Out mobbing the mobbers?

This piece on mobbing (via Glenn Reynolds) has not done much to renew my faith in the human brain:

When a mobbing occurs, that spirit of openness gets strangled by groupthink, bent on someone's elimination.

The Law of Group Polarization, formulated by Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, says that a bunch of people who agree with each other on some point will, given the chance to get together and talk, come away agreeing more strenuously on a more extreme point. If this tendency has a curdling effect on intellectual debates, it can have a downright menacing effect when the point of agreement is that a particular colleague is a repugnant nutjob.

Calling some departmental mess a mobbing does not imply that the victim is wholly innocent, Mr. Westhues says. But it does imply that the campaign against the target has probably been based on fuzzy and unspecific charges, that it has proceeded with a degree of secrecy, that its timing has been hasty, that its rhetoric has been overheated and overwrought, and that it has been backed by an eerie unanimity.

"One of the most painful experiences in my life," Mr. Westhues says, "has been to go to dismissal hearings where everybody is sitting around a table as if they were embodiments of pure reason." What's really going on in many of those settings, he thinks, is just brutish behavior ratified by procedure.

"What we've got to do is cultivate an academic culture that is aware of the tendencies in us, of the herd instincts inside of us," he says. "We have a tendency, especially us pompous academics, to think we're above all that."

With his mobbing research, Mr. Westhues joins a tradition of thinkers who present an account of some deep-seated impulse as a plea for pluralism and restraint. And while he says it is possible to take mobbing seriously without believing we all have those herd instincts, that belief helps.

"I have a friend who says that there's only two kinds of people in the world," Mr. Westhues says, "those who believe that there's original sin and those who don't."

"I think probably mobbing research as a whole is more on the side of the original-sin folks," he says.

While Westhues' work has focused on academia-related workplace mobbing (something I've seen before), I think the phenomenon is a common human trait which tends to surface everywhere -- particularly in politics. What complicates mobbing in a political setting is the tendency of two "sides" to line up against each other, often in response to each other. Add to this the paradoxical American love of the "underdog," and politics devolves into a very strange (and very fickle) game of vying for victim status.

When mobbing occurs in politics, the process is usually initiated by activists who hurl ad hominem attacks which would be called bullying in a workplace setting, but which are considered part and parcel of the normal political arena.

If the target is a real bastard, this sort of mobbing can work, and the voters will ratify the attacks by voting against the vilified target. But what can also happen is that the activists forget that voters aren't activists, but normal Americans with a wholesome love of the underdog -- and a hatred for bullying. So instead of creating a monster or a demon, the mobbing can create victim status.

And in politics, victim equals backlash.

While it is too early to tell how it will go over with Pennsylvania voters in November, the vilification of Senator Rick Santorum has already reached such a fever pitch that it's made the front page of today's (Sunday) Inquirer:

To fans, Santorum is a moral champion. To many on the left, however, he epitomizes intolerance and inspires contempt. For example, there are tens of thousands of references to "santorum and anal" on Google, including the lewd definition - which is the first thing that pops up when you search "santorum." And blogs are filled with brutal language about the senator. "He's garbage wrapped in skin," someone named Dethspud posted on the Drudge Retort this week, one of the few insults suitable for newspaper publication.

"The mythology is starting to build so that at a certain point Santorum isn't Santorum anymore - he's a token, or a type," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, and a scholar of political communication.

"Santorum lives in a world that doesn't have grays in it," Jamieson said. "It brings out a kind of hostility on one end and a loyalty on the other."

The interplay of those emotions is likely to influence Santorum's reelection fight this fall, already targeted by both parties as the top Senate race.

Only a few political figures outside the White House have generated such strong feelings in modern times, analysts say. Among them: former Sen. Jesse Helms (R., N.C.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.). In another league, but the same vein: Wisconsin Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who led a hunt for Communist infiltrators in the 1950s, giving his name to the hysteria of an age.

Strong feelings invite hysteria, too.

In addition to the effort to use Santorum's name to define certain sex acts, there's a group called Philadelphians Against Santorum which is sponsoring a Rick Santorum lookalike contest. And recently, a local gym was targeted for a boycott because its owner supported Santorum.

In activist circles, the name "Santorum" seems to have become a synonym for eeevil and dirty:

Polls, so far, show Santorum trailing his likely Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., and give the incumbent low job-approval ratings.

But poll numbers don't adequately convey the vehemence of some Santorum opponents.

"When I actually hear his name, I think of 'sanctimonious,' " said Hannah Miller, 30, a Democratic activist in Philadelphia. "It's one thing to hate all these [conservative] bastards in Texas, but Santorum's in Pennsylvania! He's like this dirty thing that should have stayed in the South, but he floated up here and invaded. This is personal."

Pollster Berwood Yost said Santorum appeared to face an uphill fight now, but the race would "have a life of its own" because of the high stakes and the millions both sides will spend.

"Liberals and Democrats in general are so strongly against the current administration that they are much more likely to be energized," said Yost, director of the Keystone Poll at Franklin and Marshall College. "The key to the election this year is going to be whether conservatives come out to vote." (Emphasis added.)

I'm not sure that conservative voter turnout is the only key to the election. But let's assume it is. If Santorum is behind in the polls, do maniacal personal attacks really make sense as strategy?

I can't think of a better way to increase conservative turnout. And if the attacks get so loud as to be out of all proportion to the reality of Rick Santorum (who voiced sentiments shared by a sizeable minority of voters), ordinary non-activist voters might be shocked to be reminded -- notwithstanding their short memories -- that Santorum is surprisingly soft-spoken.

Worst of all, Rick Santorum refused last summer to fire a gay aide. (The original Knight-Ridder story survives at Free Republic.) A picture of the gay aide (who is also black) appears here. Even more ominously, the gay Advocate.com reported that "Santorum's praise for his gay aide didn't dim the ardor of the senator's conservative supporters." (More here.)

Fortunately for Santorum's aide, he wasn't outed in the heat of the election, although it might have fascinated voters to see a gay black man (or should that be "black gay" man?) "mobbed" in the name of gay rights.

Political mobbers are probably too smart to do such a thing this summer.

(As for me, I've never been a fan of Rick Santorum, but I'm a bleeding heart where it comes to victims of any mob.)

posted by Eric on 04.23.06 at 10:46 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3524






Comments

Out here we have a similar situation. Diane Busby (D) vs. Brian Bilbray (R) for the rest of Randy Cunningham's congressional term in California's 50 Congressional District. Diane and Brian have been running positive campaigns, both touting their aim to be honest and forthright custodians of the people's interests in the House of Representatives. Bilbray, a former representative, even spotlights the time he defied Federal beauracracy by bulldozing sewage from Mexico so it wouldn't cross the border.

But then you have the National Republican Congressional Committe, who are running attack adds agains Busby, accusing her of taking bribes. Thing is, the RNCC is knowingly conflating bribes and campaign contributions. A willful confusion that could backfire on the RNCC should Democratic candidates start using the startegy on Republicans.

Bilbray and Busby are running clean campaigns. No attacks, real or spurious, on their opponent. But, not everybody is so considerate.

Alan Kellogg   ·  April 23, 2006 07:36 PM

Re:
"It's one thing to hate all these bastards in Texas, but [x] is in Pennsylvania! He's like this dirty thing that should have stayed in the South, but he floated up here and invaded. This is personal."

So, in Pennsylvania...
2006: [x] = Santorum
1906: [x] = ?

I submit that Blue State anti-conservative hatred is redirected racism. The "sundown town" mentality is, still, not far from the surface in the industrial Northeast. And when the next crisis hits, it wouldn't take much for this hatred to get redirected to the next target...

David Ross   ·  April 24, 2006 01:16 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits