The Daily Kos essay “The Cult of Personality: A Case Study in MAGA” frames a familiar — and urgent — argument: the modern MAGA movement around Donald Trump behaves less like a conventional political faction and more like a political subculture with cult‑like dynamics. That central claim is rooted in three pillars: persuasive social psychology, reinforcing political rhetoric, and measurable shifts in attitudes toward institutions and political violence. The piece traces these dynamics through polls, academic frameworks, and historical parallels, arguing that loyalty to a leader has become identity, and that identity now frequently trumps facts, institutional accountability, and democratic norms. The Daily Kos argument is coherent, largely consistent with peer‑reviewed theory and public polling, and it raises a provocation that every civic institution should be taking seriously.
The Daily Kos piece opens from a recent, high‑stakes context: the period after the 2020 election, when Donald Trump faced multiple criminal prosecutions and broad public scrutiny. That era — and the legal and political aftermath that followed — is the crucible the essay uses to test whether MAGA is a political movement, a social identity, or something closer to a personality cult.
Fact check: Donald Trump’s legal exposure has been real and multifaceted, with state and federal actions beginning in 2023 that produced multiple indictments across New York, Georgia, and federal venues. These prosecutions (and their subsequent legal twists, dismissals, and appeals) are the backdrop for the article’s claim that criminal accountability was interpreted by many supporters as persecution rather than legitimate law enforcement. Independent reporting and case summaries corroborate the existence of multiple indictments beginning in 2023 and continuing through subsequent legal actions. (fultongrandjury.com)
First, social psychology detects patterns — not inevitabilities — linking certain personality and social traits to susceptibility to authoritarian, leader‑centric appeals. Thomas F. Pettigrew summarized this in an influential analysis that clusters five psychological phenomena around Trump’s core supporters: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation (or perceived loss), and limited intergroup contact. Pettigrew’s synthesis is academic, measured, and explicitly probabilistic: none of these traits defines every voter, but they help explain the strongest cores of support. (news.ucsc.edu)
Second, contemporary researchers who study cults and high‑commitment groups stress spectrum models rather than binary labels. Harvard psychologist Bethany Burum — who teaches the psychology of cults — describes “cultiness” as a continuum: political groups can display cult‑like mechanics (rituals, isolation from dissenting information, ritualized loyalty) without meeting clinical criteria for cult diagnosis. That nuance matters: it lets analysts point to observable group dynamics (rituals, idolization, informational isolation) without overclaiming clinical pathology. The Daily Kos piece uses exactly this move: cautioning that “not a clinical cult” does not mean “not cult‑like.” Key takeaway: loyalty becomes identity when social incentives (belonging, status, defiance) outweigh fact‑checking and instrumental self‑interest. This is the behavioral engine that the Daily Kos essay centers as its explanatory claim.
Pettigrew’s paper (2017) is careful and modest in tone: he does not claim determinism, but highlights five phenomena — authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and lack of intergroup contact — as useful theoretical lenses for understanding why a segment of the electorate responded to masculine, hierarchical, and anti‑pluralist messaging. The paper uses prior social psychology research and empirical correlates; it is not a partisan polemic. For journalists and policy‑makers who quote Pettigrew, the proper framing is probabilistic correlation, not categorical labeling. (news.ucsc.edu)
Background
The Daily Kos piece opens from a recent, high‑stakes context: the period after the 2020 election, when Donald Trump faced multiple criminal prosecutions and broad public scrutiny. That era — and the legal and political aftermath that followed — is the crucible the essay uses to test whether MAGA is a political movement, a social identity, or something closer to a personality cult.Fact check: Donald Trump’s legal exposure has been real and multifaceted, with state and federal actions beginning in 2023 that produced multiple indictments across New York, Georgia, and federal venues. These prosecutions (and their subsequent legal twists, dismissals, and appeals) are the backdrop for the article’s claim that criminal accountability was interpreted by many supporters as persecution rather than legitimate law enforcement. Independent reporting and case summaries corroborate the existence of multiple indictments beginning in 2023 and continuing through subsequent legal actions. (fultongrandjury.com)
Psychological Framework: How Loyalty Becomes Identity
The Daily Kos text leans on established social‑psychological explanations for intense political loyalty. Two strands here deserve emphasis.First, social psychology detects patterns — not inevitabilities — linking certain personality and social traits to susceptibility to authoritarian, leader‑centric appeals. Thomas F. Pettigrew summarized this in an influential analysis that clusters five psychological phenomena around Trump’s core supporters: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation (or perceived loss), and limited intergroup contact. Pettigrew’s synthesis is academic, measured, and explicitly probabilistic: none of these traits defines every voter, but they help explain the strongest cores of support. (news.ucsc.edu)
Second, contemporary researchers who study cults and high‑commitment groups stress spectrum models rather than binary labels. Harvard psychologist Bethany Burum — who teaches the psychology of cults — describes “cultiness” as a continuum: political groups can display cult‑like mechanics (rituals, isolation from dissenting information, ritualized loyalty) without meeting clinical criteria for cult diagnosis. That nuance matters: it lets analysts point to observable group dynamics (rituals, idolization, informational isolation) without overclaiming clinical pathology. The Daily Kos piece uses exactly this move: cautioning that “not a clinical cult” does not mean “not cult‑like.” Key takeaway: loyalty becomes identity when social incentives (belonging, status, defiance) outweigh fact‑checking and instrumental self‑interest. This is the behavioral engine that the Daily Kos essay centers as its explanatory claim.
The Loyalty Test: Polls and the Power of Trust
The Daily Kos article points to striking polling results as evidence for the depth of allegiance. Two data points are particularly load‑bearing.- A CBS News/YouGov analysis found that a large majority of Trump primary supporters reported trusting Trump more than their own family, friends, or religious leaders to tell them “what’s true.” That statistic — frequently reported at roughly 71% — is often cited to illustrate the informational imbalance in parts of the GOP electorate. This figure has been widely discussed in national media analysis and remains a useful indicator of relational trust: many supporters place partisan leaders above proximate social ties in epistemic authority. (axios.com)
- Independent polling from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) shows a worrying rise in openness to political violence among segments of the Republican electorate: PRRI’s repeated surveys find that a nontrivial share of Republicans agree with statements suggesting “true American patriots may have to resort to violence” to save the country. The increase is observable over multiple survey waves and strongly correlates with adherence to election‑fraud narratives and favorable views of Trump. This is not an isolated dataset; PRRI’s analysis tracks changes over time and connects them to media ecosystems and political messaging.
The Five Traits: What Pettigrew Actually Argued
The Daily Kos article summarizes Pettigrew’s five traits; his academic work is the source for the list and the broader claim that a constellation of measurable psychological features correlates with strong support for Trump.Pettigrew’s paper (2017) is careful and modest in tone: he does not claim determinism, but highlights five phenomena — authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and lack of intergroup contact — as useful theoretical lenses for understanding why a segment of the electorate responded to masculine, hierarchical, and anti‑pluralist messaging. The paper uses prior social psychology research and empirical correlates; it is not a partisan polemic. For journalists and policy‑makers who quote Pettigrew, the proper framing is probabilistic correlation, not categorical labeling. (news.ucsc.edu)
Historical Parallels and Authoritarian Echoes
The Daily Kos essay connects MAGA‑era rhetoric to longer patterns in American history and global authoritarian playbooks. Two parallel strands are instructive.- The “Lost Cause” parallel: nostalgia for an idealized past, framed as moral and cultural restoration, is not unique to MAGA. Political movements that romanticize lost status or racial hierarchies have often relied on myth‑making and scapegoating to mobilize followers. The rhetorical architecture is similar: decline narratives plus an occupying scapegoat produce moral urgency. This is an analytical frame, not an equivalence claim.
- The authoritarian playbook in contemporary analysis: scholars of fascism and strongman politics — notably Ruth Ben‑Ghiat — have pointed out tactics common to autocratic leaders: delegitimizing independent institutions, glorifying loyalty and violence, personalizing rule, and treating opponents as existential enemies. Ben‑Ghiat and others argue that such tactics are present in the rhetoric and theater of modern populist leaders, including Donald Trump, and that they warrant attention precisely because they erode the norms that make constitutional governance resilient. Contemporary profiles of authoritarian tactics and their echoes in U.S. politics have been published in established outlets and by scholars with comparative historical knowledge. (newyorker.com)
Data‑Driven Evidence: What Polling and Behavioral Indicators Show
The Daily Kos article marshals several empirical claims. Below are the ones that hold up most strongly, with cross‑checks.- Conspiracy and misinformation affinity: multiple surveys (PRRI, Pew Research Center) show higher prevalence of conspiratorial beliefs (including QAnon‑related items and election fraud narratives) among self‑identified Trump supporters compared with other partisan groups. Pew’s reporting and PRRI’s analyses both document higher susceptibility to specific conspiratorial claims among audiences that rely on partisan or far‑right news ecosystems. This is a consistent finding across multiple waves of survey data. (prri.org)
- Political violence acceptance: PRRI’s multi‑wave series finds increased willingness among certain Republican subgroups to entertain the idea that political violence could be justified. Those who believe the 2020 election was stolen are significantly more likely to accept political violence as a solution; Republicans who view Trump favorably show greater openness to such language. PRRI’s longitudinal approach is valuable because it tracks change over time rather than offering a single snapshot.
- Perceived civil conflict: public polling by Marist and YouGov/Economist in 2022–2024 showed substantial shares of the American public anticipating a future civil conflict (figures vary by poll methodology and wording, typically ranging from roughly 40% to nearly 50% on “somewhat likely / likely” metrics). These perceptions reflect anxiety and deep polarization rather than an objective prediction of inevitable war — but they do indicate a significant erosion of shared civic confidence. Cross‑poll comparisons show variance in magnitude but consistency in direction. (today.yougov.com)
Strengths of the Daily Kos Argument
- Interdisciplinary grounding: the essay correctly brings social psychology (Pettigrew), cult research (Burum), and empirical polling (PRRI, CBS/YouGov, Pew) into a single analytic frame. That interdisciplinary mix strengthens the core argument that MAGA’s most fervent elements are sustained by psychological incentives and information environments. (harvard2956.rssing.com, prri.org, maristpoll.marist.edu, dailykos.com, prri.org)
Note on sources and cautionary language: the analysis above synthesizes the Daily Kos essay with peer‑reviewed social psychology (Pettigrew), expert commentary (Burum, Ben‑Ghiat), and public polling (CBS/YouGov, PRRI, Pew). Where single polls are cited, the results are sensitive to wording and timing; readers and policymakers should treat trendlines and multi‑wave results as more robust than isolated figures. (jspp.psychopen.eu, washingtonpost.com)
Source: Daily Kos “The Cult of Personality: A Case Study in MAGA”
