Bush uses linguistic techniques characteristic of an abuser to control...

[truth2power]

the electorate, says psychologist.

This article was posted in Editorials just before the software upgrade. I’m reposting it here with the Alternet link because I think it deserves to be read carefully and distributed widely.

I went to the author’s website at the Sommet Institute and found an additional article (linked below) with more info on this subject.

Bush dominates a nation of victims
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16243

"It's the Language Stupid!" The Frightening Secret to Bush's Success
http://www.renanabrooks.com/language.html

Briefly, the author, Renana Brooks, says that Bush is a master of using emotional language as a political tool in order to control the electorate, much as an abusive spouse exerts control.

Here are some snips from article #1, link above: (emphasis mine)

“President Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses dependency-creating language. He employs language of contempt and intimidation to shame others into submission and desperate admiration.”

snip

He also uses “…empty language. This term refers to broad statements that are so abstract and mean so little that they are virtually impossible to oppose.”

snip

The author quotes Joan Didion, writing about Bush, ‘’I made up my mind,’ he had said in April, ‘that Saadam needs to go.’ This was one of many curious, almost petulant statements offered in lieu of actually presenting a case. I’ve made up my mind, I’ve said in speech after speech, I’ve made myself clear. The repeated statements became their own reason.”

>>>>

Brooks goes on to list other techniques, such as personalization, engendering learned helplessness, encouraging fear and paralysis, predicting crisis and catastrophe that has no end, and offering no specific plan of action. All are characteristic of the abusive personality.

I think Brooks has nailed it! Anyone who’s worked with battered women will recognize the pattern and it answers the questions many here have asked, most importantly, why the sheeple seem to be lost in some sort of hypnotic trance.

Think about it: Bush =abuser. Sheeple = abusee.

>>>>>>

So...what to do? Brooks' answer: (emphasis mine)

"Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However, people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticism of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the American electorate back in charge of their core optimism."

Mods: I've quoted 4 short sections of this article. I hope this isn't a copyright issue.

>edit: subject line for clarity

[kayell]

1. Good articles

From the second link - "In order for the Democratic Party to reduce the power of Bush's negative language they must focus on optimistic ways to solve problems, allow people to think about a purposeful life that is not defined solely by terrorism. They literally need an alternative worldview, and more importantly, an alternative language to combat the language of abuse.

They must create a core positive framework that reconnects people with their optimism, their values and their hopes and dreams for themselves and their children. "

I think this is excellent advice for our pols, rather than try to beat the repukes at their own game, ie: trying to beat them at the national security issue, they need to be giving a new and differnt message.

I think the comparison to an abuser is very valid, having seen that situation way too up close and personal. The American people need to see that there is an alternative way of living, that they are not helpless, that they can go out and do it themselves.

[truth2power]

3. Thanks!

I wish this would get wider distribution.

I've come to the conclusion that, for exactly the reasons stated in the articles, trying to convince RWers with logic and facts is doomed to fail in the long run. And for exactly the reason stated - it's not about logic; it's about emotions.

BTW - while putting together this post I was thinking that another technique used by these reptiles is "gaslighting" - driving someone crazy by convincing them that what they heard or saw with their own ears/eyes did not really happen.

As it happened, while googling I found this:

Whopper of the Week: Ari Fliescher gaslighting the press about nation-building. LOL!
http://slate.msn.com/id/2066449/

[tjdee]

2. Did someone say Edwards?

Those articles make so much sense to me, and it is a prime reason that Edwards is an excellent opponent for this guy.

Edwards continuously talks about optimism and opportunity. He can talk about hearts and having a good one as much as Bush does. He gets down to 'American values', which Bush thinks he has the monopoly on.

The other candidates want to talk about all the issues, but they have GOT to get him on the underlying 'abuser' talk/mentality, as the articles indicate. Edwards does this.

[truth2power]

4. "Getting him on the underlyng abuser talk/mentality."

Yes, absolutely!

Also, I'd like to know what others think about the "learned helplessness" issue.

I've heard it over and over, not from dittoheads but from friends who are moderate or left-leaning. They'll agree that things are in a terrible state, but will excuse their inaction by saying "There's nothing we can do about it." This has always amazed me. But maybe it's a case of learned helplessness.

If I didn't know better, I'd think this linguistic manipulation was a carefully-crafted psyops operation.

Hmmmmm...... :tinfoilhat:

[Eloriel]

23. So does Dean, tjdee

In 2 major ways.

One of them is his refrain, in EVERY speech:

YOU have the power! In fact, he had a litany of this refrain in his Announcement speech. It's very empowering (imagining him shouting "YOU have the power...." or watch the speech at his website):

You have the power to reclaim our nation's destiny.

You have the power to rid Washington of the politics of money.

You have the power to make right as important as might.

You have the power to give Americans a reason to vote again.

You have the power to restore our nation to fiscal sanity and bring jobs back to our people.

You have the power to fulfill Harry Truman's dream and bring health insurance to every American.

You have the power to give us a foreign policy consistent with American values again.

You have the power to take back the Democratic Party.

You have the power to take our country back.

And we have the power to take the White House back in 2004.



The other is something that (to repeat myself) I believe is the PERFECT antidote to Republican celebration of greed and selfishness, also from his Announcement speech. I now realize it's also a message that counters hopelessness and fear:

It is that ideal, the ideal of the American community, that we seek to restore.

An America where it is not enough for me to want health care for my family but the obligation, and responsibility of every one of us as American citizens to insure that each one of us has health care for our families.

An America where it is not enough for me to want good public schools and a better life for my children but an obligation, and a responsibility as citizens to insure that every child in America may go to a good public school and have the opportunity of a better life.

An America where it is not enough to protect my rights under the law but where it is a duty and an obligation for each of us as Americans to make sure every American is equal under the law.

An America where it is not enough to proclaim the words freedom, self-government, and democracy, but where it is a duty and a responsibility to participate together in common purpose with the sacrifice required of each of us to give those words meaning.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6396

Eloriel

[ClintonTyree]

5. Our eventual candidate.............

must crawl up Bush's ass (not literally) and get the Chimp in Chief back pedaling. The loser can't think on his feet, and a good debater (read, attacker) would make his assholiness come unglued. I can't wait until the entire nation sees this mental midget melt down on prime time TV. He's a nasty, spitefull village idiot and this side WILL be exposed soon for all to see. I will feel better on that particular day than I've fealt in a long time. Chimpy going apeshit, the beauty of it all!

[truth2power]

8. But the problem is

that his puppeteers know all to well that Shrub could NEVER hold his own in a real debate.

And if you can imagine it being possible, I think he's deteriorated considerably in terms of thinking ability since the last presidential campaign. I think the years of substance abuse are becoming more apparent all the time.

So, given the above, I can't imagine they will let him off the leash for any debates during the campaign. I don't know how they will spin that...but they'll manage it somehow.

I don't expect to see any debates this time around.

[Cocoa]

6. "I want my country back"

this is one of the most powerful lines I've heard, and I've heard it from more than one dem candidate.

It's so simple, but when I heard a candidate say it the first time it really hit home hard. It was Gephardt, and he was saying that he's been hearing that from his constituents.

Something like that happened at the Edwards event that C-Span just carried. He was mingling after his speech, and woman very plaintively expressed to him how bad Bush was, and Edwards responded with total identification.

[revcarol]

7. Kucinich stirs the heartstrings of hope, too.

We have so MANY good candidates who can revive us back to the way we used to be. We just can't be defined by THE LANGUAGE of the Bushies.

[truth2power]

11. I agree about Kucinich.

I don't think he'll get the nomination, though. Wish it were otherwise.

Nevertheless, we need to understand what they're doing to us.

Here's a snip from the second article:

"Once a present and future negative framework is installed, the abusive personality has a much easier time convincing the audience of the severity of the problem at hand. GeorgeW. Bush has been known to utilize abstract passive construction to suggest that some terrible force outside our control is threatening our survival. He tends to describe these threats or problems as beyond our control, totally overwhelming and lacking any specific solution. An example of abstract passive construction is the administration's color-coded terror threat alert system, which is issued without any specific guidance to the American people other than being vigilant -- and afraid."

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Especially when restrained, like he was on Crossfire

There's something truly adorable about him. When he's a firebrand--which I like, cuz I'm pissed right now--he comes off as almost insane or anarchic. Democrats will always have the "civilization" issue to work against; we are assumed to be savage rabble. He needs to watch that.

Yes, he brings hope. Yes, he is sincere. If Junior stumbles much more, we may have a climate of "politician hate" like there was in 1976, and he could even win. At the moment, I don't think he quite has a chance, but it's not that far out. I wish him well.

(Still REALLY like Edwards, though...)

[CatWoman]

9. you don't say..................

[sandnsea]

10. YES... and he IS a sociopath!!

He's NOT stupid. He is a sick twisted bastard who believes in the PNAC doctrine as much as those who wrote it. He goes out and says what he says because he believes it, there's NO other explanation.

He chooses people to parrot his beliefs, that's what abusers do. Surround themselves with people they can manipulate. His "stupidity" is simply a facade to convince people that he's not really responsible when things go wrong. He's probably been doing this since he was a little kid.

Now, when are we going to get a National Internvention Plan to circumvent this insanity?

[truth2power]

12. National INTERNvention Plan??

As in....put him away somewhere? Guess that was a freudian slip. Heh heh!!!

[sandnsea]

17. lol... Or, as in..

get him an intern and keep him busy goddammit!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

15. No no no: he's an IGNORANUS

Someone who's stupid AND an asshole. (An old Washington Post contest winner for creating a new word from an old one by either adding, removing or changing one letter)

Intelligent people can't often accept that people with primitive circuitry can be successful; it's a shock to the underpinning of their world they simply can't acknowledge. He's not a moron, but he's in the 80 to 90 range of I.Q., with lots of synapses torched by years of alcohol and other substance poisoning and lack of exercise. (Mental exercise, that is.) He's cunning and he's mean, but without a lock-step support system with vast monies and power, he'd be some assistant mid-manager somewhere.

He's not that smart. That's not as big a factor in life than many would like to think.

He's a hate-filled dick who's filled with grandiose greedy ambition, but self-thwarted by inherent laziness and vindictiveness. It shows. It will be his downfall.

[sandnsea]

18. Okay, a stupid sociopath

But the sociopath part is FAR more dangerous than the stupid part. The sociopath part is what causes him to gather up maniacs that think like him but are smart enough to wrap up their atrocities in pretty packages. I still say that even if he's stupid, he believes those rantings or he wouldn't carry them out. The stupid label allows people to laugh and dismiss him instead of realizing how seriously dangerous he is.

(Are we agreeing to disagree here again, or am I confused?)

[PurityOfEssence]

25. I hope we're not at odds

Please don't consider me on the other side. I completely agree that the sociopathic behavior is much worse than the circuitry problem. Stupidity is neither good nor bad; it's a subjective appraisal of processing abilities. One problem with ambitious people who aren't all that bright is that they have to destroy smart people and they often need to be thought of as intelligent. They get advanced degrees and titles and things and bully the timid.

Ignorance (lack of information) isn't all that horrible either, unless the individual professes to have some knowledge or has allowed him/herself to be in a position like, oh...say...PRESIDENT, where one has an obligation to have some data out of duty. The lack of empathy and joy derived from the pain of others and other callousness IS a terrible thing regardless. He is a sick person: he hates, connives and revels in the pain of others. This is a villainous little nobody who hates the truth that he's deeply and profoundly shallow and insignificant. That's what causes wars, death, subjugation and Reality TV.

I just sort of snagged on a pet peeve point: stupidity precludes "success". It's along the lines of "evil must be insanity", in that it cushions us from some terrible truths: 1) some dumb-dumbs do just fine and if one is somewhat bright that doesn't guarantee dick, and 2) some nasty sorts are thoroughly sane but just dicks. John Ashcroft is a gibbering lunatic of marginal intellect; his eyes hold more insanity than Edvard Munch's "Scream" or Van Gogh's "Vincent in Flames". Don Rumsfeld is quite smart, rather sane and a vile selfish ugly evil prick of Hitlerian dimensions. Cheney is the same. Rice is of somewhat more than average intelligence, but no more; she's just a nasty little opportunistic snit with a need to be treated like the intellectually superior.

Nope, I wasn't taking you to task, it's just a pet peeve that people can't accept that someone can be crafty and propped up to success while still being pretty damn dim. This guy's so vulnerable it's funny, except, of course, that none of this is.

As far as I can tell, you're fine sort, so I hope I haven't been difficult in the past.

Nuff said?

[sandnsea]

28. Agreed

Can't say there's one point I disagree with. I don't think just because Bush is in the White House that he's necessarily smart. I actually rephrased that to intellectual in another post. It's probably because we see smart more alike than different that I say he's not stupid. He may have passed on the education he could have had, too bad for us, but he's not stupid. He is well aware of what he's doing, not just a dumb potato-head. And that's smart enough to be held accountable in my book.

I couldn't remember if you were the poster that I was having this discussion with earlier today. That's why I asked the question. I guess you're not. It was just a little joke anyway, 'are you buggin' me again, ha ha?' I don't get too wrapped up about what people say, this is supposed to be fun.

[sandnsea]

19. Ignoranus...

that's cute, I missed it the first time. :-)

[Astarho]

21. He is stupid

Having never had to deal with the consequences of his actions, he does whatever he wants and abuses others around him. He has never been called on it, and keeps abusing. He thinks he'll never get caught.

What he does have is a certain "weasly cunning" (no offence to the weasels) that allows him to manipulate people.

[KT2000]

13. Key info here

Looked all over for this article after the change, so thanks for posting this.

Really hope all the candidates read this article. The electorate is the same population that sits through deodorant-car-air freshener-laundry detergent commercials on TV. "Managed" to spend their money for the corporate good this is a population that IS mentally abused - convinced of their own powerlessness in the face of bad odors, inferior status sympbols and tough stains.

GWB has only keyed into what the advertisers know about our deomocracy - it has become infantile in its dependency.

[DemNoir]

16. Thanks for this info!

Wow, this is a really great post, thanks again!

[ewagner]

20. Eureka

Wow! Great Post! Great Articles!

Some insights come immediately to mind.

1. He is not stupid. He is very, very cagy. He instinctively knows how to manipulate people. To this extent he is almost as dangerous "off the cuff" as he is reading from the teleprompter.

2. This accounts perfectly for the legendary "Bush Charm" people talk about when they are with him one-on-one. He manipulates and controls very well in those situations. (hmmm so did Clinton....)

3. Changing the message of the party can't hurt...there doesn't seem to be anything else that will work right now.

[Nlighten1]

22. I love this kind of stuff.

Thanks for the link!

[rasputin1952]

24. THanks for the info...

I concur with the above, as far as he is a manipulating individual; for the reasons posted previously.

But, I also believe he is intellectually stunted. Stupid would be more descriptive, but moron is a little too much. The main problem is that he has never HAD to think. Those of us that have had to earn a living, make decent grades, and produce; have it far better than someone who has failed at everything he has done, with no one telling him he is a complete failure. He actually BELIEVES he is right, regardless of the decision, and the ramifications that can come with a decision. He doesn't THINK, he reacts.

There are many people like this, fortuantely they generally keep a low profile because they tend to get beat up alot. They never learn that a statement, or a direction they have taken, leads to failure, or worse. I remeber when he giggled over discussing signing the Death Warrant for Karla Faye Tucker. If there was ever a case for clemency, it was hers. But this man ENJOYS death, especially when he can justify it by some reasoning that is obscure to the rest of the population.

I despise this man, (although I wish him no harm, that goes against my principles), and want him to be exposed for the fraud he is. One more failure, his attempt at re-posting in the WH, will only be the final chapter of complete failure.

[ewagner]

26. hope you're right

vis-a-vis the last paragraph

[kayell]

27. Related instances of emotional manipulation

I was talking to mother tonight and she mentioned watching the DC fireworks - said there was a very high proportion of red and orange compared to other colors. She thought it was a way of working up anger. Did anyone here see the DC celebration? Was this true re: the colors? Any other instances where we're all being manipulated in subtle ways?