- A neuroscientist on why Trump loyalists are unbreakable;
- Why the astronomer Owen Gingerich saw God in the Cosmos;
- How Heather Cox Richardson dismantles the Republican charges that the DOJ is “weaponized” to take down Donald Trump.
So why does a megalomaniac would-be dictator like Trump have so many fans? (Especially so many who consider themselves Christians?) I’m always open to explanations, though I have plenty of provisional ones.
AlterNet, Bobby Azarian, 12 Jun 2023: Opinion | Why loyalty to Donald Trump is often unbreakable: neuroscientist
(The author is a cognitive neuroscientist and author of The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity)
Remember this classic Trump quote from 2016? “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” the then-presidential candidate said. Chillingly, this bold proclamation seems to be truer than not, and that should disturb all of us, because that kind of blind loyalty poses a real threat to our democratic values and signals a trend toward authoritarianism.
To get to the heart of this enigma, let’s put on our Sherlock Holmes hat and step into the world of psychology and neuroscience. A popular theory from social psychology known as terror management theory will shed some light on this puzzling human behavior.
Terror management theory is more relevant than ever because it provides an explanation for tribalism, which is really at the core of this mystery. The theory suggests that existential terror — which can be triggered by anything that is perceived to pose a threat to one’s existence — is the reason we adopt cultural worldviews, such as our religions, national identities or political ideologies. In an attempt to mitigate our fears, we latch onto philosophies that give our lives meaning and direction in a chaotic world.
But how does this explain tribalism, exactly?
When we’re fearful or threatened, we rally around those who share our worldviews. We become aggressive toward those who don’t. More alarmingly, perceived threats or existential fear — immigrants, transgender persons, gun grabbing, government conspiracies, humiliation at the hands of “liberal elites” — can stir up nationalism and sway voting habits toward presidential candidates with authoritarian personalities.
The essay goes on with an example of an experiment done with college students “primed” to think negative things, e.g. about their own mortality, and a control group not so primed, and all asked about their support for Donald Trump. The result is predictable.
These findings support Terror Management Theory’s prediction that thoughts about mortality shift voters to the right politically, and cause people to favor patriotic leaders with nationalist, xenophobic messages.
Now we can start to make sense of Trump’s political invincibility. Viewing Trump as an invincible champion of their worldview, his fans are more than willing to overlook his missteps, especially when the world feels as chaotic as it does right now. In a time of increasing polarization and division, the desire to feel safe can eclipse any number of legal or moral blunders. Seeing him as an unbeatable guardian of their worldviews and identities allows many of his fans to turn a blind eye to his flaws. Not only that, the more he is attacked by those deemed the enemy, the more they will bolster their support for him, even if he stands credibly accused of lying, cheating and threatening national security.
OK, fine. I’m not sure there’s anything new here. We know that conservatives, and those inclined to support authoritarian leaders, do so out of a tribalism reinforced by repeated invocations of the dangers of the world, repeated by mass media, especially by right-wing media, and especially by right-wing politicians. The world is dangerous at every turn; only I can save you, as Trump says over and over again.
Is there any bigger picture? Why now? There’s never been anyone remotely as maniacal and dangerous as Donald Trump in American history. So what has changed in recent decades?
Well, social media. And the way it reinforces fringe beliefs and false information.
\\
An obit of an astronomer I was only vaguely aware of. Noted for the point the headline makes.
NY Times, 11 Jun 2023: Owen Gingerich, Astronomer Who Saw God in the Cosmos, Dies at 93, subtitled “He wrote and lectured widely, often on the theme that religion and science were not incompatible. He also chased down 600 copies of Copernicus’s landmark book.”
Because he grew up religious, I immediately predicted before reading the obit. And here we are:
Professor Gingerich was raised a Mennonite and was a student at Goshen College, a Mennonite institution in Indiana, studying chemistry but thinking of astronomy, when, he later recalled, a professor there gave him pivotal advice: “If you feel a calling to pursue astronomy, you should go for it. We can’t let the atheists take over any field.”
He took the counsel, and throughout his career he often wrote or spoke about his belief that religion and science need not be at odds. He explored that theme in the books “God’s Universe” (2006) and “God’s Planet” (2014).
He was not a biblical literalist; he had no use for those who ignored science and proclaimed the Bible’s creation story historical fact. Yet, as he put it in “God’s Universe,” he was “personally persuaded that a superintelligent Creator exists beyond and within the cosmos.”
Wikipedia: Mennonite Church USA
I made that prediction because no one, no one, has ever studied science and thereby deduced the truth of any religion. Ever. (If they think they do, they were “primed” by a religious upbringing in exactly the sense of the item about Trump, above.)
\\
Heather Cox Richardson, June 10, 2023
This entry is interesting because she describes how she came to write her letters, back in Sept 2019, concerning Trump’s first impeachment. She taught days and wrote the letters late at night. More at the link. Also, she has a book coming out on Sept. 26th, image above.
Heather Cox Richardson, June 11, 2023
Here she patiently explains why the Republican accusations that Biden has “weaponized” the Department of Justice to take down Trump as a political rival is nonsense.
There are a number of problems with their characterization of what is going on.
First of all, Biden’s Department of Justice has operated as it is supposed to: independently. While Trump apparently tried to use the department for his own political ends—we learned just last month, for example, that the Department of Justice kept an investigation of the Clinton Foundation open for almost Trump’s entire term, although prosecutors thought the rumors about the foundation were bogus from the start—Biden has gone out of his way to emphasize that he will not interfere with the Justice Department.
And so on. The Republicans making these charges either do not understand the indictment process, or are lying about it to incite their supporters into thinking the indictment is some kind of good vs. evil battle to take down their Glorious Leader. Almost certainly the latter. Never mind law and order, or what Trump said earlier about protecting classified information (see yesterday’s post).
