Schismogenesis and the Democratic Doomsday Machine

There's a Cold War underway between Clinton and Obama supporters, and the Doomsday Machine is about to be fired. The Doomsday Machine, as any good Dr. Strangelove fan will recall, was a secret thermonuclear device designed to destroy all animal and plant life on the planet. Once triggered, it could never be un-triggered, even if the two sides settled their differences. (Or, as President Peter Sellers said to the Soviet premier: "Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?  Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?")

The arms race, with its doctrine of M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction), was a classic example of what anthropologist Gregory Bateson called "schismogenesis," a form of conflict that functions like an endless feedback loop: One side's actions amplify the responses of the other and vice versa, so that the intensity of the response keeps increasing until somebody breaks the cycle. The Doomsday Machine was a perfect symbol for the M.A.D. schismogenic logic of the Cold War.

In the new Democratic Cold War, each group of supporters has to convince the other that it will leave the party rather than surrender. That means that each group needs to feel that core principles are at stake. Finding that core principle was easy for Obama supporters: They played by the rules and they won, so for them overruling that outcome would violate fair play. It was a little tougher for the Clinton team - that is, until the "count every vote" strategy was developed. Rather than appear to be "sore losers," Sen. Clinton and her team could claim to be fighting for a key Democratic value.

Sure, this strategy forces Clinton supporters to defend a Stalin-like vote in Michigan, but the campaign figured that this nuance would be lost on many supporters - and it has been. Sure, it meant reversing a pledge that Sen. Clinton acknowledged on video (in defending the fact her name stayed on the ballot), but apparently "counting every vote" is a more compelling core value than "keeping your word."

Now Clinton supporters are planning to demonstrate en masse at the party meeting that will discuss the Florida and Michigan delegations on Saturday. That's a schismogenic response to the perceived unwillingness of the Obama camp to yield. That demonstration will look and feel like a civil rights march to Clinton supporters - but, in classic schismogenic fashion, to Obama supporters it will seem like thuggish refusal to accept a fair outcome. When they watch the news Saturday night, Clinton supporters will see a vision of the march on Selma. But Obama supporters will see an echo of Bush thugs overwhelming Florida's vote counting process in 2000.

The ground-level conflict between Clinton and Obama supporters is the Cold War that should interest everybody following this race. It's potentially more important than what the Clintons want, how they'll negotiate, or what they'll eventually accept. If they and their high-profile defenders continue to push the notion that they're acting out of principle, the Doomsday Machine will be triggered. And remember, once that happens it can't be stopped.

Here's the schismogenesis the Party should fear: Clinton defenders will infuriate Obama supporters by portraying her as the noble defender of Democratic principle. Their rejection of that claim will be taken by Clinton supporters as a repudiation of the idea that Hillary's been subjected to sexism.  That will bring a furious response from Clinton supporters.  And on and on ...

Remember what Dr. Strangelove said to the Russian Ambassador?  "The whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh??" The Clintons didn't tell the world they had a Doomsday machine because they didn't know it would be in their self-interest to use it.

This schismogenic cycle won't end when the Clinton and Obama campaigns make a deal.  It will end when Clinton and Obama supporters look beyond this short-term fight and get together on issues that really matter. 

Comments

[MJS]

But Obama supporters will see an echo of Bush thugs overwhelming Florida's vote counting process in 2000. Oh my god, who tipped them off?

On the majority of blogs I "drop in at" I have yet to read anyone--anyone--whose animus towards the "other" candidate is not easily seen. Huffpo, Daily Kos, TPM et al do not love nor like Hillary, and any attempts at objectively vetting Obama's policies went out the window with the baby, the bathwater and their Hillary voodoo dolls. On the other side, I left a C-list blog partly because of their endless anti-Obama postings. Raw nerves everywhere!

I have not previously seen such strident enmity between two groups within one party, at least not on this scale. I fear the Doomsday Device is triangulated between a corrupted and corporately controlled media, a government infested with revolving-door lobbyists, and an Internet-based public that (at its most sincere) yearns for information and wisdom but gets pulled down by pettiness and a profound collective myopia.

Is Hillary a power hungry daemon? Is Obama the dapper, honey-tongued lover who will vanish in the morning, promises unfulfilled? Stay tuned.

++++

[MJS]

Speaking of staying tuned...

Have you been played upon?

Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me. You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.

Hamlet, Act III, scene ii

Are bloggers easier to play on than a pipe?

++++

[RJ Eskow]

Nice play on words: "Though you can fret me you cannot play me."

I'm going to remember that.