Boiling a Frog; or, How to Dehumanize Outgroups for Political Gain

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before,” he said. “And some people are going to  be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” - Donald Trump


Dehumanization is the psychological process of making people considered to be the enemy seem less than human and hence not worthy of compassion, basic rights, or humane treatment. This is frequently done during wars or as part of military or political movements. Soldiers often find it psychologically necessary to refer to the enemy with racist or other non-human names. Without such desensitization, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for men to kill even in combat.

Within a society, individuals typically seek out some form of community or group that may be based on race, culture, gender, age, religion, etc. This becomes what psychologists and sociologists refer to as the "ingroup" for these individuals - the group to which they belong. Consequently, individuals who are not part of the ingroup are relegated to "outgroups." In some situations, outgroups are targets of ridicule and scorn. In more extreme situations, and on a larger scale, the outgroup may be dehumanized - portrayed as subhuman vermin worthy of a wide range of mistreatment. This can come in many forms, from the infringement of civil rights, to physical violence, to illegal imprisonment and outright extermination.

This tactic is one of the uglier aspects of human nature and is nothing new. Examples can be found as far back as ancient Chinese, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian literature. But the most obvious example that springs to mind is the Holocaust. In his book "Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others," author David Livingstone Smith writes:

"It's all too easy to imagine that the Third Reich was a bizarre aberration, a kind of mass insanity instigated by a small group of deranged ideologues who conspired to seize political power and bend a nation to their will. Alternatively, it's tempting to imagine that the Germans were (or are) a uniquely cruel and bloodthirsty people. But these diagnoses are dangerously wrong. What's most disturbing about the Nazi phenomenon is not that the Nazis were madmen or monsters. It's that they were ordinary human beings."

Ordinary human beings - who became complicit in inhuman cruelty and the systematic extermination of millions. What is it that enables one group of human beings to treat another group as though they were subhuman creatures? How can a society be motivated to willingly carry out such horrors?

It requires the establishment and reinforcement of a prevalent belief system. Smith writes, "Thinking sets the agenda for action, and thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity." These hateful ideas and attitudes must be expressed and reinforced, usually by someone with perceived authority, for them to be adopted by followers. This is not done over night - it takes time to inculcate large groups of people to such extreme philosophies. It also helps to have an at least semi-charismatic leader.

Surely Hitler's rise to power as German Chancellor in the 1930's would have been impeded or even ended if, early on, he had said, "OK, we're going to round up all the Jews, Romanis, ethnic Poles and other Slavs, communists, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the mentally and physically disabled and kill them." Most normal people would be repelled by such a proposal. But by gradually introducing more extreme beliefs and instituting increasingly extreme policies against these outgroups over a number of years, and by the effective use of propaganda, the people of Germany were taken on an ideological journey with horrific and disastrous consequences.

I would liken it to the old adage about boiling a frog. If you throw a frog into boiling water, it will jump out (or attempt to) to save itself. If you put a frog in warm water, and gradually increase the temperature, the frog will not attempt jump out and will ultimately be boiled. I think the same thing applies to social and political movements - all but the fringe elements would normally be driven away by extremist, hateful rhetoric and ideas presented too early on. But these more extreme beliefs have a much greater chance of being accepted if they are introduced after more palatable ones have already been accepted. It also helps if some event or tragedy can be capitalized on.

This is the tool of the demagogue, used to divide a people. It establishes an ingroup for the followers and gives them legitimacy and agency. It also establishes outrgroups and legitimizes their ill treatment. Thinking back to Smith's statement, saying these types of inflammatory things establishes an attitude or belief that facilitates the adoption of an agenda. It also prepares the minds of the listeners for more and more extreme rhetoric.

It is important to recognize that we are seeing this played out almost weekly in the media. This isn't about certain media outlets fomenting fear and prejudice - that has definitely been going on for some time as well, but that is not my point. No, the events I am referring to are the inflammatory statements and actions of presidential candidates, and one candidate in particular. This candidate is very carefully and deliberately making progressively more extreme and offensive statements. It's almost like the candidate is thinking, "If I can get people to believe "A," then I can get them to believe "B" next, then "C," "D," and so on," so that the more distasteful ideas will be acceptable by the time they are revealed.

These are the types of statements and ideas being promoted:

• Implicating an entire racial or religious group for the actions of a few. 
• Proposing that members of a certain religion register for a national tracking registry.
• Implying that women are only good for sex or their appearance.
• Demeaning veterans who were POWs because they were captured. 
• Advocating torture and saying the victims deserve it, even if they have no valuable intel and questionable guilt. 
• Squelching all criticism, playing the victim, and demanding apologies from people he has insulted.
• Saying that people who disagree with the candidate deserve it when they are assaulted and beaten.
• Making fun of someone's disability to discredit their criticism of the candidate.
• Stereotyping the very ethnic/religious minority he was invited to address. 
• Advocating that certain groups lose the rights and protections provided by the US Constitution.

And despite all this, the candidate continues to attract more and more support. To inexorably rise in the polls. And it drives the other candidates to adopt similar rhetoric lest they be perceived as weak.

Groundwork is being laid. The message is that mistreatment of the outgroup is acceptable and encouraged. That it's OK to dehumanize these people and pave the way for extreme policies and actions. We've seen this before and should recognize it for what it is.

Hypocrites on Parade - Why Can Terror Suspects Legally Buy Firearms?

Let me start with a statement that I think we can all agree with: we want to protect our country from terrorism, both home-grown and imported. We don't want to make it easier for them to kill us, especially on our own soil.

So why can't we pass a law barring terror suspects from buying firearms in this country?

In 2007, the Bush administration initially proposed this legislation. Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.) formally introduced a bill, H.R.2159 - Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 - which died in subcommittee in June of that year. 

There have been several similar attempts since then to make this a law, the most recent being a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by King and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) earlier this year. On Tuesday, December 1, 20015, House Republicans blocked debate on this bill, rendering it dead as well.

The next day, two heavily armed assailants wearing tactical attire killed 14 people and wounded 21 others at at a social services center in San Bernardino, California. The shooters were identified as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, a married Muslim couple who were radicalized. While Farook was not on any formal terror watch list, it was known by the FBI that he had several instances of contact with people being investigated for international terrorism.

Now, I'm not saying that this particular act of violence would have been prevented if some law had been passed. But the fact that they were apparently radicalized Muslims with suspicious contacts has gotten me thinking: why do we allow suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms in this country? Because we know they are doing just that. It has been widely reported that between 2004 and 2014, individuals on the suspected terrorist watch list attempted to purchase guns from American dealers at least 2,233 times. And in 2,043 of those cases — 91 percent of the time — they succeeded.

The real outrage is that not a single gun buyer on the list was turned away because they posed a threat as a potential terrorist. Reasons for their rejections included felony conviction, under indictment, adjudicated mental health, misdemeanor crime of domestic violence conviction, fugitive from justice and controlled substance abuse, according to the GAO. But not because they are suspected terrorists. This seems like a no-brainer to reduce the risk of a terror attack.

Then, on December 3, just one day after this latest mass shooting, Republicans in the Senate rejected an amendment to the ObamaCare repeal bill that would have blocked suspected or known terrorists from being able to buy guns (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/262030-senate-blocks-tying-gun-fight-to-obamacare-repeal). Now, one could argue that this was intended to be a "poison pill" amendment to kill the bill, which is a common (but shitty) political tactic in Congress. But clearly this is not the first time the notion of barring suspected terrorists from being able to easily and legally purchase firearms in the United States has come up in Congress. And been shot down.

So why won't our Congress pass a law to prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms in this country? Well, according to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), this type of legislation would deny people on the list their constitutional right to bear arms. "This is not the way we're supposed to do things in this country." 

Oh, we don't want to violate their rights. The individuals suspected of being terrorists, that is. 

I'm not advocating that we violate the rights of people arbitrarily. But if you're concerned about the rights of terror suspects being infringed, what about the following?

• What about no-fly lists? Doesn't that violate the right of interstate travel from the Comity Clause?
• We seem to have no problem holding terror suspects, whose guilt has not been proven, indefinitely. This would violate due process. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that individuals must be informed of criminal charges and receive a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.
• The government can spy on our calls, emails, and lord knows what else that we don't know about through the Patriot Act. Seems like that enables unreasonable searches and seizures that the Fourth Amendment guards against.
• At least one Republican presidential candidate has said he would consider closing mosques. Seems like that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, which violates the Second Amendment. 
• At least one candidate also advocated the use of torture, which violates the law if not the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.
• At least one candidate has suggested we may need to put Muslims in internment camps, much as the government did to people of Japanese descent during World War II. This would violate due process from the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

What makes the Second Amendment rights of these same people so sacrosanct compared to all these other rights that are routinely violated in the name of protecting our citizens and nation? You're happy to kill them, throw them in a hole forever, torture them, but God forbid you prevent them from easily and legally buying things that they could use to kill people.

Could it be... oh, I don't know... money? Could it be you are so in the pocket of the NRA and the gun industry that you have to fight any attempt, even one that is easy to implement,  perfectly sensible, and supported by over 80% of Americans, to limit the sale of firearms? Come on, we already have a list of suspects! How hard would it be to block their ability to legally buy firearms? You're making this easy for them. 

It boils down to this: if you don't trust them enough to let them on an airplane, do you really want them to have freaking guns?

It's not about their rights. You don't care about their rights, you've demonstrated that clearly enough by the rights you violate on a regular basis. Stop saying that, it's tired. It's cliche. When you do nothing, when you repeatedly fight these bills at the behest of your masters, you put the rights of suspected terrorists ahead of the lives of American citizens. But you put money ahead of both, lining your pockets with what are essentially bribes. And at the same time, you talk about how tough you are on terror and how far you're willing to go. In the words of Col. Potter, "Horse hockey!" You're hypocrites, plain and simple.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has vowed to reintroduce legislation in the Senate this week that seeks to add the names of suspected terrorists who are on the no-fly list to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That system is the one used to run background checks on firearm purchasers to ensure they are not disqualified due to felony convictions or mental illness. If a potential buyer’s name pops up, the gun or explosive sale would be denied. A person believed to be wrongly put on the list can appeal the accuracy of the information in court. This provides a method of appeal, which could avoid violating the rights of upstanding folks. Hopefully, with the San Bernardino shootings fresh in their minds, Congress can close this loophole.