Like many Americans, I suffer from a constant tug of war going on deep inside of me. On the one hand, I believe deeply in reason and scholarship. Why else would I have been a professor my entire life and currently be working on my 30th book? I also believe deeply in tolerance and forgiveness. On the other hand, I feel the constant surge of anger, and even hate, that pulses through me daily. It’s not politic to say that one hates certain ideas and people — I fervently wish it weren’t so — but in the spirit of honesty, which I prize, I can’t deny it.

Let me pick just one out of the many “statements” by the current crop of Republican candidates that makes me lose it totally. Santorum said recently:

“It is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children. It’s not the government’s job. We have sort of lost focus here a little bit. Of course, the government wants their hands on your children as fast as they can. That is why I opposed all these early starts and pre-early starts, and early-early starts. They want your children from the womb so they can indoctrinate your children as to what they want them to be. I am against that.”

The reasoned side of me points out how terribly flawed this “argument” is. First of all, even calling it an “argument” is a stretch.

It shows a complete misunderstanding of American history and the arguments of the Founding Fathers of which conservatives are so fond of quoting and reminding us constantly. First of all, in their genius, the Founders noted that no republic ever survived for long without an educated people. Widespread education was an absolute necessity if the republic was to endure. Second, public education was also necessary if a disparate group of people were to become bonded and thus share a common heritage. In short, public education served a two-fold purpose both of which were equally critical. In fact, each supported the other.

Santorum’s statement also ignores the fact that early, preschool programs have proven especially crucial, indeed essential, in lifting children out of poverty. Early in life, poor children face enormous hurdles in surmounting the numerous educational and developmental gaps between them and middle, upper class children. This is not only true for poor children of color, but for all children. It has been the case for each wave of immigration, a fact that Santorum forgets so conveniently

The thing I find so objectionable about Santorum’s statement is its unabridged paranoia about government and the implication that if government is the feared “bad guy,” then home schooling is the “good guy.” A simple-minded division of the world into “good and bad guys” is enough for me to automatically disqualify anyone from even being considered for president.
But then, all of us are subject to splitting the world into “good” versus “bad guys.” That’s why we always have to be on guard against it, for to a certain extent, I am doing it just by talking about it.

The other side of me — I don’t like to call it the “emotional side” for neuroscientists have shown that reason and emotion are inseparable aspects of the mind — feels pure disgust. The deep disgust and utter contempt I feel emanates from the fact that I was one of the poor kids who made it out of poverty because of public education. Public education from K-12, and college through graduate school, which was relatively cheap when I went to the university in the 1950s and 60s, allowed me to have a career that I still love deeply, and eventually, to become relatively well off. Although I strongly support the “Occupy Movement,” I’m not quite one of the “99 percent.” I’m certainly not one of the “one percent” either.

Santorum’s statement triggers deep disgust and contempt because it literally strikes at the very heart of my existence. It wounds me to very core of my being. I wouldn’t be where I am today without the help of the government. For this reason, I don’t begrudge paying one iota of taxes if it can help to lift one more soul out of poverty.

It’s not nice to admit, let alone express, that one hates certain ideas and people. I know all the bromides: hate is not good for one’s constitution; it hurts he or she who hates more than it does whom one hates; it doesn’t change anyone’s mind, etc. To a certain extent, the bromides are true and even help. I don’t hate as much as I once did. Still, it’s a never-ending battle. It’s like fighting an addiction that is always there.

One thing I know for sure. If you want to get over something about yourself that you don’t like, don’t engage in denial. Don’t pretend that it isn’t there. Face it and try to deal with it. Hardest of all, try to find the humanity in those with whom you disagree so deeply.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, February 10, 2012

During his time in office, President George W. Bush gave a new meaning to the awful disease known as IBS. I called it Irritable Bush Syndrome, the gross inability to “digest and pass the truth.”

In the same spirit, let me “offer” the “list of diseases” that the current crop of Republican candidates suffers from.

First of all, there is IRS or Irritable Romney Syndrome. IRS is the chronic inability to “pass honest and sincere emotion, especially for long, sustained periods of time.” Typically, it is the result of severe cases of “unlikeability” brought on at a very early age.

Then of course, there is Gingrichritis, which is a very serious, life-threatening condition. The condition is so painful and contagious that it is just as harmful for those who have even the slightest contact with anyone who is affected by the disease. Its symptoms are well known: (1) chronic inability of the mouth to contain and/or exercise control over anything that literally explodes into the mind; (2) the ability to live in delusional, fantasy worlds for extended periods of time; (3) the uncanny ability to use words and ideas in clever ways that turn everything into an evil conspiracy of the “liberal media”; (4) to “go over the top” such that it not only blows the minds of listeners, but that it literally blows the top off of the head of the speaker; and, (4), the gift of constantly using “coded words” that are perfectly non-coded for intended audiences, for example, the ability to be a “racist, non-racist, racist!”

A particularly serious disease is Sanctorumonious. An especially odious and virulent form of Sanctorumonious is the ability to say with complete conviction and directly to the mother of a cancer-ridden child that the drug companies have the right to charge anything they want for life-saving drugs even if means that poor children will die.

And, finally there is The Perils of Pauline, or just the Perils as it is commonly known. While those who have the Perils want to rightly end foreign entanglements that make no sense, unfortunately they show little, if any, ability to understand a complex world. As a result, they retreat at every possible moment into an equally simplistic, delusional world as those who suffer from Gingrichritis, although the delusions are of course very different.

I shall not bother to discuss the diseases of the other candidates who have dropped out. I leave this to the imaginations of readers.

The thing to ponder is, “If candidates are merely some of the prime representatives of the ‘body politic,’ then what is the larger disease from which we all suffer?” And, “What’s the cure?”

Perhaps the general disease from which we all suffer is not “Class Warfare,” but “Crass War-Fear.”

Originally published on the Huffington Post on February 7, 2012

The view that “politics is akin to a marriage” is a casual, if not an often-expressed, sentiment. Unfortunately, almost no one takes the metaphor seriously and thus uses it to do a serious evaluation of the state of health of American politics. If we did, we would soon conclude that the “marriage” between the two major political parties is headed towards divorce, if it is not already there but for the working out of the final terms of the divorce settlement and the formal signing of the papers.

Those who have studied long-term marriages have consistently arrived at the same relatively small set of factors that make marriages successful. They are:

1. Firm Commitment
2. Acceptance
3. Honest Communication
4. Never Stop Dating
5. G. I. V. E.
6. C. M. A. T. (Can’t Miss A Thing)
7. Respect

What’s important is that all of the above form a tightly interlocking system. If any of them is missing or weak, then the entire marriage is in danger. Unfortunately, this is the case with the “marriage” between the Republican and Democratic parties. Let’s look briefly each of these factors in turn.

Commitment means that in spite of the inevitable relational strife that is part of every marriage, there is a strong commitment to stay and work together. In politics where strife is not only inevitable but a vital necessity in order to arrive at sensible and effective policies and actions, the two parties have to be absolutely committed to work through their differences for their sake and the nation as a whole.

The only deal breakers in a marriage are the three A’s: adultery, abuse, and alcoholism, i.e., serious drug dependency. While adultery and alcoholism might not apply, abuse certainly does. The repeated, over-the-top, highly inflammatory talk of the Republican candidates certainly qualifies as “abuse” in my report card. In this sense, “alcoholism” can be interpreted as an “addiction” to language that is certain to drive any two people apart.

Acceptance means tolerance of the other partner’s peccadillos. In the case of politics, it means accepting that the other party’s philosophy and values are not inherently evil, just different.

Both parties are seriously at fault here even though as a partisan, liberal Democrat, I find more fault with Republicans. But then to be perfectly honest, I am one of the parties filing for divorce. I have no pretensions to “objectivity.” I don’t believe humans are capable of such a thing anyway.

Honest communication means establishing the conditions in order for it to occur. It is often said that one of the reasons for the enduring success of the British parliament is that after a heated day of argument, members would retire to club to drink and repair their feelings. We used to do so as well, but we’ve lost the ability to go on “weekend marriage retreats” that are necessary to repair any marriage. In fairness, the Brits have not been faring well here recently as well.

“Never stop dating” is exactly what it means. It means more than an occasional weekend retreat. It means making the constant time to appreciate and charm the other.

In the best marriages, both partners give 60%, not 50-50. Where the other is seen as the “enemy to be destroyed,” this has all but died.

Can’t Miss A Thing means that life is indeed too short not to enjoy it. We have only a short time on Earth to learn how to work with our opposites.

And, finally, without respect, nothing is possible.

Given all this, sadly, an amicable divorce is not only completely out of the question, but it’s already bitter.

If the divorce proceedings are already well under way such that the current marriage cannot be saved, have the two parties learned anything so that they will fare any better the second time around? Are there any prospects of better second marriages?

In its current form, I believe the answer for the Republican party is a firm “No!” Unless the party undergoes a complete makeover so that it is no longer a mob of right-wing extremists, then I see no viable prospects for future marriages that are healthy and long-lasting.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, January 31, 2012

When my colleagues and I first started doing surveys of the crisis preparedness of major colleges and universities, we were shocked but not totally surprised to find that as poorly prepared large business organizations generally are for major crises, colleges and universities were even worse off. It is not that they are completely unprepared. Rather, the difference is between the crises that they are relatively well prepared for versus those that they barely prepared for, if at all.

The contrast sheds important light on why the horrific cases of child abuse happened at Penn State. It also points to why all colleges and universities need to wake up, take a serious look at their crisis preparations, and make significant improvements, if not overhaul them completely.
Major colleges and universities are relatively well prepared for explosions, fires, lawsuits, and crimes. They are also relatively well prepared for environmental mishaps.

But here’s the rub. They are not as well prepared for athletic crises such as improper recruiting activities, e.g., out of control drinking and sex parties; ethical breaches by administrators, faculty, and students; damage to their reputation such as that which Penn State is undergoing; sabotage and terrorism.

Sadly, it took a number of widely publicized shootings before colleges took preparations for them seriously.

Part of the difference is explained by the frequency with which certain crises occur. Thus, explosions, fires, lawsuits, and crimes are rather common. But, this is not the major reason.
In the interviews we conducted with the senior staff of colleges and universities, not a single one even mentioned the possibility of child abuse, even though nearly all of them had a major childcare facility on their campus. The major concern was environmental, e.g., if a childcare facility was too close to a dangerous chemical lab.

Most disturbing of all was the fact that we were generally prohibited from interviewing anyone connected with the athletic department. Just as troubling was the fact that the head of the athletic department was least likely to be a member of a campus wide crisis management team, assuming that the college or university had one.

The message was loud and clear. Football and basketball in particular and sports in general are big business. It is not just the sheer amount of revenue that football and basketball attendance bring in, but all of the associated paraphernalia sold in campus stores.

In short, athletics was completely off-limits. It was not to be messed with in any way.
I share the general criticisms that have been levied at big time college athletics. I believe that sports programs are out of control. There is little doubt that they have a major corrupting influence on schools.

However, while the detractors of college sports have been justly critical of the out-of-control recruiting practices at the University of Colorado and USC, just to mention two, they have not thought about the tragedies due to child abuse such as those that have engulfed Penn State.
It’s not that there has been no planning at all for athletic crises, but that crisis planning has been done as if each crisis occurs in complete isolation from all of the others. This is in spite of the fact that no crisis is ever a single crisis. It is a whole series of interconnected ones.

Nonetheless, I am not calling for the complete abandonment of collegiate sports. But, make no mistake about it. Collegiate sports can no longer be conducted as business as usual. One of the most disturbing findings from our surveys was that crisis management had the lowest institutional support of all programs. For instance, while education at all levels was rightly ranked highest in importance, support for crisis management was significantly lower than facilities’ improvement.

The time is way overdue for major colleges and universities to give crisis management the high degree of attention and support it demands.

If I were part of what’s left of Penn State’s top management, I’d be worrying about all the other crises that are brewing and have not yet come to light. For once a major crisis of any kind has occurred, it is highly likely that it will set off a completely unrelated crisis.

All crises are parts of a chain reaction. The purpose of crisis management is to get out in front of the chain so that an institution is not destroyed by a firestorm of never-ending, out-of-control crises.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, November 21, 2011

Let me state my main conclusions at the outset. In times of a major crisis, every organization is not only judged in terms of how well it manages its crises, but it is also judged in terms of how well or poorly pervious organizations have theirs. In a word, the sins of the fathers are directly visited on the sons. Thus, as different as they are, Penn State is not only judged in terms of all the things it did wrong in handling its repeated episodes of child abuse, but it is the direct inheritor of everything the Church did wrong. In short, Penn State has been made worse because of prior cases of abuse.

I have been researching and consulting with regard to major crises of all kinds (criminal, natural disasters, financial, reputational, etc.) for nearly 30 years. During this time, I have seen all types of organizations become trapped in the same disastrous pattern from which they rarely escape.

First of all, the fact that they have failed to prepare adequately beforehand for a series of crises keeps them from responding appropriately and timely once a crisis has occurred. In today’s world, it’s no longer a question of if a major crisis will strike each and every organization, but only what the particular crisis will be, how it will happen, where, when, why it will occur, who is responsible, and what resulting crises the initial crisis will set off as part of a chain reaction. For if an organization is not prepared for an initial crisis, then it is woefully unprepared for subsequent ones that surely follow.

Second, they fail to learn from the crises of others both within and outside of their industry, type of institution, etc. After all, a crisis couldn’t possibly happen to them because they are obviously different from anyone else.

Third, they fail to pick up and deal with the inevitable early warning signs that precede virtually all crises, and in particular, those that are about to strike them. Long before a crisis actually occurs, it sends out a repeated trail of signals that something is about to pop or has already occurred somewhere in the organization. If one can pick up and attend to these signals, then in many cases one can prevent a crisis from occurring in the first place, the best possible kind of crisis management.

Fourth, they fail to take action against the dominant attitudes in their culture that lead them to believe that they are exempt from crises. In other words, they fail to address and overcome denial. Make no mistake about it; denial is the single worst enemy and fault of all. For instance, if one is not a Church, then how could one possibly learn from the numerous and repeated cases of child abuse that happened within the Catholic Church? Indeed, even if one is, “What happened to them couldn’t possibly apply to us. Therefore, what do they have to teach us?”

Fifth, they are burdened with overly rigid, bureaucratic, and authoritarian structures that prize secrecy and control above all else and thus make it virtually impossible for anyone beneath the very top to take appropriate and timely action. But then, such structures also make it virtually impossible for those at the top to take timely action as well, for the structures exist to protect those at the top from knowing what is really going on at the bottom. In short, in many cases, the top really doesn’t want to know. It’s not just that ignorance is bliss. Rather, ignorance wards off the enormous anxieties that are a fundamental part of having to deal with complex and messy situations that by definition do not have easy and simple solutions.

In this sense, as different as they are, Penn State and the Catholic Church have much in common. Indeed, far too many organizations do.

I could push the analogy. For instance, football is figuratively, if not literally, “religion” in Middle America; coach Paterno was a “minor saint,” etc.

But, I want to make a deeper point that is virtually overlooked unless one is aware of the big picture that only comes with studying crises over a long period of time. The particular crisis an organization, institution, etc. is currently experiencing is almost always related to the same or a very similar set of crises that happened to another organization, and furthermore, that the preceding organization dealt with poorly. That is, all of the failures of the previous organization come home to haunt the current one. The current organization is not only judged against the poor record of the previous organization(s), but through “guilt by identification” it is blamed for all the abuses of the past.

I am obviously not talking about direct causality because one organization does not necessarily cause the crises of others although as The Great Financial Crisis shows this is indeed possible. No, I am talking about an “enduring circle and cycle of blame.”

I am also not talking about “fairness,” for all questions of fairness go out the window once one is “‘convicted’ in the press and elsewhere of ‘unspeakable crimes’ against the most vulnerable members of society.”

As a result, I have a “law of crises.” The time that it takes for a crisis to envelop and potentially destroy an organization and/or individual is inversely proportional to the time that a previous organization has gotten away with a similar set of crises. Thus, if an organization got away with criminal activity of one kind or another for say 10 years, then a current organization will only get away with the same crime for one-tenth of the time if not substantially less. One is not merely punished for one’s crimes, but for all those that came before.

The philosopher Santayana said it best of all: “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”

The key question is what all organizations will learn from this unforgiveable human tragedy, and what they will do about it to lessen it s chances from occurring in the future. Unfortunately, if the past is any predictor, not much.

If I were what’s left of the top leadership of Penn State, I’d be worried about what other crises are festering in the system!

Originally published on The Huffington Post, November 17, 2011

In a recent op-ed (“The Gap Between the Size of Our Problems and the Narrowness of Our Thinking,” Huffington Post, September 12, 2011), I talked about the fact that none of our major institutions — least of all our main political parties — are able to acknowledge, and hence deal with complexity. And yet, increasingly on every front of our existence, complexity not only increases and overwhelms us daily, but complexity has become our new reality. Hence, the growing gap between the enormity of our problems and our inability to handle them.
This new reality is captured in one word: “mess.”

Technically, a mess is a whole system of highly interconnected problems. Indeed, they are so interconnected that none of them even exist without the others. As a result, no problem can even be defined, let alone solved, independently of all the other problems that constitute a mess. Indeed, one distorts the fundamental nature of all problems by severing their connections with all the other problems that make up a mess.

I also talked about the fact that all messes are now interconnected. Thus, the education mess is not only inseparable from the financial mess, but they are both integral parts of one another. Indeed, all messes (crime, education, financial, health, housing, infrastructure, political, etc.) are parts of one another.

I concluded by saying that we either learn to solve all our problems in concert, or we solve none of them. We either learn to manage messes or they will mismanage us.

The “bad news” is of course that most people have not been educated or rewarded to appreciate, let alone handle messes. Yet, increasingly, our future depends on our ability to cope with messes. The “good news” is that my colleagues and I have discovered some powerful heuristics for managing messes. Thus, the situation is far from hopeless.

All of this is merely a prelude to what I want to pursue here: Big problems–challenges, messes–require nothing less than big thinking, indeed the biggest thinking we can muster. In this spirit, consider the following.

In 1948, the U.S. spent 28 Billion dollars to help rebuild Europe after the ravages of World War II. It was called the Marshall Plan after Secretary of State George Marshall who proposed it. At the time, 28 Billion was approximately 5% of the U.S.’s GDP of 258 Billion dollars.
Today’s GDP is approximately 14.1 Trillion dollars. 5% of this is approximately 700 Billion dollars, roughly what President Obama’s Rebuild America Job program would cost.

Given that virtually all of our current systems are broken, doesn’t the U.S. deserve its own Marshall Plan to help rebuild America?

Yes, I can hear the Republicans pooh-poohing this idea. Their litany is well known. Don’t listen to it. And at this point, don’t get caught up in details for this kills the process of producing new ideas. Instead, bear in mind that as Progressives, one of our main jobs is to offer bold new ideas. The bolder the better.

I cannot emphasize enough that we either learn to solve all our problems in concert, or we solve none of them. Our problems are too big and too daunting to be solved piecemeal. In short, they need to be addressed simultaneously. In short, we need a Marshall Plan for America.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, September 28, 2011

PowerPoint and the Afghan War

On Tuesday, April 27, 2010, a complex diagram appeared on the front page of The New York Times. It was the featured centerpiece of an article in which the U.S. command specifically blamed PowerPoint for unnecessarily complicating analyses of how to win the Afghan war. The basic complaint was that armed with PowerPoint, junior officers produced diagrams that were too complicated for senior officers to comprehend. General Stanley A. McChrystal, head of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, summed it up when he said, “When we understand this diagram, we’ll have won the war.” He was right, but for all the wrong reasons!

The particular PowerPoint slide that was the unrestrained object of General Stanley McChrystal’s contempt attempted to portray as many of the overall cultural, drug, government corruption, and military factors that were involved in fighting and winning the war. Most important of all, it attempted to show as many of the interactions as possible that existed between the various factors. Indeed, this was the whole point behind the slide even if junior officers didn’t necessarily understand any better what they were doing. Because they neither exist nor function in isolation, without seeing all of the factors and how they interact and reinforce one another positively as well as negatively, one cannot formulate effective strategies for fighting the war.

However, since they were neither educated nor rewarded to appreciate systems thinking, senior officers didn’t understand that merely by assembling in one diagram as many of the factors as possible that affected the war, junior officers were attempting to show the true nature of the full mess that had to be managed.

Blaming PowerPoint for showing the complexities involved in fighting the Afghan war is equivalent to blaming the telescope for showing the detailed features of craters on the Moon that by definition cannot be seen by the naked eye alone. We should be praising our instruments for showing us the full and messy dimensions of reality, not blaming them.

We Are Confronted with Messes on Every Front of Our Existence

The late system’s philosopher Russell Ackoff was the first–and to the best of our knowledge, the only person–to appropriate the term mess to stand for a system of problems that were not only constantly changing in direct and rapid response to one another, but were so highly intertwined such that they couldn’t be separated either in principle or in actual fact, i.e., basic existence. In other words, the individual problems that constituted a mess didn’t exist independently of one another or of the entire mess of which they were “parts.” Individual problems couldn’t even be defined, let alone solved, separately from one another. The notion of “individual problems” was thus more a figure of speech than it was a characteristic feature of reality. Indeed, the idea of separate, individual problems is so flawed that it is a complete and fundamental misrepresentation of reality.

Increasingly, on every front of our existence, from the environment to the global economy, health care, the fight against terrorism, etc., we are confronted with messes of ever greater and growing complexity. And yet, essentially none of our basic systems (educational, economic, public and private, etc.) have prepared, allowed, and rewarded people to cope with and to manage messes. As a consequence, the gap between the size of our problems and the narrowness of our thinking grows daily.

Enormous hurdles stand in the way of merely acknowledging the existence of messes, let alone in managing them. We not only have to face head on the tremendous emotional and political resistance that exists in our culture towards dealing with complexity, but we have to find ways of surmounting it.

First of all, the academic world is of little help. In fact, it is a big part of the problem (mess). It has not assisted either in accepting the existence of messes or in pioneering methods for their management. Despite all the talk about interdisciplinary cooperation, academics are still mainly rooted (“glued to” may be an even better term) in narrowly constituted disciplines. They think that by “digging deep” they are dealing with complexity. But most of the time, they are only pursuing extremely narrow agendas that are of interest only to other specialists.

Second, Western knowledge is deeply steeped in the search for simple solutions. But if a “problem” were simple enough such that a simple “solution” provided by a single discipline sufficed, then it wouldn’t be a “problem” in the first place. (John Dewey’s seminal book, The Quest for Certainty, could equally have been entitled The Quest for Simplicity.) It certainly wouldn’t be a mess.

Third, most people are generally overwhelmed by complexity and hence yearn desperately for simple solutions. (So-called “reality TV programs” exist in large part to satisfy the insatiable need for seemingly simple emotional problems that can be solved in 30 minutes or less.) Instead of confronting problems that are broad, general, and interconnected with all the other problems that are parts of a mess, most people prefer to focus on narrowly defined exercises (e.g., x + 6 =11; find x) because they are emotionally far less demanding. But contrary to expectations, approaches that at first appear overly ambitious actually have a greater chance of managing messes; moreover, when they succeed, smaller and more detailed problems often simply disappear.

Fourth, the rise of conspiracy theorists of all kinds who seek their own special brand of simple solutions is especially disturbing. These are rooted in splitting the world sharply into various kinds of “good versus bad, if not ‘evil,’ guys.” Binary thinking, i.e., thinking in terms of ones and zeros, may be necessary in creating integrated circuits, but not in creating integrated communities and approaches to problems.

Fifth, technology such as the Internet, which was supposed to usher in an age of unparalleled information and intelligence, has spawned an age of unparalleled misinformation and ignorance. Twitter may be one of the fastest, cheapest, and easiest ways of misinforming the greatest number of people and focusing the greatest amount of attention.

Sixth, the general ignorance of the American public and the unceasing and uncanny ability of the Republican Party to take advantage of it by proposing simple solutions to complex problems shows no signs of letting up. Indeed, the Republican Party shows no end to its ability to take complex problems completely out of context–for instance, blowing the deficits out of proportion–and in persuading large numbers of people to accept their definitions of “the problems.”

Make no mistake about it. We are in a race against growing ignorance and the forces that take advantage of it. Either we educate people to tolerate complexity or the forces of ignorance will overwhelm us. Either we learn to manage messes or they will mismanage us! Those individuals, organizations, and societies that learn to appreciate messes will have a decisive, competitive advantage over others.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, September 12, 2011

It is not possible to understand fully why moderates are no longer welcome within the Republican Party — indeed why for all practical purposes the Party has been completely taken over by extremists — in conventional terms alone. For instance, intense anger towards those currently in office is not a satisfactory explanation because intense anger towards incumbents has always been a part of politics. By the same token, the size of government and the deficits are only partial explanations at best. Therefore, something else must be operating.

To understand what fuels extremism — in short, the psychology underlying it — one has to dig beneath the surface of everyday explanations. This is precisely why the pioneering discoveries of some of the early giants of psychoanalysis are invaluable. In fact, renewed interest has spanned a relatively new field of inquiry: psychoanalytically based social science.

It is said that if Freud discovered the child in the adult, then the British psychoanalyst Melanie Klein discovered the infant in the child. Working with children as young as 6 months and up to 9 years, Klein discovered the earliest, formative roots of human behavior.

Klein discovered that the earliest phase of child development was filled with extremely violent feelings and phantasies towards the child’s principal caregivers. In the 1930s, the period in which Klein worked, this was primarily the mother.

Klein aptly termed this phase, “paranoid-schizoid.” It was “paranoid” because the child was literally terrified that the mother would abandon it. It was “schizoid” because below the ages of 4 to 5, the child could not understand, and hence not accept, that the “good mother” who met the child’s every need at its beck and call was also the “bad mother” that couldn’t satisfy the child’s every need at its every whim and fancy. The schizoid part was also called “splitting” because that’s precisely what the child did in dividing the basic internal image of the mother into two distinct and irreconcilable parts or objects.

With understanding and tolerance on the part of the parents, and other key figures that cared for the child, that splitting was a normal part of human development, the child eventually came to accept that the “good” and the “bad mother” were one and the same. In this way, the child not only healed the split he or she felt towards its mother, but the split within him or her as well. Just as important, the child came to accept that there were “good” and “bad” sides to everyone.

But, if for some reason the child was subject to trauma, especially if it was prolonged and severe, then the split could become permanent. Splitting could also result if later in life one was subject to intense stress, disappointment, etc. Indeed, as adults, all of us from time to time split the world into “good” and “bad guys.” Isn’t this what politicians use unscrupulously from time to time to whip up support for favored policies?

The key point is that if a person was not helped to heal splitting at whenever age it developed, then it not only festered and grew, but something even more ominous could result. The aggressive and violent parts of a person could be split off from normal moderating influences. In short, the aggressive and violent parts not only grew and intensified, but developed a separate life of their own.

In other words, splitting is more general than the division of people into sharply opposing images, i.e., good and bad guys. It also refers to the case where the acute aggressive impulses that are part of everyone are severed from moderating influences that are also a part of everyone.

Of course, none of this takes part in a social vacuum; what is going on in society and the general world around, one’s work, family, etc. are also potential contributors to splitting as well. In addition, the aggressive and violent parts that could be split off from one another could be intensified further through association with other like-minded individuals to whom one was naturally attracted. Indeed, it was only with other like-minded individuals that one could express one’s “true uninhibited feelings and emotions.” Thus, over time, those with more moderate feelings would either be removed or remove themselves from more such groups. In this way, groups would not only attract those who were extreme, but they would become increasingly more extreme over time.

Saddest of all is the fact that one cannot reason with such groups for reason and moderation are seen as forms of weakness that are despised in others and oneself. The psychology of what has made extremists extreme has no appeal whatsoever. For precisely this reason, moderates must take it with utmost seriousness.

At this time in our history, it is imperative that moderates of every political persuasion band together, not to smooth over their natural philosophical differences that are real and even necessary for democracy to exist and function, but to strengthen the forces of moderation wherever they are found. If moderates cannot band together within the Republican Party, then they will have to form temporary alliances with others who will support them without trying to convert them to their philosophy. This is in the direct interests of Democrats no less than that of Republicans.

To do this requires that we understand clearly the psychology of extremism.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, August 30, 2011

The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down California’s law prohibiting children under the age of 18 from purchasing violent video games is a travesty. It perpetuates harm on the most vulnerable members of society by means of a complete misunderstanding and ignorance of child development. It is based on a profound misunderstanding of fairy tales.

In equating the violence in the Grimm fairy tales with that of video games, the Court committed a grievous error in arguing that free speech protected the producers of violent video games. In short, the Court’s argument is that if we shouldn’t ban fairy tales because they contain violence, then we shouldn’t ban video games, as well.

The argument is false, because neither the violence nor the purpose of the two is even remotely the same. Adults generally read fairy tales to young children so that adults both mediate and interpret the violence. Most important of all, unlike in video games, children do not cause the violence themselves.

The Grimm brothers did not invent, but brought together and embellished the fairy tales that had already existed in European culture for hundreds of years. In other words, fairy tales were spontaneous creations of the human psyche. They were not created for the “marketplace.”

A number of prominent psychiatrists and psychoanalysts — among them Bruno Bettelheim, Marie von Franz and Melanie Klein — have pointed out that fairy tales serve the psychosocial development of children in crucial ways. In particular, Melanie Klein identified a primary psychological mechanism — Splitting — which very young children used to cope with the world.

Up to around the age of five, children regularly split the image of their primary caregiver — typically the mother — into two distinct images: the Good Mother and the Bad Mother. The Good Mother is instantly available to tend to the infant and young child’s every need. In contrast, the Bad Mother is not instantly and always available to meet the child’s needs and wishes. The Bad Mother is also responsible for dispensing punishment for unacceptable behavior.

Fairy tales not only represent, but deal with the psychic conflict that children experience in terms of the Fairy Godmother (the Good Mother) and the Evil Witch (the Bad Mother). Thus, the child rejoices when the Bad Mother is killed, for the child is figuratively killing off a part of him or herself that he or she is not yet mature enough to accept and incorporate into the psyche. That is, the child is not yet ready, psychologically, to accept that the Good and the Bad Mother are two aspects of the same person.

Unless there has been severe trauma that impedes normal development, eventually children do come to accept that the Good and the Bad mother are one. Indeed, this generally happens around the same time that children normally “grow out of ” fairy tales. Nonetheless, the propensity for Splitting remains throughout all of our lives. For instance, we regularly split the world into “good and bad guys.”

To equate fairy tales to video games is akin to equating world literature to comic books. Fairy tales engage the imagination of young children in helping them surmount a psychological hurdle at the times when they desperately need it. They imagine violence through reading about it, but they do not actively choose to cause it, even if it’s virtual. Furthermore, while gruesome at times, the violence is not that of raping women or committing horrific acts on them.

There may not be the over 30 years of impressive, massive and longitudinal research on video games that there is on media violence, but the research shows unequivocally that prolonged exposure to media violence has harmful and long-lasting effects, especially on those from the most at-risk households.

All arguments rest on a bed of basic assumptions and distinctions. If they are wrong, then so are the final conclusions. In the case at hand, the basic assumptions and distinctions are so flawed that the final conclusion is not just “wrong,” but harmful to all of us.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, June 30, 2011

When it came to understanding and communicating with people of all ages, Fred Rogers was a genius.

Fred Rogers knew what really made people tick. First, he was a life-long student of human development. Indeed, he studied under some of the best child psychologists and psychiatrists of his time. Second, he had a natural gift for relating to people. Third, and most important of all, he was not afraid to talk with children about the most difficult subjects such as death and divorce. As a result, he helped people of all ages face and surmount their deepest anxieties and fears. This alone makes Fred relevant for today’s world where straight talk about difficult problems is the exception.

In short, Fred was a rare mixture of calm reason, constant reassurance, and never-ending emotional availability. Very few have all three, let alone each to a high degree. I know this for a personal fact. I was not only fortunate to meet Fred on numerous occasions, but to have many discussions with those who worked with Fred’s TV production company. In addition, I have studied his work intensively.

What then if Fred were President? What would he say to reassure Americans in this time of great economic pain and turmoil? While of course none of us know for sure, and I will undoubtedly be accused of putting my words and thoughts into Fred’s mouth, I believe he would say something in the spirit of the following:

My fellow neighbors, I want to speak with you today about the great economic crisis we are facing. As you know, I have never shied away from talking straightforwardly about the most difficult and painful subjects. In fact, some of you may remember that the day after President Kennedy was assassinated, I spoke directly to the children who watched me on TV about what the word ‘assassinated’ meant so that I could address their fears.

I want to speak to you about the economic crisis we are facing in terms of the values for which I have long stood. Let me single out four that are particularly pertinent: 1. Our feelings affect us more than we are generally aware; therefore, we need to be always mindful of them; 2. We need to respect especially those with whom we disagree the strongest and to try to work constructively with them; 3. We fool ourselves if we think we don’t need rules and clear expressions of what we stand to guide our lives; and, 4. To communicate effectively – to really reach people–we need to speak directly to their fundamental, underlying anxieties and fears, but not in ways that amplify or pander to them; at the same time, we also need to speak to the positive – the enduring hopes and dreams that have made this country a joy in which to live.

“I am deeply disturbed by so much of the language that shapes – ‘distorts’ is more apt – our national discourse. First of all, there is far too much talk to the effect that government is the enemy and that somehow everything would be all right if we just got rid of it. Such talk is naïve and irresponsible. In the first and last resort, we – our neighbors – are the government. If we want to make government better, then we have to make ourselves better. The answer is not to do away with government, and certainly not us. Whether we like it not, the government and we are inseparable. Neither can exist without the other.

Nonetheless, I understand, even if I do not accept, why many people feel this way. In far too many cases, government has let us down. It has been ineffective and inefficient, wracked by petty wrangling, and on and on. Each of us can easily list a hundred faults. But what institution is entirely free of faults? We don’t want to get rid of business because it does not always act in the public good. We want to improve it by making it more humane.

Government has a fundamental role to play in problems that affect us all. What other entity is charged with dealing with problems that affect the whole?

I want to reaffirm my deep and abiding commitment to you. I will do everything in my power to address the great economic turmoil we are facing. Indeed, I am willing to stake my entire Presidency on it.

My first commitment is to get people back to work. If the private sector cannot create enough jobs, then the government must step up.

I know that many are saying that the deficits are already too high and that we cannot afford to add to them. To this I say: the time to withhold and conserve water is not when one’s house is on fire, but after it is safe from burning down altogether.

We cannot run from our problems. We either face them together as neighbors or we will perish as strangers completely cut off and isolated from one another, and worst of all, from ourselves as separate individuals.

To deal with life’s problems, we have to get beyond ourselves. We have to discover a bigger purpose in life. We have to shift from short-term solutions to long-range strategies. But this can only happen when we reach out to and help one another.

Although they express it very differently from adults, children have a keen interest in spirituality. They want to know who they are and why they are here. And although adults may deny and ignore it, these same questions persist throughout our entire lives. All of us are searching for meaning and purpose. All of us want to know why we are here.

We are here to be and to work together as neighbors.

Fred Rogers’ life had great meaning and purpose because he helped others to find it in their lives as well. This was his purpose! We need his wisdom more than ever.

There is no more fitting note on which to end than Fred himself: “The values we care about the deepest, and the movements within society that support those values, command our love. When those things that we care about so deeply become endangered, we become engaged. And what a healthy thing that is! Without it, we would never stand up and speak out for what we believe.”

Originally published on Tikkun Daily, June 15, 2011