triple “You’re right, you’re right, you’re right.” This was almost always said with some combination of frustration and exhaustion, and it had a very different meaning. It meant that, although the contrary evidence I offered was compelling to me, my father’s own position on the matter was still firmly entrenched. Sometimes it meant that relinquishing it would be a source of too much discomfort or pain for him. So that phrase represented closure of a different sort: it told me it was time for a new topic.

Continue reading “Bernie, Biden, and My Father”

Psychology’s “Dark Triad” and the Billionaire Class

“They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
— F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby

The Outrage of Billionaires

The data are stark and compelling. The richest 400 families in the United States own financial assets that exceed the wealth of the bottom 60% of all American households combined. U.S. billionaires pay taxes at a lower effective rate than working class families. The CEOs of S&P 500 companies, averaging over $14 million in annual compensation, make roughly as much in a single day as their median employee earns in an entire year. At the same time, research shows that such extreme inequality between rich and poor is a driving force behind many of society’s most profound and corrosive ills. These disparities are associated with diminished levels of physical health, mental health, educational achievement, social mobility, trust, and community life. They’re also linked to heightened levels of infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse, crime, violence, and incarceration.

In light of these realities, it’s no surprise that some political leaders are calling for dramatic policy changes designed to tamp down economic inequality. Equally unsurprising, some members of the so-called billionaire class in this country are outraged by these proposals. Responding to Senator Bernie Sanders’s comment that he doesn’t think billionaires should exist, Stephen Schwarzman — the billionaire CEO of the private equity firm Blackstone Group — told a New York City audience, “Maybe Bernie Sanders shouldn’t exist.” On the Fox Business Network, Ken Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot, angrily called Sanders a “blowhard” and asked, “What the hell has he done for the little people?” And CNBC host Jim Cramer reported that Wall Street executives — privately discussing the aspirations of Senator Elizabeth Warren — had told him “she’s got to be stopped.”

Complaints like these are nothing new from America’s super-rich. Almost a decade ago, Schwarzman (noted above) compared the possible elimination of a favorable hedge fund tax loophole to “when Hitler invaded Poland.” A few years later, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, now-deceased billionaire venture capitalist Tom Perkins wrote, “I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its ‘one-percent,’ namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one-percent, namely the ‘rich.'” And fellow billionaire Sam Zell told Bloomberg News, “This country should not talk about envy of the one-percent. It should talk about emulating the one-percent.”

But should we really be trying to emulate the one-percent? Perhaps not. Psychological research suggests that the super-rich, as a group, aren’t necessarily the role models we collectively need if our goal is to advance the common good and build a more decent society. In particular, one reason to be skeptical involves a constellation of interlinked personality traits — Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism — that psychologists call the “Dark Triad.” The originators of the term summarize it this way: “To varying degrees, all three entail a socially malevolent character with behavior tendencies toward self-promotion, emotional coldness, duplicity, and aggressiveness.”

Let’s now consider each of these three components separately, in regard to what they may tell us about the one-percent.

Continue reading “Psychology’s “Dark Triad” and the Billionaire Class”

Silencing Our Veterans: A Bridge Too Far

 

It has now been four years since the “Hoffman Report” presented extensive evidence of secret collaboration between leaders of the American Psychological Association (APA) and psychologists working for the Department of Defense (DOD). According to that independent review, the goal of collaboration was to ensure that APA ethics policies would not prevent psychologists from participating in war-on-terror detention and interrogation operations at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere—operations that the International Committee of the Red Cross once described as “tantamount to torture.”

The report’s findings led to long-overdue reforms within APA, but they also produced an intense backlash from military-intelligence psychologists implicated in the report—and their supporters—who insist that their activities make our country safer. To be clear, this is the realm of “operational psychology” and it is entirely different from the work of many dedicated psychologists who—as either practitioners or researchers—play vital roles in addressing the healthcare needs of our country’s soldiers, veterans, and their families. In contrast, operational psychology in national security settings often involves ethically fraught activities in which individuals and groups are often targeted for harm; informed consent is rarely obtained; and outside ethical oversight by professional bodies is obstructed.

In their attempt to rebut the Hoffman Report, some operational psychologists—including leaders of the APA’s military psychology division—have constructed a highly sanitized narrative, one that claims all of the following to be true: (1) APA’s consistent support for DOD operations is entirely unproblematic; (2) no DOD psychologists were ever involved in detainee abuse; (3) the rare instances of DOD abuse occurred only during the early years after 9/11; and (4) once discovered, the DOD quickly instituted policies that brought abuses to an end.

This is a flawed account, and it has been debunked on multiple fronts (perhaps most obviously, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, who has stated that ongoing indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay itself constitutes “a form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment”). But the proponents of this narrative continue to engage in efforts aimed at discrediting, silencing, and intimidating critics whose knowledge or experience casts doubt on their story. Indeed, they have already pursued defamation lawsuits and at least one formal ethics complaint, while also calling for suppression of the Hoffman Report and offering continuing education credits to those who attend sessions in which their claims are presented as gospel.

Continue reading “Silencing Our Veterans: A Bridge Too Far”

Give Peace a Chance: Don’t Believe the War Profiteers

Last month I had the opportunity to share some thoughts at a Divest Philly from the War Machine event, hosted by Wooden Shoe Books and sponsored by World Beyond War, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, and other anti-war groups. Below are my remarks, slightly edited for clarity. My thanks to everyone involved.

********

In late May, Vice President Mike Pence was the commencement speaker at West Point. In part, he told the graduating cadets this: “It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life. You will lead soldiers in combat. It will happen…And when that day comes, I know you will move to the sound of the guns and do your duty, and you will fight, and you will win. The American people expect nothing less.”

What Pence didn’t mention that day is why he could be so sure that this will come to pass. Or who the primary beneficiaries will be, if or when it does. Because the winners won’t be the American people, who see their taxes go to missiles instead of healthcare and education. Nor will they be the soldiers themselves—some of whom will return in flag-draped caskets while many more sustain life-altering physical and psychological injuries. The winners also won’t be the citizens of other countries who experience death and displacement on a horrific scale from our awesome military might. And our planet’s now-fragile climate won’t come out on top either, since the Pentagon is the single largest oil consumer in the world.

No, the spoils will go to our massive and multifaceted war machine. The war machine is comprised of companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, among others, that make billions of dollars each year from war, war preparations, and arms sales. In fact, the U.S. government pays Lockheed alone more each year than it provides in funding to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department, and the Interior Department combined. The war machine also includes the CEOs of these defense contractors, who personally take in tens of millions of dollars annually, and the many politicians in Washington who help secure their jobs by collectively accepting millions of dollars in contributions from the defense industry—roughly evenly split between both major parties. And let’s not forget the retired politicians and retired military officers, who travel the pot-of-gold pipeline to become highly paid board members and spokespersons for these same companies.

Vice-President Pence also didn’t mention to the cadets that the U.S. military budget today exceeds that of the next seven largest countries combined—an enthusiastic display of Congressional bipartisanship at its very worst. Nor did he note that we’re the largest international seller of major weapons in the world, with ongoing efforts to promote even bigger markets for U.S. arms companies in countries run by ruthless, repressive autocrats. That’s how it came to pass last August, for example, that Saudi Arabia used an expensive Lockheed laser-guided bomb to blow up a bus in Yemen, killing 40 young boys who were on a school trip.

Continue reading “Give Peace a Chance: Don’t Believe the War Profiteers”

Is the American Psychological Association Addicted to Militarism and War?

When hijacked planes hit their targets on the morning of September 11, 2001, the American Psychological Association (APA) sprang into action. Within hours, through its disaster response network the APA mobilized expert practitioners and worked with the American Red Cross to provide psychological support to families of the victims and to rescue workers. The APA’s public affairs office moved quickly as well to assist the public—and especially families, children, and schools—by developing and disseminating materials that provided psychological guidance about coping with fear and trauma.

But with comparable urgency, the APA also ensured that the Bush Administration would view the association as a valued partner in the military and intelligence operations central to the new “war on terror.” Within days, the APA’s science directorate called upon research psychologists to identify how psychological science might contribute to counter-terrorism initiatives. Shortly thereafter, a newly established APA subcommittee on psychology’s response to terrorism directed its attention to “offering psychologists’ expertise to decision-makers in the military, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of State and related agencies” and to “inventorying members’ expertise and asking government psychologists how agencies could put that expertise to use.”

These two responses are clearly very different from each other. The first—providing expert, research-informed psychological assistance to a grieving and traumatized nation—captures the stated mission of the APA quite well: “advancing psychology to benefit society and improve people’s lives.” The second—offering zealous support to the military-intelligence establishment after the White House had promised a “crusade” in which adversaries would face the “full wrath” of the United States and in which our operatives would “spend time in the shadows” working “the dark side” and using “any means at our disposal”—certainly does not.

Continue reading “Is the American Psychological Association Addicted to Militarism and War?”

Interview: Trauma-Informed Care with Transition-Age Youth

 

Last month, an article titled “The Tragedy of Baltimore” in the New York Times Magazine described the upsurge in violence in a city long known for its “blight, suburban flight, segregation, drugs, racial inequality, [and] concentrated poverty.” At the center of the storm are transition-age youth, who too often face long odds and challenging futures in the communities where they live.

I recently had the opportunity to talk with Patricia Cobb-Richardson, MS. For the past 20 years, she has worked in New York City, Delaware, and now Baltimore developing and leading programs that aim to leverage the protective factors and resilience of young adults in communities challenged by chronic toxic stress and trauma borne of gun violence, substance use, poverty, structural racism, and mass incarceration. In our recent interview Patricia shared her work and perspective on trauma-informed care. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity.

Continue reading “Interview: Trauma-Informed Care with Transition-Age Youth”

Stoking Fear: We Must Remember How the Iraq War Was Sold

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. — Nazi propagandist Hermann Goering

It was 16 years ago this month, on March 19, 2003, that U.S. forces began a misguided and illegal “shock and awe” military assault on Iraq. The enormous costs of that invasion and subsequent occupation are all too clear today. Thousands of American soldiers and coalition allies were killed and many more suffered horrific, debilitating injuries; among the U.S. casualties, a disproportionate number were underprivileged youth. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died, and millions were driven from their homes. To this toll we can also add the emergence and growth of the monstrous Islamic State (ISIS). And our Iraq War expenditures—past, present, and future—total trillions of dollars, a massive drain on crucial domestic programs for those in need.

Many painful lessons can still be drawn from this devastating war and its ongoing aftermath. Among them, the tragedy represents a distressing case study in the manipulative use of fear—what I call “It’s a Dangerous World” appeals—by disingenuous leaders who insist that disaster awaits if we fail to heed their policy prescriptions. Unfortunately, dire warnings from influential figures can short-circuit our critical thinking and propel us toward action even before we’ve examined the evidence or considered the consequences and alternatives. Psychologically, we’re soft targets for these tactics because, in our desire to avoid being unprepared when danger strikes, we’re often too quick to conjure catastrophe—the worst outcome imaginable—regardless of how unlikely it may be.

Continue reading “Stoking Fear: We Must Remember How the Iraq War Was Sold”