Groupthink as a political mental illness (Part II)
Posted in Rhys' Rants by R Lee Wrights on December 31st, 2009 by Rhys M. Blavier
From the studied literature on groupthink, there are a few points which merit mention here. Smith and White say that:
“Fantasies about invulnerability, and about the persecutory intent of external enemies and collective rationalizations of group actions could be understood as a system to help allay the unconscious anxieties of the group-as-a-whole.
A phenomenological approach to what Janis describes as groupthink indicates that a group overwhelmed by internal conflict may gain a great deal of relief if it can locate or create a strong external enemy (Coser, 1986). Internal dissension can be seen as trivial in contrast, thereby enabling the displacement of within-group tensions into the relations among groups (Smith, 1982b). In this regard, such internal properties of the group as illusions of unanimity and invulnerability, which may be views as pathological from one perspective, may in fact serve a valuable social function by providing a particular cognitive set to enable a group to “create” an enemy.” (Smith & White, 1983, p. 71)
Anne Gero tells us that:
“In a consensus [emphasis in original] decision process, subjects expect more cooperation and friendliness and less disagreement that they would anticipate in [a] majority decision process.” (Gero, 1985, p. 487)
And that:
“I would again emphasize the importance of disagreement to the outcome of group decisions… members may approach a consensus process with anti-disagreement norms. Preventative or remedial measures should be taken to encourage members to disagree in the consensual process. If disagreement is suppressed, the conditions of groupthink may develop and threaten the quality of the group’s decisions.” (Ibid., p. 498)
There are American attorneys who could build viable practices solely by representing atheists seeking to remove Nativity scenes from the front of courthouse lawns. Proclaiming “separation of church and state,” they profess to have the market cornered when it comes to our Founding Fathers’ intentions.
When I moved my family from Michigan to Nashville three years ago one of the decisions we had to make was where we were going to live. We could have chosen to live in the heart of the action and moved to a loft in down town Nashville. We chose to spend half as much and move to a neighborhood. Sure, when we go to see a ball game or attend a play we have to fight traffic and drive downtown. In the long run, by living away from downtown we free up thousands of dollars a year to spend on other things.
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free… it expects what never was and never will be.”
A ten percent drop in murders during the first six months of this year at a time when gun sales were up dramatically is more proof that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
A proposal to ban so-called “assault weapons” in Washington State shifts the blame for recent violent crimes from the perpetrators to every law-abiding gun owner in the state, holding them and their firearms responsible for crimes they did not commit, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
I attended a public hearing concerning a bond referendum at a Board of Aldermen meeting in my hometown during the autumn of last year. The public was heard with approximately 80% of the speakers in opposition to the bonds. One speaker in particular spoke prophetically as she accused the aldermen of emotional blackmail. Never did I expect the truthfulness of her words would be proven so soon after they were spoken.
I have absolutely no idea where this past year went. 
