Talkers ToolBox

Whether you are talking to neighbors, friends, and relatives -- or Members of Congress and staff -- these documents will put you on solid ground and help you change minds.


about us

Top 3 TO DO Tasks

Or . . . DO what you can. A single phone call or email adds to the effort. Your action can make the difference.

Curing Impeachophobia

Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. Members of Congress, who we empowered and charged with the duty of evicting (impeaching) such trespassers, are refusing to act.

By refusing to stand up for We The People -- the true owners of this nation -- Members of Congress have created a national crisis graver than any natural disaster or social ill. It is bigger than any international crisis. By tolerating the intolerable, they are surrendering our capacity to recover from disaster with humanity; to solve our common problems in ways that reflect our common values; and to serve as a force for good in the world.

When the good will of the American people is cut out of the loop no one seeking justice — not our fellow Americans nor people of other nations — can look to us for help.

Surrendering your property to squatters without a fight is insanity, but that insanity doesn't compare to the magnitude of the insanity of surrendering a nation without a fight. But that is precisely what Members of Congress are doing when they say that the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney can't, won't, or shouldn't happen.

Identifying the affliction

If Members of Congress were functioning as intended, the stark reality of the fascist takeover we are witnessing would be more than enough to compel them to impeach Bush and Cheney. Since they are stubbornly refusing to even consider impeachment, something is seriously wrong.

The problem comes into focus when defenders of Speaker Pelosi's "off the table" edict are challenged. The dysfunctional reactions are remarkably predicable. People we consider to be reasonable begin to blather "reasons" (rationalizations) they can't defend -- but stubbornly refuse to let go of. We keep hitting a wall built on baseless fears that "bad things" will happen if they move to impeach now.

They rely on their various rationalizations to maintain the illusion that they are avoiding impeachment for "good reasons." Strangely, while they invoke their fears to rationalize their refusal to impeach, they are blind to the notion that their refusal to impeach is driven by fear.

The affliction is real. It needs a name.

Although they may not meet all the criteria for a formal diagnosis of phobia (e.g., they don't "recognize that the fear is excessive or unreasonable"), the label impeachophobia is a good one because it captures the irrational avoidance at the heart of the affliction (i.e., Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation).

Because "phobia" is a well-known term, the label has the benefit of immediately shifting expections. We expect irrational avoidance from an "impeachophobe," so we aren't so surprised, frustrated, or confused when we encounter it -- as a result we can respond more effectively.

Rationalizations and self-defeating prophesies

Impeachophobes have adopted effective means of shutting out and purging information that contradicts their conviction that impeachment can't, won't, or shouldn't happen. The rationalizations they invoke both justify and reinforce their conviction. Although it sometimes seems like they have an endless supply of rationalizations, they actually rely on a relatively small number.

  • "We'll get Cheney"
  • "The public will rise against us"
  • "We'll lose the White House"
  • "Impeachment will tear the nation apart"
  • "We don't have the votes to remove"
  • "It would be a futile waste"
  • "Impeachment is a distraction"
  • "The public is not behind it"
  • "Now is not the 'right' time; maybe later"
  • "We must investigate first"
  • "It will take too long"
  • "It's not gonna happen because it's not gonna happen"

Some of these "old standbys" are heard with less and less frequency -- a testament to successful "intervention" over many months. But given the urgency of our predicament, lessons from history, and the political advantages of immediate impeachment -- the fact that any of them persist is mystifying to outsiders. We may never fathom the power of rationalization and denial, but we will be more effective if we set aside expectations of how our leaders "should" behave and deal with them as they are.

There is a cure! Turning Impeachophobes into Impeachers

Whatever position or office -- member of the press, Member of Congress, staffer, activist, citizen -- impeachophobes are all just people and people can be reached and changed. We know that impeachophobia can be cured because it is being cured. We are seeing rank and file Democrats "out here" conquer impeachophobia and become "impeachers" everyday.

Simply being exposed to impeachment advocates has been enough for some. Others require more intensive "intervention." However, curing impeachophobia doesn't require a "specialist." Anybody can do it by simply challenging impeachophobic rationalizations whenever they can.

Although we haven't seen many of the impeachophobes in the 110th Congress turn into impeachers, there have been some . So, we should not be too discouraged. The group dynamics that led the DC-Democrats to put impeachment "off the table" also enable them to effectively defend against the reality and reason that challenges that decision. (See Note)

Their impeachophic groupthink has been spread to the public by the "pushers" in the media, creating a positive feedback loop that helps to keep reality at bay. One way to "wake up" the impeachophobes in the beltway is to turn impeachophobes "out here" into impeachers. As fewer people reflect back their impeachophobic rationalizations, and more people challenges them, it will become harder and harder for them to keep reality at bay.

When an impeachophobe minimizes the problem (e.g., "the White House is just playing 'hardball'"), call them on it. Confront them with the reality of torture. When they invoke their rationalizations, contradict them. When they claim "all we have is the power of the purse," call them on it (e.g., "Huh? Impeachment is the only thing capable of stopping Bush and Cheney").

And don't allow impeachophobes to just nod when you point out the benefits of impeachment. Question them. Get verbal buy in. If they express doubt, ask them to cite the basis. If you get buy in, ask more questions ("You see the benefits. You apparently see the necessity. What's the problem?").

Whether we're dealing with impeachophobes on the Hill or impeachophobes "out here." The process is akin to "Whack-a-Mole." As you knock down one rationalization, another pops up. Rationalizations already dealt with can often re-emerge. Persistence and repetition are crucial.

Groupthink is a strange thing. As long as members of the group are in lock-step, it can be very difficult to break through. But if even one Member -- particularly one with some gravitas -- says...

"Hey, what are we doing? Impeach Now!"

...the rationalizations, self-censorship, and denial can come tumbling down with amazing speed.

Note – Characteristics of "group think" include:

  • Overestimation of the Group
    Illusion of invulnerability, Belief in the Inherent Morality of the Group
  • Closed-Mindedness
    Collective Rationalizations and Stereotypes of Outgroups
  • Pressures toward Uniformity
    Self-censorship, Illusion of Unanimity, Direct Pressure on Dissenters, Self-Appointed "mindguards"
General factors that led group members astray:
  • Diffusion of Individual Responsibility
    When we're alone, we realize that either we respond to an event, or no one does. If others are around, we are more likely to defer; there are costs to intervening, and we can avoid those costs if others choose to intervene
  • Status Quo Bias
    We have an exaggerated preference for the status quo, and if there is no status quo, we opt for the default choice.
  • Informational Conformity
    We learn about an element of physical or social reality by observing other people's reactions to it, often without even realizing it.

See also http://web.mit.edu/16.459/www/Teams2.pdf" for an overview of "The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making:" Jones & Roelofsma. Ergonomics Special Issue on Teams: (August 2000):

 

(Revised version of original posting on Democratic Underground -- with permission.)

Trackback(0)
Comments (0)add comment

Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy