The Psychology of Blind Loyalty: How Psychology Explains the Unwavering Support for Donald Trump

The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter #321

Okay…two things: This is a long one, and…I worked on this one all day long…which may be why it’s as long as it is. However, I wanted to get this one right. I believe this is one of the more critical and useful newsletter issues I’ve ever written.

I’m confident it will be worth your time, and that even those of you with an education and/or experience in psychology/sociology will gain some new insights about what follows, as it applies in a political setting.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve posted something about MAGA and/or Trump voters being morons, dipshits, idiots…or worse on social media.

I’m sure I’ll continue. I don’t treat my social media posts with the same reverence as my newsletters.

Jack Hopkins Now, is where I get more serious…while making sure not to take myself too seriously.

On social media, sometimes I want to educate. Other times, I want to entertain or make someone chuckle who might otherwise have difficulty doing so.

Then again, some posts are nothing more than me venting; we all need that.

However, the risk with the “Trump’s MAGA dipshits…” or “The morons who voted for him in 2024…” is that is creates a false narrative.

Calling all Trump supporters "stupid" or the like, is not only an oversimplification of a complex political phenomenon…but it also serves as a dangerous shortcut to understanding the deeper psychological forces at play in their decision to vote for and continue supporting him.

It is tempting to reduce the reasons behind political behavior to a matter of intelligence or rational decision-making…but doing so ignores the intricate web of psychological…social…and emotional factors that influence people's political choices.

When we label supporters as "dipshit," or suggest the are “stupid,” we essentially dismiss the legitimate concerns… fears…and motivations that drive their allegiance…and we avoid the difficult but necessary work of truly understanding the broader dynamics at play.

This dismissive approach fails to engage with the underlying forces that shape political behavior and only widens the divide between political factions.

To truly understand the loyalty of Trump's supporters…and why so many continue to stand by him even in the face of widespread controversy and contradictory behavior…we must move beyond these reductive labels and take a more nuanced approach.

We can’t shape, in a reliable, repeatable, and practical way…what we don’t understand.

If we are going to vent with thoughts or even posts about “…the dumb f*cking Trump voters,” it’s important that we do so…while simultaneously understanding the truth about many of the people we are referencing.

It’s the only hope we have for knowing how to process their decisions and create strategies.

To do that requires the willingness to think, learn…and expand beyond the beliefs we currently have that, while a hell of a lot more convenient…simply aren’t accurate.

Stanley Milgram’s Famous Experiment on Authority and Compliance: Understanding the Loyalty of Trump’s Most Ardent Supporters

The works of psychologists like Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo offer essential insights into how individuals can be influenced by authority…group dynamics…and psychological manipulation in ways that transcend basic intelligence.

From the first time I heard of Stanley Milgram in a high school sociology class in 1981 to my much deeper exploration of it in grad school…the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments have been deeply fascinating to me and a core part of my ability to think about and engage with human behavior.

Both Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments and Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment reveal how seemingly ordinary individuals….can engage in behaviors they might otherwise consider unthinkable…when they are immersed in certain environments or under the influence of charismatic, authoritative leaders.

By examining these studies, we can begin to understand that the behavior of Trump’s supporters very often isn’t a result of a lack of intelligence…but rather the product of deeper psychological processes that shape human behavior in ways that are far more complex and subtle than they initially appear.

Understanding these dynamics requires a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about human nature…and the power of social influence…and that means rejecting simplistic explanations in favor of a more thoughtful and empathetic analysis.

Stanely Milgrim

In 1961, psychologist Stanley Milgram set out to explore the extent to which individuals would obey authority figures... even when their orders conflicted with personal morals and ethics.

Milgram’s experiment…widely known as the Milgram Experiment..tested participants' willingness to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to an innocent person... all under the direction of an authoritative figure.

The results shocked the world: a significant number of participants were willing to administer potentially lethal shocks simply because an authority figure instructed them to do so.

While the Milgram Experiment was conducted in the context of understanding obedience to authority... its implications have reached far beyond its original purpose.

The findings have been instrumental in shedding light on various aspects of human behavior... including the ways in which people blindly follow authority figures or charismatic leaders.

In modern political contexts, this concept can help explain the unwavering loyalty of some supporters of Donald Trump…whose leadership style draws comparisons to the authority figures in Milgram’s experiment.

This issue of Jack Hopkins Now will explore how Milgram’s findings can provide insights into why some individuals demonstrate steadfast allegiance to Donald Trump….even when his actions contradict their moral values or the greater societal good.

Specifically... it will examine how psychological mechanisms like obedience to authority... cognitive dissonance... groupthink... and the influence of charismatic leadership come into play in the political sphere.

Milgram’s Experiment: A Brief Overview

Milgram’s experiment was conducted in the aftermath of World War II... in an era when the world was still grappling with the horrors of the Holocaust.

Milgram... influenced by the defense arguments of Nazi war criminals who claimed they were "just following orders"... wanted to understand why ordinary individuals could commit atrocities under the command of a leader.

He designed an experiment to test how far individuals would go in obeying authority... even when the orders were harmful to others.

In the experiment... participants were told they were part of a study on learning and memory.

They were assigned the role of a "teacher"... and an actor... playing the "learner"... was strapped into a chair with electrodes connected to their body.

The teacher was instructed to administer increasingly strong electric shocks to the learner whenever they answered questions incorrectly... with the shocks ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts.

As the voltage increased... the learner (who was actually not being shocked) would act out intense pain... even begging for mercy.

The authority figure... a man in a white lab coat (the "experimenter")... urged the teacher to continue... even when the learner screamed in agony.

The results were startling: 65% of participants were willing to administer the maximum shock of 450 volts... despite hearing pleas for mercy.

Milgram’s conclusion was that ordinary people are surprisingly likely to follow orders from an authority figure... even when those orders lead to harm.

This insight has become foundational in psychology and sociology... particularly in understanding how people can act in ways that are inconsistent with their ethics when they perceive that authority figures or societal structures are sanctioning those actions.

Applying Milgram’s Insights to Political Loyalty

Milgram’s experiment offers powerful insights into how individuals can become blindly loyal to a political leader... even when that leader engages in actions that may be ethically or morally questionable.

The psychological mechanisms that drove participants in Milgram's experiment… obedience to authority…cognitive dissonance…groupthink…and the influence of charismatic leadership…can help explain the behavior of some of Trump’s most intense political supporters.

1. Obedience to Authority

At the heart of Milgram’s experiment is the concept of obedience to authority.

Milgram found that the majority of participants were willing to engage in harmful actions simply because an authority figure instructed them to do so.

In the political sphere... this principle can be seen in the loyalty that many political supporters exhibit toward Trump...especially when he holds significant political power and occupies positions that grant him a sense of authority.

When Trump speaks with authority... claims to represent the "true" interests of the people... or is seen as the embodiment of the nation’s ideals... his supporters often feel compelled to follow his lead without questioning the morality or consequences of their actions.

This dynamic is particularly evident in the case of political figures who have managed to cultivate a strong sense of authority and personal loyalty from their followers.

These leaders may be viewed as protectors of a larger cause... whether it is national security... economic prosperity... or a specific political ideology.

Consequently... the authority they project can override individual concerns about the morality of the leader’s actions... leading to blind obedience.

In Milgram’s experiment... participants justified their actions by deferring responsibility to the experimenter.

Similarly... political supporters may justify loyalty to Donald by viewing him as acting for the greater good... trusting the authority figure to make decisions that align with their interests... even when those actions are controversial.

2. Cognitive Dissonance and Justification

Another key element in Milgram’s experiment is the concept of cognitive dissonance…the mental discomfort people feel when their actions conflict with their beliefs or values.

In Milgram’s case... participants knew that inflicting pain on another human being was morally wrong... but they justified their behavior by deferring to the authority of the experimenter.

In political contexts... cognitive dissonance can help explain why individuals continue to support DJT despite actions or rhetoric that conflict with their values or beliefs.

When Trump’s policies or actions contradict the ethical standards of his followers... supporters often experience mental discomfort.

To resolve this discomfort... they may justify the leader’s actions or reinterpret the situation to make it seem more acceptable.

For example, Trump engages in authoritarian or unethical actions…but many of his supporters will justify this behavior by focusing on what they perceive to be his positive qualities…such as breaking norms…the willingness to kick undocumented immigrants out of the country, or his stance on controversial social issues.

This psychological process is often seen at play with Trump... especially among supporters who experience cognitive dissonance when his behavior contradicts the values they previously upheld.

By rationalizing or minimizing the negative aspects of Trump’s actions... supporters can maintain their loyalty without feeling morally conflicted.

3. Groupthink and the Echo Chamber

The concept of groupthink plays a significant role in shaping political loyalty.

Groupthink occurs when individuals in a group prioritize consensus and unity over critical thinking and evaluation of alternatives.

This dynamic often leads to the suppression of dissenting opinions... as individuals within the group seek to maintain harmony and avoid conflict.

In today’s politically charged environment... social media... cable news... and other platforms have created echo chambers where people are only exposed to information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs.

This isolation from alternative perspectives can lead to groupthink... making individuals more likely to follow a leader without critically assessing their actions or decisions.

Within these echo chambers... loyalty to a leader is not just a matter of personal belief but a matter of group identity.

Supporters may feel compelled to stand by Trump because questioning him means going against the group... which threatens their sense of belonging.

4. Charismatic Leadership and Loyalty

Milgram’s experiment also highlights the role of authority figures who exude charisma.

In political settings... leaders who display charismatic qualities…such as strong rhetoric... confidence... and the ability to connect emotionally with supporters…are able to inspire deep loyalty... even when their actions may not align with traditional moral standards.

Charismatic leaders often create a strong personal connection with their followers... positioning themselves as voices of the people or the defenders of national values.

This emotional connection can make it difficult for supporters to critically evaluate the leader’s actions... as they may feel personally invested in their success or agenda.

Many supporters Trump as a heroic figure…and feel that defending him is tantamount to defending the country or the cause.

You likely don’t see Trump as charismatic…but for Trump’s purposes, that is irrelevant. His supporters do/did….and that was enough to get re-elected.

The Legacy of Milgram’s Experiment in Understanding Political Loyalty

Stanley Milgram’s groundbreaking experiment on obedience to authority provides valuable insights into the psychology of loyalty and compliance... offering a framework through which we can understand the behavior of individuals who exhibit unquestioning loyalty to controversial political leaders.

The psychological mechanisms that Milgram uncovered…obedience to authority... cognitive dissonance... groupthink... and the influence of charismatic leadership…continue to shape political behavior in the modern era.

Just as participants in Milgram’s experiment followed the commands of an authority figure despite the harmful consequences... millions of political supporters today…continue to back Trump…even in the face of actions that contradict their personal values.

Through the lens of psychological compliance... we can better understand why some individuals... despite evidence of misconduct... corruption... or authoritarian behavior... continue to stand by their leader with unwavering loyalty.

This loyalty is driven not only by rational calculation but by deeper... often subconscious psychological forces that transcend logic and morality.

Ultimately... the study of obedience... authority... and loyalty reveals the complexities of human behavior and helps explain the psychological underpinnings of political allegiances that seem... at times... impervious to reason or critique.

Initially, I was just going to write about Milgram. But, while I was in the flow of writing…I changed my mind.

The name Zimbardo is incredibly relevant to the topic.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: Understanding Political Loyalty and Authority Through Zimbardo’s Findings

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted one of the most infamous and controversial social psychology experiments in history... known as the Stanford Prison Experiment.

This experiment... designed to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power... quickly spiraled out of control... revealing disturbing truths about human behavior and the influence of authority.

Zimbardo’s study... which simulated a prison environment with participants assigned the roles of guards and prisoners... demonstrated how quickly people could conform to abusive and authoritarian behavior when placed in positions of power.

Although Zimbardo’s experiment was never intended to explore political loyalty... its insights into authority... obedience... group dynamics... and the corrupting influence of power have proven to be strikingly relevant in understanding how individuals become loyal to a leader... even when that leader engages in behavior that contradicts ethical principles or public interest. (Yep…this theme just keeps popping up.)

Let’s explore how the findings of the Stanford Prison Experiment can also be applied to explain the loyalty of a Trump’s fiercest supporters... and how factors like group conformity... authoritarianism... and dehumanization can help explain why people follow political figures who often act contrary to moral standards, or, in Trump’s case…engage in acts of pure corruption and hate.

A Brief Overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo's experiment was originally designed to study the psychological effects of prison life.

A group of volunteers... all male college students... were randomly assigned to play the role of either a guard or a prisoner in a mock prison set up in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University.

The participants were told to act according to their assigned roles... with the guards given uniforms... whistles... and power over the prisoners... who were assigned numbered smocks and shackles to strip them of their identity.

The experiment was intended to last two weeks... but it was terminated after only six days due to the extreme behaviors exhibited by both the guards and prisoners.

The guards quickly became abusive... subjecting the prisoners to physical and psychological torment.

Some prisoners exhibited signs of extreme stress... emotional breakdowns... and rebellion.

The participants’ behavior was so extreme that Zimbardo himself... acting as the prison warden... was unable to stop the escalation of abusive actions... demonstrating how quickly ordinary individuals could embrace their roles and the associated power dynamics.

Zimbardo’s findings were groundbreaking.

The experiment revealed how situational factors and authority could deeply influence behavior... leading individuals to engage in actions that they might otherwise find unthinkable.

In essence... the experiment demonstrated that people’s behavior is not solely a reflection of their inherent character but is heavily shaped by the social environment and the roles they are given.

The moment someone becomes a member of Trump’s cabinet, it’s all but over.

They’re behavior is going to become much worse, and they’ll do and support things they could have never imagined doing or supporting.

It might be hard to accept, but the truth is that if I randomly selected 1,000 job seekers reading this issue of Jack Hopkins Now and placed them in roles where they didn’t know if they were being paid for a real job or as part of a study, about 650 of them would act just like individuals in similar positions throughout history.

The majority would almost certainly follow patterns of behavior we’ve seen time and time again.

These patterns highlight how easily people conform to authority and the roles they are given…regardless of the context.

Again, their behavior would closely mirror what we’ve seen with the Nazis, and what we saw in the Milgrim and Zimbardo experients. If you believe otherwise, you’re just fooling yourself.

Drawing Parallels: Understanding Political Loyalty

1. The Influence of Authority Figures

In the Stanford Prison Experiment... the guards exhibited brutal behavior... often escalating the level of their abuse... simply because they were given authority over the prisoners.

Likewise... in the political sphere... many individuals remain fiercely loyal to political leaders simply because they perceive them as legitimate authority figures.

Once a leader is placed in a position of power... their authority can be so overwhelming that followers will suppress their critical thinking and ethical judgment to comply with or support that authority figure’s actions.

This dynamic is particularly evident among ardent political supporters who believe that their leader is the embodiment of the nation’s ideals... even when those leaders engage in controversial... unethical... or even authoritarian behaviors.

Just as the guards became more abusive as they became entrenched in their authority... supporters of a political figure may become more committed to defending that leader’s actions... regardless of any moral or legal transgressions... because they see them as the source of authority and protection.

2. Obedience to Authority and Cognitive Dissonance

One of the key findings from the Stanford Prison Experiment is the concept of obedience to authority... which Zimbardo explored as a core factor in the guards’ abusive behavior.

In the context of political loyalty... this concept can explain why individuals may continue to support a leader despite evidence of misconduct or harmful actions.

Just as the participants in the experiment obeyed the “guard” role without question... some political followers will blindly obey or defend their leader without questioning the morality of their actions.

This obedience can lead to cognitive dissonance... where supporters experience mental discomfort when their leader’s actions conflict with their moral values.

To resolve this discomfort... they may justify their leader’s actions by reframing them in a positive light or by shifting the blame elsewhere.

For instance... many of Trump’s supporters often dismiss controversial policies or unethical behavior as necessary for the greater good... or claim that he is being unfairly attacked by the media or political opponents.

In this way... cognitive dissonance allows the loyalty to endure... despite conflicting moral considerations.

3. Dehumanization and the “Us vs. Them” Mentality

A critical element of the Stanford Prison Experiment was the dehumanization of the prisoners.

As the guards began to exert power over the prisoners... they increasingly viewed them not as individuals but as a collective enemy to be controlled.

This dehumanization allowed the guards to justify their abusive actions... as they no longer saw the prisoners as deserving of empathy or basic human dignity.

In politics... a similar “us vs. them” mentality can emerge.

Political leaders and their followers may begin to view political opponents... or those who criticize the leader... as the “enemy”... dehumanizing them in the process.

Trump has absolutely done this. He’s been doing it since the day he announced his run for president.

This dehumanization is often promoted by polarizing rhetoric that casts opposition as evil... unpatriotic... or dangerous.

By creating this stark divide... political leaders can justify extreme actions... including silencing critics... enacting harsh policies... or disregarding ethical boundaries... because their supporters no longer see the opposition as fully human or deserving of the same moral considerations.

4. The Power of Group Dynamics and Conformity

In the Stanford Prison Experiment... group dynamics played a significant role in the guards’ behavior.

Once a few of the guards began to act abusively... others quickly followed suit... suggesting that group dynamics and the desire for social conformity heavily influenced the participants' actions.

The prisoners... too... conformed to their assigned roles... becoming passive and compliant in the face of authority.

If you’re honest with yourself, you’ve seen this passivity happening for years now within the Democratic Party. As a whole, those of us voting blue did not speak out and engage assertively enough.

I’m just as guilty as anyone. I should have pushed harder, longer, and urged others to do so as well.

We should have been having the massive protests, marches, organization, and defiance that we’re participating in today….during Trump’s first term.

We didn’t. Thus, we have no choice but to focus on NOW.

Similarly... in a political context... groupthink can explain why individuals continue to support a leader even when the leader engages in controversial, corrupt, illegal or other damaging actions.

Once a critical mass of followers began to support Trump... the group became a source of validation for individual beliefs.

Supporters felt the pressure to conform to the group’s opinion... as dissent could lead to alienation or marginalization.

This group dynamic encourages an environment where loyalty becomes socially reinforced... and the desire to remain part of the group can override personal doubts or ethical concerns.

5. The Role of Charismatic Leadership

Just as the guards in Zimbardo’s experiment took on a sense of charismatic authority... political leaders can create deep loyalty through charisma and personal magnetism.

Charismatic leaders are able to inspire intense devotion in their followers... often through emotional appeals and strong rhetoric that resonates with the group’s values... fears... or desires.

This charisma makes it easier for the leader to rally their supporters... even when their actions contradict the group's moral standards.

This dynamic is particularly potent in modern politics... where someone like Trump can craft compelling narratives that tap into deep emotions…fear of external threats... pride in national identity... or hopes for economic recovery.

Such leaders create a sense of unity and shared purpose... making their followers more likely to overlook ethical lapses or authoritarian tendencies because they view the leader as a visionary or savior.

The Legacy of the Stanford Prison Experiment in Understanding Political Loyalty

The Stanford Prison Experiment offers profound insights into the psychological mechanisms that underlie human behavior in authority-driven environments.

Zimbardo’s experiment demonstrates that authority... obedience... group dynamics... and dehumanization can all play pivotal roles in how individuals behave when placed in positions of power or when following a powerful leader.

These same psychological mechanisms can help explain the loyalty of political followers who support leaders despite moral... ethical... or legal transgressions.

When leaders exhibit authoritarian behaviors... polarizing rhetoric... and charismatic authority... they can evoke deep loyalty from their supporters.

In turn... many of these supporters justify unethical actions... suppress dissenting opinions... and embrace groupthink... all while continuing to view their leader as a force for the greater good.

Zimbardo’s findings remind us that loyalty to a leader is not just a matter of rational decision-making but is heavily influenced by deep psychological forces that can cloud judgment and morality.

As we continue to witness political figures exhibit increasingly authoritarian behaviors... it is essential to understand the psychological dynamics that drive political loyalty.

By recognizing the factors that contribute to obedience to authority... cognitive dissonance... and group dynamics... we can gain a deeper understanding of why some individuals continue to support leaders who... in many ways... defy the values they once upheld.

You might be wondering whether these experiments have ever been replicated, and, if so…what the results were.

Milgram’s Obedience Experiment:

Milgram’s original experiment was conducted in 1961, and it has been replicated many times since then, often with modifications to improve ethical standards or adapt to different contexts. Some of the notable replications include:

Variations in Context:

In 1974, Milgram himself conducted a variation of the experiment in which the authority figure gave commands over the phone instead of in person.

The results were still striking, with many participants following the orders even though they couldn’t physically see the authority figure.

Replications in Different Countries:

Numerous replications have been done across different countries and cultures… including in Germany, Australia, and Italy…where the findings have generally shown similar obedience rates…although there were some variations.

For instance, a replication in Australia found slightly lower obedience levels compared to the original study.

Ethical Modifications:

In modern replications, more emphasis is placed on the ethical treatment of participants.

Instead of the distressing setup of Milgram’s original experiment…some modern replications use simulations or virtual environments to avoid actual harm or deception.

A 2009 Study:

Jerry M. Burger replicated Milgram's experiment in 2009 with additional ethical safeguards…such as a screen to ensure that no real shocks were delivered.

Burger found that participants still showed high levels of obedience, similar to Milgram's original study, even under more controlled ethical conditions.

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment:

The Stanford Prison Experiment has also been the subject of much critique and several replications.

However…due to ethical concerns and the extreme nature of the original study…its replication has been more complicated.

One notable replication occurred in 2001, led by Craig Haney (one of Zimbardo's collaborators), who conducted a re-enactment of the study under more strict ethical oversight.

However…due to ethical regulations in modern psychology…the study could not exactly mirror Zimbardo’s original setup.

Instead of having participants act as guards and prisoners…the replication involved more observation of behavior without the high level of emotional involvement and risk seen in Zimbardo’s original study.

While the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments have been replicated multiple times, the ethical concerns surrounding them make exact reproductions challenging.

Nevertheless…modern replications and related studies have consistently supported the central ideas of the original experiments: that obedience to authority and power dynamics significantly influence human behavior in ways that can be harmful if left unchecked.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article in its entirety.

I sincerely hope that the insights shared here have sparked a deeper understanding of the complex psychological forces at play in the behavior of many of Trump’s political supporters…and that you will carry these lessons with you in your ongoing reflections and interactions.

We must defeat this fascist movement.

That’s more likely to happen if we truly understand the individuals who make up the voter support of Donald Trump.

As we work together to safeguard and strengthen our democracy….it is crucial that we approach these difficult issues with critical thinking…and a willingness to understand the perspectives of others.

May the knowledge gained here seep into your thinking and inspire more insightful actions…as we move forward in a shared commitment to preserving the values that define our society.

I’ll be back again soon!

Best,

Jack