Understanding the Consequences of Presidential Double Binds

An ecological view of the origin of fear and suppression

I have always been curious about how conflicts can escalate between individuals and groups or lead to one group dominating another. When I was a doctoral student at Columbia University, I carried and read several times over a copy of the late anthropologist Gregory Bateson’s “Steps to an Ecology of Mind” (Ballantine Books: New York, 1972). It was then that I was exposed to how paradoxes are contradictions arising from something being, for example, good on one level, i.e., DDT spray enables farmers to grow "better" crops. At the same time, on a wider scale, DDT spray was found to destroy different species of birds and threaten humans. Paradoxes are the core of comedy and the grist for creativity; however, if not resolved in a meaningful, everyday way, they can produce painful consequences. It became apparent to me that an ecological mindset is a prerequisite to resolving injurious paradoxes that, without this, will evolve into rigid double binds. This reframes the “being between a rock and a hard place” by creating a shift from a linear mode of describing the mere content of a conflict to that of understanding its context.

Photo by Nikolay Hristov on Unsplash

A political example of the above, which relates to today, can be traced back to when Journalist Ben Jacobs, who would later be assaulted by a Trump supporter who received enthusiastic praise from the president for his abusive action, wrote an article in The Guardian on 2/18/2017. It was about the then-President Trump’s Florida rally on February 17, 2017, and is a good example of an attempt to create a pattern of fear and submission. Trump demonstrated how, in a similar manner to the Nixon/Agnew strategy, to “thwart” the public media, and hence anyone from opposing or questioning his actions. He asserted that he was telling the truth when he described the press and anyone who disagreed with him as being “dishonest.” President Nixon and Vice President Agnew, during their tenure, set the precedent of this by creating a perception of manipulative 'trust.”

Nixon would make statements agreeing with those who opposed him to connect with their feelings. They didn’t immediately recognize or acknowledge the falsehood of the President's statements until Agnew would contradict the president by attacking and threatening the media and those not comfortable with the administration’s policies. It set up a double bind by establishing a suppressive “one-upmanship” dynamic. Once this is achieved, there is little room for mutual dialogue. The resulting paradox is a powerful “silencing strategy.” Any questioning of Nixon, whether it came from those who had been duped into trusting him or those opposing him, led to the absence of acceptable civil dialogue. The levels of discourse were stifled and hindered any meaningful resolution of challenges to hypocrisy and/or blatant lies.

Gregory Bateson describes this form of conflict or division. He coined the term “Schismogenesis” from his fieldwork in New Guinea (see “Naven…” 1938) to describe conflictual divisions as either symmetrical, akin to an arms race, where an exponentially out-of-control situation occurs, or complementary, where suppression of another is present. This process can happen in a multitude of contexts besides politics.

Painful double binds emerge when one side feels hopelessly stuck, being in a position of being “damn if you do and damn if you don’t,” resulting from this pattern of relational conflict. In the case of President Trump, it continued with him and his advisors labeling the media as the “opposition” and distributing “fake news.” Interestingly, the only other President, as mentioned above, to do this was Nixon, of whom Carl Bernstein said on CNN’s Reliable Sources Show (2/19/17), that Trump’s attacks on the American press are “more treacherous than Nixon’s.”

President Trump then made many statements that contradicted what in actuality had occurred, e.g., “three to five million illegals voted against me, “or “Muslims danced in the streets in Jersey City after 9/11,” or “General Pershing killed 49 Muslims with bullets covered with pig’s blood.” or “My victory was the biggest landslide ever in a presidential race,” or “I inherited the biggest mess when I came into office,” etc. Secondly, he or his advisors made abstract secondary statements that conflicted with the first statements, i.e., “We are telling the truth just using alternative facts,” or “The President heard these assertions from other reliable sources,” or “He is the smartest person and knows these things.” Then, thirdly, he issued threatening statements that further labeled those who disagreed with him, i.e., “Crooked Hillary,” or “We will deal with these liars who report fake news,” or the USA intelligence agencies “are like Nazis,” and so on.

The resulting polarization and paradoxical statements regarding today’s politics have continued similarly and have now intensified, where the present administration's actions to gain power and loyalty are altering the cultural, political, legal, and academic worlds (Interestingly, since humor is based on paradoxes, it is no wonder that late-night comedians have lots of fodder to use.) The republican party and right-wing media have made lying, contradictions, and bizarre proclamations their communication norm. This has resulted in even former supporters and/or those in opposition being double-binded and, in many cases, facing some form of retribution. It has also created an increase in fear and apprehension among the public.

Further attempts to double bind legitimate journalists and those with reliable verified information by reframing the attempts to overturn the 2021 election results have been successful, utilizing skewed contextual narratives. This has resulted in the consequence of taking advantage of the vulnerable public, who may only obtain their news from a single, profit-driven source that is often reinforced by politicians whose primary effort is to hold onto power. The similarity to Nazi Germany's followers during the 1930s that created unparalleled double binds that were finally dissolved at a catastrophic cost of lives ( over 400,000 Americans died in World War II) is frightening and, unfortunately, still poses a threat to democratic societies.

A way to break out of these conflictual patterns, as mentioned above, whether occurring within a one-on-one interaction, a family therapy session, or an international setting, is to create new, all-inclusive, wider contexts. For instance, see the “Warm Data” process developed by Nora Bateson through the International Bateson Institute (https://batesoninstitute.org/warm-data/ ) and Aikido, the martial art of harmony, for excellent examples of mutual learning. What is needed in this case is to discuss on a larger scale, an effort with the constituents of congressional representatives aimed at highlighting their neglected constitutional role and challenging the Supreme Court justices to address presidential immunity as it relates to the president's functions, as outlined in the Constitution. This would include reinforcing and sustaining freedom of speech, separation of church and state, conflicts of interest, diversity, due process, gender equity, protecting the environment, and the media's right to inquire and report on misleading statements or illegal actions.

President Nixon agreed that the press had an obligation to report the honest facts, yet he simultaneously said that he would not give in to the enemy (the media). It was the growing recognition and eventual awareness of being in a double bind from the Watergate Scandal that allowed the public to break free from that stifling situation, end the Vietnam War, and return to the wisdom of the Constitution. This helped compel Nixon to resign from office eventually.

President Trump wants “To Make America Great Again,” yet his behavior focuses on revenge rather than engaging and supporting dialogue with those who disagree or oppose his actions and policies. His levels of communication are very revealing. The President is known to lie habitually, so when he admits, as he does regularly, that he is telling the truth, all subsequent statements become false. It is like someone saying to you, “I am a liar,” which sets up the situation of whether this is a truthful statement, an unenviable double bind.

Mutual learning that addresses everyday needs, aspirations, and barriers across all aspects of our lives will help to resolve this vicious cycle of criticism and name-calling, which is much like dogs chasing their tails. This can be achieved by exposing the damn if you do and damn if you don’t double binds, and encouraging frameworks based on dialogue. Most of all, acknowledging our interdependency with each other and our environment.

The consequences of such an ecological process allow us to pause, savoring those relational liminal moments to look for the many known but unheard similarities and possibilities that arise from mutual learning and move us along a more harmonious evolutionary path. As Carl Jung believed, “when one accuses another viciously, look for their shadow side or what represents their inner personality, which is visible and recognizable from a broader perspective.” Within this perspective is the opportunity for those to reflect on their past behavior and to take part in resolving the multitude of current devastating conflicts to lessen the amount of fear that is permeating our society.

*The above is based on my dissertation regarding Double Binds, “The School-Community Paradox,” Columbia University, and forty years of being a systemic psychotherapist and conflict resolution facilitator. For more on dealing with fear, see my recent Psychology Today article, “Reframing Fear, Embracing Empowerment.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/a-wider-lens/202507/reframing-fear-embracing-empowerment