We each wrote on a similar topic (mine is here and Roy’s is here). We had both started to write our respective pieces last fall after the election; completed them a couple of months later; and published them about two weeks apart in late February-early March, on the same website.

In my article, I warned against the inevitable moment of self-doubt and questions of identity that a newly empowered, post-election progressive movement will need to wrestle with. In his article, Roy outlined the reasons why we need to consider both how far we’ve come and how far we have to go in order to keep a balanced perspective in the face of the many serious problems that we have inherited from the Bush administration.

In characteristic fashion, Roy emphasized the need for cautious optimism in the face of bad news, while I emphasized the need for sobriety in the face of a major leap forward. But our messages were, at heart, actually quite similar. In addition, both of us presumed that we were addressing essentially the same group of progressives.

And then an interesting thing happened. As per usual, people commented on the blog threads following each of our articles. Notably, the people who commented on Roy’s article were optimists who felt offended by what they saw as Roy’s pessimism. Meanwhile, the cynics threw rocks at my article, calling me naïve for what they saw as my unwarranted optimism.

What each of these groups reacted to were the underlying assumptions of our respective articles. I took Obama’s election as an indicator of progressive progress. Roy took the country’s economic woes, and other legacies of the Bush years, as indicators of significant hardship. On their face, neither position seems especially radical. It is difficult to dispute that galvanizing the electorate and swearing in the first African-American president in history is not a substantial progressive victory that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Neither does it seem reasonable to suggest that our economic crisis and multiple ongoing wars, among other troubles, are anything less than dire conditions urgently in need of redress.

Nonetheless, in response to each of our articles, blog commenters by and large took issue not with the substance of the suggestions made by either Roy or myself, but with our premises for the each of the articles. On the one hand, Roy was told that he “must not be hanging around with the right people” if he believes that enthusiasm among progressives had already waned after the inauguration. None of Roy’s respondents saw a lack of enthusiasm for the President’s leadership, and identified such a position as holding unreasonably high expectations for Obama.

On the other hand, my position was acknowledged positively by some commenters, but was largely assailed by people who could not believe that electing Obama could be considered a progressive victory. These commenters were very unhappy with Obama’s pro-Wall Street leanings (which I agree are not progressive, and should be challenged), and dismissed all other evidence that progressives might be gaining ground. I was told, for example, “there is not a single progressive presence in [Obama’s] cabinet.” To these individuals, it is unreasonable to recognize forward movement of any kind until corporate corruption is permanently uprooted from our economy and politics.

What is interesting to me is this: Apparently, without meaning to, Roy was addressing my audience (the cynics in my thread, who are skeptical that anything will change), while I was addressing Roy’s audience (the optimists in Roy’s thread, who see Obama’s election as reason for hope).

In light of that observation, I am left to wonder: Why did cynics self-select to respond to my article, while optimists self-selected to respond to Roy’s article? Given that we’re talking about the same exact blog readership in both cases, it stands to reason that there must have been readers who agreed with the points I made, and readers who agreed with the points Roy made, who mostly kept silent about their agreement, while those who dissented to each of our points chose to publicly reply.

I have the distinct impression, based on this and other incidents, that what I’ve observed here is not by any means unusual for the progressive blogosphere. So I am left to ask, more broadly:

What does it mean for the progressive dialogue when there are a significant number of people who choose not to speak up unless they disagree with what they’re hearing? Why do we so often say nothing to each other publicly unless we have something critical to say, while we save our supportive comments largely for private conversation? If progressivism is really about empathy and responsibility to one another, how progressive is this kind of behavior, really?

Most importantly, why aren’t the cynics and optimists talking to each other instead of shouting at Roy and me?

Without trust, there can be no hope of real and lasting positive change in the world. Our challenges are too big to solve on our own. We must be able to work together and collaborate on an unprecedented scale to build a stable economy, restore health to our communities, and manage the tremendous global changes unfolding around us.

And yet we live in a world filled with manipulative messages, the very presence of which threatens the foundation of democracy. From a very early age, our hidden motivations (in the form of emotional tendencies and networks of associated knowledge embedded in our unconscious minds) have been exploited to trick us into thinking we need things that we don’t.

And now this pervasiveness of sophisticated commercial marketing has corroded the fabric of political engagement. We no longer trust most of the information we receive. Our skepticism is a cultural pathology – a deeply rooted belief that those in power are trying to trick us. Unfortunately, this distrust is grounded in the truth that we have indeed been tricked many times in the past.

The existence of skepticism is a matter of significance that needs to be addressed in our politics. Lip service is often paid to the need for greater voter turnout, but no solutions are offered that address the malaise of distrust that has stood in the way of progress for decades.

I believe that a culture of trust is desperately needed if we are to address the looming challenges of the modern world. People need to be able to identify deceptive practices and stop them in their tracks, while also having the skills necessary to communicate their real concerns authentically so that others can trust in them.

A starting point in the cultivation of trust is to name the strategy that undermines it. One that has been around for years, but is not in common use, is the acronym “FUD” which stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt – the standard tactics for deceiving and manipulating people. FUD can be found every time that an insecurity is used to push a product (“Use our acne medication or you won’t be attractive”). It is present in misinformation campaigns that undermine legitimate authorities (“Climate has changed in the past, so you can’t trust those who claim it is changing now due to human causes.”). And it is the basic premise of public relations and marketing firms that fill our world with mixed messages throughout the mass media every day.

Where do FUD practitioners learn their trade? Is there a FUD University that teaches the tactics of deception and redirection? Perhaps not. But these skills are widely deployed and are threatening the public confidence that forms the basis of modern democracy.

What we need is an antidote to FUD – a collection of skills and practices that nullify deception and transcend it. As we move into the 21st Century, we must create new tools for countering deception that instill trust in our capacity as a people to govern ourselves. We need to be able to deconstrust spin in the media so that hidden messages are made explicit. This will require us to think differently about truth and perception. We’ll have to understand the psychology of meaning and the nature of our hidden motivations. We need the opposite of FUD, an Open University that teaches the tactics of honesty and authenticity.

The only viable response to FUD is openness and transparency. Our hidden tendencies can only be exploited if they remain hidden. It is vital that we democratize the production of political communications, starting at the most basic level of knowing our own minds. We need a cognitive toolbox – tools for understanding what’s going on inside our heads – to be able to see how communication works within us. Only then can we truly open up the production process and invite the public to participate.

This goes much deeper than merely changing the content of our messages in political communications. Rampant distrust in a culture keeps a populace from being able to discern truth for themselves, regardless of how accurate a message might be. Instead, we have to restructure the methods of communication themselves. For example, most people are well aware that digital media can be modified to make things that are fake seem real. We’ve all experienced this at the movies many times in our lives. So there is a need to make the creation of digital media more transparent – as websites like YouTube do when users typically know what is real because they are making it themselves. This transparency makes it possible for the process of media production to be scrutinized.

The same can be said for other political processes. Currently most legislation is created behind closed doors and under the veil of technocratic language. The obscurity of this process – combined with the fact that bills have been used in the past for purposes different from what we were told (think “Patriot Act” or “No Child Left Behind”) – and you get a recipe for widespread skepticism about the legislative process. No wonder so many people disengage!

It is time to start the difficult work of building a better kind of politics, one that works in the 21st Century. We have to open up the political system and make it more participatory. People have to feel like they can take ownership and engage the political world with a mandate for openness and transparency.

The age of elite democracy is behind us. It doesn’t serve us any longer. In the days ahead, we’ll need a populist politics that recognizes the value of active participation, one that promotes inclusiveness for everyone. Such an open political machine will only work if its “operating system” is visible. We can only trust in the system if we are able to see how it works and make modifications to it when it doesn’t. This is analogous to what software developers call “open source” where the source code of a piece of software is open for others to see. When the source code is hidden, it is impossible to truly know what is going on inside the black box of the machine.

The same is true for our politics. Democracy is only real when the political source code is open for everyone to see. Building a culture of trust will require that we get to the heart of this problem, and make visible the methods of production for all the world to see.

Update: Want to keep up with my work? Follow me on Twitter.

——–

Enjoy this article?  Perhaps you’d like to sign up for our newsletter.

——–

The perspective I will share is informed by the cognitive sciences – a cross-cutting field of research that explores the workings of the mind. This is a powerful lens that offers many insights into the nature of political discourse around religion and morality.

Distinguishing Fact from Belief

A common criticism progressives make about conservative religion is what we see as a stubborn blindness to facts. We have been known on occasion to call fundamentalists stupid or worse because they place belief over fact. What we fail to realize is that we are similarly blinded by our faith in the power of facts.

Many progressives believe that human beings are “rational actors” who consciously weigh the pros and cons of every decision to “maximize our self interest.” This view is based on the notion that all people reason in the same way, which leads to the belief that people only need to get the facts and they’ll reason to the right conclusions.

This view of human nature is a belief. And it flies in the face of the facts! Research in psychology, linguistics, anthropology, and a host of other fields has shown that this view of the mind is inadequate at best, and is fundamentally wrong in many important respects.

So what happens when a belief is confronted by a fact? The belief trumps it. This should make sense because every fact requires a context to make sense. And the foundation of every context is some idea about how the world works. Beliefs are this fabric of our inner worlds.

My goal here is not to criticize progressives for holding a faulty view of humanity (though I do want to help improve upon this deficiency), but rather to make the point that human beings are “believers” before we are “knowers”. Our beliefs, often called presumptions, shape what we consider to be valid and what we consider to be suspect. This is a basic truth of human nature. And it is something we share in common with our fundamentalist neighbors.

Painting Demons (The Distortion of Truth)

If I had to pick one word to describe the political discourse around religion in the U.S., I’d say that it is toxic. Conservative Christians paint liberals as godless and devoid of morality. We tend to paint Conservative Christians as radical hate-mongers completely devoid of compassion. We each see the other through our own worldview. And we tend to focus on the negative.

Last year I had a conversation with my brother, an intensely religious person who considers himself to be a fundamentalist. It was one of those heart-to-heart talks intended to get to know each other after years of growing apart. I was a bit surprised to discover that my brother actually believed that I had no morality because I don’t believe in God. I pleasantly discovered that he is strongly motivated by his concern for the suffering of children in sub-Saharan Africa where he does missionary work. Through the conversation, we learned as much about ourselves as we did about each other.

Progressives have a similar opportunity if we can get beyond the stereotypes that paint our opposition as demons. The truth of each side has been grossly distorted by the vitriol of toxic discourse. And it is hurting all of us.

The existence of stereotypes is not the problem. Cognitive psychologists will be quick to tell you that human reasoning is always shaped by “heuristics” that guide our understandings of complex issues. We use stereotypes, idealizations, and simplifications all the time. Our brains cannot generate fluid streams of consciousness without packaging knowledge “on the fly”. So stereotypes are here to stay.

We can, however, be more sensitive to the stereotypes that shape our thinking. Religious distortions are commonplace today, just as many racist and sexist stereotypes were prominent in times past. And they are just as destructive to our politics as the old relics were to previous generations.

While we’re at it, we might also want to challenge the idea that progressives aren’t religious. Just because I don’t believe in God doesn’t mean that progressives are godless. In truth, I am in the minority. Most of my progressive brothers and sisters apply their faith to guide them toward a more just and compassionate society.

Reclamation of Faith

Progressives are all-too-familiar with the damage done in the name of God. Many of us, even our Christian brethren, are appalled at the travesties committed by the religious right. We have watched the legal sanctioning of discrimination against the GLBT community. Scientific integrity has been replaced by attitudes left over from the Dark Ages, and our security is now compromised because of it with a destabilized climate, tainted foods, and toxic toys. And the lifeblood of innovation, fundamental research, has been stalled by a fear of losing authoritarian control of the human story. These are lessons we should not, and must not, forget.

Yet, it is vital that we realize that fundamentalism in the United States is not a monolith. It is vibrant and diverse. And it can change. As the American story returns to its progressive roots, we have the opportunity to break the religious right’s stranglehold on religious language. They talk about “family values” but refer only to a narrow impression of strict father homes where daddy knows best. They speak of being “pro-life” as the myopic view that every choice is black or white.

We know better than this. And it is our responsibility to expand the discussion of family values to include living wages and healthy communities. It is in our power to build a nation on the premise that life is precious and should be celebrated in all its forms.

I may not believe in God, but I am a man of faith. I have faith in the basic goodness of people. I can work alongside my religious friends as we lay the foundation for a new economy based on the principles of human dignity and the common good. This is a faith that deserves to be reclaimed by religious and secular alike.

Bridging the Great Divide

For too long progressives have abandoned the landscape of morality in political discourse. It is time for us to make our values clear and put them at the forefront of our agenda to address society’s ills. But we must also realize that we can’t succeed on our own. We’re going to need the trust and support of those who have opposed us in the past. The work is just too vast for us to do on our own, especially if we continue to be opposed by a group of misinformed and fearful people who don’t really get what we’re about.

The first step to bridging the divide between progressives and conservative Christians is to admit that we haven’t taken our end of the conversation seriously. Blaming them for their faults has been easy, and generally it hasn’t done us much good. Getting them to see that we have values too, some of which they are likely to agree with, is a much more difficult (and promising) piece of work.

All these years of “only the facts” and “pushing policy platforms” has alienated those who don’t already see things the way we do. It’s not a very effective way to show people how our hearts work, which is how they’ll know if they can trust us. It is time for a new strategy that recognizes the importance of belief and the centrality of values in knowing where a person stands – and why.

Barack Obama has done this admirably. He often speaks of the empathy deficit, responsibility to the people, and the basic goodness of Americans. It’s pretty easy to see where he stands. All you have to do is listen to what he says.

We can do this too.

The United States needs a progressive vision more than ever before. We have eight years of political devastation to undo. And it has to happen while creating jobs, ending military occupations in the Middle East, addressing the climate crisis, and transitioning our cities and towns toward greater resilience and prosperity.

Our responsibility as citizens is to make politics civil again. Our fundamentalist neighbors have been manipulated and lied to by the powers that exploit them, often for personal gain. They are generally good-hearted people who have been fed distorted messages about who and what we are for as long as they can remember. These people – our neighbors – need to know that we are good-hearted people too. They need to know that we stand for something. And we need to let them know exactly what it is.

While the media machine spins out its stories about what Obama’s renewed commitment to stem cell research means, we can tell our own stories. Neighbor to neighbor. Person to person. Heart to heart.

It is time for the healing process to begin. We can change the nature of our politics and move beyond historic lines of division. A good place to start is with members of our local communities. All it takes is a little trust and an open heart.

A major issue in politics today is the problem of trust. In our media saturated world, we are constantly bombarded with misleading information that undermines our confidence in democratic institutions. We need new tools to address this problem – tools that complement the excellent work of media watchdogs, bloggers, and advocates with relevant expertise who call out the inconsistencies and forgeries of the mainstream media.

Our contributions will be shaped by insights into the concerns that motivate different groups of people, the worldviews that filter our perceptions of the world, and the lived experiences that shape how people make sense of the information around them. Over the next few months, we will start to share our insights in the form of trainings, educational materials, and web media.

You can help shape this process.

We’re looking to the progressive community for guidance on where to start. Should we focus on teaching frame analysis as a tool for de-constructing spin? Would it be helpful to have greater insights into the psychological processes that drive human behavior? Does a “big picture” perspective on social trends sound valuable for putting current events in context? Let us know. Post your thoughts in the comment thread here and let us know what you’d most like to see us doing with the unique combination of perspectives represented by our core team of innovative thinkers.

Best,

Joe Brewer

Founder, Cognitive Policy Works

Update

At Cognitive Policy Works we are developing a curriculum based on several foundational themes. One of these themes is Building Trust in Politics. Topics to be covered include:

• How to de-construct spin;
• Myth busting and the risk of accidentally reinforcing a lie;
• The psychology of false memories;
• How to manage the experience of knowing that you’ve been deceived.

We believe that skills like these are dangerous in the hands of the few – and liberating in the hands of the many.

We offer an antidote to this dysfunctional politics by bringing insights from the cognitive and behavioral sciences to the political process. Our goal is both ambitious and simple – to bridge the gap between academia’s extensive knowledge about the human mind and the practices of our civic and political institutions. We seek to alleviate the immediate crises of frustration and recurring setbacks for progressive organizations, while also looking beyond the horizon to a world where citizens are empowered to know who they can trust and how they can participate in the betterment of society.

What will happen if this enterprise is successful? Imagine a world where:

• Citizens recognize fear-inducing news reports intended to inflate manufactured risks and hide awareness of genuine threats, thereby reducing the effectiveness of these manipulative tactics.
• Journalists understand the consequences of how facts are presented and beliefs are promoted in the structure of news reporting, resulting in coverage that enhances—rather than erodes—the democratic process.
• Policy-makers abandon contrived and faulty presumptions about “economic rational actors” and instead craft solutions to societal challenges that improve the lives of real people through deeper insights into the human condition, culminating in robust policies that stand the test of time.
• Advocates articulate clear and compelling calls to action that resonate deeply with the values of the citizenry, thereby promoting greater civic engagement and community empowerment.

The starting point for this work is the conceptual framework of cognitive policy developed at the Rockridge Institute, which you can learn more about here:

Introduction to Cognitive Policy

To learn more about the foundations of our work, take a look at our Cognitive Toolbox.