• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For Consideration, By Those Who Still Can

PureX

Veteran Member
I stumbled across an interesting bit of information in an essay about Trump loyalists.

"The attempt to blame New Yorkers for the rapid spread of the coronavirus in Florida illustrates the political rhetoric that has kept Trump’s ordinary supporters so fiercely loyal to him.

Key to Trump’s popularity has been a rhetorical strategy identified in 1951 by political philosopher Eric Hoffer in a book called The True Believer. Hoffer noted that demagogues needed a disaffected population whose members felt they had lost the power they previously held, that they had been displaced either religiously, economically, culturally, or politically. Such people were willing to follow a leader who promised to return them to their former positions of prominence and thus to make the nation great again. But to cement their loyalty, the leader had to give them someone to hate. Who that was didn’t really matter: the group simply had to be blamed for all the troubles the leader’s supporters were suffering.

Trump has mastered this technique. He has kept his base firmly behind him by demonizing immigrants, the media, and, increasingly, Democrats, deflecting his own shortcomings in office by blaming these groups for undermining him. But the coronavirus crisis is making it hard to do. Immigration stories are running against Trump as his own acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has said that immigration authorities will stop most of their enforcement efforts during the crisis. The media is pushing back hard against his lies and Americans seem to be on the media’s side as the administration’s response to the coronavirus has been scattershot.

But New Yorkers represent Democrats and the urban life that so many of Trump’s supporters distrust. Identifying them as the cause of Florida's troubles both deflects attention from DeSantis and Trump's missteps and reinforces loyalty to the president.

According to Hoffer, there’s a psychological trick to the way this rhetoric works that makes loyalty to such a leader get stronger as that leader's behavior deteriorates. People who sign on to the idea that they are standing with their leader against an enemy begin to attack their opponents, and to justify their attacks, they have to convince themselves that that enemy is not good-intentioned like they are, but evil. And the worse they behave, the more they have to believe their enemies deserve to be treated badly.

According to Hoffer, so long as they are unified against an enemy, true believers will support their leader no matter how outrageous his behavior gets. Indeed, their loyalty will only get stronger as his behavior gets more and more extreme. Turning against him would force them to own their own part in his attacks on those former enemies they would now have to recognize as ordinary human beings like themselves."
I think this explains the actions of that segment of the population that supports Trump in spite of the fact that they are not wealthy, even as he so obviously acts in the service of those who are.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I feel no connection whatsoever to such people. I just read on another thread where one candidly admitted after reading a summary of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic that he didn't care how incompetent Trump was. His actual words were, "How does it feel to know that none of us Trump supporters will ever care? Or ever think twice about your posts in the future even if you were right?"
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
one would think the limited options of choice here expressed indicates there is a dire shortage of capable people who could drive that corporate desk....wonder why the short list?
.....and no short bus jokes:cool::rolleyes:
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I feel no connection whatsoever to such people. I just read on another thread where one candidly admitted after reading a summary of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic that he didn't care how incompetent Trump was. His actual words were, "How does it feel to know that none of us Trump supporters will ever care? Or ever think twice about your posts in the future even if you were right?"
That's partly why I posted this. Because I think, for many of us, it's difficult to grasp how someone could acquire such a mentality.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I just heard a story the other day about how a statement affects attitude and underlines the OP.

When people started talking about the US becoming "majority minority", some white people started becoming more anti-minority. This was not the case when the change was couched in language about more diversity which was not perceived as a status challenge.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
.....a rhetorical strategy identified in 1951 by political philosopher Eric Hoffer in a book called The True Believer.​
The quoted text was striking.
In 1951 this guy identified what pretty much everyone
already knew after watching Hitler's rise to power.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The quoted text was striking.
In 1951 this guy identified what pretty much everyone already knew after watching Hitler's rise to power.
I doubt everyone was all that clear on it in 1951. Especially as social psychology was not a common concept in those days. And if it really were so well understood, why are so many of us still falling for it, today? Religious cults in the U.S. have been using this model, successfully, for many decades since 1951. And the republican party has been using it since "W's" campaign for governor in 1994 (thanks to that "genius" Karl Rove). So apparently it's not that well understood after all.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I doubt everyone was all that clear on it in 1951. Especially as social psychology was not a common concept in those days. And if it really were so well understood, why are so many of us still falling for it, today? Religious cults in the U.S. have been using this model, successfully, for many decades since 1951. And the republican party has been using it since "W's" campaign for governor in 1994 (thanks to that "genius" Karl Rove). So apparently it's not that well understood after all.

My memory might be faulty, but I recall reading that psychologists immediately after the War focused on the mentality of authoritarian leaders. Hitler. Stalin. etc. It was not until sometime in the 50s or 60s that they began to study the mentality of authoritarian followers. So Eric Hoffer would have been one of the first to look into the matter.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I doubt everyone was all that clear on it in 1951. Especially as social psychology was not a common concept in those days. And if it really were so well understood, why are so many of us still falling for it, today? Religious cults in the U.S. have been using this model, successfully, for many decades since 1951. And the republican party has been using it since "W's" campaign for governor in 1994 (thanks to that "genius" Karl Rove). So apparently it's not that well understood after all.
Yeah....only the Republicans use the tactic.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Yeah....only the Republicans use the tactic.
1. Yes, in the current U.S. political environment, it is only the republican party doing it.

2. Pointing the finger at someone else doesn't negate nor mitigate the original point, in any way. It's merely a weak attempt at deflecting attention away from it.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
And the republican party has been using it since "W's" campaign for governor in 1994 (thanks to that "genius" Karl Rove). So apparently it's not that well understood after all.

Robert Altemeyer in his book, "The Authoritarians", notes that since at least the 1980s, authoritarian followers (such as Hoffer talks about) have been gravitating towards the Republican Party. Studies have found that much earlier than that, they were more or less evenly distributed between the two major parties in the US. But especially with the rise of folks like Rush Limbaugh (and later on, Fox News) they have increasingly segregated themselves on the Right. That does not mean none remain on the Left -- witness social justice warriors. It just means they are disproportionately a right-wing phenomenon today.

PureX, I highly recommend that you follow that link I gave early and download a free copy of Altemeyer's book, which he has made available as a public service. It is eye-opening.

By the way, Altemeyer is a retired research psychologist who devoted his career to the empirical study of authoritarian followers. Emphasis on empirical.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
1. Yes, in the current U.S. political environment, it is only the republican party doing it.
Someone is unaware of the Dem primaries & the long history of the party.
2. Pointing the finger at someone else doesn't negate nor mitigate the original point, in any way. It's merely a weak attempt at deflecting attention away from it.
Sometimes it's necessary to point out when demonization
of the other group shows blindness to one's own. If you want
an echo chamber wherein only Republicans can be criticized,
it's not gonna happen.
You believe that you & your party are all goodness, but the
other is pure evil. To those of us belonging to neither, it looks
like blind tribal prejudice.

Up next will be the "False equivalency!" charge perhaps?
Id est, one can criticize the other tribe, but not mine because
they're so much worse.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I stumbled across an interesting bit of information in an essay about Trump loyalists.

"The attempt to blame New Yorkers for the rapid spread of the coronavirus in Florida illustrates the political rhetoric that has kept Trump’s ordinary supporters so fiercely loyal to him.

Key to Trump’s popularity has been a rhetorical strategy identified in 1951 by political philosopher Eric Hoffer in a book called The True Believer. Hoffer noted that demagogues needed a disaffected population whose members felt they had lost the power they previously held, that they had been displaced either religiously, economically, culturally, or politically. Such people were willing to follow a leader who promised to return them to their former positions of prominence and thus to make the nation great again. But to cement their loyalty, the leader had to give them someone to hate. Who that was didn’t really matter: the group simply had to be blamed for all the troubles the leader’s supporters were suffering.

Trump has mastered this technique. He has kept his base firmly behind him by demonizing immigrants, the media, and, increasingly, Democrats, deflecting his own shortcomings in office by blaming these groups for undermining him. But the coronavirus crisis is making it hard to do. Immigration stories are running against Trump as his own acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has said that immigration authorities will stop most of their enforcement efforts during the crisis. The media is pushing back hard against his lies and Americans seem to be on the media’s side as the administration’s response to the coronavirus has been scattershot.
I'm skeptical. It's hard to picture Trump mastering anything. He strikes me more as an accidental authoritarian; scatterbrained, impressionable and impulsive; managed -- as best they can -- by White House staff and associates.​
 
Last edited:

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I'm skeptical. It's hard to picture Trump mastering anything. He strikes me more as an accidental authoritarian; scatterbrained, impressionable and impulsive; managed -- as best they can -- by White House staff and associates.​

I agree. I think the rumors one heard back in 2016 that Trump plays "four dimensional chess" were slight exaggerations. I'm pretty sure he was the toddler who had trouble identifying which end of his sandbox bucket to point upwards when filling it.
 
Top