Article archive / February 2020
Originally published: . Volume 11, No. 2. Source pages: 2.
Archimedes was bored and disgusted with even small excerpts of the Impeachment proceedings, likening them to the gaudy, orchestrated and choreographed theater of a WWF wrestling match, including the predictable outcomes.
I do agree that there was a torturous amount of grandstanding and–– redundancy. Politicians seem to have a hefty dose of showmanship. As far as redundancy, perhaps they all know the research that we humans tend to accept as true things we hear over and over and over.
As a Libertarian with a background in business consulting, I found the group process fascinating. Free-ranging politicians are very different than businessmen and women but I'm even more convinced now that psychologists should be helping in this essential area.
"The latent causes of faction are thus sewn in the nature of man; …" James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 about inevitable conflict. "So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."
A few observations about the proceedings:
It was news to me that the law allows for so much mind-reading. Subjective opinions of another's motivation and intentions were not only accepted but seemed to be encouraged. This cultivation of projective material, even though I probably should have known about it, astounds me.
I was also surprised by the absence of concerns about consensual reality. Defining the problem and getting the correct level of abstraction appeared to be missing. The salient example was that the Blues judged the current delinquency of Trump as being a high crime, while the Reds regarded it as only "unacceptable" or even part of his duty. No common ground on the definition of the problem was ever achieved as far as I could tell and judgments were entirely predicted by group membership.
For me and other Libertarians I've talked to, a refreshing surprise was Patrick Philbin, who kept quoting Constitutional scriptures while sounding like Mr. Spock. A free class in Harvard Law, worth the price of admission.
It was difficult to guess at all the hidden agendas, since the final outcome was always a foregone conclusion. No one on either side truly believed that 67 votes could be reached. Even so, we were treated to high drama on the "more witnesses" vote, something of a cliffhanger. The decision boiled down to four Senators, proving that Margaret Mead was right and maybe butterflies are powerful.
This is not to say that the dispute method and problem-solving were adequate. They were terrible. It was anything but an effective, high- functioning group, or even one struggling to be high-functioning.
Conflict resolution in highly polarized groups or individuals is some of the most challenging work we can do. In this case, the instinct of competition permeated every judgment. There was very little real information exchange, no shared reality, and no psychologically meaningful consensus.
Two groups in this mindset can’t be expected to find the problem to solve much less solve it. They are more likely to treat the symptoms than find innovative solutions to complex problems. Power in “majority rule" fuels the winners and losers dynamic with poor decisions the result.
One solution to embedded subgroup conflict is to define and nourish the parent group norms and boundaries. Psychologists are in a perfect position to help–to decline participating in the wrestling match and assist others in transcending Red-Blue dynamics in our country and our communities. I suggest we go purple.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.