1) Groupthink, as I am sure you know, was a recognized problem long before it got its name. The Westminster Parliamentary System requires that there be a Loyal Opposition whose principal job is to find all the flaws in a government from an outsider's viewpoint. And the American Congressional System was designed to function without party affiliation so that consensus would occur out of diverse opinions.
Unfortunately, in many of today's governments' main decisions seem to be made within inner circles of people who are specifically chosen with loyalty to the leader as a main attribute (the PMO in Canada for example). These groups are incapable of making informed decisions because of their homogeneity. Thomas L. Friedman wrote an op ed in the New York Times (Dec 1, 2023) pointing out that Israel's invasion of Gaza was problematic for exactly this reason.
2) It dismays me that some responses to your article ignore your thesis and simply use the "Biden" stimulus to spout conspiracy theories, belief in which, ironically, demonstrate Groupthink almost as well as your article does.
Every organization needs a “red team” which is a group of disrupters who actively work against groupthink. Sadly our current PMO does not believe in red teaming their brilliant ideas.
The obvious answer you seem to be missing is that Biden's "closest senior advisors" ARE the president of the USA, in effect if not in title, and have been for the past four years. Why would they hand that over all of that power just because some "nervous nellies" think their figurehead is senile? Now you know why there has been such a concerted effort to demonize and criminalize Trump - against all democratic and legal decency.
Some wags have suggested that Obama wants a fourth term as President. In fact, he would take a fifth and sixth if the right stooge appeared on the scene. Talk about an "existential threat to democracy"! We don't even know who the acting President has been the past four years. And that's the real story here.
Grant, on the first paragraph, assuming insincerity in the absence of evidence to that effect is always a mistake. And that's what you've done here. I assure you, a whole lot of people do not need any material self-interest to despise Donald Trump with the heat of a thousand suns.
As to your second paragraph, it is quite literally a fantasy of your own invention.
The nature of evidence you want is that it cannot be explicit and obvious -- that it must rely on manipulation of perception -- that is, gaslighting. Biden's long-apparent infirmity and especially weak and frequently garbled speech have been routinely described by handlers and media as vigour and gaffes. Those who are resistant to gaslighting see the red flags and wonder who's really running the country, because it's clearly not old Joe.
Wanting a president to be competent isn't enough to make it so. Pretending that that everything is normal requires restraining critical thinking and believing your eyes are lying.
I hear you. This is a long-standing argument. But here's the thing: I'm not a neurologist or gerontologist. Neither are you, I take it. I agree there is reason for concern. But does it follow, as you claim, that this is clear evidence he is mentally incapable of doing the job, and in fact has not been doing the job? I have never heard a serious medical professional say so. In fact, I've heard those professionals say, no, you cannot draw such easy conclusions, that it takes careful testing. As for the question of who has been running the White House for four years, if not the president, again, that is something that can be demonstrated with evidence -- evidence I have yet to see anyone present. Instead, all I hear is "it's obvious!" and an insistence that anyone who disagrees is "gaslighting." Sorry, I have higher evidentiary standards for these things than "my eyes."
I should add that Thursday night changed one very big thing for me: I still don't know what his mental capacity is. But I DO know that communicating effectively is a big part of the job of president, and a bigger part of the job of candidate. And he clearly cannot do it. To me, that's disqualifying, whatever his mental state is in meetings. And yes, this IS something that can be judged with "my eyes."
OMG, Dan, if you need the report of the neurologist or a gerontologist to form an opinion about someone's mental acuity, you are in worse shape than I suspected! I evaluate my university students, my car dealer, my tradespeople, my dentist, my insurance broker on the basis of common sense observations and inferences - and have rejected many because of the "vibes" they give off. I have infinitely more observational evidence about Biden than any of the people I deal with day-to-day, and I wouldn't trust his judgment about anything.
Frankly, I don't believe you. You take swipes at my mental functioning on here all the time without any such reports. You say I deal in "fantasy," for example; why don't you need a psychological report to assert that? But with Biden you will give a pass to until you get proper evidence of mental incompetence? With Biden you will simply assume sincerity and competence? Unbelievable; I don't believe it.
I don't require "clear evidence" that someone is INcapable of doing the job of President; I require clear evidence that someone IS capable. If you think there is clear evidence of Biden's capability, you are the one dealing in fantasy.
And yes, Trump's competence for the job is also highly questionable, but mostly for other reasons. I DO think Trump is his own man, however - for good or bad - whereas I do not know who is pulling Biden's strings. And that's the real story here.
You're conflating forming an opinion "about someone's mental acuity" -- which I wasn't talking about -- with what I was talking about: dementia and cognitive decline in seniors. No, a layperson can't diagnose the latter with any reliability. You can make an uninformed guess based on "vibes," if you like. And heaps of people do. But you can't diagnose.
No, you are conflating giving an informed opinion with giving a clinical diagnosis. In my layman's opinion, Biden is suffering from dementia and serious cognitive decline. That isn't a clinical diagnosis; but I know nobody other than you who demands a clinical diagnosis of dementia or cognitive decline before ruling someone out as a presidential candidate.
I've observed significant cognitive decline in myself since retirement. My memory in particular isn't what it used to be. But this violates the medical principle against self-diagnosis, so you don't have to believe me. Maybe I shouldn't believe my own lyin' mind, either. I should continue to believe I'm as sharp as ever until I get a clinical diagnosis - which belief will delay the clinical diagnosis until long after I'm in Biden's condition! LOL (I'm being playful now, Dan. Just so you know.)
P.S.: I attributed the claim that Obama is Biden's puppet master to "some wags." I do not know if there is any truth to that, beyond the normal collegial discussions I expect they occasionally have. But this is the kind of speculation that Biden's debate performance invites. The truth of who is pulling Biden's strings is likely much worse than Obama, though.
I'm not "assuming" anything, Dan. I follow the news; I have a law degree and a doctorate in political philosophy from Oxford University. *Nobody* with a serious academic mind can conclude that the lawfare against Trump is fair and sincere. It is a gross travesty, even an existential threat to democracy.
Biden's debate performance demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that he is cognitively incapable of running a gov't the size and complexity of the USA. I mean, nobody is cognitively capable of that, but Biden is not even capable of maintaining the facade of being in charge. Which raises the question, "Who really is pulling the strings?" That is no "fantasy," it is THE pressing question of the week.
I don't accuse you of "assuming" things, either, Dan. When someone accuses me of making statements without any evidence, I appeal to my research credentials as a stand-in for an article-length treatment of the subject. I don't have the time to tell you *everything* I know, or even everything I know about Biden (with footnotes to sources). Lesson in there.
I gave an opinion about the lawfare against Trump, based on my credentials as a lawyer and political philosopher. You didn't really respond to that, other than to denigrate my academic credentials. Do you disagree with my assessment? I'd like to know, because it would help me form an opinion about your own knowledge of, mental acuity in, and biases over these legal matters.
And the MSM wonders why normies don't trust it. They lie and lie and lie, and think they can get away with it, until people can see the truth with their own eyes.
In terms of the groupthink problem, according to the movie World War Z, that is why the Israelis invented the Tenth Man. I don't know if that is true, but it makes sense.
Do you know what a lie is? It is the intentional statement of an untruth. The "intentional" part is key. You have to know it's not true yet say it anyway. Given this fact, where on earth do you get "they lie and lie and lie" from?
"Biden isn't just cogent, he is way better than that! He is analytical! He has never been better!" No, the mainstream legacy media would *never* lie, Dan.... They are simply paid $millions to be the stupidest, least observant people on the planet.
Seriously?! Joe Scarborough -- former REPUBLICAN Congressman! -- is a commentator, a hot-taker, a (my favourite word) bloviator. His job is to be loudly opinionated! He is not "the mainstream legacy media." To treat him as the exemplar of "the mainstream legacy media" is the equivalent quoting Kevin O'Leary as the voice of business.
The very fact that Joe Scarborough is paid $6million per year tells me that he attracts a huge audience. I don't know how a "fringe" outfit could afford such extravagant salaries otherwise. Whereas Peter Baker, according to one of your other commenters, makes only "TENS of dollars doing journalism." So which one is really "fringe"?
Oh, please, Dan, now you are defending the indefensible. steven lightfoot who made the originating comment in this thread referred to the mainstream media, and there is nothing more mainstream media that the anchor of MSNBC. Joe Scarborough is *exactly* the type of "bloviator" he was referencing as why nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore.
I don't want to assume that we agree that the Joe Scarborough types in the media are paid liars, though. Do you agree with that?
Curious thing - but The Bay of Pigs? It was an Eisenhower project Kennedy left run to placate the natives. As I understand it the CIA gave the final go ahead on the misadventure as a way to force Kennedy to save the mission by sending in the US airforce (at least) - not so crazy after all ("The Devil's Chessboard" at al). Kennedy refused and the rest, as they say, is history. And after Thursday's debate performance I'd say so are we.
Hopefully, enough Americans wake up to the destructive nature of the federal government and the two-party system to start a correction. Doubtful, since relatively wealthy and comfortable people don't lead nor fight for revolutionary changes.
Biden is going full Ginsberg. Better for the ship to go down with you than let anyone else after steer while you're still alive. Hungary 2.0 here we come.
I would argue there's enough devil in the details to justify Talbot's conclusions. Kennedy threw the CIA and Cuban "contras" a bone never imagining they'd take it. They played a hunch that a new, young, seemingly weak president would cave and come to their rescue initiating what they really wanted, a US invasion of Cuba. (See Netanayahoo, extra judicial murder of top Iranian generals in Iranian consulate in Damascus. Tell me that wasn't an invitation to the party) Kennedy was furious at being played and said "They picked the wrong man" He also said the CIA should be ripped into a thousand pieces and tossed to the wind. A good idea as it turned out and hardly a sign of "groupthink"
But that aside, I was really just curious about your choice of The Bay of Pigs for group think. An actual great example of it is post 2001 and "Operation Iraqi Freedom." The apparent belief in WMDs throughout the whole administration spilled into the CIA, NSA so much so as to manufacture false Intel. The low and therefore most salient point was Colin Powell bald faced lying to the UN in one career ending act of depravity. I still don't know.what that war was about, but wisely the UN saw through it as did our own CSIS and the Cretien government. But the entire US government was in on it assuring each other it would be a.cakewalk- which it was until "Mission Accomplished.
Biden may get the nudge from.the big donors, although I think Netenyahoo likes how things are playing just fine.
Having been a debate coach for years in the past - rules required each team to debate pro and con arguments.
In a utopian world, after disagreement, ask what were the points of agreement that could be developed into a path forward. This could be a reality but not in a Presidential debate.
The problem is demonizing the other position and person. Authoritarians tend to seek this type of power over (and a point in your article) whose ideology can be faced by those around them advocating ‘thinking’ (not group think) and all possible positions to be considered.
Biden is not an authoritarian but Trump exhibits totalitarian tendencies .
I agree, those around Biden need to be honest, truthful and reasonable about what is best for their country and the world.
Re-reading Hannah Arendt who made an interesting observation about counter ideologies doing the very thing that they argue against.
I’m not sure libertarians or some progressives examine this about their thinking?
While my rambling might seem peripheral to your visions - one Arendt scholar recently reminds us”Ideology divorces thinking from experience” that can change the narrative of what actually happened.
Unfortunately the truth is Biden needs to step aside and Trump lies.
1) Groupthink, as I am sure you know, was a recognized problem long before it got its name. The Westminster Parliamentary System requires that there be a Loyal Opposition whose principal job is to find all the flaws in a government from an outsider's viewpoint. And the American Congressional System was designed to function without party affiliation so that consensus would occur out of diverse opinions.
Unfortunately, in many of today's governments' main decisions seem to be made within inner circles of people who are specifically chosen with loyalty to the leader as a main attribute (the PMO in Canada for example). These groups are incapable of making informed decisions because of their homogeneity. Thomas L. Friedman wrote an op ed in the New York Times (Dec 1, 2023) pointing out that Israel's invasion of Gaza was problematic for exactly this reason.
2) It dismays me that some responses to your article ignore your thesis and simply use the "Biden" stimulus to spout conspiracy theories, belief in which, ironically, demonstrate Groupthink almost as well as your article does.
Every organization needs a “red team” which is a group of disrupters who actively work against groupthink. Sadly our current PMO does not believe in red teaming their brilliant ideas.
No need to red team anything if you're always right...
Or a farmer from Saskatchewan sitting in the back corner. If you can’t convince him your idea is brilliant, chuck it.
If Biden goes, so do most of his staff. They would be advocating for the end of their White House careers.
They would get other jobs within a Dem administration - If the Dems win. Their jobs are in greater long-term danger from sticking by their boss.
The obvious answer you seem to be missing is that Biden's "closest senior advisors" ARE the president of the USA, in effect if not in title, and have been for the past four years. Why would they hand that over all of that power just because some "nervous nellies" think their figurehead is senile? Now you know why there has been such a concerted effort to demonize and criminalize Trump - against all democratic and legal decency.
Some wags have suggested that Obama wants a fourth term as President. In fact, he would take a fifth and sixth if the right stooge appeared on the scene. Talk about an "existential threat to democracy"! We don't even know who the acting President has been the past four years. And that's the real story here.
Grant, on the first paragraph, assuming insincerity in the absence of evidence to that effect is always a mistake. And that's what you've done here. I assure you, a whole lot of people do not need any material self-interest to despise Donald Trump with the heat of a thousand suns.
As to your second paragraph, it is quite literally a fantasy of your own invention.
The nature of evidence you want is that it cannot be explicit and obvious -- that it must rely on manipulation of perception -- that is, gaslighting. Biden's long-apparent infirmity and especially weak and frequently garbled speech have been routinely described by handlers and media as vigour and gaffes. Those who are resistant to gaslighting see the red flags and wonder who's really running the country, because it's clearly not old Joe.
Wanting a president to be competent isn't enough to make it so. Pretending that that everything is normal requires restraining critical thinking and believing your eyes are lying.
I hear you. This is a long-standing argument. But here's the thing: I'm not a neurologist or gerontologist. Neither are you, I take it. I agree there is reason for concern. But does it follow, as you claim, that this is clear evidence he is mentally incapable of doing the job, and in fact has not been doing the job? I have never heard a serious medical professional say so. In fact, I've heard those professionals say, no, you cannot draw such easy conclusions, that it takes careful testing. As for the question of who has been running the White House for four years, if not the president, again, that is something that can be demonstrated with evidence -- evidence I have yet to see anyone present. Instead, all I hear is "it's obvious!" and an insistence that anyone who disagrees is "gaslighting." Sorry, I have higher evidentiary standards for these things than "my eyes."
I should add that Thursday night changed one very big thing for me: I still don't know what his mental capacity is. But I DO know that communicating effectively is a big part of the job of president, and a bigger part of the job of candidate. And he clearly cannot do it. To me, that's disqualifying, whatever his mental state is in meetings. And yes, this IS something that can be judged with "my eyes."
OMG, Dan, if you need the report of the neurologist or a gerontologist to form an opinion about someone's mental acuity, you are in worse shape than I suspected! I evaluate my university students, my car dealer, my tradespeople, my dentist, my insurance broker on the basis of common sense observations and inferences - and have rejected many because of the "vibes" they give off. I have infinitely more observational evidence about Biden than any of the people I deal with day-to-day, and I wouldn't trust his judgment about anything.
Frankly, I don't believe you. You take swipes at my mental functioning on here all the time without any such reports. You say I deal in "fantasy," for example; why don't you need a psychological report to assert that? But with Biden you will give a pass to until you get proper evidence of mental incompetence? With Biden you will simply assume sincerity and competence? Unbelievable; I don't believe it.
I don't require "clear evidence" that someone is INcapable of doing the job of President; I require clear evidence that someone IS capable. If you think there is clear evidence of Biden's capability, you are the one dealing in fantasy.
And yes, Trump's competence for the job is also highly questionable, but mostly for other reasons. I DO think Trump is his own man, however - for good or bad - whereas I do not know who is pulling Biden's strings. And that's the real story here.
You're conflating forming an opinion "about someone's mental acuity" -- which I wasn't talking about -- with what I was talking about: dementia and cognitive decline in seniors. No, a layperson can't diagnose the latter with any reliability. You can make an uninformed guess based on "vibes," if you like. And heaps of people do. But you can't diagnose.
No, you are conflating giving an informed opinion with giving a clinical diagnosis. In my layman's opinion, Biden is suffering from dementia and serious cognitive decline. That isn't a clinical diagnosis; but I know nobody other than you who demands a clinical diagnosis of dementia or cognitive decline before ruling someone out as a presidential candidate.
I've observed significant cognitive decline in myself since retirement. My memory in particular isn't what it used to be. But this violates the medical principle against self-diagnosis, so you don't have to believe me. Maybe I shouldn't believe my own lyin' mind, either. I should continue to believe I'm as sharp as ever until I get a clinical diagnosis - which belief will delay the clinical diagnosis until long after I'm in Biden's condition! LOL (I'm being playful now, Dan. Just so you know.)
P.S.: I attributed the claim that Obama is Biden's puppet master to "some wags." I do not know if there is any truth to that, beyond the normal collegial discussions I expect they occasionally have. But this is the kind of speculation that Biden's debate performance invites. The truth of who is pulling Biden's strings is likely much worse than Obama, though.
I'm not "assuming" anything, Dan. I follow the news; I have a law degree and a doctorate in political philosophy from Oxford University. *Nobody* with a serious academic mind can conclude that the lawfare against Trump is fair and sincere. It is a gross travesty, even an existential threat to democracy.
Biden's debate performance demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that he is cognitively incapable of running a gov't the size and complexity of the USA. I mean, nobody is cognitively capable of that, but Biden is not even capable of maintaining the facade of being in charge. Which raises the question, "Who really is pulling the strings?" That is no "fantasy," it is THE pressing question of the week.
"I have university degrees and I can assure you that no serious person can disagree with what I wrote."
I could write that, too, Grant. But I don't. And never will.
I don't accuse you of "assuming" things, either, Dan. When someone accuses me of making statements without any evidence, I appeal to my research credentials as a stand-in for an article-length treatment of the subject. I don't have the time to tell you *everything* I know, or even everything I know about Biden (with footnotes to sources). Lesson in there.
I gave an opinion about the lawfare against Trump, based on my credentials as a lawyer and political philosopher. You didn't really respond to that, other than to denigrate my academic credentials. Do you disagree with my assessment? I'd like to know, because it would help me form an opinion about your own knowledge of, mental acuity in, and biases over these legal matters.
The first half of the first sentence is true, but the rest of the post is nonsense.
And the MSM wonders why normies don't trust it. They lie and lie and lie, and think they can get away with it, until people can see the truth with their own eyes.
In terms of the groupthink problem, according to the movie World War Z, that is why the Israelis invented the Tenth Man. I don't know if that is true, but it makes sense.
Do you know what a lie is? It is the intentional statement of an untruth. The "intentional" part is key. You have to know it's not true yet say it anyway. Given this fact, where on earth do you get "they lie and lie and lie" from?
"Biden isn't just cogent, he is way better than that! He is analytical! He has never been better!" No, the mainstream legacy media would *never* lie, Dan.... They are simply paid $millions to be the stupidest, least observant people on the planet.
One: You do realize those are your words, not the media's, right?
Two: Repeating a claim with a sarcastic tone does not prove the claim.
Three: Journalists are paid "$millions"?! As a journalist, I would like to know where you buy your drugs.
One: I'm quoting Joe Scarborough, anchor of MSNBC.
Two: Sarcasm is sometimes warranted, Dan.
Three: Joe Scarborough earns $6million per year.
Four: Even Joe Scarborough is backtracking on his recent lies about Biden's cogency.
Seriously?! Joe Scarborough -- former REPUBLICAN Congressman! -- is a commentator, a hot-taker, a (my favourite word) bloviator. His job is to be loudly opinionated! He is not "the mainstream legacy media." To treat him as the exemplar of "the mainstream legacy media" is the equivalent quoting Kevin O'Leary as the voice of business.
The very fact that Joe Scarborough is paid $6million per year tells me that he attracts a huge audience. I don't know how a "fringe" outfit could afford such extravagant salaries otherwise. Whereas Peter Baker, according to one of your other commenters, makes only "TENS of dollars doing journalism." So which one is really "fringe"?
Oh, please, Dan, now you are defending the indefensible. steven lightfoot who made the originating comment in this thread referred to the mainstream media, and there is nothing more mainstream media that the anchor of MSNBC. Joe Scarborough is *exactly* the type of "bloviator" he was referencing as why nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore.
I don't want to assume that we agree that the Joe Scarborough types in the media are paid liars, though. Do you agree with that?
It is certainly false to say there is no money in journalism. There are TENS of dollars to be made in journalism!
Curious thing - but The Bay of Pigs? It was an Eisenhower project Kennedy left run to placate the natives. As I understand it the CIA gave the final go ahead on the misadventure as a way to force Kennedy to save the mission by sending in the US airforce (at least) - not so crazy after all ("The Devil's Chessboard" at al). Kennedy refused and the rest, as they say, is history. And after Thursday's debate performance I'd say so are we.
The CIA didn't have that power. As the JFK Library notes, it was authorized by JFK personally, under the strict condition that US involvement remain hidden. https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/the-bay-of-pigs#:~:text=Shortly%20after%20his%20inauguration%2C%20in,was%20part%20of%20the%20deception.
Hopefully, enough Americans wake up to the destructive nature of the federal government and the two-party system to start a correction. Doubtful, since relatively wealthy and comfortable people don't lead nor fight for revolutionary changes.
Biden is going full Ginsberg. Better for the ship to go down with you than let anyone else after steer while you're still alive. Hungary 2.0 here we come.
These are the same people who (most likely) decided that blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline was a good idea, etc. https://open.substack.com/pub/seymourhersh/p/a-year-of-lying-about-nord-stream?r=porqc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I would argue there's enough devil in the details to justify Talbot's conclusions. Kennedy threw the CIA and Cuban "contras" a bone never imagining they'd take it. They played a hunch that a new, young, seemingly weak president would cave and come to their rescue initiating what they really wanted, a US invasion of Cuba. (See Netanayahoo, extra judicial murder of top Iranian generals in Iranian consulate in Damascus. Tell me that wasn't an invitation to the party) Kennedy was furious at being played and said "They picked the wrong man" He also said the CIA should be ripped into a thousand pieces and tossed to the wind. A good idea as it turned out and hardly a sign of "groupthink"
But that aside, I was really just curious about your choice of The Bay of Pigs for group think. An actual great example of it is post 2001 and "Operation Iraqi Freedom." The apparent belief in WMDs throughout the whole administration spilled into the CIA, NSA so much so as to manufacture false Intel. The low and therefore most salient point was Colin Powell bald faced lying to the UN in one career ending act of depravity. I still don't know.what that war was about, but wisely the UN saw through it as did our own CSIS and the Cretien government. But the entire US government was in on it assuring each other it would be a.cakewalk- which it was until "Mission Accomplished.
Biden may get the nudge from.the big donors, although I think Netenyahoo likes how things are playing just fine.
Having been a debate coach for years in the past - rules required each team to debate pro and con arguments.
In a utopian world, after disagreement, ask what were the points of agreement that could be developed into a path forward. This could be a reality but not in a Presidential debate.
The problem is demonizing the other position and person. Authoritarians tend to seek this type of power over (and a point in your article) whose ideology can be faced by those around them advocating ‘thinking’ (not group think) and all possible positions to be considered.
Biden is not an authoritarian but Trump exhibits totalitarian tendencies .
I agree, those around Biden need to be honest, truthful and reasonable about what is best for their country and the world.
Re-reading Hannah Arendt who made an interesting observation about counter ideologies doing the very thing that they argue against.
I’m not sure libertarians or some progressives examine this about their thinking?
While my rambling might seem peripheral to your visions - one Arendt scholar recently reminds us”Ideology divorces thinking from experience” that can change the narrative of what actually happened.
Unfortunately the truth is Biden needs to step aside and Trump lies.
The truth is that we're all in deep doodoo that no single election can resolve.