Political opinions, election decisions, and other decisions, are often made by groupthink. Obama and McCain both rely on groupthink to haul in large portions of their bases. However, for Republicans, groupthink works. For Democrats, it doesn't. What is groupthink, what are its problems and symptoms, what can be done about it, and why does it help Republicans but hurt Democrats?
There has been quite a bit of work in the area of groupthink, but I do not know if anyone has examined it with regard to political parties and political opinions. I'm not a communications researcher, so my opinions are derived mostly from reading political blogs and newspapers, and watching televised news (mainly CNN) and this diary is rather simplistic. The purpose of this diary is to see what we, as Democrats, can do about our unsuccessful tendency towards groupthink, in order to help elect a more liberal President of the United States.
First, what is groupthink? The first definition of groupthink was made by Whyte in 1952. In 1972, Janis began publishing what may be considered to be definitive work on groupthink. Esser and Ahlfinger (2001) published data demonstrating that groupthink is not more likely to occur in groups with people who tend to be conformers than in groups composed of non-conformers (abstract here). Baron (2005) felt that Janis was correct about the symptoms and results of groupthink, but was incorrect about the conditions necessary to produce it.
Second, what are the signs and symptoms of groupthink? According to Janis, and other sources, they are:
- Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
- Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
- Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
- Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
- Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
The Democrats and the Democratic Party have the arguable feeling that we can win, because the US is tired of Bush and Republican policies. (Republicans and the Republican Party have the arguable feeling that they can win, because America is a christian and/or business nation.) We look at Dubya's popularity polls and assume that the election is ours for the taking.
We rationalize warnings about what we, as Democrats, assume, by saying that unfavorable polls can be wrong and the MSM is nothing but conservative corporate propaganda; Republicans claim that unfavorable polls don't really reflect the constituency and the MSM is nothing but liberal-controlled blather.
Both Democrats and Republicans feel that their side is on the moral high road, and they are right. Republicans may invoke god. Democrats invoke statistics.
Democrats vigorously insist that those within the party who do not conform to the group's beliefs are idiots, trolls, or even traitors to the Party. Republicans insist that conservatives who do not conform to the prevailing Republican mode are sinners or failed businesspeople.
Pressure to conform to Democratic mainstream thought and self-censorship of Democratic group members who do not conform are evident in liberal blogs. The same pressure, but regarding conformation to Republican ideals and self-censorship of errant Republicans, can be seen and heard on talk radio and Faux News shows such as The O'Reilly Factor.
The illusion of unanimity is most obvious in the aftermath of Primary campaigns. Both Democrats and Republicans put on smiley faces, make nice with their Primary opponents, and declare unity for the sake of the Party, the election, and the country. Both parties pretend to unite against the Bad Guy - the Presidential candidate of the other main Party. Candidates and supporters of other political parties are ignored, minimalized, and/or denigrated.
Mindguards are not only the "purity trolls" of both Republican and Democratic Parties, but are the ubiquitous people on both sides who frantically insist, in blogs, Letters to the Editor, e-letters and comments to talk show hosts, that dissent will lead to the Bad Guy winning the election.
Third, what can be done about groupthink that will allow us to enhance the chances that the Republicans will not take the White House - again? Janis described 7 ways for groups to avoid the bad outcomes of groupthink:
1. Leaders should assign each member the role of "critical evaluator". This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.
2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.
3. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.
4. All effective alternatives should be examined.
5. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.
6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.
7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.
I have no doubt that Obama has done, and continues to do, these things. They are all reasonable steps for a politician to take to make better decisions. However, we, as individuals within the group, not only fail to take these steps, we fight them at every opportunity.
We refuse to be critical evaluators of data. We get mad when political focus and study groups report result different from what we believe. We sometimes have independent groups with names like "Democrats for Toenail Gum" but we become irate when those groups make themselves heard. We do not consider alternatives, preferring to flame both the ideas and the fellow Democrats who propose them. We don't discuss our ideas with non-liberals, preferring instead to insult them and their positions. We demean the opinions of experts in various fields if they do not conform to our beliefs rather than learning from their data and work. We shun anyone who plays Devil's Advocate, rarely stopping to listen to their points, and returning to the "we're right" mentality. If we wish to deny McCain the Presidency, we will need to open ourselves up to discussion and possible implementation of alternative issue options.
We need to be more like Obama, regardless of whether we like him or not. He has taken the high road by refusing to trash McCain's character and by explaining his positions logically. He refines or changes his positions as new information appears and as time progresses (some of us call that growth, others deny that it happens, and others get hopelessly frustrated and angered by it).
Last, why does this groupthink work for Republicans and fail dismally for Democrats? My suggestion is that Republicans:
- have a narrower range of views;
- have more effective means for disseminating their viewpoints and converting others to it.
Generally speaking, Republicans are more likely to be absolutists than we are. For example, they can all agree that abortion is bad. Their nuances - abortion opinions can range from "it's murder" to "it's an abomination against god" - are rarely anything other than shades of the same basic opinion. Discussion of issues, therefore, can often be limited to "yep, you're right." This is suitable for sound bites.
Republicans have better local organizations, like churches, where those of like mind can meet and agree. Differences of opinion can be "clarified" by the preacher, with congregation members agreeing to basic norms as explained by someone they already follow. Outsiders can be convinced to share the view by either fear (you'll go to hell) or simple reasoning that include all variations as being minor differences. Outsiders can also be lured in by association - if that group is Republican-oriented because of abortion (or Iraq, or something else), then they're probably right about the economy and the war in Iraq, too. Republican viewpoints travel as a group.
We need to accept that our liberal-versus-liberal differences are also just valid shades of opinion. We don't use association because we are fragmented into hundreds of groups that have only one overriding concern per group and often hostile views towards other splinter groups (why are they so concerned with Issue A when Issue B is the only really important one?). We meet in meeting rooms rather than in "sacred" churches, and we make no attempt to examine and include other specialty groups' opinions. Our attempts at including outsiders are laden with complex logic that does not work well with sound bites. Democratic viewpoints travel solo.
I am much weaker in the area of solving the problem than in defining it. I have an idea of what we need to do, but I am unsure of how to do it. I think we need to eliminate groupthink by encouraging individualthink, arrive at a consensus, and then use our simplified consensus as our basis for electioneering. We need to keep civilized tongues in our heads; consensus opinions are rarely achieved by flame wars. McCain uses groupthink in his favor. We need to abandon groupthink for a better way.
So there.