Op Ed: Right’s 'GroupThink' Endangers Dialog In Open Channels

(EUGENE, Ore.) - The Internet and its rapid growth of open channels via blogs and websites --especially alternative daily newspaper formats-- has become an easy-shot target for the Far Right “noise machine” in operation since the New Deal.

That creates deeper, further dangers to honest, open, democratic dialog of which many participants should be fully aware --in simple personal defense.

Invariably, whenever potent new community-wide involvement in any controversial political issue begins, in nearly any open-honest blog or alternate-news channel nationwide, suspiciously-similar (often word-for-word !) Right-slanted comments will appear in continuous high volume.

Invariably, what is so presented shares the very obvious symptoms of “GroupThink” -- a further creation of a psychological technique deeply embedded in the ways and wherefores of horrendous totalitarian regimes well-characterized in our fairly recent history.

Its use in our once-free America, shaped and protected by our cherished First Amendment, is one more symbolic “success” --until revealed, and thus rapidly placed in process of full defeat-- by true First Amendment means provided by the same Internet facilities which allow it to operate for a time.

Please note that, also invariably, its current demise is coming about via due recognition, as usual accomplished simply by wit, wisdom and will of the general American populace, in direct defense via their own Comment on the very same channels.

Albeit sometimes out-numbered, however briefly, those answering Comments --also invariably-- make very much better sense, built from wider, deeper, more sensitive and informed status, than those formed in the familiar attack-mode patterns of this particular “groupthink” virus.

William H. Whyte, longtime famed writer in our great business journal FORTUNE Magazine, created the term “Group think” in 1952 --about the same time the first furious significant outcomes of the GOP Noise Machine were widely-felt across our whole culture.

Famed psychologist Irving Janis, who did extensive work on fundamental research on this malign process, describes it thus:

“A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

Clark McCauley, noted social psychologist, has laid out three key conditions governing the generation of groupthink: Directive leadership; Homogeneity of members’ social background and ideology; and Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

Further understanding of this generally malign process, especially useful to certain political groups in the current worldwide climate of consistent collapse nearly everywhere of “managed capitalism”, is provided by Janus’ work in determining symptoms of groupthink in order to make its appearance testable.

Here they are, for your own usage as may be most helpful to you applied to Comments you may find widely in dialog channels, including ours here at S-N:

1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking. (As in “anon” or “assumed name” lack of ID on some channels, and refusal to provide ID when challenged.)

2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. (As in wild, undocumented, unprovable, difficult to check generalized statements, done with obvious intent.)

3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. (As in Limbaugh et al attack seeking failure for Obama, and far too many similar situations obvious to all.)

4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders. (As in multiple examples obvious to any observer.) 5. Pressure to conform against any members who disagree. (Not so evident to casual observers, but entirely applicable to probing investigators via available records.)

6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. (See explanation under 5 above)

7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with group. (As easily observed by repetition of same points, sometimes precisely same words, among comments.)

8. Mindguards -- self-appointed members how shield the group from dissenting opinions. (See explanation under 5 above.)

(For the serious reader,much more detail is easily available in Wikipedia “Group think”, one of those consulted for this Op Ed, drawn also from writer’s files.)

The longtime existence of the GOP Noise Machine, so-named by its initiators, is well documented by many social psychologists and active communications process researchers in the early years of the New Deal.

Due attention to this research-reviewed and much similar work done by noted psychologists, psychiatrists, and communications analysts, following fundamentals explored during World War II and the decades since, is now being used to guide, shape, continue and extend what was begun in the FDR days, you may be sure.

That is one driving purpose of much of the neocon-funded carefully-planned and skillfully-guided work now coming to the surface and revealed by recent probing investigation.

Some of its impacts are discernible in the recent scathing revelations of the policy-shaping “wartime emergency” powers attributed to the President, now being questioned as the genesis for torture, attack on other nations, and what appear to be international war crimes open to prosecution by international bodies.

That the consequences now surely appear to go far beyond what was intended --and for many years was the norm-- of political party plans, protocols and competitive actions under our Constitution is also widely understood and documented by national reports.

Thus it is that we should intensively examine what we allow ourselves to do in response to open, honest, democratic dialog opportunities now afforded us much more widely than ever before.

IF we use these channels positively, with close observance to their intention of mutual sharing/learning, we have at hand one of strongest instruments yet devised to extend, strengthen, and preserve our cherished First Amendment rights.

But if we allow abuse and downright contemptuous distortion --even obvious perversion-- by those who will thus use them if permitted to do so, we risk impact on our democracy beyond what we now know can occur.

All you have to do is THINK about what you write, make sure of your facts, guard your own statements --and be entirely ready to sign your OWN NAME with full information when requested.

For many decades the most useful and probing shaping description for all communications has been: “WHO says WHAT to WHOM, for what PURPOSE, in WHICH channel.”

When any receiver knows from whom cometh the WHAT, judgment of its worth becomes entirely possible. Otherwise you indulge dangerously in a guessing game which may cost you dearly in consequence.

In current circumstances, worldwide, it may well be among the most significant meanings carried by any communication today.

Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Dennis Jette March 17, 2009 12:23 pm (Pacific time)

I am in full agreement that Saul Alinsky's organizing community model has a secure place in history. It does not parallel models like the Hudson, Packard or Ford Edsel, but more like the models we see in Cuba, the old USSR, and places similar.

Henry Ruark March 16, 2009 2:06 pm (Pacific time)

Anon: Yours unsigned indicates your serious doubt re your own statement, as psychiatric symptometry will clearly show. Re point: It is NOT success or failure of Alinsky pattern at stake, but appalling lack of sensitivities to the major other factors and impacts now clearly so shaping our urban areas. IF you do not understand, that itself proves the lack of sensitivities involved here, despite heavy emphasis on just those developments in recent widespread reporting and literature, as well as solid academic research, on every one of the disintegrating factors mentioned earlier. You can check allathat out for yourself, if this dialog helps you to wake up and feel something other than malign response to Alinsky, whose place in several areas of endeavor is secure in history.

Anonymous March 16, 2009 11:43 am (Pacific time)

In the final analysis there is no successful Alinsky model that can be pointed to now or in the past. There is a number of urban areas in America that are looking far superior to anything in Chicago (and similar cities), so look at them rather than the impotent radical methods.

Henry Ruark March 16, 2009 9:37 am (Pacific time)

DJ: You wrote: "This should not be viewed in a left or right scenario, but a humanistic need to find a way to help our fellow citizens." IF you really feel that to be the truth, you need to seek out full information on the social, demographic, cultural and economic forces driving better-funded familes out of the city, even out of suburbs, whiele creating impossible ghetto-conditions within what was prospering metropolis some years ago, When one does that, the real very complex issues preclude simplistics you rely on here, and indicate a growing very essential need for more of what Alinsky fought to achieve in his time. If you wish detailed documentation, ID self to our Editor for direct contact for same, from previous work and some publication. OR seek out many current studies in these same areas, available by easy Internet access.

Henry Ruark March 15, 2009 11:30 am (Pacific time)

To all: Sometimes long-continued very "checkered career" has painful learning experiences well worth sharing with others on occasion. That's a major motivation to write Op Eds --and archive them for later usage, too. SO here's "see also" ref. to one which fits very neatly right in this ongoing thread: "Black Arts of Misinformation Threaten Nation"; 11/28/08. Easy access via STAFF note re HCR and "Written by..."line found there. Subhead reads: "Dollar Power Drives 'dirty jobs" for Private Interests." You are welcome to copy and distribute as you wish; I am copyright owner. This one will appear in coming book under negotiation with publisher.

Dennis Jette March 15, 2009 7:12 am (Pacific time)

My below comments on the current status of the majority of our urban environments is completely accurate. Simply look at these locations as they are today. They are far worse than prior to 1964 (example: inner-city out-of-wedlock birthrate prior to 1965 was below 25% , now it approaches 80% in some areas). Subsequently all the past organizing methods to improve the situation have failed, all of them. It's time to look at other methods, so that's why I say Alinsky methodology followers have not done well for there has been a worsening of the situation by any measurement one wants to use to measure progress. This should not be viewed in a left or right scenario, but a humanistic need to find a way to help our fellow citizens.

Henry Ruark March 14, 2009 6:28 pm (Pacific time)

DJ: Some of what you wrote is accurate, non-distorted, but re Alinksy, see new ATLANTIC article by Geogehegan, Chicago lawyer, re this specific point of what Alinsky achieved. Yours is distorted/perverted view from political belief, in no way the commonsense understanding of his career and motivations and achievements, as clearly shown by your use of denigrating term. We know you NOT, but history tells us truth about Alinsky, for any who will but seek it out...!! He made such impact re his natural opponents that special materials designed to knock his impacts down were published and distributed nationally by Far Right, of which I have copies. It was precisely because he did create commonsense review and reform that he is now so hated, reviled, downsmashed whenever his name comes into view for the same groups. There ARE some who take the same attack-stance whenever Jesus Christ is named, for some of the same reasons.

Henry Ruark March 14, 2009 7:06 pm (Pacific time)

DJ: Re Alinsky, Chicago lawyer Geoghegan in ATLANTIC current issue cites true Chicago feeling about his achievments for the city...see issue for special rundown re "socialization", per note here already re three national opinion sources. We do NOT know you, but Lwyer G. well qualified to speak, and cites certain other national figures. Your prof committed cardinal sin of some academics in using denigrating term, which hardly fits historic record, and must surely reflect only personal political feelings, as does yours. IF you have nonpartisan or nationally-recognized nonpolitical sources, cite them with links, for "see with own eyes" and evaluate with ow minds...regardless of YOUR words OR mine... That's how open, honest and democratic dialog works...not with unsupported uninformed personal feeling substituting for informed opinion.

Dennis Jette March 14, 2009 11:40 am (Pacific time)

What's so terrific about understanding Janis and other behavioral science professionals approach to "group dynamics", is that once you start to understand the pitfalls of the group process, the better leader and decision maker you most likely will become, as well as the people within your group. It does not matter if you're a top executive, a coach, or say getting together with the family to plan a function, you will be in better shape to make the decision-making process have a more optimum result, generally. In terms of Saul Alinsky, and those who have used his methods, there are no positive models, none. For example in any urban area,like Chicago, going back to the 1960's, presently there is a higher out of wedlock birthrate, higher crime and poverty, lower educational performance. Nothing but negative results. A former professor of mine first introduced me to the word "snollygoster' as applied to Alinsky.

Henry Ruark March 13, 2009 10:52 am (Pacific time)

To all: For any who still do not understand the cataclysmic changes underway in our world, reflected everywhere via money and its impacts via "managed capitalism" in crisis, the single Introduction chapter of this reference will serve as basic anchor for cogitation and appreciation, sure to shape your ref. and response to all else. See: "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World";Niall Ferguson; Penguin 2008;ISBN 978-1-59420-192-9

Henry Ruark March 13, 2009 9:53 am (Pacific time)

Glen et al: Longtime writer's truism on public awareness in general: "There are only three kinds of readers: The UNinformed,the Misinformed, and the malignly brain-washed for political camouflage." That's one major reason the GOP Noise Machines was orginated in New Deal days, to begin the propaganda process exemplified in detail and depth during the War II totalitarian regimes. That effort carried over ever since by the same loosely organized group responsible originally for brain-trusts, foundations, dedicated-journal development --and denigration of most msmedia, to our great democratic damage. "Groupthink" one of the most effective, thus continuing, techniques, proven by ongoing cognitive science research now exploring causes in real depth ...including "learning media" fields with which you are familiar.

Glen March 13, 2009 7:55 am (Pacific time)

I was fortunate to see Robert Kennedy, Jr. when he was in town last week. He made an interesting observation. He said that when he spoke in conservative states people would come up to him after his presentation and say that they agreed with him. And they said they'd never heard the information he was presenting. Kennedy told the audience the conclusion he came to was that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans was that Democrats were informed. He laid the blame of lack of information at the feet of the media. GroupThing is only possible when the media drops the ball. And the news media wonders why they're in trouble?

Henry Ruark March 12, 2009 5:26 pm (Pacific time)

DJ et al: Forgot to stress for you incontrovertible fact that whole world, esp.economic, fiscal,financial,"freetrade" segments radically changed by globalization, broad changes in people, emergence of whole new middle-class (2 billion !) in developing nations, et al, et al, that what made sense then no longer applies even in part. Far too many, esp. in U.S., do not begin to comprehend what this means in desperately different approaches to what was considered fixed-point principle, esp. by those still hooked on Hayek, Friedman, et al from 80 years ago. That's major reason more "noise machine" distortion and perversion, consciously committed for political pander-purposes, is so deadly dangerous to all of us NOW.

Henry Ruark March 12, 2009 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

DJ et al:
Yours reminds me Janis used Bay of Pigs/Kennedy as example, somewhat similar to what you detail.
Re feelings vs Alinsky "and minions" (!), that depends, I have found, which side of ongoing search for truth the people are on at the moment.
No way one can denigrate work of Alinsky in Chicago simply on his techniques, if one is familiar with the true situation-then.
Noise-machine consequences, for example here, are surely more hurtful, damaging, threatening and destructive --and at national level !!--far beyond what Alinski can be held to task for having created.
Your additional references, sir, welcome here, esp.if as links for "see with own eyes" and "evaluate with own mind" rather than either YOUR words OR mine in Op Ed. Fire when ready, if you have anything...

Dennis Jette March 12, 2009 10:19 am (Pacific time)

I did a post-graduate research paper over 20 years ago using some of the Janis' concepts applied to the space shuttle Challenger accident in conjuction with the failed "O-Rings." and NASA engineers failure to catch the defects. To use him for people untrained in the behavioral sciences does not translate well for laypeople. There are many other sources that would be far more useful, but then again it is helpful when one is qualified to understand these behavioral concepts. Of course one of the main concepts Janis was getting at was how to manipulate people/goups on a very similar level as Saul Alinsky. Once an individual comes to grips with these types of manipulators it is easy to diminish their impact as they use distraction and criticism in their egregious pattern aimed at misleading. I have yet to come across anyone well versed in the behavioral sciences who does not have an extreme distaste for people like Alinsky and his minions.

[Return to Top]