Thought Manipulation: The Use and Abuse of Psychological Trickery (16 page)

The basic idea of constitutional economics is that effective and efficient rules (that is, a constitution) can guide individuals to promote their own best interests and at the same time contribute to the benefit of society. This research program asks the questions: How do you construct an efficient constitution, the rules for the social-economic-political game that will ensure a decent, stable society? What are the rules that can guide self-interested individuals to operate for themselves and the benefit of society simultaneously? How do you formulate a constitution that can reduce the impact of damaging actions and produce a peaceful, prosperous, and flourishing social order?

Constitutional economists emphasize our limitations that obligate us to follow rules. However, the rules of the social game, which have been formulated under one procedure or another, are mostly manmade ones. Therefore, our limitations are reflected once again in the formulation of the very rules originally intended to safeguard us from our limitations. Unfortunately, the sophisticated manipulator can sometimes function well within the scope of the rules, and even play the system. The chief purpose of this chapter is to show that the rules created to ensure fair elections can yield absurd results.

Let me begin with an example that demonstrates how a sophisticated manipulation can be a very powerful tool. The essential point is that it is not clear if this particular manipulation—under the assumption that it was indeed manipulation—was based on a wild slander or a real danger. Either way, it was a winning strategy.

THE PARANOIA TACTIC

Paranoia is a rare mental disease in its clinical form but a well-known concept among the public. As with most mental illnesses, paranoid symptoms reflect struggle, contradictions, and even paradoxes. However, the very essence of paranoia, which makes this specific sickness unique, lies in one constitutive paradox. On the one hand, the paranoid seems to be extremely logical and cautious in choosing his actions. On the other hand, his world view is established on a dominating mistaken idea, or integrative principle, that he refuses to examine critically.

A good illustration for a paranoid dominating idea is a divine mission from god whereby the paranoid was chosen to bring salvation to the world. Of course, espousing such a “strange” idea affects almost any judgment of reality and, therefore, any course of behavior. For example, the paranoid finds that he is compelled to escape and hide because dark forces are trying to prevent him from completing his holy mission.

It is acceptable to assume that the paranoid is under a lot of internal suffering and mental pressure. The problem is that instead of coping with his distresses in the “normal” way, he has organized his world view in a mistaken but somewhat self-serving manner; he suffers only because he is a very important person. In quite the same way, social crisis, like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, can be the perfect background to use the manipulative tactic to inculcate the same delusional self-serving effect.

The paranoia tactic is a manipulative strategy of maneuvering the target to espouse a dominating idea as a foundation to his world view. The tendency is to build a vision of reality by raising the manipulator’s aims to the top of the target’s scale of preferences. This tactic employs a similar mechanism to that of the paranoia disease. However, while the paranoid adapts his biased conception voluntarily and spontaneously, the manipulative interaction is a two-participant game.

An efficient method to achieve the paranoid effect is to “plant” in a person’s mind a dominating idea (
ideè fixe
). The strategy is to manipulate the target to espouse an integrative principle that will serve as the foundation for a tendentious and biased world view. However, social life is not a human design laboratory that readily facilitates opportunities to conduct experiments in brainwashing. Therefore, the dominating idea must be chosen carefully; that is, in a way that the mark of the con will find it functional for his life in general and for his survival in particular.

Crudely and basically, it is unlikely for someone who lives a full, satisfactory life to show any interest in espousing any suspicious dominating idea (
ideè fixe
), and it is quite reasonable to expect that he will become extremely suspicious of any attempt to push him outside of his convenient life track. In contrast, the lesson from the paranoia disease is that social crisis can provide a more fertile environment to achieve the paranoid effect. The integrative principle (that is, the idea dominating the mind), which is the core of the paranoia disease and the paranoia tactic, somehow mitigates the suffering. For example, the dominating idea helps to construct a more relaxing world view, or at least shift the attention from the more difficult and upsetting actual problems.

The manipulator’s intentions are to achieve results, which are similar to the paranoid clinical symptoms. He strives to fit the mark with rose-colored glasses that can spin any piece of information into the ultimate supportive evidence to the biased conception. On the one hand, the target is maneuvered to interpret any information that contradicts the manipulative conception as a mistake or deception. Therefore, such contradictions only enhance his motivation to follow the manipulator’s track. On the other hand, the target can very easily interpret any information that does not contradict the dominating idea as its ultimate verification.

A similar mechanism operates in certain religions, or more precisely commentaries that are intended to promote religious beliefs. For example, any victory of the chosen nation is, actually, the victory of God, and any loss is the loss of the people who failed to serve the master of the universe properly. This powerful mechanism is a “lose-lose” situation for anyone who tries to convince the target to examine his conception from any different perspective.

In the more entrenched cases, the target, who is in a really difficult situation, refuses to cast even the simplest doubt on his biased conception. Despite the difficulties, however, the liberal camp will not so easily discharge the target from responsibility for his actions. True, liberals will be ready to admit that building an imaginary world vision on a “planted” dominating idea is functional for the target. However, should we not expect human beings, especially in times of crisis, to take responsibility for their lives and to confront directly the “real” problems at stake?

WINNING ELECTIONS WITH THE “PARANOIA TACTIC”

A very interesting example that concretizes the powerful effect of the paranoia tactic appeared in 1996 during the general elections in Israel. Shimon Peres, the incumbent prime minister, started the race at a considerable advantage over his rival from the opposition, Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet Netanyahu’s election slogan, “Peres will divide Jerusalem,” made such a significant contribution to the shift in public opinion that, at the end of a dramatic race, brought Netanyahu to the prime minister’s seat.

The slogan “Peres will divide Jerusalem,” which triggers deep emotional feelings in the Jewish people, appeared at a delicate time. In this season, the impression was that the Israeli government under the leadership of Shimon Peres, Netanyahu’s opponent, was in the middle of a “blind” race towards a peace process. Peres and his crew were not attentive to the unfriendly atmosphere toward the idea of establishing a peaceful partnership between the two sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was not clear whether the Palestinians were ready for a realistic negotiation, and the Israelis were prepared for a reasonable peace process. All of the signs indicated a large gap between the grand peace vision of Peres (his “New Middle East”) and the conditions on the ground, such as the ongoing terrorist attacks during this time.

The confusing reality, the doubts, and most of all the fear of extreme concessions to the Palestinians formed the perfect background for the slogan “Peres will divide Jerusalem.” Of course, this slogan could neither be conclusively demonstrated nor definitely refuted. Be that as it may, a number of Israelis were receptive to espouse this campaign slogan as a presupposition to their world view. In Israel, it is sometimes enough to win the elections.

The propaganda slogan seemed to carry all the potential to influence any judgment of reality. Miraculously, once someone is infected with this insidious synthetic slogan, it works like the obsessive mechanism of the paranoid. Any activity by Peres to advance peace is interpreted as another step toward the division of Jerusalem on the one hand, while any slowing down or even stepping backwards from the peace process is likely to be understood as fraud and deception on the other hand.

Ironically, the question of whether Jerusalem is “united” or practically “divided” is controversial. Jerusalem is the capital city of the state of Israel. However, most of east Jerusalem’s residents are Arabs, and at least a part of them prefer to be regarded as Palestinians. Therefore, many argue that there is no escape from admitting that Jerusalem is already polarized. The shining vision of “the eternal united Jerusalem under Israeli control with a majority of Jewish people” is no more than a myth,21 and myths, especially those that survive for long ages, can be very dear and precious illusions to human beings. Their influence is often inestimable as a call to action in the polling booth.

Certainly, emotions played a central role in the success of this election slogan. Nevertheless, the emotional charge was “only” a supportive background for a rational—or more precisely, semi-rational— message to the voter toward his decision in the polling booth: I will vote for Netanyahu because Peres will divide Jerusalem. The more appropriate classification of the slogan “Peres will divide Jerusalem” is “limited intellectual manipulation” (that is, reason creates the motivating effect). However, the illusiveness of this slogan might call for a different interpretation.

To be realistic, any effective and reasonable peace process between Palestinians and Israelis has to include a serious discussion of Jerusalem’s future. Nevertheless, the future of Jerusalem was taboo in the Israeli public debate. Ironically, it was Netanyahu’s campaign that put the fate of Jerusalem into the center of the Israeli public discourse, at least for some time. Therefore, we might wonder of Netanyahu’s intention was to open a public debate on a sensitive, problematic subject that no one dared to speak about. By blaming Peres for trying to divide Jerusalem, Netanyahu hoped to provoke a critical discussion on such an important and critical matter. According to this interpretation, Netanyahu’s strategy was acutely an “expanding manipulation.” His idea was to prepare the people to consider various practical solutions to the future of Jerusalem—one of the most difficult obstacles to achieve peace.

Again, the circumstances, the inconvenient political situation for Israel, and the absence of any practical blueprint from Netanyahu’s side indicate that Netanyahu used the powerful slogan mainly to get elected. After all, the impression remains of a limiting manipulation intended to lead to one option: Netanyahu for prime minister.

This campaign employs a well-known manipulative prescription of propaganda formulated long ago by Pareto: “To take advantage of sentiments, not wasting one’s energies in futile efforts to destroy them.” Long before Pareto, Edmund Burke, the passionate defender of liberty, taught us that “no passion so effectively robs the mind of all its power of acting and reasoning as fear.” Instead of presenting a well-thought strategy, which requires some intellectual effort from the voters, Netanyahu chose the easy way.

Netanyahu chose to use confusion, fear, and disappointment to lead the Israeli voters to espouse an integrative principle that might be unfounded. By using this strategy, he created the impression that “stopping Peres from dividing Jerusalem” is the most urgent problem at stake. In contrast, Netanyahu, the candidate whose platform was a complete mystery, is the ultimate candidate to stop the disaster.

The tragic figure in this short story is Shimon Peres, the incumbent prime minister who started the race with a huge advantage among the voters. Ironically, after losing the elections, Peres charged Netanyahu with raising the Jerusalem issue at the most “inconvenient” time for Israel (nationally and internationally). By doing that, Peres argued that Netanyahu, the bogus self-anointed defender of the mythically united Jerusalem, actually endangered the unification of the city under Israeli sovereignty. Unfortunately, it was too late for Peres, at least with respect to the 1996 elections.

DISTRIBUTING AMULETS FOR GOOD LUCK IN ELECTION TIME

Netanyahu won the 1996 elections, depriving Peres of any precious opportunity to divide Jerusalem, so it is impossible to clarify if Netanyahu’s pithy slogan was anything more than a winning slander. However, this campaign slogan is extremely useful in showing that it is not easy to guarantee fair and decent elections. What are the criteria, standards, and measurements to distinguish fair and unfair influence on the voter? To demonstrate the difficulties, it is interesting to compare Netanyahu’s election slogan to the distribution of amulets during election time in Israel two years later. This comparison shows that it can be difficult to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate propaganda. Let us first explore the “amulets” campaign.

It is reasonable to assume that distributing amulets during elections is not an innocent act. The amulet serves to incite strong passions, such as faith in supernatural ability, divine holiness, and fear from the fury of god, in an effort to guide the voter’s choice in the polling booth. However, human beings are not automatons, and voting is not the result of a momentary impulse but the outcome of certain considerations. Therefore, it is likely that most of the people, at least to themselves, are able to find “good” explanations for their electoral choice.

The amulet is a symbolic device that holds emotional value. Its purpose is to send a message with some kind of reasoning—rational, semi-rational, or even completely irrational—to encourage the voter to choose a particular candidate. For example, the amulet may signify that voting for the “right” candidate will ensure good health in this world and a place in heaven in the next one. Therefore, distributing amulets during elections seems to belong to the category of limiting intellectual manipulation in that reason creates the motivating effect.