Tim, you are so spot on! Many view themselves as weak because they view strength and weakness through the lens of money, influence, and being the center of attention. This is wrong! Strength comes from living by a sense of community, empathy, standing up for what is right and calling out what is wrong. People of all socioeconomic backgrounds can and do show strength that only the orange cancer and his cronies wish they could exude. These are vacuous, insecure, and weak individuals. Once we fully understand and call this out, we can then end this national and now global nightmare.
The framework is brilliant, but you are missing why it works.
The “transitive strongman” analysis nails the mechanism: he’s strong because people accept they’re weaker. Once you make that attribution, reversing it means admitting you chose to be weak. That’s the trap.
But responding with “real strength comes from community, empathy, standing up for what’s right” is exactly the aspirational thinking that fails against this dynamic.
He doesn’t care about moral definitions of strength. He cares that followers experience his power as proof of their participation in it.
The uncomfortable truth: You can’t moralize your way out. Calling them “vacuous and weak” doesn’t break the spell for people who’ve already accepted the transitive relationship.
To them, you’re the weak one…posturing while they’re winning.
What actually breaks strongman dynamics? Not moral appeals. Consequences. When the performance fails. When the “strength” demonstrably makes followers weaker—-stranded in war zones, higher prices, collapsing institutions.
The women’s hockey team understood: they didn’t moralize. They just declined to participate in the performance. No lecture. Just refusal to confer strength.
The nightmare ends when the performance stops working, not when we finally explain it’s morally wrong.
Speaking clearly of humane strength requires some reference to some humanities.
For instance, look at the 10-year-old boy in the 2017 movie, "Wonder." He was clearly deformed at birth, and still alarmingly vulnerable to derision after 22 surgeries. Yet his humane strength shone through. And won deserved affection and love.
Strength? Donald has had the strength to rape women, to commit fraud in near every venue, to elbow aside other world leaders so he could be front and center on the world stage, to order the U.S. military to commit flagrant murders abroad, and to order his own private thug armies of ICE and DBP to commit murders to commit terrorism and cold-blooded murder in the U.S.
How can any pundit define strength without reference to key humanities such as that movie "Wonder" -- or any number of apt novels, memoirs, and histories?
Even the Germans who loved Hitler, who by the end of the war realized he had failed them, that he was a terrible dictator, still spoke highly of “kleine Hitler,” the youthful Hitler who made them feel strong again. They hated him for destroying Germany and for the war that killed their sons and friends, but they still loved “kleine Hitler.” So I’ve read somewhere.
Refusal to confer strength is right! You cannot simply moralize against the strongman and his acolytes and minions. You cannot just say the strength of goodness outweighs the strength of evil. His souls are already sold, and they will always treasure their moments in the sun. Nothing will erase them.
But refusal doesn’t look like strength to the world, its pundits, and its leaders. It doesn’t look like winning. But it’s the only victory. That is: the only valid solution to an either-or problem is a neither-nor. Or as e.e.cummings said, “There’s a helluva good universe next door…” (and also Pity this busy monster manunkind not…)
But hey, it’s late and i’m going to bed! Good reading you all.
As I read your comments I thought of the words of Robert W. Fuller from years ago about how the concept of "Rankism" goes unnoticed in the USA culture (his writing perspective). He wrote a book called Somebodies and Nobodies.
Your words "vacuous, insecure and weak" reminded me of the poem Hollomen by T. S. Elliott. T's drive for attention is probably the only way he knows how to feel like a somebody. In parenting jargon it is "undue attention seeking".
And I am so happy the women's team are smart group of ladies.!
We see how the Republican Congress has capitulated to The Bloated Yam yet there are those who are now speaking their mind. At the age of 85 I'm not about to recognize his "strength." He cannot even articulate why he is bombing Iran and killing school age girls. In fact, he cannot articulate anything. To me he will always be The Bloated Yam, one that is about to burst.
Ha! "Bloated Yam"--love it! And yes, I completely agree--I find it patently offensive to recognize or capitulate to his "strength" which is based on manipulation, coercion and threats. His "power" was given to him by his weak and subservient enablers. It's time for the rest of us to strip it from him before he destroys the world.
This piece is so significant as an analysis of human behavior in this situation we are in and so scalable. Trump was, indeed, legitimately elected. He was elected by those who saw (probably still see) themselves as weak and having no agency and needing a strongman to solve the problems that a fully conscious citizen would see as a personal responsibility and call to action. Having given this power over to Trump, he immediately began to humiliate ALL of them. His actions to destroy professional government, subjugate the legal profession and institutions of learning from elementary through graduate college level, play games with the Judiciary, mock Congress, corrupt the Supreme Court, destroy the economy by whim, murder citizens and terrorize our immigrant population and run roughshod over the Constitution have humiliated them here at home and embarrassed us on the world stage. By these actions, though legitimately elected, he has rendered his presidency illegitimate and, beyond that, criminal. Now those who gave him their power are stuck. So now they must all do as Tkachuk has done. The insane and humiliating actions of the president are beyond their control. They struggle to bend their own minds to tell themselves there is nothing wrong with what Trump is doing. That there is no changing it anyway. That it is in fact good. Orwell explained this feat of mental contortion well. It amounts to making oneself a slave. It is possible to escape. The ego pain will be massive but survivable. The long-term prospects of walking through that fire are far better than avoiding the pain.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. Much like Johan above, I want to point out that Trump's followers do not share your values, and hence many (some? hard to tell) of them may not feel "embarrassed" at home and "humiliated" abroad.
Tim also asserts that some of Trump's followers now feel humiliated—most recently because he started a war after promising that he wouldn't. To me, it ain't necessarily so because if you're on board with "might makes right", what is there to be humiliated about right now? With Iran, Trump is asserting his might, which makes right. This is a performance that demonstrates his strength. Does it demonstrate his geopolitical savvy, his deep understanding of strategy, ability to play the long-game, or anything of nuance? No, it does not, but it doesn't matter to his followers because that stuff, they will tell you, is for sissies. If you like flexes, here he is, flexing. Nothing embarrassing there.
To me, the difficulty of walking back one's fealty, once sworn, comes from the fact that it will not just expose oneself as weak, but as weak in a way typically seen as feminine: the weakness of needing and wanting another's approval, strength, and leadership. The weakness of wanting and fantasizing about (as we all did, as tiny children) and even running toward a big, strong daddy/Prince Charming who will forever protect us, render the world a safe place, and Make America Great Again (sic).
To admit that daddy made a mistake you would have to a) explain how you were taken in, admit that you had this fantasy, thereby exposing yourself as a needy child (or worse, g-d forbid, a girl *yuck*)— and b) let go of the fantasy. And if you are someone who—as an adult, mind you, and not a small child—still fantasizes about big daddy/Prince Charming, that fantasy is deep. And will not likely be dislodged by facts about death, displacement, and destruction.
Maybe I don't understand Tim correctly but the MAGA I see don't feel humiliated that Trump went back on his promise of no more wars. They're not like the hockey player who has to play in Canada and explain that Trump didn't speak for him. They don't see consistency and logic as strength in the first place. They think it's an old-fashioned conventional wisdom that hasn't worked for Dems or for Reagan-Bush old-style GOP. They think it's strong to be "on the winning side". They think they participate in the supposed strongman's strength by identifying with him and supporting him. Very little that's old fashioned, such as analog ways of doing things, seem to have value for some of them. A university degree, for example, they say is old-fashioned. They say you're a smart cookie today if you just Google and use AI for your information. Newspapers? Even Dems and liberals believe they can get their politics from late night comedians and Instagram, Tik Tok. Pulling back from the cult might take remembering that some of the conventional wisdom and old ways really WERE wise and valuable.
You are not wrong, MrDeb. I think for nearly all these people there is a surface persona that is just as you describe. Then there is the deeper, unconscious but living self in them that feels the humiliation. This is what I attribute their irrational anger and lust for revenge to. They loathe themselves because they were taught to and somebody's got to pay.
This is an important analysis, but we always need to remember that any one human can have a sudden revelation of the truth and change his/her/their mind in an instant. Even cult members can be reached. It is not a foregone conclusion that all MAGAs are in it forever. We need to always be open to this possibility especially when we are talking with them.
Absolutely. Life finds a way. That's why I ended my comment with a vision of salvation. I believe I also expressed that the path back to sanity is far from easy but not fatal. That was meant as encouragement without empty happy talk. We don't stigmatize those who recover from a serious illness and we can't stigmatize those who get free of MAGA either. Shoot, the seeds of their embrace of MAGA are real socio-economic problems, not fantasies. They just got misled about who to give credit for it.
Yes, my wife knew a woman who was in the Jim Jones cult (Guiana) but quietly distanced herself and got out before they moved to Guiana. She apparently had to deal with the shame of leaving; also with threats directed her way.
Some MAGAtistas do fear retribution, I’m sure, for disloyalty.
But the shame of leaving is an issue that needs to be addressed in any discussion of cult behavior, I think.
I imagine the hockey player feels shame, and that makes him uncomfortable with what happened to him. But I can’t imagine he fears retribution from other MAGA-friendly players. But he may. Perhaps shame and loyalty work together to corrupt the soul.
I have always claimed: Loyalty is the weakest of all virtues: it’s the only “virtue” or "strength" that is routinely bought and sold, traded and put on the market. But if you take loyalty seriously to be an absolute, a turning point, then you think you can never change loyalties. Which is it? How can a person take loyalty seriously when it is the organizing principle of the mercenary?
Ask yourself, how ashamed do you feel of having been disloyal? ‘Cause everybody’s been disloyal to somebody, sometime. How ashamed would you feel if it became known? Amp this up to cult level, and you see a problem.
The right wing seeks to concentrate power in a few.
The left wing seeks to circulate power to many people.
The strongman is the epitome of the right wing trajectory. It's informed by the illusions that strength and freedom comes from a hierarchical power structure and the rejection of the values of diversity and ecumenicalism. It is fed by the fear of difference.
The strongman is a symptom not of strength but of weakness--the inability to handle a world in which exist people who are different.
Yes, that resonates. Trump is a floppy puppet playing a “strongman” on TV. The strongman model appeals to people who want “Daddy”to solve all our problems.
With our huge expenditure of ordinance in support of Israel and against Iran, have we put at risk the support we could be giving Ukraine in its battle against the aggressor from Moscow?
As a psychologist - and student of human behavior - I have been perpetually mystified by the hold Trump has on people. I have never experienced him as charismatic, capable, admirable or strong in any way. My role models are vastly different. But perhaps that’s the point: if you have no standards and no strong role models, noisy charlatans will do.
Most people I know find him shockingly fake, shallow, and mean. Many voted for a felon with his own gang of Proud Boys. What convinced them? He is so desperately needful. Somewhere in that performance of pretend brilliance, success, and insider knowledge is the secret sauce. People believe in the magician. They want to believe in magic because it is such a relief from reality.
Martha, I agree 100%!!! I just don't get how he's seen as "strong" other he occupies the office of President. He is such a bumbling incompetent clown that I can't believe he got 45% of the voters to follow his schtick!!! Not once, but twice!!!!!!! Past time for the cowardly GOP to show some " strength" and remove his sorry ass!!
I remember Steve Schmidt's message from before the election that our president's message was that of a philosophy of "F**k You. That appealed to those voters who felt left behind. He was the voice delivering the anger. Ironically, they became the target of the philosophy when they (the weak) were no longer needed. Many of them will go to the grave not accepting it.
Very interesting analysis of the performative aspect of “strongmen.” It may be that women are less susceptible to deferring to the performance because they have been exposed to small and then larger and larger doses of toxic masculinity while growing up in our (US) culture, and have developed resistance as if to a pathogen, which it is really. This would be women who have managed to overcome the continuing sexism in our society by finding a niche where they can develop freedom and strength, like the women’s hockey team.
Performative is the word. This particular strongman behaves like a little kid, playing with his or her toys and imagining amazing things for themselves.
Strength, on the other hand, involves caring for loved ones and others, bonding with community, standing firmly for human values and inalienable rights. There are a lot more of us than them.
I think this is one of the most insightful pieces Tim has written on this subject. He hits the nail on the head: millions of Americans, mostly Republicans, decided that they were weaker than Trump and have never looked back. Republican senators, for example, virtually all have the downcast demeanor of men who know they’ve been cowed. Some of them have even embraced their weakness.
Thank you, Professor Snyder, for your thoughtful article. As always, it gives the reader much to think and even learn. May I add one thought to your analysis of' 'strongman'... it is character. For it shows that this type of man or woman, as 'strongman', has no character to think of others, others' needs, others' dreams, or even others' essentials to live a solid, good life. Unfortunatley,
at this time, America does not have a man of character at the rudder of its ship!
Donald Trump's disgusting AI slop video clip of him humiliating the Canadian Olympic Hockey Team players that is circulating on social media is beyond outrageous. Trump fails to realize that, in 2026, Canadian players make up approximately 41% of the NHL, with roughly 296 to 304 players on active opening-day roster of 726 players. Trump has no respect, no decency.
He has video defecating on American people. Funny, right? People loved it. Except it wasn't a joke. And he threatened congress and state legislators but sycophants supported him. And half the country was scared.
Lacuna filled! I taught Critical Systems Thinking during Trump's first term and I would have loved to include this article for study of the Critical/Emancipatory paradigm – how to really understand the worldview of power and, critically thinking, how to effectively interevene. Excellent!
Trump is weak -physically, mentally and above all politically. Americans overwhelmingly oppose what he has done and what he is doing. In spite of all of the moves to suppress the vote and gerrymander themselves into permanent power his party is going to get wiped out in November (my bet 100 House seats, 20 Senate seats) because the people are pissed. And this illegal war, Operation Epstein Distraction is going to make it worse as casualties mount, gas prices go thru the roof and job losses continue apace. He seems strong only because elected Republicans continue to cower in fear of his stubby little twitter fingers and his violent cult following. He seems strong because the corporate media continues to treat him as a normal president. It's all bullshit, as you say Dr. Snyder, hidden in an ill fitting suit and smeared with makeup.
It takes strong people to stand up to bullies. Mitch McConnell et al are selfish anti American conniving cowards who never cared what the constitution said unless it could be twisted to supportvtheir power.. People quote the founding documents. Leaders dont care what they say.
Excellent piece. Below a bit from a 2022 play of mine called "The Stall" which takes place in a "men's room." Sam wants to use the stall. Jones (whom we never see) is on the thrown. And it becomes clear he will never voluntarily leave.
Sam:
You don’t give a sh*t about them.
Jones:
That’s right. And they don’t give a sh*t that I don’t give a sh*t. Not giving a sh*t is the point. Not giving a sh*t is freedom. Do anything you want. To anyone you want. Complete power. That’s what I have. That’s what they want.
Very insightful about the hierarchies of male dominance behavior and the exquisitely excruciating pain, for males, of acknowledging that they have been cowed and deceived by another man.
I would suggest that women react differently to the male-strongman displays because for women, the reaction to having been taken in by a man is framed very differently. It isn’t vulnerable to the uniquely male humiliation of acknowledging that you have been beaten by another male.
Women are socialized from the get-go to anticipate that they might be used and discarded by manipulative charismatic men. There are two standard reactions. One is the "stand by my man" attitude where no matter what he does, the woman vows she will still love him. (When my daughters were going through their Broadway-musical fangirl stage, they made a game of identifying the "stand by my shmuck" song in almost every Broadway show.) This is the attitude insisted upon by the patriarchy and enforced by, for example, the evangelical pastors who instruct abused women to stay in the marriage, submit, and forgive.
The other, always present in the secret sisterhood of women and now regarded by a growing segment of our society a sign of health and sanity, is to speak the truth -- to acknowledge that they were abused, and make that acknowledgment into an accusation that punctures the inflated image of the strongman and takes him down.
Crucially, the effectiveness of this response depends on whether the woman is believed. To the extent that her case relies on being believed by men -- especially, men who are themselves in thrall to the strongman -- it becomes tangled in the dominance dynamic among men, and their reaction is likely to be highly conditioned by their own horror of being shown up as dupes of the strongman. But as women increasingly find their voices and draw strength from each other (as with the women's hockey team), this reaction becomes increasingly viable and increasingly powerful.
Zero. He will never do anything that comes close to having the possibility of harming HIM. He started the Iran war without cause, and is now waiting for the Iranian people to save themselves - without any more help from him. Just like with Ukraine.
Maybe we can feel some security knowing that Trump never wants to be blamed for anything. I can't believe he'd risk being blamed as the first leader to use nuclear weapons with such slim, questionable justification. In his press appearances he's already deflecting blame. "They told me that..." As though people will say "Oh, so somebody ELSE gave you misinformation? In a way, you're the victim here!" Sound familiar?
Tim, you are so spot on! Many view themselves as weak because they view strength and weakness through the lens of money, influence, and being the center of attention. This is wrong! Strength comes from living by a sense of community, empathy, standing up for what is right and calling out what is wrong. People of all socioeconomic backgrounds can and do show strength that only the orange cancer and his cronies wish they could exude. These are vacuous, insecure, and weak individuals. Once we fully understand and call this out, we can then end this national and now global nightmare.
The framework is brilliant, but you are missing why it works.
The “transitive strongman” analysis nails the mechanism: he’s strong because people accept they’re weaker. Once you make that attribution, reversing it means admitting you chose to be weak. That’s the trap.
But responding with “real strength comes from community, empathy, standing up for what’s right” is exactly the aspirational thinking that fails against this dynamic.
He doesn’t care about moral definitions of strength. He cares that followers experience his power as proof of their participation in it.
The uncomfortable truth: You can’t moralize your way out. Calling them “vacuous and weak” doesn’t break the spell for people who’ve already accepted the transitive relationship.
To them, you’re the weak one…posturing while they’re winning.
What actually breaks strongman dynamics? Not moral appeals. Consequences. When the performance fails. When the “strength” demonstrably makes followers weaker—-stranded in war zones, higher prices, collapsing institutions.
The women’s hockey team understood: they didn’t moralize. They just declined to participate in the performance. No lecture. Just refusal to confer strength.
The nightmare ends when the performance stops working, not when we finally explain it’s morally wrong.
Thanks for explaining that so clearly. Well done!
I demur, Neal.
Speaking clearly of humane strength requires some reference to some humanities.
For instance, look at the 10-year-old boy in the 2017 movie, "Wonder." He was clearly deformed at birth, and still alarmingly vulnerable to derision after 22 surgeries. Yet his humane strength shone through. And won deserved affection and love.
Strength? Donald has had the strength to rape women, to commit fraud in near every venue, to elbow aside other world leaders so he could be front and center on the world stage, to order the U.S. military to commit flagrant murders abroad, and to order his own private thug armies of ICE and DBP to commit murders to commit terrorism and cold-blooded murder in the U.S.
How can any pundit define strength without reference to key humanities such as that movie "Wonder" -- or any number of apt novels, memoirs, and histories?
Yes! And that requires a unified voice and action on behalf of all of us.
Even the Germans who loved Hitler, who by the end of the war realized he had failed them, that he was a terrible dictator, still spoke highly of “kleine Hitler,” the youthful Hitler who made them feel strong again. They hated him for destroying Germany and for the war that killed their sons and friends, but they still loved “kleine Hitler.” So I’ve read somewhere.
Refusal to confer strength is right! You cannot simply moralize against the strongman and his acolytes and minions. You cannot just say the strength of goodness outweighs the strength of evil. His souls are already sold, and they will always treasure their moments in the sun. Nothing will erase them.
But refusal doesn’t look like strength to the world, its pundits, and its leaders. It doesn’t look like winning. But it’s the only victory. That is: the only valid solution to an either-or problem is a neither-nor. Or as e.e.cummings said, “There’s a helluva good universe next door…” (and also Pity this busy monster manunkind not…)
But hey, it’s late and i’m going to bed! Good reading you all.
They had us tied in knots when 1000 pages of Project 2025 came out
Now they’re executing
Project 1984
Who could have imagined it
Some of us
Dear Paul,
As I read your comments I thought of the words of Robert W. Fuller from years ago about how the concept of "Rankism" goes unnoticed in the USA culture (his writing perspective). He wrote a book called Somebodies and Nobodies.
Your words "vacuous, insecure and weak" reminded me of the poem Hollomen by T. S. Elliott. T's drive for attention is probably the only way he knows how to feel like a somebody. In parenting jargon it is "undue attention seeking".
And I am so happy the women's team are smart group of ladies.!
So basically, we’re all suckers and losers.
We see how the Republican Congress has capitulated to The Bloated Yam yet there are those who are now speaking their mind. At the age of 85 I'm not about to recognize his "strength." He cannot even articulate why he is bombing Iran and killing school age girls. In fact, he cannot articulate anything. To me he will always be The Bloated Yam, one that is about to burst.
Bring it on! Reminds me of the scene with Mr. Creosote (the really fat guy) in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
Ha! "Bloated Yam"--love it! And yes, I completely agree--I find it patently offensive to recognize or capitulate to his "strength" which is based on manipulation, coercion and threats. His "power" was given to him by his weak and subservient enablers. It's time for the rest of us to strip it from him before he destroys the world.
This piece is so significant as an analysis of human behavior in this situation we are in and so scalable. Trump was, indeed, legitimately elected. He was elected by those who saw (probably still see) themselves as weak and having no agency and needing a strongman to solve the problems that a fully conscious citizen would see as a personal responsibility and call to action. Having given this power over to Trump, he immediately began to humiliate ALL of them. His actions to destroy professional government, subjugate the legal profession and institutions of learning from elementary through graduate college level, play games with the Judiciary, mock Congress, corrupt the Supreme Court, destroy the economy by whim, murder citizens and terrorize our immigrant population and run roughshod over the Constitution have humiliated them here at home and embarrassed us on the world stage. By these actions, though legitimately elected, he has rendered his presidency illegitimate and, beyond that, criminal. Now those who gave him their power are stuck. So now they must all do as Tkachuk has done. The insane and humiliating actions of the president are beyond their control. They struggle to bend their own minds to tell themselves there is nothing wrong with what Trump is doing. That there is no changing it anyway. That it is in fact good. Orwell explained this feat of mental contortion well. It amounts to making oneself a slave. It is possible to escape. The ego pain will be massive but survivable. The long-term prospects of walking through that fire are far better than avoiding the pain.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. Much like Johan above, I want to point out that Trump's followers do not share your values, and hence many (some? hard to tell) of them may not feel "embarrassed" at home and "humiliated" abroad.
Tim also asserts that some of Trump's followers now feel humiliated—most recently because he started a war after promising that he wouldn't. To me, it ain't necessarily so because if you're on board with "might makes right", what is there to be humiliated about right now? With Iran, Trump is asserting his might, which makes right. This is a performance that demonstrates his strength. Does it demonstrate his geopolitical savvy, his deep understanding of strategy, ability to play the long-game, or anything of nuance? No, it does not, but it doesn't matter to his followers because that stuff, they will tell you, is for sissies. If you like flexes, here he is, flexing. Nothing embarrassing there.
To me, the difficulty of walking back one's fealty, once sworn, comes from the fact that it will not just expose oneself as weak, but as weak in a way typically seen as feminine: the weakness of needing and wanting another's approval, strength, and leadership. The weakness of wanting and fantasizing about (as we all did, as tiny children) and even running toward a big, strong daddy/Prince Charming who will forever protect us, render the world a safe place, and Make America Great Again (sic).
To admit that daddy made a mistake you would have to a) explain how you were taken in, admit that you had this fantasy, thereby exposing yourself as a needy child (or worse, g-d forbid, a girl *yuck*)— and b) let go of the fantasy. And if you are someone who—as an adult, mind you, and not a small child—still fantasizes about big daddy/Prince Charming, that fantasy is deep. And will not likely be dislodged by facts about death, displacement, and destruction.
Maybe I don't understand Tim correctly but the MAGA I see don't feel humiliated that Trump went back on his promise of no more wars. They're not like the hockey player who has to play in Canada and explain that Trump didn't speak for him. They don't see consistency and logic as strength in the first place. They think it's an old-fashioned conventional wisdom that hasn't worked for Dems or for Reagan-Bush old-style GOP. They think it's strong to be "on the winning side". They think they participate in the supposed strongman's strength by identifying with him and supporting him. Very little that's old fashioned, such as analog ways of doing things, seem to have value for some of them. A university degree, for example, they say is old-fashioned. They say you're a smart cookie today if you just Google and use AI for your information. Newspapers? Even Dems and liberals believe they can get their politics from late night comedians and Instagram, Tik Tok. Pulling back from the cult might take remembering that some of the conventional wisdom and old ways really WERE wise and valuable.
Take a look at some of what Nick Fuentes and Margorie are saying these last few days. The natives are restless.
You are not wrong, MrDeb. I think for nearly all these people there is a surface persona that is just as you describe. Then there is the deeper, unconscious but living self in them that feels the humiliation. This is what I attribute their irrational anger and lust for revenge to. They loathe themselves because they were taught to and somebody's got to pay.
This is an important analysis, but we always need to remember that any one human can have a sudden revelation of the truth and change his/her/their mind in an instant. Even cult members can be reached. It is not a foregone conclusion that all MAGAs are in it forever. We need to always be open to this possibility especially when we are talking with them.
Absolutely. Life finds a way. That's why I ended my comment with a vision of salvation. I believe I also expressed that the path back to sanity is far from easy but not fatal. That was meant as encouragement without empty happy talk. We don't stigmatize those who recover from a serious illness and we can't stigmatize those who get free of MAGA either. Shoot, the seeds of their embrace of MAGA are real socio-economic problems, not fantasies. They just got misled about who to give credit for it.
So true!
Yes, my wife knew a woman who was in the Jim Jones cult (Guiana) but quietly distanced herself and got out before they moved to Guiana. She apparently had to deal with the shame of leaving; also with threats directed her way.
Some MAGAtistas do fear retribution, I’m sure, for disloyalty.
But the shame of leaving is an issue that needs to be addressed in any discussion of cult behavior, I think.
I imagine the hockey player feels shame, and that makes him uncomfortable with what happened to him. But I can’t imagine he fears retribution from other MAGA-friendly players. But he may. Perhaps shame and loyalty work together to corrupt the soul.
I have always claimed: Loyalty is the weakest of all virtues: it’s the only “virtue” or "strength" that is routinely bought and sold, traded and put on the market. But if you take loyalty seriously to be an absolute, a turning point, then you think you can never change loyalties. Which is it? How can a person take loyalty seriously when it is the organizing principle of the mercenary?
Ask yourself, how ashamed do you feel of having been disloyal? ‘Cause everybody’s been disloyal to somebody, sometime. How ashamed would you feel if it became known? Amp this up to cult level, and you see a problem.
Politics is about power.
The right wing seeks to concentrate power in a few.
The left wing seeks to circulate power to many people.
The strongman is the epitome of the right wing trajectory. It's informed by the illusions that strength and freedom comes from a hierarchical power structure and the rejection of the values of diversity and ecumenicalism. It is fed by the fear of difference.
The strongman is a symptom not of strength but of weakness--the inability to handle a world in which exist people who are different.
Yes, that resonates. Trump is a floppy puppet playing a “strongman” on TV. The strongman model appeals to people who want “Daddy”to solve all our problems.
Yes! Thank you for that. I do like thinking of Trump as a floppy puppet.
With our huge expenditure of ordinance in support of Israel and against Iran, have we put at risk the support we could be giving Ukraine in its battle against the aggressor from Moscow?
Yes…but he wasn’t going to give it to Ukraine anyway.
Trump hasn’t been giving ordinance to Ukraine anyway. The EU has been buying it and giving it to Ukraine.
My comment was intended to discuss stockpiles, not money
As a psychologist - and student of human behavior - I have been perpetually mystified by the hold Trump has on people. I have never experienced him as charismatic, capable, admirable or strong in any way. My role models are vastly different. But perhaps that’s the point: if you have no standards and no strong role models, noisy charlatans will do.
Most people I know find him shockingly fake, shallow, and mean. Many voted for a felon with his own gang of Proud Boys. What convinced them? He is so desperately needful. Somewhere in that performance of pretend brilliance, success, and insider knowledge is the secret sauce. People believe in the magician. They want to believe in magic because it is such a relief from reality.
Martha, I agree 100%!!! I just don't get how he's seen as "strong" other he occupies the office of President. He is such a bumbling incompetent clown that I can't believe he got 45% of the voters to follow his schtick!!! Not once, but twice!!!!!!! Past time for the cowardly GOP to show some " strength" and remove his sorry ass!!
I remember Steve Schmidt's message from before the election that our president's message was that of a philosophy of "F**k You. That appealed to those voters who felt left behind. He was the voice delivering the anger. Ironically, they became the target of the philosophy when they (the weak) were no longer needed. Many of them will go to the grave not accepting it.
P.S., I try not to think rationally about MAGA.
Very interesting analysis of the performative aspect of “strongmen.” It may be that women are less susceptible to deferring to the performance because they have been exposed to small and then larger and larger doses of toxic masculinity while growing up in our (US) culture, and have developed resistance as if to a pathogen, which it is really. This would be women who have managed to overcome the continuing sexism in our society by finding a niche where they can develop freedom and strength, like the women’s hockey team.
Performative is the word. This particular strongman behaves like a little kid, playing with his or her toys and imagining amazing things for themselves.
Strength, on the other hand, involves caring for loved ones and others, bonding with community, standing firmly for human values and inalienable rights. There are a lot more of us than them.
I think this is one of the most insightful pieces Tim has written on this subject. He hits the nail on the head: millions of Americans, mostly Republicans, decided that they were weaker than Trump and have never looked back. Republican senators, for example, virtually all have the downcast demeanor of men who know they’ve been cowed. Some of them have even embraced their weakness.
Thank you, Professor Snyder, for your thoughtful article. As always, it gives the reader much to think and even learn. May I add one thought to your analysis of' 'strongman'... it is character. For it shows that this type of man or woman, as 'strongman', has no character to think of others, others' needs, others' dreams, or even others' essentials to live a solid, good life. Unfortunatley,
at this time, America does not have a man of character at the rudder of its ship!
Donald Trump's disgusting AI slop video clip of him humiliating the Canadian Olympic Hockey Team players that is circulating on social media is beyond outrageous. Trump fails to realize that, in 2026, Canadian players make up approximately 41% of the NHL, with roughly 296 to 304 players on active opening-day roster of 726 players. Trump has no respect, no decency.
He has video defecating on American people. Funny, right? People loved it. Except it wasn't a joke. And he threatened congress and state legislators but sycophants supported him. And half the country was scared.
Lacuna filled! I taught Critical Systems Thinking during Trump's first term and I would have loved to include this article for study of the Critical/Emancipatory paradigm – how to really understand the worldview of power and, critically thinking, how to effectively interevene. Excellent!
Trump is weak -physically, mentally and above all politically. Americans overwhelmingly oppose what he has done and what he is doing. In spite of all of the moves to suppress the vote and gerrymander themselves into permanent power his party is going to get wiped out in November (my bet 100 House seats, 20 Senate seats) because the people are pissed. And this illegal war, Operation Epstein Distraction is going to make it worse as casualties mount, gas prices go thru the roof and job losses continue apace. He seems strong only because elected Republicans continue to cower in fear of his stubby little twitter fingers and his violent cult following. He seems strong because the corporate media continues to treat him as a normal president. It's all bullshit, as you say Dr. Snyder, hidden in an ill fitting suit and smeared with makeup.
It takes strong people to stand up to bullies. Mitch McConnell et al are selfish anti American conniving cowards who never cared what the constitution said unless it could be twisted to supportvtheir power.. People quote the founding documents. Leaders dont care what they say.
Excellent piece. Below a bit from a 2022 play of mine called "The Stall" which takes place in a "men's room." Sam wants to use the stall. Jones (whom we never see) is on the thrown. And it becomes clear he will never voluntarily leave.
Sam:
You don’t give a sh*t about them.
Jones:
That’s right. And they don’t give a sh*t that I don’t give a sh*t. Not giving a sh*t is the point. Not giving a sh*t is freedom. Do anything you want. To anyone you want. Complete power. That’s what I have. That’s what they want.
Very insightful about the hierarchies of male dominance behavior and the exquisitely excruciating pain, for males, of acknowledging that they have been cowed and deceived by another man.
I would suggest that women react differently to the male-strongman displays because for women, the reaction to having been taken in by a man is framed very differently. It isn’t vulnerable to the uniquely male humiliation of acknowledging that you have been beaten by another male.
Women are socialized from the get-go to anticipate that they might be used and discarded by manipulative charismatic men. There are two standard reactions. One is the "stand by my man" attitude where no matter what he does, the woman vows she will still love him. (When my daughters were going through their Broadway-musical fangirl stage, they made a game of identifying the "stand by my shmuck" song in almost every Broadway show.) This is the attitude insisted upon by the patriarchy and enforced by, for example, the evangelical pastors who instruct abused women to stay in the marriage, submit, and forgive.
The other, always present in the secret sisterhood of women and now regarded by a growing segment of our society a sign of health and sanity, is to speak the truth -- to acknowledge that they were abused, and make that acknowledgment into an accusation that punctures the inflated image of the strongman and takes him down.
Crucially, the effectiveness of this response depends on whether the woman is believed. To the extent that her case relies on being believed by men -- especially, men who are themselves in thrall to the strongman -- it becomes tangled in the dominance dynamic among men, and their reaction is likely to be highly conditioned by their own horror of being shown up as dupes of the strongman. But as women increasingly find their voices and draw strength from each other (as with the women's hockey team), this reaction becomes increasingly viable and increasingly powerful.
What is the risk that he will launch a nuclear weapon?
Zero. He will never do anything that comes close to having the possibility of harming HIM. He started the Iran war without cause, and is now waiting for the Iranian people to save themselves - without any more help from him. Just like with Ukraine.
It is clearly non-zero. His war chief could argue that a battlefield nuclear weapon would shorten the Iran war.
That's what I'm afraid of. Whiskey Pete loves to play with his bang bang toys. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate expression of that.
Maybe we can feel some security knowing that Trump never wants to be blamed for anything. I can't believe he'd risk being blamed as the first leader to use nuclear weapons with such slim, questionable justification. In his press appearances he's already deflecting blame. "They told me that..." As though people will say "Oh, so somebody ELSE gave you misinformation? In a way, you're the victim here!" Sound familiar?
I dearly hope you’re right.
He wouldn't be the first. Truman was.