Although politicians DO seem to enjoy bizarre rituals like rubbing bundles of cash on each other’s heads for good luck, this should not be mistaken for brainwashing.

Although it’s easy to assert the idea that voters are for all practical purposes masses of brainwashed individuals, it’s not often that we question whether politicians have been brainwashed. I mean, although the millions of lobby and corporate interest dollars that wash over a politician in their career is a little like brainwashing, at the end of the day, that shower of dollars is really just good old-fashioned lubrication. Or bribery, or whatever you want to call it. So it’s interesting that in spite of the fact that the recent Rolling Stone piece Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators never once used the word “brainwashing”, it prompted enough references to the movie The Manchurian Candidate that experts felt compelled to publicly clarify that Psy-Ops is not “brainwashing”. At no point denying that brainwashing is employed by the military on politicians of course, but at least making that one important semantic distinction. But the truth is, it’s almost universally agreed upon by experts that even if the military were trying to brainwash politicians, it would probably fail, because brainwashing in the familiar sense simply does not exist. Pretty much all the high-profile scenarios typically cited as examples of brainwashing can be explained away as basic forms of coercion and persuasion. If the spy-novel motif of communist-brainwashed operatives that are triggered by simple visual cues like a playing card (as in The Manchurian Candidate) or a copy of Catcher in the Rye (as in Conspiracy Theory) were a reality, probably one of our greatest national liabilities would be John McCain, who has twice run for president, and was a POW in communist Vietnam for five solid years. But the absurdity of that notion just points up the fallacy of the idea that our politicians are literally being brainwashed. Frankly, I’m more worried about the American voter. As a person who might describe himself as residing somewhere in the realm between fiscally conservative Democrat and socially liberal Republican, I’ve almost entirely given up on talking about politics with friends that strongly identify with either party; the conversations tend to be so irrational that they border on delusional. But while perusing material about brainwashing and cult behavior after reading that Rolling Stone piece, I ran across something that describes this tendency in today’s political discourse disturbingly well. It’s the standard “Cult Checklist”. Below is one suggested by professor Eileen Barker, see a broader selection here.

Tell me this doesn’t sound like a typical contemporary Democrat or Republican:

1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;
2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;
3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and Satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;
6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.