Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
I guess you missed these parts (the opening paragraph iow):
Groupthink occurs when a group of well-intentioned people make irrational or non-optimal decisions that are spurred by the urge to conform or the discouragement of dissent.
So, Republicans. Dems typically are not "spurred by the urge to conform" and certainly do not make "irrational or non-optimal decisions" just to discourage dissent. We make rational arguments for why someone else's dissenting argument fails or is otherwise detrimental, but that is the nature of rational argumentation. You make your argument; others counter it with their own argument; you make your rebuttal; they make theirs and in the end what is supposed to happen is the superior argument (buttressed by its robust and cogent rebuttal defense) "wins" and everyone acknowledges that.
Unfortunately, what all too often happens is the losing side eschews rationality and instead turns irrational and obstinate and refuses to concede their argument has been rendered false, but all of that is the precise opposite of "groupthink."
This problematic or premature consensus may be fueled by a particular agenda or simply because group members value harmony and coherence above rational thinking.
As I just delineated, Dems very clearly value rational thinking above "harmony and coherence." 100% at all times? Obviously not, yet I must always make that qualification whenever these idiotic binary propositions get posted.
In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing doubts and judgments or disagreeing with the consensus.
Dems are all about expressing--to the nth fucking degree no less--all doubts and jugements and relish in disagreeing with the consensus. It arguably cost us the WH ffs. Republicans, otoh, typically goose-step in harmony to the consensus.
In the interest of making a decision that furthers their group cause, members may ignore any ethical or moral consequences.
Nearly every argument I have ever seen between Dems has been expressly about whether or not various candidates are cognizant of ethical and/or moral consequences. Conversely, nearly everything any Republican in power has ever advocated (within my lifetime at least) has expressly ignored--flaunted even--any ethical or moral consequences.
This whole fucking thing applies almost exclusively to Republicans, not Dems. Even the examples they present:
Risky or disastrous military maneuvers, such as the escalation of the Vietnam War or the invasion of Iraq are commonly cited as instances of groupthink.
Dems famously and openly opposed both (yes, even Iraq and yes even Hillary Clinton).
Far from affirming your assertion, you have just negated it.