George Bush's Paranoia War
When the president of the United States behaves in ways that redouble the population's fears, his behavior is a psychological issue. When the White House uses advertising specialists to instill in our minds terrifying visual images of mushroom clouds above American cities, American psychologists should be concerned, to say the least. When our chief executive dwells yet again on "death and destruction" in a speech he makes as we observe the sixth anniversary of our national trauma--and tells us that if we hinder his war policy, our enemies will "come here to kill us"--it's time for professionals who know about the effects of psychological trauma to speak up. As such a professional, I invite any person of reasonably sound mental health to engage in this brief and illuminating fantasy:
Imagine for a moment that somehow the American presidency falls to you, instead of to George Bush, and that, for reasons known only to you and your conscience, you accept the position. Not long after you move into the Oval Office, the United States is hit by a disastrous terrorist attack. Counterterrorism measures that should have been attended to long ago must now be designed at emergency speed--protective systems for the skies, the ports, the nation's nuclear facilities, its food supplies--but you can see that, just now, your stricken countrymen are scarcely able to think at all. Their physical and psychological landscapes have been disfigured by inscrutable "others" from a distant part of the world, and they are deeply traumatized and subclinically paranoid. The resonance of their fear is almost palpable. In this uniquely vulnerable state of mind, three hundred million people turn to you en masse, and, prepared to trust your answer implicitly--to cling to it, even--they ask you the following question: What should we do now?
I believe that, as you looked out on millions of your countrymen lost in fear and grief, you would experience an overwhelming desire to help them. You would earnestly want to bring them some comfort and peace, so they could protect themselves, heal, and rebuild. And--exiting this little fantasy exercise and returning to the reality of the last six years--perhaps, like me, you've been repeatedly saddened to witness that not everyone in such a rare and influential position experiences a desire to assist his own nation in recovery and real self-protection.
That some of our leaders didn't display this sort of heartfelt reaction has been understandably difficult for Americans to acknowledge out loud. As playwright and McCarthy victim Arthur Miller wrote, "Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable." But, if we curb our wish to forget a painful truth, we can recall that the rise of insanely self-interested fear politicians is a phenomenon as ancient as the existence of hierarchical society itself. The heartless cultivation of fear has been used politically at least since the first century BC, when the Sicarii and the Zealots committed public assassinations to terrorize the Romans in ancient Palestine. We saw it in Joseph McCarthy's reign of paranoia over the US in the 1950s, and we're seeing it again now.
Extreme fear is a first-rate weapon, neuropsychologically speaking. Unlike ordinary experiences, which are organized in the cerebral cortex, traumatic experiences stay "stuck" in the limbic system, an emotional, evolutionarily older area of the brain. As our lives go along, these chaotic memories can be triggered in us by reminders of the traumatic event, even in new situations that are far less dangerous. Triggering this neurological "switch" causes us to react fearfully--as if the trauma were happening all over again-- and temporarily derails our ability to think and act rationally in the present.
A disaster-made glitch in the brain makes us unusually vulnerable to influence, and herein lies a convenience for ambitious authoritarians. In The Paranoia Switch , I coin the expression limbic war to refer to the activities of a fear monger who increases his political power by repeatedly triggering traumatic memories in the brains of individuals who have lived through a group calamity. A politician doesn't have to know anything about the neuropsychology of trauma to conduct such a limbic war. It's like sex, in the sense that you don't need to understand biology to participate.
Is our president a scaremonger? Is George Bush waging a limbic war against us? Is he truly cold enough to be using the fear generated on September 11, 2001, as a kind of renewable resource to maintain his political power and further his own agenda? To help answer this question, I'd like to post a summary of the list I provide in The Paranoia Switch--ten behaviors observable historically in leaders who have used fear to keep people in line:
1) Unsurprisingly, leaders who use fear as their primary political strategy speak repeatedly of dangerous people and frightening situations. They address other topics too, and may even use humor. But somewhere within virtually every communication, there will be several references to danger, and to just how frightened people must not forget to be.
2) Fear politicians frequently offer descriptions of catastrophic events that might happen in the future, and of other such events that would have happened had the plans not been thwarted.
3) Such leaders are prone to accuse those who disagree with them of being disloyal to the group and/or naive.
4) Fear brokers tend to look, act, and speak like the people found in their constituencies, sometimes almost in caricature. The fear broker's self-presentation tends to be that of an adequately educated person, but not a worldly or intellectual one. If from a region where the people speak with an accent, such a leader is likely to nurture this characteristic in himself.
5) Fear mongers often behave like archetypal parents. A fear-mongering leader may imply that, though the people are his brave charges, they cannot be expected to be so courageous and strong as he, and therefore, they must always rely on him. He demands to be trusted, and promises that he will never abandon them or give up on his goals.
6) Leaders who practice fear politics tend to admonish people over "moral" issues, and use shame to exert control. As a typical example, a sexuality-related topic (an issue around marriage, childbearing choices, homosexuality, etc.) will be introduced into a popular discussion that had nothing to do with sexuality, and then notes of shame or sin will be blended into the altered debate. These actions on the part of the leader may temporarily distract people from their original concerns.
7) In a seeming contradiction, fear brokers praise the group for being moral and heroic. A scare-mongering leader tends to speak of how much more God-fearing, principled, selfless, and admirable the people of his nation are than all the other peoples of the world.
8) Fear-mongering leaders project personal infallibility. When asked the direct question, "Do you feel you made a mistake?" the answer is always no, regardless of how conspicuous the mistake.
9) Such leaders tend to be secretive, and to be certain that other people, too, are keeping dangerous secrets. Scare-tactic politicians are often obsessed with gathering information about their countrymen, though much of this information may be objectively meaningless.
10) Whatever their tongue, fear leaders use language that pulls for primitive emotions: words and concepts (in the group's language) such as vengeance , cowardice, and good versus evil. In addition, fear politicians are associated with a skewed pronoun usage, specifically the frequent use of the third person plural-- they--as in declarations of what they are doing to us. In contrast, moral leaders tend to employ the first person plural-- we--as in references to what we (the people) can do to help ourselves.
This, in abridged form, is the book's list of ten behavioral characteristics of political fear mongers. Where George Bush is concerned, doing the math is not hard. (I don't know what you came up with, but I counted ten out of ten.) It is my hope, as a trauma psychologist and as a citizen, that we will choose a very different kind of leader in 2008, one who will not engage in an emotional war against us, and who is wise enough not to imagine that our worst fears are his best friends.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"It is my hope, as a trauma psychologist and as a citizen, that we will choose a very different kind of leader in 2008"
It would be my hope also, but sadly I do not see this option emerging, on either side of the political fence. It certainly appears that ALL the front-runners are willing to play the "fear" card, if it will get them where they want to go, and the American voters seem unable to resist the ploy. It truly is a sad day in America.
Dear Dr. Stout,
Excellent post, ya are correct. This is one of the first issues we spoke to here on Huffington Post two and a half years ago. We were correct then as you are today.
This cannot be repeated enough. I'll be looking forward to more of your keen insight.
When they say the conservatives play to there "base", I do believe they mean the *base* nature of the human psyche. Agape.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith fit the profile; Bush does not.
Bush is simply communicating his fear to the American people. He wants us to share his fear. His sincerity makes him more effective than Cheney at communicating those reminders of fear.
More's the pity.
Great post. It fits BushCo too perfectly, so I did a quick mental scan of all the history I know. Haven't researched it, but you're quite accurate in your list.
So, okay. We always knew GW was suspect. Even in 2000. Anyone who can't see the benefits of the wild-card system to MLB is incapable of being a competent leader. All BushCo is doing in lining the pockets of his daddy's friends at the expense of the rest of us. And, of course, he's appropriating Christianity to do so. If we were a country of 80% Buddhists, he'd be quoting Buddha and telling us of the terrorists' due "kharma."
Hopefully, he won't try to frighten us out of the 2008 election.
Hopefully.
It's funny that the dangerous people Bush wants to protect us from are all foreigners. He doesn't seem too worried about the garden-
variety psycho on Maple street with a gun and
a gripe. The one responsible for over 100,000 American deaths since 9/11. I've never heard Bush make any promises about protecting me from home-grown violence, and I don't expect to--not a big enough political card to play. I don't want Bush protecting me anyway.
Every time Bush says he's protecting America,
innocent people die.
Fascinating! And what about a people who would voluntarily reelect such a fear monger after 4 years of his antics....
Excellent post, Dr. Stout. I've been waiting for a public statement, composed and signed by leading psychologists, flatly stating that GW Bush is clinically insane, dangerous, and must be removed from public office immediately.
KosmicKat, Yes, he should be removed from office immediately in order to preserve the safety of the American people. He now has been certified as a "nutty" by a competent shrink. I agree, the world of psychology should have lined up to sign on to the public statement that W was/is clincically insane. I love when "W" says we are rooting out terrorism around the world, when in essence, we are the largest exporters of terrorism in the world. He and his band of incompetents should be removed, in total, from office NOW. American people long for peace and prosperity, something that happened under Pres. Clinton. Repubs, due to their mean-spirited greed, have ruined the world in seven short years. Millions and millions of dead and maimed people everywhere and, if they have their way, more to come (Iran).
The Authoritarian Personality revisited. Yes, you people should go shopping while Dick and I go on the dark side.
ROTFLMAO...
That was concise and Spot-On. Kudos outnow.
Although it's not so funny when one thinks about it, sad really. Struck me funny anyway.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
