I started to think about this as an abstract idea, and now it’s turning into an outline for a much longer piece; for now though, here’s what’s on my mind:
If we accept that the ‘hostages’ Obama referred to when he justified the tax deal were indeed a section of the the American people, with the Oligarchs playing the role of hostage takers...
I'm pondering the existence of some electoral equivalent of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Could this have spread to, or from some of our leaders if it was incubated over several cycles?
What if a certain politician was already pre-disposed to something like this?
Can entire nations suffer from Stockholm syndrome and are there examples of this throughout history?
Is Main Street suffering from this right now?
Below, in bold are the classic elements required for Stockholm Syndrome to take place.
Underneath each one in italics: how these conditions are being met and orchestrated in our political arena:
The hostages must come to view the perpetrator as giving life simply by not taking it. The perpetrator is in control of the captive’s basic need for survival.
Key ‘life giving’ rhetorical devices used to shape this view: Pro-life, death panels, mushroom cloud, fear-mongering, terror alerts, homeland security, avoiding a double dip recession, ‘too big to fail’.
For this rhetoric to work it has to serve as an emotional flash card, provoking a visceral and thus physiological reaction. This is achieved by portraying immediate danger, with the accompanying graphic mental imagery. The hostage takers alone have the power to save us from the ‘clear and imminent’ danger (this ‘clear and imminent’ aspect is why the bail-out worked while the climate change threat is not generally used – a fight or flight reaction to whatever the trigger happens to be is needed)
The hostage must endure isolation from other people and have only the captor’s perspective available. The perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from their captives
Key isolating factors: Pre-existing bigotry toward Obama, Fox News, MSM, the Beltway Bubble, Defunding of education, Defunding of science, tendency to not look outside domestic borders, reality TV, the attenuation of investigative journalism, driving journalists online, abroad, or to the fringes of the media, Republican messaging repeated loudly and often.
The hostage judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor rather than resist.
‘it’s-safer-if-you-align-with-the-GOP’ rhetoric: individual freedoms under threat, loss of liberty, ‘constitution-under-threat’, taking away your guns, taking away your religion, socialism, muslims, sharia, immigration, Paladino's baseball bat, Palins 'lock and load', fetishization of the flag, Guantanamo, Waterboarding, Warentless Wire Tapping, elimination of Habeas corpus .
The meme that there are menacing external forces coming to a city near you, and the Repubs will stand shoulder to shoulder with you against them.
The hostage views the hostage taker as showing some degree of benevolence. Captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness, or genuine empathy. If the perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response and concentrate on the captors ‘good side’ to protect themselves.
Benevolence: Tax breaks, patriotic fervor, consumerism, cheap oil, apple pie, Glenn Becks tears, Boehners tears
Concentration on the captors ‘good side’: Joe Liebermanns relationship with McCain (who may know something about Stokholm Syndrome himself)
The West Wings conspicuous contempt for the left, and Obama’s almost pathological need for bi-partisanship
Now, maybe I’m trying to jam square pegs into round holes, but given the wrong headedness of so many republican ideas, how is it exactly, that they have managed over the last decade or two to shape the political landscape as much as they have? How is it we have to even peripherally entertain a President Palin, or the popularity of Limbaugh, or the bristling hatred of ‘You Lie’ or the Birthers?
It’s not enough to lay all this at the doorstep of a complicit media or the well funded machine.
The Red Party as it currently stands would be relegated to a side-show of extremism in most other developed countries.
The Blue Party would be considered right of center in many of those same countries, and yet in the USA they are called socialist, marxist, and more recently ‘among the most corrupt’
The reasons are partly cultural and partly due to the Red teams deceitfulness and willingness to lie in order to gain power.
But there is also some form of political Stockholm syndrome being exploited here.
Take Obama: smart, moderate, Presidential, genuine (imo), a phenomenon, fiery when he wants to be, a visionary, and a natural communicator.
Hostage also?
Below are those conditions required for Stokholm Syndrome again; now do the mental exercise of applying them specifically to President Obama, and then again to Washington Dems in general…
The hostage must come to view the perpetrator as giving life simply by not taking it. The perpetrator is in control of the captive’s basic need for survival.
The hostage must endure isolation from other people and have only the captor’s perspective available. The perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from their captives
The hostage judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor rather than resist.
The hostage views the hostage taker as showing some degree of benevolence. Captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness, or genuine empathy. If the perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response and concentrate on the captors ‘good side’ to protect themselves.
____________________________________________________
Personally I still have faith in Obama’s intellect, his motives, his ability to learn on the job, and his tenacity. History will be kinder to his acheivements that we are here in the orange mosh pit.
I submit though, that there’s some weird political mutation of Stockholm Syndrome shrouding mainstream Democratic Politicians.
If there is, how might the left become the hostage takers? Might that be a winning strategy as far as ensuring Washington tacks more to the left? Is that what the Tea Baggers did for the red team?
The majority of us say we want more Howard Dean, more Alan Grayson, more Bernie Saunders. Sucking up a little closer to home, I’ve always liked Markos’ style of calling out Repubs using very direct language and a smile that must drive the dullards insane. None of these guys have the slightest instinct to back down, which is why people sometimes walk off TV sets rather than debate them.
More of their type of ‘pugilistic’ language might well yield more than just red meat for the base. It might tilt the axis of political Stokholm Syndrome and recast the role of the base.
To get there we need to do 4 things better:
Promote aggressive Dems, without hand-wringing when their every utterance isn’t always fit for polite company. The media would be dragged along. I bet they are always happy to have Dean and Grayson on because they know they are willing to throw the first punch.
Stop nit-picking each other, and especially, our resident activists.
Channel Dean, Grayson, Markos etc when we encounter political bullies in real life. Do it with steely eyed precision like Dean, a flamboyant flourish like Grayson, a smile like Markos, or better yet, if you have the pipes for it, a roar like this.
Start acting like the leaders we are, all of us.
If in the comments section this stimulates discussion, then its mission accomplished!
I’m no George Lakoff and don’t aspire to be, I’m not looking for a grade here. It’s impossible not to write about this without being influenced by Lakoff, Naomi Klien, or Jared Diamond to name but three.