The most common factor in who we choose as a leader is charisma. We base important decisions on who to follow based on how we feel. This makes it extraordinarily easy for our leaders to persuade us to do things we normally wouldn't. That ability is the core of leader's power. This is not a secret to politicians.
I was just reviewing the book Moral Leadership, specifically the chapter on the psychology of power by Philip G. Zimbardo. "The same mind that creates the most beautiful works of art and extraordinary marvels of technology is equally responsible for perversion of its own perfection." His chapter delves into how good, regular people can be persuaded to do evil things.
Evil (by his definition)- behaving or causing people to act in demeaning, dehumanizing, harming, destroying or the killing of innocent people.
How do leaders use power to persuade people to do evil things?
First of all, as the book makes clear, evil is not the associated with specific kind of people, or a specific person, but rather the result of permissible social constructs and situations. Evil is more prevalent in situations of power (where moral code has less of a role in actions) and in situations where there is a sense of anonymity and/or a sense of crisis.
Within these constructs a powerful person may:
1. Offer an ideology that justifies any means to a desired goal.
2. Arrange a contractual obligation (may be verbal)
3. Give participants meaningful roles to play with familiar positive values and response scripts
4. Present basic, vague rules to be followed
5. Replace reality with desirable rhetoric
6. Create opportunities to diffuse responsibility, so actor does not feel accountable
7. Start path toward evil act with small step
8. Gradually increase acts upon evil act
9. Change authority from 'just' to 'unjust' and demanding which causes confusion and obedience
10. Make exit costs high, but allow dissent
Of course, good people would need to abandon their sense of humanity and morality to engage in evil acts.
Conditions in which we may do so:
1. Altered perception of evil through moral justification, comforting rhetoric, euphemistic labeling.
2. Altered sense of consequence through minimizing, ignoring, misconstruing consequences
3. Displacing/diffusing responsibility
4. Dehumanizing/blaming victim
According to Zimbardo, leaders would use two main strategies to get followers conditioned is to
1. Again, reduce social accountability "creating an environment that masks identity and diffuses responsibility across others in a situation."
2. Stop self-monitoring by altering consciousness through strong emotions, hyperintense activity, and/or drugs.
The result of this evil power manipulation is the suspension of cognitive controls that guide moral action. That is how leaders get good people to do bad things.
Have Republicans taken us down an evil path? I argue they have. From the war in Iraq to a fight against fellow Americans in our own country.
1. Ideology: They have used the 'War of Terrorism' to create a sense of crisis in which national security is the goal for which any means necessary will be used.
2. Diffused Responsibility: They have created the Tea Party, which is a social movement 'without any leader' and now say that their actions are on behalf of 'the people'.
3. Use moral justifications: they routinely act under the auspice of G-d and Christianity.
4. Have created a hyper partisan atmosphere: labeling Obama as a Socialist/Muslim/non-citizen, and anyone who does not prescribe to their ideology as un-American.
I could go on analyzing each step of the above framework and how Republicans could be following this framework, but I will leave it here, with the most obvious boldly stated.
In the political/cultural atmosphere of today, we should all be mindful of the winds that sway our opinions and actions.
P.S.
The book also says that people, when put into power, will have their characters magnified, i.e. people who act in self-interest are will only act more so when put into power, and those who are more prone to help others will be even more dedicated to public welfare when in power. So, next time you vote, look and see how much that leader has helped the communities and people around them.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
oi...and I am so sick of the polls...rant
Oi, my son woke up at 5:30am and didn't nap until 1pm...then for only 20min. That is the longest he has ever been awake in his life. He is down again, now. I hope he sleeps. Mama is worn down. And of course, little baby without sleep = fussy baby all day long...oi.
Onto my political rant...
I am so sick of newspeople and politicians quoting polls. Really people? Should we be governing by polls? It is fine to gauge what Americans think, but most Americans are not well informed.
I really kills me because, for instance, no one cared when tens of thousands of people protested President Bush being chosen by the supreme court as our President in 2000. No one cared when millions of people protested against the Iraq war .
Leaders don't usually make decisions based on polls, but I guess our country is in such a sorry state, that we don't have leaders who lead. We have leaders who follow...and who are they following? Fox News viewers? And who are Fox News viewers following? More people watch Faux News than any other news channel, and those viewers are the most uniformed.
Click here.
Yes, well, so sad. You now the rest of the world is always referring to us as dumb Americans....seriously, they are right. From test scores to the state of our politics and culture...we are a laughing stock. My son is crying in his sleep...seriously, he is. Poor babe.
The Republicans say they are listening to the American people, but they aren't paying attention to the polls about the healthcare plan, which, when broken down show only 26% of people want the healthcare law repealed and replaced. Of course most of them are Republicans, and most of them have been ill informed anyway by Fox News. And they weren't listening to the people this week when they blocked tax extensions for the middle class to extend them to the uber-wealthy (during one of our countries hardest times in history, and among their own campaign to reduce the deficit!)
Grr. It is so stupid.
Seriously, do we want the country to be run by polls, or by competent leaders?
The twisted thing about it is, Conservatives historically take the position of 'the leader leads because people can't think for themselves.' I spent three years in Altoona trying to prove that idea wrong, but guess what? People were not informed, did not want to be informed, and refused to take action to improve their own lives. That is the reality leaders have to deal with.
In know someone is going to think, "that has all changed now, since the Tea Party etc. etc." People engaged in today's partisan politics are in it for the game, not for sustained change. Click here to get the real dish on the tea party. Back to the same source for the uncanny, ridiculous, political fervor ruining our country.
Once again, where are there any leaders in this country? (I reserve Obama and Clinton here as America's few leaders).
That's right Obama and Hillary ARE leaders, only with few followers.
Funny (in a terrible way), we are a nation of followers without enough leaders, where the couple of leaders we have, don't have any followers. Something is sorely amiss.
Onto my political rant...
I am so sick of newspeople and politicians quoting polls. Really people? Should we be governing by polls? It is fine to gauge what Americans think, but most Americans are not well informed.
I really kills me because, for instance, no one cared when tens of thousands of people protested President Bush being chosen by the supreme court as our President in 2000. No one cared when millions of people protested against the Iraq war .
Leaders don't usually make decisions based on polls, but I guess our country is in such a sorry state, that we don't have leaders who lead. We have leaders who follow...and who are they following? Fox News viewers? And who are Fox News viewers following? More people watch Faux News than any other news channel, and those viewers are the most uniformed.
Click here.
Yes, well, so sad. You now the rest of the world is always referring to us as dumb Americans....seriously, they are right. From test scores to the state of our politics and culture...we are a laughing stock. My son is crying in his sleep...seriously, he is. Poor babe.
The Republicans say they are listening to the American people, but they aren't paying attention to the polls about the healthcare plan, which, when broken down show only 26% of people want the healthcare law repealed and replaced. Of course most of them are Republicans, and most of them have been ill informed anyway by Fox News. And they weren't listening to the people this week when they blocked tax extensions for the middle class to extend them to the uber-wealthy (during one of our countries hardest times in history, and among their own campaign to reduce the deficit!)
Grr. It is so stupid.
Seriously, do we want the country to be run by polls, or by competent leaders?
The twisted thing about it is, Conservatives historically take the position of 'the leader leads because people can't think for themselves.' I spent three years in Altoona trying to prove that idea wrong, but guess what? People were not informed, did not want to be informed, and refused to take action to improve their own lives. That is the reality leaders have to deal with.
In know someone is going to think, "that has all changed now, since the Tea Party etc. etc." People engaged in today's partisan politics are in it for the game, not for sustained change. Click here to get the real dish on the tea party. Back to the same source for the uncanny, ridiculous, political fervor ruining our country.
Once again, where are there any leaders in this country? (I reserve Obama and Clinton here as America's few leaders).
That's right Obama and Hillary ARE leaders, only with few followers.
Funny (in a terrible way), we are a nation of followers without enough leaders, where the couple of leaders we have, don't have any followers. Something is sorely amiss.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Obama's meeting with CEO's- Uncertainty of DEMAND
PBS Newshour is one of my favorite place to get the news. Last night, Gwen Infil interviewed David Cote, of Honeywell and Greg Brown of Motorolla to see what came out of President Obama's 4 hour meeting with a group of business leaders.
Obama commented to the cameras on his way to the meeting that he was going to see what he could do about getting some of the trillion dollars business are holding off the sidelines and back into the economy. Gwen asked Honeywell's Cote why this money hasn't been invested when the economy so badly needs it, and he didn't say because of uncertainty in tax rates, he said the uncertainty in DEMAND has been holding back investment.
The creation of demand is exactly what the Republicans have been blocking. No more stimulus they say for the demand side of the equation, we need to stimulate the supply side (they are like a broken record). Well, Cote says, its nice to have the tax cuts extended but, "it is the worst kind of compromise to fix (the deficit) problem." He and Brown of Motorolla said the tax extensions will have to expire in the next few years if we are going to get a handle on the deficit.
More shocking news from this interview:
Obama's actions averted a depression, Cote said, and according to Brown, tensions between the business community and the White House have been way overblown. Gee who has been using that rhetoric, oh yeah, those mean, lying Republicans.
According to the businessmen, the economy has been much better in the last 18 months, with stocks, corporate earnings and cash on hand increasing. "The opportunities for us to grow and invest are right there, " said Brown.
So why haven't they invested? Like Cote said in the beginning, uncertainty of DEMAND. Obama's admin. has been steadily stimulating the demand side of the economy (somehow through the endless roadblocks of the Repubs), and extension of unemployment benefits will continue that work.
Obama commented to the cameras on his way to the meeting that he was going to see what he could do about getting some of the trillion dollars business are holding off the sidelines and back into the economy. Gwen asked Honeywell's Cote why this money hasn't been invested when the economy so badly needs it, and he didn't say because of uncertainty in tax rates, he said the uncertainty in DEMAND has been holding back investment.
The creation of demand is exactly what the Republicans have been blocking. No more stimulus they say for the demand side of the equation, we need to stimulate the supply side (they are like a broken record). Well, Cote says, its nice to have the tax cuts extended but, "it is the worst kind of compromise to fix (the deficit) problem." He and Brown of Motorolla said the tax extensions will have to expire in the next few years if we are going to get a handle on the deficit.
More shocking news from this interview:
Obama's actions averted a depression, Cote said, and according to Brown, tensions between the business community and the White House have been way overblown. Gee who has been using that rhetoric, oh yeah, those mean, lying Republicans.
According to the businessmen, the economy has been much better in the last 18 months, with stocks, corporate earnings and cash on hand increasing. "The opportunities for us to grow and invest are right there, " said Brown.
So why haven't they invested? Like Cote said in the beginning, uncertainty of DEMAND. Obama's admin. has been steadily stimulating the demand side of the economy (somehow through the endless roadblocks of the Repubs), and extension of unemployment benefits will continue that work.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Back to Domestic Politics-Tax debate-empowering the right
Well, it was nice to see President Obama at least mention fighting against the Republican's and their ridiculous behaviors in our Congress. But, really, he just mouthed the words, and did not take appropriate fighting actions. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. I believe there was time to make this fight against extending the top tier tax cuts, but he did not make it.
The Dem. Congress is furious that he seemed to have made a tax deal unilaterally, without a fighting process through the congress, but why should Obama have expected the Dem. Congress to start leading now? They have been silent for the last two years, trying to avoid hard debates, and pointing to Obama as a non-leader. If Obama is trying to get legislation moving on his own, then maybe this was his best option.
The problem is how weak the Democratic party is. Howard Dean has done nothing to lead and strengthen the party. Pelosi and Reed have done little to create a cohesive unit, or even strong public campaign for the change people voted for in 2008. Republicans, on the other hand, have played the field with genius. The American people have virtually forgotten anything that happened during the Bush years, and it is taboo to even talk about. The first thing the Republicans did was to say, "Hey! Don't keep blaming things on Bush, this is your (Obama's) country now." Republicans then proceeded to orchestrate a populous movement, underpinned by the fallacy that President Obama is a Socialist, Muslim, non-citizen etc. Wow, and half of the population bought it. The other half just cowered in silence. Is this America????
Does it really matter at this point? After the damage the Bush years did to our country, is this vote on taxes going to kill us? No, I don't think so. What we do need to worry about is the empowerment of the Republican party who continue to lie and erode the fabric of this country by turning Americans against each other for one thing, POWER. That's what this compromise does, empowers the wrong people. And what will they do with their power? Take the risk and look at the past decade under Bush, and keep running..
Less talk about fight, Dems, and more action. ( and I don't think leaving that fight to the one member in congress who can legitimately be called a Socialist is the best plan!)
The Dem. Congress is furious that he seemed to have made a tax deal unilaterally, without a fighting process through the congress, but why should Obama have expected the Dem. Congress to start leading now? They have been silent for the last two years, trying to avoid hard debates, and pointing to Obama as a non-leader. If Obama is trying to get legislation moving on his own, then maybe this was his best option.
The problem is how weak the Democratic party is. Howard Dean has done nothing to lead and strengthen the party. Pelosi and Reed have done little to create a cohesive unit, or even strong public campaign for the change people voted for in 2008. Republicans, on the other hand, have played the field with genius. The American people have virtually forgotten anything that happened during the Bush years, and it is taboo to even talk about. The first thing the Republicans did was to say, "Hey! Don't keep blaming things on Bush, this is your (Obama's) country now." Republicans then proceeded to orchestrate a populous movement, underpinned by the fallacy that President Obama is a Socialist, Muslim, non-citizen etc. Wow, and half of the population bought it. The other half just cowered in silence. Is this America????
Does it really matter at this point? After the damage the Bush years did to our country, is this vote on taxes going to kill us? No, I don't think so. What we do need to worry about is the empowerment of the Republican party who continue to lie and erode the fabric of this country by turning Americans against each other for one thing, POWER. That's what this compromise does, empowers the wrong people. And what will they do with their power? Take the risk and look at the past decade under Bush, and keep running..
Less talk about fight, Dems, and more action. ( and I don't think leaving that fight to the one member in congress who can legitimately be called a Socialist is the best plan!)
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Middle East Justice Part 6: Terrorist strategies and counter-strategies
The subject of this post is to enlighten you about terrorist strategies and counter strategies. I think this rationalization, provided by the work of Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, makes sense out of what has been happening with the 'War on Terror,' as Bush liked to call it.
I am using this information in the context of non-state terrorists, like Al Queda, the PLO and Hamas, who feel they have no other alternative, but I believe states use terrorism as well, covertly and integrated into conventional war strategy.
It's very simple, I will follow each terrorist strategies with its aligning counterstrategy, according to K and W:
Attrition: Showing terrorists are strong enough to inflict considerable costs if target does not change its policy.
fertile ground for attrition:
The said policy is important to the targeted state
The targeted state has the ability to retaliate
The targeted state is sensitive to the cost of violence
counter measures:
Minimize psychological costs (don't over-react)
Concede inessential issues for peace
Targeted retaliation
Deny access to weapons
Intimidation: Showing that terrorists can punish disobedience and that government is weak (this mainly refers to the terrorists home state...i.e. Afghanistan)
fertile ground:
Weak States
Regime change
Rough geographical terrain (hard for state to mount counter-attack)
counter measures:
Retake territory (clear and hold)
Increase law enforcement
Provocation: Induce enemy to use indiscriminate force
fertile ground:
When the enemy is capable of severe military force
counter measures:
Discriminate targeting
Spoiling: Convince enemy that moderates on terrorist's side are not trustworthy
fertile ground:
Moderates on terrorist's side are strong
counter measures:
Build trust with moderates on terrorist's side
Decrease moderate's vulnerability
Power-share with moderates
Use of international organizations (to build strength/legitimacy on moderate's side)
Outbidding: Showing that the terrorist group has the greatest resolve (over, say, the legitimate government or rival home power) to fight rival
counter measures:
Encourage competing groups to unify
Give concessions to non-violent groups, illustrating the greater strength of non-violent groups.
So, this makes sense right? Can you see how this strategy/counter strategy has played out in the 'War on Terror?' Incidentally, using the term, 'War on Terror' is an unwise counter-terrorism strategy. It goes against the advice under attrition- don't over-react.
It is curious that the Bush admin counter measures seemed to have encouraged terrorism i.e. creating a sense of fear in this country, like 'The terrorist are going to get us anyday...everyday!" with the colored warning system: green, yellow, orange, red to tell us how scared we should be everyday. Geez. and, of course, under the strategy of attrition and provocation (which were clearly used on us with 9-11), the use of indiscriminate force. We just bombed the heck out of Iraq. Not discriminate targeting.
Obama, on the other hand, has stopped using the term 'War on Terror,' if you haven't noticed and is focusing on discriminate force, along with other rational counter-terrorist strategies that agree with K and W, which I will allow you to analyze for yourself.
Let's not forget one of the main reasons for terrorism: political POLICY.
I also want to insert here that the main reason for religious and cultural cleavages in societies is politicians.
You can see how this plays out with Islamic, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism in Muslim States, Israel and the US, respectively. Why do politicians use religion as a tool to enrage the masses? Because, it is easy to do.
Evoking nationalism is another easy way for politicians to get the masses to support extreme policy measures.
I am using this information in the context of non-state terrorists, like Al Queda, the PLO and Hamas, who feel they have no other alternative, but I believe states use terrorism as well, covertly and integrated into conventional war strategy.
It's very simple, I will follow each terrorist strategies with its aligning counterstrategy, according to K and W:
Attrition: Showing terrorists are strong enough to inflict considerable costs if target does not change its policy.
fertile ground for attrition:
The said policy is important to the targeted state
The targeted state has the ability to retaliate
The targeted state is sensitive to the cost of violence
counter measures:
Minimize psychological costs (don't over-react)
Concede inessential issues for peace
Targeted retaliation
Deny access to weapons
Intimidation: Showing that terrorists can punish disobedience and that government is weak (this mainly refers to the terrorists home state...i.e. Afghanistan)
fertile ground:
Weak States
Regime change
Rough geographical terrain (hard for state to mount counter-attack)
counter measures:
Retake territory (clear and hold)
Increase law enforcement
Provocation: Induce enemy to use indiscriminate force
fertile ground:
When the enemy is capable of severe military force
counter measures:
Discriminate targeting
Spoiling: Convince enemy that moderates on terrorist's side are not trustworthy
fertile ground:
Moderates on terrorist's side are strong
counter measures:
Build trust with moderates on terrorist's side
Decrease moderate's vulnerability
Power-share with moderates
Use of international organizations (to build strength/legitimacy on moderate's side)
Outbidding: Showing that the terrorist group has the greatest resolve (over, say, the legitimate government or rival home power) to fight rival
counter measures:
Encourage competing groups to unify
Give concessions to non-violent groups, illustrating the greater strength of non-violent groups.
So, this makes sense right? Can you see how this strategy/counter strategy has played out in the 'War on Terror?' Incidentally, using the term, 'War on Terror' is an unwise counter-terrorism strategy. It goes against the advice under attrition- don't over-react.
It is curious that the Bush admin counter measures seemed to have encouraged terrorism i.e. creating a sense of fear in this country, like 'The terrorist are going to get us anyday...everyday!" with the colored warning system: green, yellow, orange, red to tell us how scared we should be everyday. Geez. and, of course, under the strategy of attrition and provocation (which were clearly used on us with 9-11), the use of indiscriminate force. We just bombed the heck out of Iraq. Not discriminate targeting.
Obama, on the other hand, has stopped using the term 'War on Terror,' if you haven't noticed and is focusing on discriminate force, along with other rational counter-terrorist strategies that agree with K and W, which I will allow you to analyze for yourself.
Let's not forget one of the main reasons for terrorism: political POLICY.
I also want to insert here that the main reason for religious and cultural cleavages in societies is politicians.
You can see how this plays out with Islamic, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism in Muslim States, Israel and the US, respectively. Why do politicians use religion as a tool to enrage the masses? Because, it is easy to do.
Evoking nationalism is another easy way for politicians to get the masses to support extreme policy measures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)