I am not a psychiatrist, but I did spend last night in a Holiday Inn Express. More seriously, I spent three months in clinical psychiatry during medical school and attended a handful of lectures in “social psychology.” Whenever the word “social” is prefixed to another field—such as social economics, social justice, social planning, socialism, or social security—it is wise to be suspicious. These disciplines and programs often claim empirical legitimacy based on questionable assertions of “science.” When a derivative of “social” follows a word, as in “democratic socialism,” it may be best to run the other way.
I mention this because, over the past several years, I have spent considerable time trying to understand why groups of people—including many highly educated individuals—move en masse to coalesce around particular political positions or causes. Critical thinking appears to have become a lost art. Literature describing this phenomenon is found almost exclusively within the “soft sciences” of psychology and sociology. Consider the cavalcade of progressives who seem to move in lockstep: politicians, media figures, and academics have embraced ideas like Y2K, climate change, and various COVID-19 mitigation and treatment strategies—many of which have been thoroughly debunked. Perhaps most disturbing, this tendency to “jump on the bandwagon” for any cause, even at the local level, is often exploited by politicians serving out-of-state special interests. The connection between voter and politician is now shrouded in a diaphanous cloud of agency.
A word commonly used for the process by which politicians become conflicted through special interest involvement is “corruption.” Corrupt processes can be legal or illegal, but the impact on the political process—and on citizens’ perceptions of integrity—remains the same. More specifically, the term “conflict of interest” is frequently used in both legal and everyday language to describe circumstances in which a person’s official decisions are unduly influenced by secondary, often financial or special interest, considerations. This threatens the integrity of public service. Unfortunately, such conflicts are occurring more frequently at all levels of government, right under the noses of those who are most affected by the corrupted processes that have become commonplace. Idaho seems to be catching up with the rest of the nation in this regard.
Mass formation bias refers to the psychological phenomenon in which individuals, as members of large groups, begin to think, feel, and behave in similar ways, often abandoning personal critical judgment in favor of prevailing group views. This collective process is shaped by social influence, conformity, emotional contagion, and the loss of individual accountability. People adopt group norms and beliefs to reinforce their sense of belonging, frequently overriding personal skepticism or dissent. Emotional states, particularly fear or excitement, spread rapidly within groups and intensify mass formation bias by synchronizing behaviors and attitudes. The fear of social rejection compels individuals to align with the majority—even when that view is objectively irrational or mistaken. In essence, mass formation bias illustrates how the need for social cohesion, certainty, and emotional security can override rational analysis, yielding groupthink, hysteria, or widespread adoption of flawed beliefs.
It is difficult to adhere to ethical and moral principles in such an environment, especially when so many fellow citizens chase short-term pleasure and convenience instead of long-term ideals founded on legacy, property rights, and stewardship.
Christian conservative moral positions are grounded in both the Bible and the common law tradition. The Bible addresses property rights extensively, affirming both the legitimacy of private ownership and the responsibility of stewardship. It upholds the right to own property yet continuously reminds that all land and possessions ultimately belong to God, with humans acting as stewards. Many Old Testament laws assume and protect private property. Two of the Ten Commandments—”You shall not steal” and “You shall not covet”—explicitly call for respect of others’ property (Exodus 20:15, 17). Laws prohibiting the moving of boundary markers (Deuteronomy 19:14; Proverbs 22:28) further reinforce the protection of property and inheritance.
Common law property rights are rooted in judicial principles developed over centuries, especially from English law. These principles emphasize the acquisition, exclusive use, and disposal of property—including mineral rights, water rights, and covenantal rights. The rights to acquire, possess, enjoy, limit use through contracts, and transfer property are central to our legal heritage. These rights are balanced by duties, such as the obligation not to use one’s property in ways that harm others, reflecting a balance between private rights and public interests.
In Idaho, the balance now appears to favor large corporations, financiers, and developers at the expense of individual landowners. The idea of the “common good”—often invoked in arguments for increasing municipal tax revenues—has been prioritized by politicians who seem more interested in reelection and collecting legal (and sometimes illegal) emoluments than in representing their constituents.
The confluence of mass formation bias, political expediency, and corrupt (whether legal or illegal) processes is having a growing negative impact on Idahoans. One can only hope our state wakes up before it is too late.
