Groupthink: Presidents Bush and Obama

Groupthink: Presidents Bush and Obama

Groupthink is a phenomenon identified by a Yale University psychologist, Irving L. Janis, during the 1970s (Massnick, 2009). The term refers to errors in judgment when groups take collective decisions based on the fact that consensus is more important to the collective group mentality than critical thinking. According to Massnick (2009), groupthink in politics tends to occur when a group is "cohesive, isolated from conflicting opinions and where the leader is open and directive." Many critics have focused upon the Bush administration as making serious errors in judgment because of groupthink. In his 1971 book, Janis uses the Bay of Pigs invasion to show the dangers of groupthink in politics. Political groups that tend to be driven by consensus rather than critical thinking are in danger of making poor decisions that affect the lives of millions.

According to Julie French (2009), groupthink is encouraged when a group must make quick decisions while under pressure. In such situations, dissenting opinions tend to be criticized to encourage consensus. Individuals in such situations would also tend to avoid voicing their opinions when they disagree, as they feel singled out in terms of the collective group. This is a trap that many critics believe to have been wide open for President George W. Bush during the 9/11 attacks and beyond.

According to Michael Cairo (2009), the Bush administration had not always been subject to groupthink. Indeed, its beginnings was a system of "multiple advocacy," where the president's advisers offered various opinions for consideration. The president would then critically evaluate and choose the best option for a final decision.

Cairo cites those who were close to Mr. Bush before his presidency to suggest that his decision-making strategy was both active, critical, and sound. According to close advisors and friends, he would carefully think about a matter and ask critical questions before making decisions. His initial tendency was to ask questions and encourage others to do the same, in order to expose all aspects of a matter. However, Cairo notes that these critical strategies soon faltered after the 9/11 attacks. The administration submitted to the groupthink paradigm in its foreign policy decision-making process.

Indeed, one might also say that groupthink became a national phenomenon among citizens, and not only in politics. Despite many lives being affected by the Bush administration's foreign and other policies, George W. Bush was nonetheless re-elected as president. Citizens made only minimal objections to legislation such as the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, which legitimized significant invasions of privacy.

According to Cairo, this is the result of several group phenomena. One of these is the fact that the group is insulated from outside viewpoints; outsiders who could contribute to decisions are not notified of policies or policy changes in advance; and only a few participants are involved in the decision-making process. The leader tends to promote his or her choice by discouraging unbiased views, and the group makes no effort to gather the necessary information. In addition, the homogeneity of the group in terms of background and ideology discourages a diversity of opinions (Joyner, 2010). This, according to the author, was the main flaw in the Bush administration. Significantly, the previous paradigm of multiple advocacy has been completely dwarfed by the mostly bad decisions made by the Bush administration since 9/11 (MuslimMatters.org, 2009). Few critics today would be able to refer back to a time when President Bush and his advisors in fact made good decisions with regard to either foreign or domestic matters.

The question is, will the current president, Mr. Barack Obama, be able to maintain his focus upon multiple advocacy for his foreign policy and other important issues in the country, or will his administration also fall prey to the groupthink phenomenon? He appears to have made a good start both by being aware of the dangers of groupthink, and by choosing a diversity of advisors and associates. Lee and Martin (2010) report Obama as saying that he would welcome "a vigorous debate inside the White House." According to French (2009), some are of the opinion that avoiding groupthink is the main reason for Obama's assembly of apparent rivals in his cabinet. The author notes however that "healthy disagreement" is the best way to avoid groupthink rather than simply ensuring that there is no agreement within the group.

Research Questions

Several questions emerge from the research problem. The first revolves around President Obama's ability to maintain a paradigm of multiple advocacy as opposed to groupthink in his foreign and domestic policy. Surely, if the Bush administration could begin so well and fail, the same is possible for Obama. Mr. Obama however appears to have avoided at least one mistake in this regard, by selecting a number of advisors he knows would not always agree with him. According to some critics, however, this is not enough (French, 2009). One should also ensure that the disagreement leads to sound decisions rather than merely degenerating into a sense of rivalry among equals. Time will tell how wisely the president has chosen his cabinet "rival," or whether this will eventually also simply degenerate into a type of groupthink.

A second significant question is how groupthink affects the nation as a whole. After 9/11, the collective shock effect upon American citizens was so severe that they apparently would have agreed with anyone who promised to reinstate stability and remove the national pain that was caused. Indeed, the nation as a whole was as much a victim of groupthink as the Bush administration. This could also be seen as a reason for the collective fear and enmity against the Muslim and Arab communities in the country. Furthermore, collective, nation-wide groupthink is at the basis of re-electing a president who has lost the ability to make sound decisions.

A further research question could also revolve around the election paradigm. The election of Obama has been in the spotlight for various reasons. Some have blamed the groupthink phenomenon for his election, where citizens electing him without critically considering his policies. Indeed, it does appear that the national joy at the President's election is somewhat disproportionate to the effort of his campaign. This then could also be ascribed to a type of national groupthink phenomenon.