Are we on the road to Abilene?

The tyranny of conformity can cause groups to make decisions that go against each member's individual preference. It doesn't have to be that way.

The head of Joseph Stalin's secret police, Lavrentiy Beria, is famously credited with saying: "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." Nightmarish as it may sound, Beria was not wrong in pointing out that each of us could one day have a crime pinned on us. Even if it's made up.

On the surface, it's laughable, especially for us here in America. Justice systems across the West are predicated largely on the concept of innocence until proven otherwise. Such a concept is one of the main pillars on which civility exists; strong laws foster a healthy respect between the government and the governed.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, when the Cold War effectively ended, the entire West has taken such civility and respect for granted. And in the ensuing years, we let our guard down. Meanwhile, an insidious, quiet revolution has been taking place, aided most recently by Big Tech and the consensus factory of social media.

“Have you noticed that things got weird a few years ago… that the world makes less and less sense,” asked Konstantin Kisin, British comedian, satirist, and podcast host, in a recent video monologue. “Why did no one say anything?”

During his monologue, Kisin brings up something called ‘the Abilene Paradox,’ a term coined by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in the summer 1974 issue of Organizational Dynamics.

In a few simple words, the paradox is summarized simply as the illusion of consensus.

The idea is that you don’t want to go to Abilene (a long, boring drive to a mediocre restaurant), but you think everyone else does, so you say, “Yeah, it’s a great idea. Let’s go to Abilene.” In reality, everyone individually preferred not to go, but no one said anything so everyone went on a trip they didn’t want to take.

The Abilene Paradox is different from groupthink. Groupthink prioritizes consensus and harmony over critical thinking and rational decision-making. With groupthink, the individual doesn't act contrary to their own conscious wishes, and therefore the result is generally positive feelings about the group’s decision.

The Abilene Paradox focuses on situations where the group ends up making a decision that goes against the individual preferences of each of its members due to a lack of open communication.

How is the Abilene Paradox relevant today? Well, ask yourself: are you pleased with what you see in society around you? The answer doesn't have to be political, or related to immigration, or law and order, or even energy security. Most people are fed up with one, some, or all of these things — and more.

So, as Konstantin Kisin asked, “Why did no one say anything?” Why is there silence?

'Go along to get along,' the old adage goes.

Unfortunately, what is at play is deeper and far more sinister. The illusion of consensus and the weaponizing of compassion have been brilliantly commandeered by a handful of radical activists and social justice warriors, whose messages have been amplified well beyond small academic circles thanks to artificial intelligence algorithms and the hijacking of the Internet.

This is compounded, as Kisin rightly points out, by social media programmed to feed us content that stirs outrage, garners clicks, encourages sharing and forwarding, and otherwise draws eyeballs or 'traffic.' What we have then, is the Abilene Paradox compounded by the 20/80 Pareto Distribution. Messaging is controlled by 20 percent of people and passively consumed by 80 percent of people — all of whom go along to get along under the illusion there is consensus.

Thankfully, there have been people who have stood up. Kisin points out important obvious examples such as Dr. Jordan Peterson and J.K. Rowling. Attempts have been made to promptly and unceremoniously tar-and-feather them in a virtual sense — 'canceled' is the neutered term.

But what about you? Do you concur with what you see? And if not, why aren't you speaking out loudly?

The warning for what is to come was introduced at the outset of this article with the mention of Lavrentiy Beria. The massive quest to capture every last piece of data about every last person on earth is a totalitarian's wet dream.

Between the Big Five internet companies and forces within our governments collecting data on everything you do, no one is immune. Only the most deeply naïve still continue to think, “I’ll be fine. I have nothing to hide,” and go on believing that because they've done nothing wrong, they'll miraculously be spared from the vicious tactics of a totalitarian state.

As the radical few continue to dominate the narrative and hollow out our legal system with vapid activism — overturning the very premise that we are all innocent and equal before the law — we should be reminded of the 1946 post-war confessional by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller:

First, they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

It’s time to speak out. Opting to stay silent means losing what is left of what we’ve taken for granted for far too long.

What can you do, you ask? Here are a few ideas:

1. Engage: Participate in public discourse, whether it’s a town hall, a school board meeting, or your local Homeowners’ Association. Vote. Join a group advocating on behalf of a mission that aligns with your values. Keep an eye on what elected officials are doing. Demand access to information and transparency in decision-making processes.

2. Inform: Brush up on your critical thinking and media literacy skills, then teach them to others. Help people discern and decode what they are seeing in mainstream news. Give them alternative sources where they can read ‘the other side.’ An informed and critical citizenry is less likely to fall into the Abilene Paradox.

3. Defend: Protect and defend freedom of speech and freedom of expression as essential elements of a democratic society. Advocate for and support legal protections for whistleblowers and individuals who expose corruption or misconduct in society.

4. Debate: Encourage open debate and expression of ideas and opinions. Let people know you are willing to listen to them even if you disagree. Promote respectful and open communication. Learn and use techniques that enable individuals and groups with differing viewpoints to engage in constructive conversations.

5. Commit: Even if your views seem outrageous, misguided, or controversial, speak them in truth and let the marketplace of ideas adjudicate. Don’t apologize for having a different opinion. Be open-minded enough to admit if you’re wrong, but never bend at the knee.

Addressing the Abilene Paradox at the societal level isn’t going to be easy. But ultimately, if we prevail, we will have a society where collective decisions and actions align with the genuine preferences and values of individual members. And even if we don’t, at least you’ll have a clear conscience knowing you fought back however you could.