Supporting Trump after he tried to overturn an election required a new level of justification. Backers embraced extreme narratives, like left-wing elites being child predators, because only a threat perceived as equally or more severe than Trump's actions could make their continued support feel morally coherent.
Related Insights
The tendency to blame a single entity for disparate negative events isn't about logic but about satisfying a deep psychological need for order and control. This "derangement syndrome" provides a simple, pre-made narrative that assigns blame and creates a sense of understanding, regardless of evidence.
Rising support for violence on campus stems from a belief that political opponents represent 'genuine evil' or 'fascism,' not just a differing opinion. This moral framing removes normal constraints on behavior, making violence seem like a necessary and justifiable response.
The appeal of complex conspiracies isn't just about information; it's psychological. Believing you are at the center of a vast plot makes life more exciting and meaningful. The realization that one is not important can lead to "secondary depression," making the conspiracy narrative preferable to reality.
Humans crave control. When faced with uncertainty, the brain compensates by creating narratives and seeing patterns where none exist. This explains why a conspiracy theory about a planned event can feel more comforting than a random, chaotic one—the former offers an illusion of understandable order.
Many educated Trump supporters aren't driven by conviction but by powerful rationalizations. They compartmentalize his flaws by focusing on a few agreeable points, allowing them to stay within their social and professional circles without admitting the embarrassing truth of their compromise.
Mapping Trump solely as a self-serving politician is incomplete. His behavior is better understood as a combination of a narcissist who seeks power and a patriot who genuinely wants to impose law and order, leading him to use extreme methods.
Violent acts are not random; they often represent the logical conclusion within a person's specific frame of reference. If an ideology convinces someone they are fighting a Hitler-like evil, then assassination becomes a moral duty, not a crime. The danger lies in these justifying belief systems.
The human brain resists ambiguity and seeks closure. When a significant, factual event occurs but is followed by a lack of official information (often for legitimate investigative reasons), this creates an "open loop." People will naturally invent narratives to fill that void, giving rise to conspiracy theories.
This psychological mechanism flips a switch, intensifying love for one's in-group while enabling murderous hatred for an out-group. It recasts political rivals as existential threats, making violence seem not just acceptable, but morally necessary for the group's survival.
The allure of conspiracy theories is often less about the specific claims and more about the intoxicating feeling of being a contrarian—one of the few who 'sees the truth' and isn't a 'sheep.' This psychological reward makes the details of the conspiracy secondary to the sense of identity it provides.