[Marxism] Psychotherapists for Social Responsibility on Bush

[udreamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Here's how one shrink wraps up W in
the following paper, "The gang leader's
mantle of toughness cloaks his
ignorance even as the sanctified
appeal to higher power masks his
lawless intentions."


Position Paper from Psychotherapists
for Social Responsibility, New York
Chapter

Written by Jessica Benjamin

This paper summarizes a group effort by
psychoanalytic clinicians to work in a
long-standing tradition of psychoanalytic
social and cultural analysis using our
categories to analyze the workings of
dysfunctional political processes. Our
starting point is an analysis of the
misuse of power to manipulate people
who are reacting to traumatic events.

 WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR BUT
FEAR ITSELF

 1. What Kind of Leader Do People
Need

This paper offers a psychological
analysis of how the Bush group exploits
the current crisis by intensifying fear and
then offering to relieve it with policies
whose real aim is the consolidation of
power in the hands of a few. Rather
than organizing restrained force and
realistic protection, they exploit the "die-
hard" fantasy that retaliation and
bullying work. Bush's leadership style
thus unconsciously appeals to the kind
of protection offered by the bully/gang
leader. The gang leader's mantle of
toughness cloaks his ignorance even as
the sanctified appeal to higher power
masks his lawless intentions. This
combination means that the more
frightening are the results of his
ruthlessly unilateral policies, the more
people cling to his empty assurances.
The gist of our view is that the gang
leader, an identification with the
adolescent, must be opposed by a
responsible, accountable figure more
like the adult parent. People choose
their leader based on the need for
identification. A figure who models
courage and strength can perhaps work
as an alternative with whom they can be
proud to identify. He should project a
stance of morality and honest realism
that will represent our democratic values
in a way that empowers our people and
legitimates America in the eyes of the
world.

 2. Analyzing Fear and the Defenses
Against It In the wake of 9/11 American
remain traumatized and are beset by
fear and insecurity in a way heretofore
unknown. We feel vulnerable as never
before to fears of being attacked, of
instability and change, of being the
object of boundless hatred and
resentment, as well as fear of America
losing its power and control in a
complex global world.

The common defenses against re-
activation of trauma to which this
administration appeals include both
denial and planned or fantasized
retaliation. The latter combines the self-
righteousness of the victim with the
entitlement of the all-powerful. The Bush
strategy is to portray himself as a
champion of the beleaguered good in an
incomprehensible world of attackers
who must be fought and suppressed. He
casts any who question or criticize his
policies as persecutors from within, and
so the leader must be defended against
persecution and blame rather than held
responsible. His media supporters
magnify the threat of dissent and
merges it with that posed by the external
Enemy. The uncertainty and
incomprehensibility of attacks from
within and without heightens the sense
of a malevolent world in which safety
can only be achieved by using our
power to blast them back. This claim
that "We are the ones who really know
where the enemy sits and the threat to
our identity lies" underlies the apparent
belief that only the right can deal with
terror and provide safety. They are not
blinded by being "soft." Even though the
unilateral "tough guy" policy itself has
been manifestly unsuccessful both in
providing protection at home or peace
abroad, the appeal to ill-defined fear and
magical pseudo-strength is still
compelling - not least because it is
linked to a widely broadcast caricature
of the alternative - the "liberal"--as weak
and ineffectual.

3. The Choice--Tough Guy v. Strong
Leader This set-up of weakness and
strength is the background for casting
Bush as reliable and the "liberals" as
sissies. Those who propose that the
unilateral tough guy actually alienates
the rest of the world, are characterized
as self-blaming people who
masochistically allow themselves to be
victimized because they are guilty about
power. Who would want to identify with
them? They blame themselves where
the successful right-wing person knows
how to shove the blame back into the
others. The only alternatives in this
construction are either to be a victim of
blaming or show strength by refusing
responsibility.  The awesome
responsibility for using power effectively,
which demands a vast knowledge of the
world and a willingness to extend careful
consideration to its leaders, feels
overwhelming to a traumatized people.
The Bush administration aims to
reassure them with the assertion that we
have not made mistakes, we will stay
the course, we do not need to
reconsider our plan for the future. 4.
Behind the Metaphors: Gang Leader v.
Parent The contest over what is real
strength will be based psychologically
on an unconscious choice between the
gang leader who defies reality and a
competent, nurturing parental protector
who recognizes reality. One of the most
obvious and difficult realities being
denied is that of death: death of our
soldiers and innocent civilians. The first
element of courage and self-confidence
our leader needs to show is that he can
face the coffins our president refuses to
look at. In effect, he has to counter this
right-wing strategy as a parent counters
the teenage gang leader who
consolidates power by dismissing all
adult objections, appeals to reality or
demands for responsibility as uncool,
stupid inability to really understand how
the world works. The parent knows
death is possible, the teenager doesn't.
Metaphorically speaking, this parent has
to stand up and say, Following that
leader on the path all the way down to
death and destruction is not a sign of
courage but equivalent to getting into a
car with a driver who has been drinking.
Strength consists of refusing to get into
the car and finding another way home.

Let's analyze more carefully the basis
for the psychological support for Bush.
In saying that the gang leader secures
his image of strength by setting up an
opponent who is a weak father or
mother figure we must bear in mind that
the gang leader is himself based on a
particular, bad parent figure, one who
combines the sometimes charming
grandiosity of a child with the abuse of
power. In our language, Bush's style
evokes "disorganized attachment" in
which the child clings to the very parent
who has just aroused his fear; he looks
for help from the very parent who has
just rejected or abused him. So people
cling to their leader, the terrifyingly
irresponsible or dangerous parent, in
times of crisis even though his actions
are the ones that cause their world to
fall apart - a version of the Stockholm
syndrome in which we are all hostages
to Bush's bad decisions. It is this
knowledge that the traumatic bond
denies, and indeed efforts to break that
denial cause a great deal of anxiety.

The support for and identification with
this kind of parent is enhanced by the
parent's grandiose insistence on a zero-
sum game in which the child admires
the parent but has to relinquish the
sense of their own power. Thus Bush's
belief in his right to rule corresponds to
the average Americans belief that he
has no such right. Rather like
"unpopular kids" in school who accept
the right of the "popular" ones to rule the
group, victimize or tease the outsiders,
their sense of weakness and self-hate
lead them to support and identify with
the powerful, popular person. In other
words, this is an identification in which
you lose what you grant the other, as
with the authoritarian father, rather than
the good parent who permits the child to
identify with him in order to become like
him. In addition, Bush as a figure of
identification has been extraordinarily
successful in uniting contradictory
elements that men wish to incorporate
and women often seek in men. He
theatrically conveys an attitude of caring
concern while rejecting all policies that
provide care. He suggests that he is
human and able to accept weakness
(drinking while driving) while appealing
to a notion of strength in which "real
men don't need health insurance." He
implies that unquestioning loyalty to the
gang is compatible with being a tough
individual who doesn't care what anyone
else thinks. Thus one can feel like a
member of his gang and be tough, while
the elements of weakness and fear are
projected into the sissy liberals who
(with their bleeding hearts) want to
provide care for those to weak to give it
to themselves. Bush's persona of a
strong leader succeeds because he
knows how to cultivate the stance that
couples invulnerability and ruthless
extirpation of one's opponents with
folksy benevolence in bestowing warmth
and approval to those who comply.
Where the mother/father figure bestows
recognition upon those who do good
work, the gang or group leader bestows
inclusion on those who are loyal and
ostracizes those who disagree. In sum,
this leadership style unites contradictory
elements in a façade of strength
(typical of fascist leaders) and it is so
successful because the opponent
always becomes the receptacle for the
projected weakness.

5. How The Good Leader Handles Fear
Since Bush's leadership relies on
ejecting weakness, that is fear, into the
other, his opponent must show that he
can "catch" and metabolize the fears in
a way that gives reassurance. He must
address the false hope that we can
make the frightening reality go away if
we follow Bush in calling for revenge
and seeking security in the notion that
we have right and God on our side. He
must challenge the idea that Bush's
opponents are an unfeeling elite who
would remove all reassurance : in other
words, flood people with just such
frightening perceptions, and evoke the
traumatic fears they wish to deny. In
effect, to acknowledge a complex world
is to flood or invade people with the very
dangers they would like to hold at bay.
To speak of danger is to create that very
danger in people's minds. The way to
counter this effect is to do what
psychologists call "containing" of the
fears. The paradigmatic way that a
leader does this is by doing what
Roosevelt did: he said, not the reality we
must face but the fear of facing it is our
most serious problem; that we must not
succumb to fear, fear itself is our worst
enemy. We do this not by denying that
there are things to fear, but by naming
them and defining their solutions. The
point to make is that wise and measured
responses are required to ameliorate
the situation, not urgent reactivity. Since
the idea of attacking some enemy, of
discharging our bombs and missiles,
has a primitive power to reassure, it
becomes crucial to present an alternate
version of power - the power of restraint.
This restraint is based not on
indecisiveness but on confidence in the
use of political processes and mastery
of information. The point of showing how
many of the current problems in Iraq
were anticipated before the war is not
merely to discredit the administration -
what has to be conveyed is that it was
possible to know and anticipate events
ahead of time, that it was a deliberate
choice to remain ignorant and not
anticipate the consequences of our
action both in international relations and
in war. Bush not only fails to project a
parental image in public, he also misses
the opportunity his opponent can seize--
to display the well-known signs of
parental confidence and respect for all
the children. It is important to emphasize
that the government, like the good
parent, provides resources in order to
enable people to help themselves and
protect them when they are unable to do
so. The hatred of the government as a
"depriving" parent must be countered by
an image of government that helps
people find their own strength and
autonomy, be contributors. Dean
showed how effective democrats could
be in calling for participation and
contribution, for agency and creativity on
the part of supporters. The idea here is
to shift from the traumatic bond
cultivated by the Bush leadership we
described earlier, which reinforces
powerlessness, into a positive appeal to
agency and self-determination, which is
known to ameliorate trauma. " You can
make a difference. Your input is valued"
also means "You are not helpless, you
are not at the mercy of uncontrollable
processes." The strong mother or father
can provide a context for ameliorating
fear because she or he does not need to
remain in absolute control to manage
her or his own anxiety. She or he is not
threatened by others' autonomy and
power but encourages their self-
development. Their parental attitude is
not "how dare you challenge me" but
"thank you for raising such an important
question." Where Bush consistently fails
to recognize the positive contribution of
criticism, his opponent can demonstrate
strength by doing just that. .

6. Strength Means Defusing Power
Struggles and Advocating Consensus

As we said before, Bush and his
supporters have increased fear by
confusing those who advocate a
different strategy with enemies, which
means there are many more people
against us. It is important to
demonstrate that listening to the other's
view point does not mean letting them
"boss you" and that it is possible to co-
operate with those who do not have
identical thoughts or interests. This will
again convey the idea that we do not
have to polarize the world, or our own
society, into good and bad. This makes
the world less dangerous, and makes us
less helpless in it. Instead of accepting
that we can only choose between
submission and
manipulating/dominating/threatening
those who think differently, we
emphasize being strong enough to
stimulate cooperation and resolve
conflict. A good leader can negotiate,
can create consensus, can indeed travel
to those dangerous places where
people need us to personally advocate
for peace rather than violence (the
middle east).

Again, we must show there is another
way to deal with differences. Defeating
Bush requires conveying a stance of
paternal/ maternal responsibility which is
generous and respectful toward those
with other views, conveying a
willingness to listen and take seriously
the needs and feelings of others
(something Clinton excelled at). This
stance projects an assumption of good
will and inclusiveness - everyone can be
part of the team, we can unite not by
extirpating difference by allowing it. "I
am a leader who can make it safe for
Americans to have a conversation about
what ought to be done - there are many
valid arguments, and we will reach a
consensus together." Our stance is not
to simply erase the objections of the
other side in our effort to win, but to get
beyond zero-sum differences to achieve
real strength. Bush promised this, it
appealed to people - but he practiced
the opposite.

The good parent does not take sides
when children are fighting but tries to
show them how to behave, how to
negotiate and compromise to achieve
peace. To get beyond simple polarizing
of right and wrong, right and left, good
guys and bad requires us to
demonstrate the "third way" and show
conviction about it: Neither a victim nor
a persecutor be. Understanding the
other does not mean submitting to
blame, or accepting being the target of
resentment. Rather, it means making a
case for a more generous, multi-lateral
approach to negotiating whenever
possible while recognizing our right and
need to defend ourselves against those
whose only interest is destruction. We
can signal our ability to differentiate
between those who have different
interests and those who wish to destroy
us. Again, the message is inclusion: we
can work to create good will and unify
people despite differences around
primary goals. In this way we
acknowledge the need to reclaim the
good will we experienced after 9-11. A
more peaceful world is possible - de-
escalating conflict is a realistic goal. In
other words, what is needed is to
convey that reassurance comes ina
different form. If we recognize mistakes
in policy, that is not in order to blame but
to propose better solutions - that is the
definition of responsibility. Our
vulnerability and need for security in this
difficult world means that we have a
right to a president who says The Buck
Stops Here and still believes that the
American government serves and
represents the people.







_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism