Bernie Sanders’ Phantom Movement

osted on Feb 14, 2016

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

Sanders Campaign Is a Genuine Progressive Social Movement for Democracy

02/04/2016 08:32 pm ET
Danny Glover

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has already accomplished what most observers — including many of his supporters — thought was impossible. Coming from 40 points behind in the polls when the campaign began, he achieved a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton in Iowa and enjoys a huge lead in the second Democratic contest in New Hampshire.

There is now no denying that he is a serious contender. Although Clinton still leads in national polls, most of the people surveyed by those polls have so far given little attention to the fundamentally different policy goals between Democratic Party presidential candidates.

Political commentators in the establishment media and status-quo political operatives have overwhelmingly endorsed Clinton, raising a number of doubts about Sanders’ prospects of appealing to and winning support of Black voters, who comprise a sizable share of Democratic primary voters. But there are a number of reasons why he can win the majority of Democratic Party and Independent voters, including moderate Republicans — and many specific reasons why a Sanders’ presidency could serve the policy interests of the Black community.

“Sanders has demonstrated that he understands that real democracy is essentially a pro-active citizenry demanding that public servants represent just causes.”

First, Sanders has put forth the most coherent policy changes to achieve full employment. His economic class-based proposals for change could have great benefits for unemployed and under- employed Americans — especially African-Americans because most Black people in this country are working class and a disproportionate number are poor. The unemployment rate for African-Americans is persistently about twice that of whites, and vastly higher for Black teenagers. Sanders’ proposals to create millions of jobs through public investment could greatly benefit African-Americans.

Unlike other candidates, Sanders has highlighted the importance of reform at the U.S. Federal Reserve. This is the institution that, when operating unchecked, basically determines the level of unemployment in the U.S. He has argued that the Fed should not raise interest rates until the unemployment rate falls below 4 percent.

When the Fed raises interest rates, as they did unnecessarily in December, they are deliberately creating unemployment, with the intention of slowing wage growth. In this way they not only reduce employment opportunities but also worsen inequality, since lower-wage workers are disproportionately hit. These workers are also disproportionately Black and Latino.

African-Americans will also benefit greatly from Sanders’ proposals for free tuition at public universities, expanding Social Security benefits, raising the minimum wage to $15, universal childcare and pre-kindergarten, a youth jobs program, and other measures to reduce America’s vast disparities of income, wealth, and yes, opportunity for all.

Responding earnestly to direct calls from Black Lives Matter, Sanders has demonstrated that he understands that real democracy is essentially a pro-active citizenry demanding that public servants represent just causes. He understands that generalized economic class-based reforms must be linked with what he has correctly called “serious problems in this country with institutional racism, and a broken criminal justice system.” And he has pledged to do something about it if he becomes president.

What makes Sanders’ campaign worthy of serious attention is that, unlike other candidates, he has a decades-long track record of fighting for the reforms that he is proposing — and honestly responding to critiques and challenges to expand and deepen democratic policies. Some have attacked his proposals as impractical; for example, free tuition at public universities. But public universities were free when I went to college in California. By what economic or accounting logic is this not affordable today, when America has more than twice the income per person that it had when I was a student?

We must change our national priorities, away from the endless overseas wars that are the main cause of terrorism — therefore begetting more war — and invest in the education of our children and youth. Here, too, Sanders shows a clear contrast with his opponent, who voted for the Iraq War and has continued since then to advocate a more belligerent foreign policy than that of President Obama.

Others have maintained that Sanders is not electable because he is a democratic socialist, or more accurately, a social democrat. But the social democratic reforms that he proposes to enact with the support of a permanently active citizenry are not only feasible but needed and popular.

“We must change our national priorities, away from the endless overseas wars that are the main cause of terrorism … and invest in the education of our children and youth.”

Look at our two most “socialist” programs, Social Security and Medicare. Why would democratic-minded Americans reject Sanders for wanting to expand both of these widely popular programs? Or for using the government to expand the rights of its citizens, rather than supporting the heavy state intervention that protects the exorbitant profits of pharmaceutical companies?

More than 15,000 volunteers helped Sanders succeed in Iowa, and there are many tens of thousands more who will participate in the rest of the primary and presidential campaigns. And that is perhaps the most hopeful part of the Sanders campaign. It is a genuine mass justice movement, fueled by young people and others whose lives, limited and degraded by broken and false promises, demonstrate why America’s dominant business-as-usual political class is discredited, and its political system is corrupted. The rising tide of Sanders supporters are not naïve — they are the realists — and after decades of stagnant or declining living standards for the majority, most Americans also understand this reality.

And who best to take on such a system but a candidate who is straightforwardly honest, boldly courageous, who has not been corrupted, who receives nothing from Wall Street or the corporations who have hijacked American democracy, and who owes them nothing in return? This campaign is a rare, perhaps unprecedented event in this country’s modern electoral history. It deserves the support of everyone who favors social and economic justice.

Danny Glover is an actor, director, producer and activist.

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

Elizabeth Warren: One Way to Rebuild Our Institutions

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

Clinton/Krugman Defend ‘Hardheaded Realism’… and Plutocracy

Les Leopold Author, “Runaway Inequality: An Activist’s Guide to Economic Justice”
January 26, 2016

In theory, there are a lot of things to like about [Sanders’] ideas. But in theory isn’t enough. A president has to deal in reality. I am not interested in ideas that sound good on paper but will never make it in real life. Hillary Clinton, 9/21/16

The point is that while idealism is fine and essential — you have to dream of a better world — it’s not a virtue unless it goes along with hardheaded realism about the means that might achieve your ends. … Sorry, but there’s nothing noble about seeing your values defeated because you preferred happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends. Don’t let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence. Paul Krugman, New York Times 9/22/16

In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule–at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes….. [We] believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened. (Gilens and Page)

Team Hillary (now including economist/columnist Paul Krugman) is worried about major defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their counter-attack is clear — Bernie is all pie in the sky — he isn’t facing up to the realities of Washington. And, as Krugman coldly puts it, Sanders and his supporters are letting “idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence.”

But these demeaning attacks say much more about Clinton than they do about Sanders. In effect Clinton is admitting (as is Krugman) that we have to accept American plutocracy as a given that, at best, can be modified around the edges. Neither Clinton, nor Krugman, believe that a progressive populist uprising (that Sanders is calling for and counting on) could possibly modify our elite-driven system. After all, if such a movement is possible, then Hillary is likely to lose. Therefore, it must be declared impossible, off the table, unrealistic and so on.

Clearly Clinton and Krugman accept that elite rule not only shapes our current sense of reality, but that it is our permanent reality.

Krugman, however, should know that what remains of our democracy needs to be pressured from below. His Princeton colleague, Martin Gilens, along with Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, have co-authored a study that definitely shows that the average American currently has no independent impact on public policy. They reviewed 1,779 congressional bills over the last decade and found:

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Therefore, unless you already are an economic elite, you have no (“near zero”) influence over government policy, which is the textbook definition of a plutocracy.

So how do we influence such a system?

By banging away from the outside — by forming mass movements with mass demonstrations and insurgency campaigns like the one Sanders is running. He is absolutely correct to assert that we need a “political revolution” to modify and end rule by the “billionaire class.”

In fact, there is no other way. All the careful policy crafting and intellectual arguments are no match for dominance of the super-rich over politics. The ties that bind Washington, Wall Street and corporate elites will not break, let alone bend, unless faced with a severe popular uprising. Occupy Wall Street did more to put runaway inequality on the political map than did either Clinton or Obama.

Hillary, however, is betting that she can win over voters by claiming that she’s the practical one, not the ineffectual dreamer — that she can get things done. But she, along with the median voter, have no chance of influencing policy unless we are mobilized to pressure the political system from the outside as well. She’s been an insider for so long that she would rather talk quietly with her many elite contacts than threaten them with a mass mobilization. And let’s face it — she is one of them. Yes, more liberal, but still a part of those elite structures.

For example, it’s nearly impossible to imagine Hillary calling for a million of us to March on Washington or Wall Street to demand the breakup of big-banks and a financial speculation tax to pay for free higher education. This would be the case even if she had not taken $2 million in speaking fees from Wall Street firms. In short, she is asking us to let her be our representative among the plutocrats where she can make things happen “in real life.”

Krugman show know better than to argue that great politicians are the key to great changes. But sometimes economists can be a little tone deaf to social history. It was the massive labor upheaval of the 1930s coupled with countless mobilizations of the unemployed that created the space for the New Deal. It was a decades-long militant Civil Rights movement combined with strong labor support that pushed LBJ into his civil rights stands. It was the upheavals of the 1960s that led to passage of environmental, consumer and health and safety legislation. And it will indeed take a Sanders-inspired “political revolution” to budge our entrenched plutocrats.

Clinton (and Krugman) are also making an enormous tactical error. The more they stress pragmatism and acceptance of elite political control, the more they clear the field for Bernie. People already sense what Gilens and Page have so carefully researched — that America’s basic political and economic structures are rigged against them. They want to send a message: “Hey, we are tired of our crummy wages, our porous benefits, our lousy infrastructure, our crumbling schools and runaway inequality.” Bernie expresses what they already feel to be true.

Moreover, it’s factually incorrect to say that Bernie appeals to our hearts while Hillary appeals to our heads. Bernie’s supporters are using their heads. The only way to change the system is to challenge it. Nothing short of a “political revolution” stands any chance of success. That’s “hardheaded realism” of the first order.

If Bernie continues to gain support it’s precisely because voters understand that the choice is clear — accept the reality of plutocracy and beg for crumbs — or fight to tear it down.

Les Leopold is the executive director of the Labor Institute in New York. His current book, Runaway Inequality: An Activist’s Guide to Economic Justice (Oct. 2008) is being used to provide economic education for working people and community activists. All proceeds go to fund this educational campaign

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

Up With Extremism

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

The Plutocrats Are Winning. Don’t Let Them!

The vast inequality they are creating is a death sentence for government by consent of the people. This is the fight of our lives and how it ends is up to us.

Dear Readers:

In the fall of 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, as families grieved and the nation mourned, Washington swarmed with locusts of the human kind: wartime opportunists, lobbyists, lawyers, ex-members of Congress, bagmen for big donors: all of them determined to grab what they could for their corporate clients and rich donors while no one was looking.

Across the land, the faces of Americans of every stripe were stained with tears. Here in New York, we still were attending memorial services for our firemen and police. But in the nation’s capital, within sight of a smoldering Pentagon that had been struck by one of the hijacked planes, the predator class was hard at work pursuing private plunder at public expense, gold-diggers in the ashes of tragedy exploiting our fear, sorrow, and loss.

What did they want? The usual: tax cuts for the wealthy and big breaks for corporations. They even made an effort to repeal the alternative minimum tax that for fifteen years had prevented companies from taking so many credits and deductions that they owed little if any taxes. And it wasn’t only repeal the mercenaries sought; they wanted those corporations to get back all the minimum tax they had ever been assessed.

“Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it.”

— H.L. Mencken

They sought a special tax break for mighty General Electric, although you would never have heard about it if you were watching GE’s news divisions — NBC News, CNBC, or MSNBC, all made sure to look the other way.

They wanted to give coal producers more freedom to pollute, open the Alaskan wilderness to drilling, empower the president to keep trade favors for corporations a secret while enabling many of those same corporations to run roughshod over local communities trying the protect the environment and their citizens’ health.

It was a disgusting bipartisan spectacle. With words reminding us of Harry Truman’s description of the GOP as “guardians of privilege,” the Republican majority leader of the House dared to declare that “it wouldn’t be commensurate with the American spirit” to provide unemployment and other benefits to laid-off airline workers. As for post 9/11 Democrats, their national committee used the crisis to call for widening the soft-money loophole in our election laws.

America had just endured a sneak attack that killed thousands of our citizens, was about to go to war against terror, and would soon send an invading army to the Middle East. If ever there was a moment for shared sacrifice, for putting patriotism over profits, this was it. But that fall, operating deep within the shadows of Washington’s Beltway, American business and political mercenaries wrapped themselves in red, white and blue and went about ripping off a country in crisis. H.L. Mencken got it right: “Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it.”

Fourteen years later, we can see more clearly the implications. After three decades of engineering a winner-take-all economy, and buying the political power to consummate their hold on the wealth created by the system they had rigged in their favor, they were taking the final and irrevocable step of separating themselves permanently from the common course of American life. They would occupy a gated stratosphere far above the madding crowd while their political hirelings below look after their earthly interests.

The $1.15 trillion spending bill passed by Congress last Friday and quickly signed by President Obama is just the latest triumph in the plutocratic management of politics that has accelerated since 9/11. As Michael Winship and I described here last Thursday, the bill is a bonanza for the donor class – that powerful combine of corporate executives and superrich individuals whose money drives our electoral process. Within minutes of its passage, congressional leaders of both parties and the president rushed to the television cameras to praise each other for a bipartisan bill that they claimed signaled the end of dysfunction; proof that Washington can work. Mainstream media (including public television and radio), especially the networks and cable channels owned and operated by the conglomerates, didn’t stop to ask: “Yes, but work for whom?” Instead, the anchors acted as amplifiers for official spin — repeating the mantra-of-the-hour that while this is not “a perfect bill,” it does a lot of good things. “But for whom? At what price?” went unasked.

Secrecy today. Secrecy tomorrow. Secrecy forever. They are determined that we not know who owns them.

Now we’re learning. Like the drip-drip-drip of a faucet, over the weekend other provisions in the more than 2000-page bill began to leak. Many of the bad ones we mentioned on Thursday are there — those extended tax breaks for big business, more gratuities to the fossil fuel industry, the provision to forbid the Securities & Exchange Commission from requiring corporations to disclose their political spending, even to their own shareholders. That one’s a slap in the face even to Anthony Kennedy, the justice who wrote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Citizens United. He said: “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions.”

Over our dead body, Congress declared last Friday, proclaiming instead: Secrecy today. Secrecy tomorrow. Secrecy forever. They are determined that we not know who owns them.

 

The U.S. Capitol is shown at sunset October 15, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The U.S. Capitol is shown at sunset October 15, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The horrors mount. As Eric Lipton and Liz Moyer reported for The New York Times on Sunday, in the last days before the bill’s passage “lobbyists swooped in” to save, at least for now, a loophole worth more than $1 billion to Wall Street investors and the hotel, restaurant and gambling industries. Lobbyists even helped draft crucial language that the Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid furtively inserted into the bill. Lipton and Moyer wrote that, “The small changes, and the enormous windfall they generated, show the power of connected corporate lobbyists to alter a huge bill that is being put together with little time for lawmakers to consider. Throughout the legislation, there were thousands of other add-ons and hard to decipher tax changes.”

No surprise to read that “some executives at companies with the most at stake are also big campaign donors.” The Times reports that “the family of David Bonderman, a co-founder of TPG Capital, has donated $1.2 million since 2014 to the Senate Majority PAC, a campaign fund with close ties to Mr. Reid and other Senate Democrats.” Senator Reid, lest we forget, is from Nevada. As he approaches retirement at the end of 2016, perhaps he’s hedging his bets at taxpayer expense.

Consider just two other provisions: One, insisted upon by Republican Senator Thad Cochran, directs the Coast Guard to build a $640 million National Security Cutter in Cochran’s home state of Mississippi, a ship that the Coast Guard says it does not need. The other: A demand by Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins for an extra $1 billion for a Navy destroyer that probably will be built at her state’s Bath Iron Works – again, a vessel our military says is unnecessary.

So it goes: The selling off of the Republic, piece by piece. What was it Mark Twain said? “There is no distinctive native American criminal class except Congress.”

Can we at least face the truth? The plutocrats and oligarchs are winning. The vast inequality they are creating is a death sentence for government by consent of the people at large. Did any voter in any district or state in the last Congressional election vote to give that billion dollar loophole to a handful of billionaires? To allow corporations to hide their political contributions? To add $1.4 trillion to the national debt? Of course not. It is now the game: Candidates ask citizens for their votes, then go to Washington to do the bidding of their donors. And since one expectation is that they will cut the taxes of those donors, we now have a permanent class that is afforded representation without taxation.

A plutocracy, says my old friend, the historian Bernard Weisberger, “has a natural instinct to perpetuate and enlarge its own powers and by doing so slams the door of opportunity to challengers and reduces elections to theatrical duels between politicians who are marionettes worked by invisible strings.”

Where does it end?

By coincidence, this past weekend I watched the final episode of the British television series Secret State, a 2012 remake of an earlier version based on the popular novel A Very British Coup. This is white-knuckle political drama. Gabriel Byrne plays an accidental prime minister – thrust into office by the death of the incumbent, only to discover himself facing something he never imagined: a shadowy coalition of forces, some within his own government, working against him. With some of his own ministers secretly in the service of powerful corporations and bankers, his own party falling away from him, press lords daily maligning him, the opposition emboldened, and a public confused by misinformation, deceit, and vicious political rhetoric, the prime minister is told by Parliament to immediately invade Iran (on unproven, even false premises) or resign. In the climactic scene, he defies the “Secret State” that is manipulating all this and confronts Parliament with this challenge:

Let’s forget party allegiance, forget vested interests, forget votes of confidence. Let each and every one of us think only of this: Is this war justified? Is it what the people of this country want? Is it going to achieve what we want it to achieve? And if not, then what next?

Well, I tell you what I think we should do. We should represent the people of this country. Not the lobby companies that wine and dine us. Or the banks and the big businesses that tell us how the world goes ‘round. Or the trade unions that try and call the shots. Not the civil servants nor the war-mongering generals or the security chiefs. Not the press magnates and multibillion dollar donors… [We must return] democracy to this House and the country it represents.

Do they? The movie doesn’t tell us. We are left to imagine how the crisis — the struggle for democracy — will end.

As we are reminded by this season, there is more to life than politics. There are families, friends, music, worship, sports, the arts, reading, conversation, laughter, celebrations of love and fellowship and partridges in pear trees. But without healthy democratic politics serving a moral order, all these are imperiled by the ferocious appetites of private power and greed.

So enjoy the holidays, including Star Wars. Then come back after New Year’s and find a place for yourself, at whatever level, wherever you are, in the struggle for democracy. This is the fight of our lives and how it ends is up to us.

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

Top 10 Signs the U.S. Is the Most Corrupt Country in the World

Posted on Dec 13, 2015

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

Born to Be Conned

By MARIA KONNIKOVADEC. 5, 2015

THERE’S an adage you hear most any time you mention con artists: You can’t cheat an honest man. It’s a comforting defense against vulnerability, but is it actually true?

No, as it turns out; honesty has precious little to do with it. Equally blameless is greed, at least in the traditional sense. What matters instead is greed of a different sort: a deep need to believe in a version of the world where everything really is for the best — at least when it comes to us.

Robin Lloyd wasn’t looking to get rich. She was just a poor college student who thought she’d finally caught a break. It was 1982, and Ms. Lloyd was making her first trip to New York City. On Day 1 she fell for what, to a hardened New Yorker, would seem impossible: a game of three-card monte. On a Broadway sidewalk, a loud man behind a cardboard box was doing something at lightning speed with three playing cards, telling the crowd to “follow the lady.” Guess where she went correctly, and you could easily double your cash.

“I remember being like a kid at the circus, so fascinated by him showing us how easy it was to win,” Ms. Lloyd told me. She didn’t take the decision to play lightly. She had only two $20 bills in her pocket, and she remembered, “At this time in my life, I had no winter coat.”

But something about this man’s patter seemed genuine; it was almost as if he saw her woes and wanted to help. And she’d just seen a lucky winner who’d doubled his money and walked away elated. “It was so exciting, the energy there. And you want to win and want to believe so much.” The moment the cash left her hand, she regretted it, and rightly so. In a flash, she lost everything.

Three-card monte is one of the most persistent and effective cons in history. The games still pop up along city streets. But we tend to dismiss the victims as rubes. Even Ms. Lloyd felt that way, calling herself a fool. “I probably deserved it,” she says. But that’s in retrospect. In the moment, it wasn’t so simple. She was frugal and intelligent (a student in sociology, who would soon go on to get her Ph.D., she was, until recently, the news editor at Scientific American).

But Ms. Lloyd was up against forces far greater than she realized. Monte operators, like all good con men, are exceptional judges of character, but even more important they are exceptional creators of drama, of the sort of narrative sweep that makes everything seem legitimate, even inevitable. When I mentioned to Ms. Lloyd that the winner she’d seen was planted there to lure people in, she expressed surprise. She hadn’t realized that that was how the game worked. “The rational part of me knows I was conned. But there’s still a part of me that feels like I was unlucky.”

That’s the power of the good con artist: the ability to identify your deepest need and exploit it. It’s not about honesty or greed; we are all suckers for belief. In Ms. Lloyd’s case, money was indeed a factor. But it need not be.

Take love. Joan (not her actual name; why will be clear soon enough), a savvy New Yorker, found out after not only dating but living with her boyfriend, Greg (also not his real name), that she had fallen for an impostor. “He was wonderful, funny, kind and generous,” she recalled.

“He was kind of improbable, like where you would mention almost anything, like deep-sea diving, he’d be like, ‘Oh, here’s how to do this.’ And then it would turn out that he’s either done it or manufactured a suit for someone else who did,” she says. “He knew how to set bones — he’d been a paramedic. He built me a kitchen — he knew how to make stuff. He knew how to cure things and take care of sick people.”

That, and he had created an entire persona for her benefit, complete with a false background, a fake position at a lab at a prestigious research university and an apocryphal family history. Everything he’d ever told her about himself was a lie.

How did she miss it? It seems impossible in the age of Google — and Joan had googled away, as any diligent modern girlfriend would. But his name was common, the details were vague and hardly anything came up. She realizes now that all the red flags were there. But at the time — well, she was in love. “I just kept thinking, God, I’m so lucky.”

Joan isn’t what one thinks of when one thinks of a quintessential mark, either. She wasn’t greedy; she was just greedy for a certain reality. At that point in her life, she needed to feel cherished, protected. All of her friends were getting married. Some had children. She was alone. She wanted to believe in perfect love — and society was only too happy to reinforce that desire.

THE confidence game existed long before the term itself was first used, most likely in 1849, during the trial of William Thompson. The elegant Thompson, according to The New York Herald, would approach passers-by, start up a conversation, and then come forward with a unique request. “Have you confidence in me to trust me with your watch until tomorrow?” Think how much is loaded into that simple query: You are a respectable person, since I approached you, but are you also someone who believes the best in people, or are you a cynical blight on humanity? Faced with such a conundrum — a story about the kind of person you are contained in a single question — many a stranger proceeded to part with his timepiece. And so, the “confidence man” was born: the person who uses others’ trust in him for his own private purposes.

Stories are one of the most powerful forces of persuasion available to us, especially stories that fit in with our view of what the world should be like. Facts can be contested. Stories are far trickier. I can dismiss someone’s logic, but dismissing how I feel is harder.

And the stories the grifter tells aren’t real-world narratives — reality-as-is is dispiriting and boring. They are tales that seem true, but are actually a manipulation of reality. The best confidence artist makes us feel not as if we’re being taken for a ride but as if we are genuinely wonderful human beings who are acting the way wonderful human beings act and getting what we deserve. We like to feel that we are exceptional, and exceptional individuals are not chumps.

This is the logic that governs such improbable-seeming cases as that of Paul Frampton, the University of North Carolina physicist who, in 2011, fell for a sweetheart swindle on a dating website. He became convinced that he was corresponding with the model Denise Milani, proceeded to fly to South America for an in-person rendezvous and ended up jailed for smuggling cocaine.

“Some people will say they’re innocent, but when I talk to them further, it becomes clear that they were somehow involved,” he explained in an interview from prison with The New York Times Magazine. “I think people like me are less than 1 percent.” It’s that less-than-1-percent logic that gets the conned to a place that seems ludicrous to an observer.

Caught up in a powerful story, we become blind to inconsistencies that seem glaring in retrospect. In 2000, two psychologists, Melanie Green and Timothy Brock, had a group of people read “Murder at the Mall,” a short story adapted from a true account of a Connecticut murder in Sherwin B. Nuland’s “How We Die.” The plot followed a little girl as she was murdered in a mall. After reading the story, participants answered questions about the events. Then came the key query: Were there any false notes in the narrative, statements that either contradicted something or simply didn’t make sense? Ms. Green and Mr. Brock called this “Pinocchio circling”: the ability to spot elements that signal falsehood. The more engrossed a reader was in the story, the fewer false notes she noticed.

Well-told tales make red flags disappear. Consider the case of Ann Freedman, the former president of the now-defunct gallery Knoedler & Company, who became embroiled in one of the largest art forgery scandals of the 20th century. For over a decade, she had been selling work on behalf of Glafira Rosales, an art dealer. The Rosales collection, it would turn out, was made up entirely of forgeries. In retrospect, there were red flags aplenty, but Ms. Freedman was so swept up in Ms. Rosales’s story about a mysterious collector who had amassed a previously unseen trove of Abstract Expressionist masterpieces that none of them stood out.

In one of the most telling examples, Ms. Freedman, along with multiple experts, failed to spot a seemingly egregious sign of forgery: a Jackson Pollock painting that she herself had purchased and displayed in her apartment, where the signature was misspelled “Pollok.”

“I never saw it, in all the years I lived with it,” Ms. Freedman told me recently. “Nor did anybody else.” It wasn’t a failure of eyesight so much as a failure of belief: Faced with incongruous evidence, you dismiss the evidence rather than the story. Or rather, you don’t dismiss it. You don’t even see it.

Given the right circumstances, we all exhibit a similar myopia. As the psychologist Seymour Epstein puts it, “It is no accident that the Bible, probably the most influential Western book of all time, teaches through parables and stories and not through philosophical discourse.”

In a sense, all victims of cons are the same: people swept up in a narrative that, to them, couldn’t be more compelling. Love comes at the exact moment you crave it most, money when you most need it. It’s too simplistic to dismiss those who fall for such wishful-seeming thinking as saps — just as it’s overly neat to dismiss the types of people who would take advantage of them as unfeeling psychopaths.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
SJM 2 minutes ago

So how to explain Bernard Madoff’s educated, socially positioned dupes?
Dadof2 2 minutes ago

Even bigger than the Bernie Maddoff swindle was and is the mortgage swindle that was used to foreclose on millions and millions of homes as…
Mary 2 minutes ago

I was pretty amused that the part about the Bible and it’s appealing narratives was somehow placed in another category that grifters and…

See All Comments Write a comment

Sure, you have to be cruel to want to fool someone else into trusting you when that trust is baseless, but grifters aren’t necessarily psychopathic and cold. Delroy L. Paulhus, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia who specializes in what have come to be known as the dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy), suggests that “Machiavellian” is a better descriptor for what con artists do than “psychopath.” “It seems clear that malevolent stockbrokers like Bernie Madoff do not qualify as psychopaths,” he writes in his 2014 paper “Toward a Taxonomy of Dark Personalities.” “They are corporate Machiavellians who use deliberate, strategic procedures for exploiting others.”

Indeed, people high on the Machiavellianism scale tend to be among the most successful manipulators in society. They are also more convincing liars than the rest of us: In one study, when people were recorded while denying that they had stolen something, those scoring higher on the Machiavellianism scale were believed significantly more than anyone else was.

The spell confidence artists cast is so strong that even when it’s broken, our minds have a hard time wrapping themselves around the notion that we were mistaken. When I pressed Ms. Freedman about the erroneous signature, she remained firm. Had she noticed it, she said, she would have been more likely to take it as a sign of authenticity rather than of something untoward.

“Even if I had noted that, I would have said, ‘no forger would make that mistake,’ ” she said. People have a remarkable instinct for self-preservation.

This is one reason confidence games flourish, why anyone, no matter how honest, is a potential victim: Even as the evidence against them piles up, we hold on to our cherished beliefs.

“When people want to believe what they want to believe,” David Sullivan, a professional cult infiltrator, told the Commonwealth Club of California, a public affairs forum, in July 2010, “they are very hard to dissuade.” And the reason it happens (and often happens to the most intelligent people) is that human nature is wired toward creating meaning out of meaninglessness.

“There’s a deep desire for faith, there’s a deep desire to feel there’s someone up there who really cares about what’s going on,” Mr. Sullivan said. “There’s a desire to have a coherent worldview: There’s a rhyme and reason for everything we do, and all the terrible things that happen to people — people die, children get leukemia — there’s some reason for it. And here’s this guru who says, ‘I know exactly the reason.’ ”

Meaninglessness is, well, meaningless. It’s dispiriting, depressing and discouraging. Nobody wants reality to resemble a Kafka novel.

Before humans learned how to make tools, how to farm or how to write, they were telling stories with a deeper purpose. The man who caught the beast wasn’t just strong. The spirit of the hunt was smiling. The rivers were plentiful because the river king was benevolent. In society after society, religious belief, in one form or another, has arisen spontaneously. Anything that cannot immediately be explained must be explained all the same, and the explanation often lies in something bigger than oneself.
Continue reading the main story
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

The often-expressed view of modern science is that God resides in the cracks between knowledge. That is, as more of the world is explained — and ends up being not so divine after all — the gaps in what we know are where faith resides. Its home may have shrunk, but it will always exist so there will always be room for things that have to be taken on faith — and for faith itself.

Nobody thinks they are joining a cult, David Sullivan explains. “They join a group that’s going to promote peace and freedom throughout the world or that’s going to save animals, or they’re going to help orphans or something. But nobody joins a cult.” We don’t knowingly embraces false beliefs. We embrace something we think is as true as it gets. We don’t set out to be conned. We set out to become, in some way, better than we were before.

That is the true power of belief. It gives us hope. If we are skeptical, miserly with our trust, unwilling to accept the possibilities of the world, we despair. To live a good life we must, almost by definition, be open to belief. And that is why the confidence game is both the oldest there is and the last one that will still be standing when all other professions have faded away.

Maria Konnikova is a contributing writer for The New Yorker and the author, most recently, of “The Confidence Game: Why We Fall For It … Every Time,” from which this essay is adapted.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism

Posted on Nov 1, 2015

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment

Death by Fracking

Posted on Oct 18, 2015

Posted in Marty's Blog | Leave a comment