November 15, 2006
Group Think - The Democrats and Their Allies
Group Think is not a term coined by George Orwell. Though it might seem appropriately attributed to him. Group Think was coined by sociologist and journalist William Hollingsworth "Holly" Whyte in 1952 and expanded on by psychologist Irving Janis in the 60's. It refers to systematic errors made by a "group" when making collective decisions. Specifically, the symptoms (Janis and Mann, 1977), if you will, of Group Think are:
The purpose of this polemic then is to take a look at the symptoms of Group Think as applied to the current incarnation of the Democratic Party in light of their taking control of Congress this coming January. This is not, if I need to say it, solely the problem of the Democrats. Indeed, there is more than adequate information available to lay many of the same foibles on the Republicans who controled congress from 1994 to 2006 especially in the later years of that span of time. Indeed, group think on the part of the Republicans is in part, why they lost.Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions. Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
As for the Democrats, let us look at each of the 8 symptoms and see what we can see.
The Democrats have become to be known as the party of "cut and run." This is not just hyperbole from the Republicans but a natural outgrowth of comments made by such worthy lights (lites?) of the Democratic party as Jack Murtha (D-Pa) who want's to deploy to say.... Okinawa. Okinawa??? Either Murtha has absolutely no sense (likely) or he has no concept of distance or geography. Too, the last time I looked, Okinawa was a prefecture of Japan. Did Murtha ask our allies in Japan if we could house 150,000 armed troops there? I don't think so.Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
Too, the Democrats (and one in particular, a banned commenter here in fact) have taken conservatives to task for stating that Al Qaeda and it's media allies in the MSM are glad to see the Democrats in control of congress. Well, either those folks can't read, or the evil Rove has planted those stories in the MSM.
The fact of the matter is that the Democrats in their zeal to prosecute a war against this administration have been very blind to the very real dangers of Al Qaeda and other islamo-fascist ideologies, thinking perhaps, that 9/11 was merely a reaction to having a Bush at the helm. Reality is that the United States and it's allies have been under attack by islamo-fascism since the early 80's and that Iran has already committed an act of war against the US when it seized our Embassy in Tehran. Wake up Democrats, the danger is real and you aren't fooling us, though you are likely fooling yourselves.
One only has to go to any liberal blog or website to see this in action. In Daily Kos, MYDD, Huffington Post and others you can see (read) any number of snide, ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares comment against the tide of reactionary vision presented in those sites.Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
This tidbit is particularly galling. The infamous "Culture of Corruption" when typed into Google yields some 17 million plus cites. Wow, you would think every Republican in the United States would be serving a life sentence. Yet the fact of the matter is that the Democrats are quite two faced about this. Yes, there is indeed corruption in politics, no more so on the right than on the left however. Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Hastings all have the stink of corruption about them that are either proven, or under investigation. Reid and his land deals, Pelosi and earmarks, Murtha an undicted participant in ABSCAM the FBI sting operation regarding corrupt Arabs and bribing members of congress, and good ole Alcee Hastings. A federal judge impeached by a Democratic House, convicted and removed from office by a Democratic Senate but about about to be appointed as head of the House Intelligence Committee by Pelosi as a sop to the congressional Black Caucus because they lost one of their members (Jefferson, D-La) who is under investigation for accepting bribes (Jefferson was the Democrat who's congressional office was raided with subpoenas by the FBI). Corruption? The finger pointing at the Republicans leaves several fingers pointing back at the Democrats. Yet, Reid couldn't wait to announce from the Library of Congress that there was a Culture of Corruption headed by the Republicans. Of course, the Library of Congress prohibits political grandstanding in its facilities, but that shouldn't stop ole Reid.Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
As I noted before, the Republicans are no slouches when it comes to sterotyping Democrats, but those Democrats sure are masters at this technique. In fact, the "no blood for oil," "Bush lied...," and even going back to the Vietnam War period with "Baby Killer." These phrases became such stereotypes that for a number of years after Vietnam, movies and TV shows, as often as not, were about "crazed killers." The Democrats have been successful at painting conservatives and Republicans as racists, anyone who disagrees with their concept of affirmative action as racist; those who object to the gay lifestyle on religious grounds are labled "homophobes." The word homophobe of course is really an irrational fear of a homosexual, but I doubt that any one of a religious conviction could be truly termed "irrationally" afraid. I have, from a philosophical point of view, no problems with gay folk, no problems with civil unions (though I'm ambivalent about gay marriage) but I have been called a homophobe by some when they hear I'm conservative. The slinging of ad hominem by the left seems to far exceed that of the right in my opinion (look at the foul language used by some liberal commenters on this site - all of whom I've banned when it gets out of hand). Some blogs seem to tolearate that kind of language from the left or the right, I won't. But, I digressExcessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.
Joseph Lieberman! Need I say more?Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
ISelf-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
Four words: The Global Warming Consensus. Of course, it doesn't matter that consensus isn't proof, and that there really is not a consensus among all climate scientists (which, despite their denial includes, must include meteorologists and hurricaneologists). If you don't speak up, you must agree. If you speak up, there goes your research money. It is the same with a variety of topics whether it be abortion, stem cell research etc. There are many, many Democrats who do not believe in the GW fantasy, abortion or stem cell from embryo research but who are either freightened into silence by the ugly name calling of the liberals or who just don't think about it and vote Democrat anyway.Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
Two words: Joe Wilson.Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
Again, let me note that Republicans share many of the same foibles with the Democrats. So, with the Republicans seeking "bi-partisanship" (note, the only ones really wanting that are the losing party or wimps in the winning party or scoundrels peacemakers who don't intend to grant it anyway) The Democrats getting up a full head of steam to do what they think they can do anyway the next two years ought to be a target rich environment for any thinking conservative (or even any thinking liberal though that is probably an oxymoron).
This is one masterpiece of a post, GM!
You have, in a relatively small amount of space, defined the Democratic Party of today from stem-to-stern, masthead to keel.
The first few months of 2007 ought to be a real 3 ring circus, and yes, a target rich environment to end target rich environments. :-)
Posted by Seth at November 15, 2006 08:27 PM
Excellent analysis. I remember reading some of Janis' stuff years ago. You really hit the nail on the head with liberal blogs, Collective Rationalization, Illusion of Morality and more. When I first started reading blogs I was amazed how everyone parrotted each other and attack anyone disagreeing with incredible hostility.
The Illusion of Invulnerability scares me because this may be why the libs think they can some how deal with terrorists by being "nice."
Posted by DADvocate at November 15, 2006 08:41 PM
I particularly like the "mindguards". They're the ones that surround you and send you back to re-education camp because your brainwashing didn't take. "Whoops! So-and-so is slipping. Send him to his room with a copy of the manifesto until he can recite it verbatim."
I firmly believe that's what happened to Cindy Sheehan. She was a prime candidate because she had grumblings of discontent and proved to be easily influenced. They hovered over her and kept her from any outside influence until they had her right where they wanted her. She turned out, much to their surprise I'll bet, to be their star pupil. There's no turning back for her now.
Posted by Oyster at November 15, 2006 08:55 PM
There was a school of rabbinic thought - I am sorry I cannot turn up anything more concrete after a brief search - that held that no unanimous decision could be passed. If they had argued and considered all the alternatives and come to complete agreement, they took it as axiomatic that they must have overlooked something, as real life isn't like that. They would table the group decision until a later date, and discuss it again.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at November 15, 2006 09:27 PM
A post like this is what I find most compelling about blogs because it made me think seriously about a new subject. Thank you, GM, for taking the time to create and post this. The most impressive part of your post is the way you draw parallels between adherence to political ideology and the principles of groupthink. However, my second thought was how careful you were to point out that conservatives also fall prey to some aspects of groupthink.
I occasionally spend time reading moderate liberal blogs - not Daily Kos or Huffington or MoveOn, but clearly liberal nonetheless. While I haven't read everything on the internet (who could?), I honestly don't recall seeing any liberal blogger point out flaws shared by liberals and conservatives. In the hands of most liberal bloggers, a post like yours would castigate conservatives without noting similar liberal flaws. I've always thought that the willingness to recognize our flaws is a Republican/conservative strength and, I might add, one that has been sorely lacking in the past 1-2 years.
Posted by DRJ at November 15, 2006 10:41 PM
Group Think was coined by sociologist and journalist William Hollingsworth "Holly" Whyte in 1952 and expanded on by psychologist Irving Janis in the 60's. It refers to systematic errors made by a "group" when making collective decisionsWith all due respect to Mr Whyte, one thing I've noticed about leftist blogs such as Daily Kos and Atrios, is the substitution of swearing for content. Go to Dailykos.com or atrios.blogspot.com and search for your favorite 4 letter word. Odds are, it pops up. Do the same for powerline or instapundit. Simply won't happen.
Now lest you think I'm being petty or simplistic, I think this illuminates a rather fundamental aspect of the angry left. The world is viewed through a childlike prism. Complex or difficult problems are dismissed with a 'F*** that' or 'a$$***e'(pardon me).
Now whether this is a symptom of groupthink is not my area of expertise, but a lack of vocabulary reflects a deeper malaise in my opinon.
Posted by Rupert at November 15, 2006 10:43 PM
Dadvocate,
Good points. I also share your concern about liberal "illusions of invulnerability." I think this would encompass not only the belief that liberals can't be wrong in their decisions but also the notion that America's status as a free nation (and the freedoms and lifestyles we have) can't be seriously threatened by other nations or ideologies. Liberals seem to believe that America is so powerful that it should be the Gandhi of nations, and we only need to worry about internal threats. I am disheartened by their confidence because I think the American way of life is particularly vulnerable to external threats, especially since 9/11.
Could it be that because liberals have successfully proselytized Western governments and institutions to adopt secular humanism, they now believe they can convince the world to do the same? If so, I'm sure they see this as a nuanced position. I view it as naive.
Posted by DRJ at November 15, 2006 10:58 PM
Rupert,
I suspect you are right about the childlike aspect at some blogs, possibly because many commenters at those blogs may actually be young. Wouldn't it be interesting to know the average age of commenters at various websites?
Posted by DRJ at November 15, 2006 11:02 PM
"As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year."
Daniel Okrent, NY Times, 10/10/2004
Posted by Jim C. at November 15, 2006 11:10 PM
The best examination of this in detail is Byron York's book, The Vast Left Wing Experience.
What is uncharacteristic is that they won, but only by recruiting people who they wouldn't sit at the same table with to run in conservative districts.
It always bothered me how they use the term "bipartisan," as if it can only go in one direction, and holding a grudge over criticisms that are mild next to their own vile attacks on George W. Bush.
I'm saving this page. It's a perfect explanation of what I've been trying to pin down about the angry left who are the Dems' ATM these days. They've maide billions from capitalism but they're still full of Marxist senditments. Now the Dems have won they've gone right back to squabbling among themselves, rigging votes in their own leadership "elections"
Instead of Nancy and Harry, Bush should have been meeting with the Blue Dog Democrats.
Posted by AST at November 16, 2006 05:43 AM
Regarding the childish character of lefty blogs, I believe that a high percentage of those people are middle-aged. Many of the Kos convention attendees were. Also, I read Huffington Post regularly (know your opponent), and have become familiar with the regular commenters. Some of the most juvenile comments come from people who say they are Viet Nam vets, parents of young adults, a nurse with 25 years of experience, etc.
Posted by stace at November 16, 2006 07:35 AM
AST: Unfortunately, the leftwards politicos run their party (and I'll admit the right fell prey to this recently) much like they run the school system. Performance, realism and new ideas all take a back seat to senority with very few exceptions. And those Dems advancing into the chairmanships are the farthest left and hold senority.
Posted by Oyster at November 16, 2006 07:44 AM
gah! "seniority" (Mddle finger right hand hurts)
Posted by Oyster at November 16, 2006 07:46 AM
Good analysis. I do however disagree with the assertion that both parties are guilty of GroupThink. Go back and read the "symptoms" list, we are all guilty of GroupThink to some extent. What both the Dems and Repubs are guilty of is extreme Group Think beyond the bounds of reason!
Posted by Steve at November 16, 2006 11:25 AM
My previous post should read "we are all, as human beings, guilty of GroupThink".
Posted by Steve at November 16, 2006 11:28 AM
This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. It seems to me that "groupthink" is a perfect description of those who have spent the last six years shilling for a corrupt, imcompetent and morally bankrupt administration. You guys have the gall to call yourself conservatives. Well clasically dont conservatives call for less government intervention in our lives, for protection and preservation of law and order. Aren't you guys suppossed to fight for constitutional rights. I've watched in absolute digust as the Bushniks have expanded the reach of government powers, sanctifying spying programs which go against the nature of the finest maerican traditions of liberty and justice. These guys have spat on the contitution, ripped up habeas corpus and whle some conservatives have stood up, you guys have remained silent, trembling in fear at the very idea of rocking the partisan boat. Look at the war that you guys argued for and we now know was built on a pack of lies. "Groupthink" what else would you call the mentality that allows someone to ignorantly declare that they "stand with israel" in the face of international law and extensive human rights reports. You guys are absolutely pathetic and although im neither a democrat nor a republican i must say that im very glad to see that americans are slowly drifting away from the disastrous policies you guys have advocated for
Posted by Ahmed at November 16, 2006 02:29 PM
Speaking of gropthink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UldEpr0HCEU
Posted by Ahmed at November 16, 2006 02:33 PM
Ahmed, were you trying to prove G.M.'s point in your rant?
Posted by Woody at November 16, 2006 02:34 PM
The point is that partisan hackery and ideological blindness effect us all. They are barriers to having a humane and intelligent debate. Woody, look at the cartoonish and silly way you protray democrats and leftist. Its so far reomoves from reality and so delusional that people have a hard time taking your opinions seriously. I've seen this over and over at coopers. Now Id also argue that the same mentality exists amongst leftist as well. Whats silly about ropes post is that it ignores the fact that what orwell called groupthink applies to many on his sider of the ideological fence, espeically those who have shilled for bush's disastrous policies, propagated under the name of conservatism. Am i a partisan shill too? Well i tell you frankly that when it comes to issues of foreign policy the voice i respect the most is that of a republican Chuck Hagel? He has been very outspoken critic of Bush failed foreign policies and while vile oppotunist like Hillart Clinton were sanctifying the killing of Lebanese, Hagel was a principled supporter of a ceasefire. The fact that he is a republican doesnt stop me from admirring him. You dig?
Posted by Ahmed at November 16, 2006 02:51 PM
Ahmed, for you to say that my protrayal of Democrats is unrealistic simply points out that I have a greater historical perspective and more realistic view of Democrats than you, which further highlights the blind spots that result from "liberal group-think," which is the message of this post. Your problem is the same as that of the MSM that labels Sen. Harry Reid as a "moderate"--proving that you and they have no idea where the center of this nation lies. Look inside before you start attacking those on the outside.
Posted by Woody at November 16, 2006 03:54 PM
"Reality is that the United States and it's allies have been under attack by islamo-fascism since the early 80's"
Is anyone here going to vouch for historical literacy. Surely you know that throughout the 20th century imperial powers have from time used reactionary islam as a sort of buffer agianst secular pan Arab nationalism. In the 1980's the people who became Al Quada were no attacking us, they were US allies. Here's the late Pakistani scholar Ahmed Eqbal reflections on the marriage of convenience between the mujahideen and Reagan
"In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men in the White House.... They were very ferocious-looking bearded men with turbans who looked as though they came from another century. After receiving them, President Reagan spoke to the press. He pointed toward them, I'm sure some of you will recall that moment, and said, "These men are the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers." These were the Afghan Mujahideen. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire.... Terrorists change. The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today, and the hero of yesterday becomes the terrorist of today. This is a serious matter in the constantly changing world of images in which we have to keep our heads straight to know what is terrorism and what is not."
Posted by Ahmed at November 16, 2006 07:50 PM
"proving that you and they have no idea where the center of this nation lies"
Forgetting the slightly inconvenient fact that "the center of the nation" just handed the republican adminstration a powerful rebuke, I've always been puzzled by your "majoritarian" approach to politics. Why does it matter so much what the majority thinks? When Martin Luther King was campaigning in Burmingham he didnt speak for the majority of Americans, but he was right. When Fannie Lou Hammer was kicked out of the Democratic convention, she wasn't speaking with the voice of 50+1, but she was on the side of justice. When Thomas Paine published "common Sense" it was considered quite radical, but I still believe that he is one of the sharpest voices produced by the American Revolution. There's no virtue in molding your poltics to what the majority of people believe, this is the sort of crack opportunism that empowers injustice. On the other hand to fight for what you believe is right, regardless of how many people agree with you is no crime
Posted by Ahmed at November 16, 2006 08:02 PM
Between the initial posting of this and 3:51 AM on the17th (out having knee surgery) I notice our reactionary friend Ahmed is back with his usual misinterpretation of what is said on this blog.
Ahmed, it is quite obvious that you did not read the post itself other than perhaps a very cursory skim to see if I wrote it or Woody wrote it. I suggest you go back and read the post before commenting further because then you will find that I said that group think is a problem with both Democrats and Republicans but that this post is regarding the Democrats who are taking power. I also noted that the Republicans were prone to even more group think in the later years and that is one of the main factors why they lost.
Additionally, you will find in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE that Group Think is not a term coined by George Orwell, and yet you claim that it is.
Ahmed, you consistently support Arab Pan Nationalism and that is fine, but that doesn't in one whit decrease what woody said... he didn't say Al Qaeda has been attacking us since the early 80's he said "islamo-fascists" and that would include the invasion of the US Embassy by the Iranians who are NOT ARAB but Persian, who do not speak Arabic but Farsi. There may be some shred of truth to your statement that
20th century imperial powers have from time used reactionary islam as a sort of buffer agianst secular pan Arab nationalism."but so what? pan Arab nationalism is not what attacked the US Marine Barracks, the US Embassys, the USS Cole or the twin Towers.
Go back and re-read the post in it's entirety, if you have a specifica point to make after that fine, but don't accuse me of holding thoughts you only THINK I hold because I'm conservative, that is stereotyping of the worst type and the very thing you gripe about all the time. Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by GM at November 17, 2006 04:08 AM
GM beat me to it. I read every word and saw many references attributing these maladies to Republicans as well. Stereo-typing and preconceived notion will cause one to be blind to disclaimers and the equal distribution of criticism.
Posted by Oyster at November 17, 2006 07:03 AM
Nice job.
Posted by Woody (the other one) at November 17, 2006 07:14 AM
"he didn't say Al Qaeda has been attacking us since the early 80's he said "islamo-fascists" and that would include the invasion of the US Embassy by the Iranians"
I dont use the term "Islamofacist" precisely because i think its inaccurate and transhistorical. BUt according to your argument a certain group of Iranian "Islamofacists" were attacking us in the 1980's while Reagan was elevating another group of "Islamofacist" to the level of freedom fighter. Huh? I'm also interested if you get worked up, at all, about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Ah, the blatant hypocracy of the American right
Posted by Ahmed at November 17, 2006 10:12 PM
Good job Ahmed, skip around the issues raised; rise up a straw man, and don't tackle anything worth thinking about. You are, along with reg, one of the most shallow - unidirectional thinkers that come here. Let's start again with answering the criticisms that you started with. when I post about stupidity in the Israeli government, you can bitch then, when I post about the 1980's you can bitch then. Until then, learn to keep your comments focused not only on the content of the post, but on it's intent. Think you can do that Ahmed? I have my doubts, but I could be wrong.
Posted by GM at November 18, 2006 07:49 AM
Ahmed, although I personally prefer not to use the term Islamofascist for a number of reasons (I prefer Islamist), I would defend the legitimacy of this term as there is scholarly evidence to support that the underlying thinking behind groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Shiite theocrats originated in an melding of Islam contemporaneously with the Fascist & Nazi ideology. The product of this unholy union, which has subsequently matured into the malignant fashion we see in today's world (especially the virulent anti-Semitism) represents an historically unprecedented development in Islam that, if unchecked by other Islamic thinkers and the West, will result in catastrophe on a scale never before seen in human history.
Posted by civil truth at November 18, 2006 01:05 PM
CT in fairness to this thread im not going to take up some of the isues that you raise. Although I will quickly recommend that you read Professor Mahmoud Mamdani's excellent work on the topic of political Islam. I'll warn you though thats its far more complex and historically informed than youre cartoonish way of seeing the world. Roper method of choice is now to dodge any or all objections and ban dissent on this blog. Most likely a fallout from demise of the Bushniks
Posted by Ahmed at November 18, 2006 02:47 PM
Ban Dissent? you are still here aren't you Ahmed, as long as you don't totally disparage others or do a lot of cussing (and I've not known you to do that) you won't be banned. Now, the ideas you hold onto vis-a-vis jihadists v. islamofascists etc are a bunch of intellectualized claptrap. I don't care what a man's religion is, but he does not have the right to treat others (specifically, non co-religionists, apostates, women, gays and children) the way that the islamo-fascists do. And your continuing support of them (via saying you don't like violence but attack anyone who criticises them) is troublesome. Take a look at your own prejudices becore you decry the predjudices of others.
Posted by GM Roper at November 18, 2006 04:54 PM
I'd address GM's point if it was at all coherant. As for the issue of violence against innocent civilians, I find it disgusting, so I have no idea what youre talking about. Let me suggest that the difference between you and me is that my condemnation's are universal while yours are selective. I condemn suicide bombers attacking Israeli civilains as well as F 16 bombarment of civilian neirbourhoods. You on the other hand "stand with Israel". You abhor the violence of "islamofacist" while you apologise for violence that you support. I make entensive use of informed and erudite scholarship to understand the hightly complex and diverse cultures and people grouped under the term "Islam" while you evoke thinly veiled prejudige, ignarance and myopic talking points. On the question of attroacites and human rights I go to the mainstream human rights orginisations for information, while you slander them falsely (human rights groups dont cover hezbollah attroacites--a lie) If youre interested rick salutin does a good job of summarizing mamdani's thesis about the cold war and the growth a very specific kind of Islamic terror we're seeing today
Posted by Ahmed at November 18, 2006 08:00 PM
"And your continuing support of them (via saying you don't like violence but attack anyone who criticises them) is troublesome. Take a look at your own prejudices becore you decry the predjudices of others."
That's a complete lie and you know it. I've said over and over agan that Bin Landenisn is an absolute disaster for humanity as well as for the Islamic world. My own politics verge towards a kind of radical humanism which is totally opposite of what the Islamist preach. My greatest intellectual influences in this regard are people like Ahmed Eqbal (who i mentioned earlier) Edward Said all of whom share a cosmolitan and humanist politics. Are you saying they support Bin Laden. What an idiotic claim.
Posted by Ahmed at November 18, 2006 08:07 PM
