Manipulator-in-chief

Liberals and conservatives have the same poor decision-making habits but different moral structures. This is how Trump manipulated the conservatives into making a terrible decision.

Let’s start this blog with a few things that I will posit are facts. If you think they’re opinions, especially if you disagree with them, I invite you to keep reading anyway. However, know that I am very much aware of the difference between opinion and fact, and these are facts.

1. Donald Trump has what the DSM-5 calls antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). In modern parlance, this means he is a malignant narcissist, or what we used to call a psychopath. Again, this is not my opinion. This is a diagnosis made by hundreds of experienced psychiatrists. ¹

2. It is a bad decision to elect a psychopath as the president.

In this post, I’d like to explore how so many people made such a bad decision. I don’t want to look at why some prefer this conservative policy or that progressive program. Instead, I want to explore how so many American citizens were able to overlook the fact that they were voting for a psychopath to become our president. My thesis is that our decisions about voting are based on feelings rather than facts, that these feelings come from our sense of morality, and that Trump’s success in the 2024 election stemmed from conservatives’ vulnerability to manipulation.

System 1 vs System 2

In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman describes two different processes we use for making decisions. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional. System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and logical. My quick synopsis of Kahneman’s incredible work would look like this:

• System 1:

  • Consider how you feel about each option.

  • Select the option you have the most positive feelings about and/or the fewest negative feelings about.

  • If you need to justify your decision, even to yourself, search for facts and create logical arguments that support the decision you’ve already made.

  • You can modify your decision after it’s been made only if your feelings on the topic change.

• System 2:

  • Define the problem and your options.

  • Gather facts and apply logic.

  • Select the option that has the most benefits and/or the least drawbacks.

  • You can modify your decision after it’s been made if you become aware of new information.

We all use System 1 for almost all our decisions. Some say this is because we’re hard-wired to use System 1 through the process of evolution. In other words, the better someone was at deciding between fight and flight, the more likely they were to survive and reproduce. Personally, I’m always a little skeptical about using evolution to explain our behaviors, but there’s another reason we almost always use System 1 to make decisions: System 2 takes a long time. Even if we do intend to do our research and weigh the pros and cons, by the time we finish the process System 1 has had the opportunity to step in multiple times and tell us exactly what decision it prefers to make. In order to make a System 2 decision, not only do you need to put in the effort of careful thinking, but you also must have the cognitive discipline to resist System 1 repeatedly.

Kahneman tells us that decisions made by System 1 have worse outcomes, can be affected by biases, and lead to overconfidence. Sometimes we can force ourselves to use System 2, such as when a researcher carefully follows the scientific method, or when a jury is made to listen to all the evidence before being permitted to deliberate. However, when this type of disciplined process isn’t followed, what we usually do is make our decisions using System 1 and then search for justifications as a way of convincing ourselves and others that this was a System 2 decision. So not only did we make a careless decision, but we also tricked ourselves into believing we weighed the evidence and applied logic. Hence, overconfidence.

Changing your mind

Every time we get new information, we can restart the decision-making process and potentially change our minds. It’s easier to change your mind with System 2, since new information can factor into the logical steps. However, when decisions are made with System 1, new information can only change someone’s mind if it also changes their feelings. This is quite tricky because there is a definite negative feeling associated with learning you were wrong. The new information must be persuasive enough to overcome this emotional resistance. It’s also the case that first-impressions have an outsized effect on our emotions and that implicit biases can influence our emotions, further raising the threshold needed for new information to change a System 1 decision.

Voting

When an individual citizen casts their ballot, there is no disciplined decision-making process that assists them with avoiding a System 1 conclusion. Moreover, the fact that our media is dominated by opinions and polluted with misinformation means that “justification” can be found to support any initial decision, no matter how illogical. The fact that our media itself has become polarized means that the same feelings that tell us who to vote for can also tell us who to listen to, making us incredibly resistant to change. In the past, clear platforms and formal debates may have given System 2 a chance for some voters. Trump undermined both of these things, and for good reason. Trump was counting that most voters would make an emotional rather than logical decision, and that’s exactly what happened.

Morality 1 vs Morality 2

If voting is an emotional decision, we must next consider how we develop our feelings toward one candidate or another. George Lakoff gives us an excellent model for understanding this in his book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.

After decades of linguistic research and thousands of interviews of Americans with all types of opinions, Lakoff was able to describe a model in which we understand the relationship between government and the people as a metaphor of how we view the structure of a family. He found that people’s political views tended to fall into one of two clusters. Those who believe that the ideal family structure involves the father as breadwinner and disciplinarian and the mother as a caregiver will subscribe to what Lakoff calls the “Strict Father Morality.” (To be fair, Lakoff does describe variations of the Strict Father Morality where a mother may become the disciplinarian, but this would be a variation rather than the central model.) Alternatively, those who believe the ideal family should not depend on than gender roles and that parents should teach children to understand rather than to obey will subscribe to the “Nurturant Parent Morality.”

According to Lakoff’s research, those who subscribe to each moral system will generally have these priorities, in this order:

Conservative Categories of Moral Action:

1. Promoting Strict Father morality in general.

2. Promoting self-discipline, responsibility, and self-reliance.

3. Upholding the Morality of Reward and Punishment.*

4. Protecting moral people from external evils.

5. Upholding the Moral Order.**

Liberal categories of Moral Action:

1. Empathetic behavior and promoting fairness.

2. Helping those who cannot help themselves.

3. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

4. Promoting fulfillment in life.

5. Nurturing and strengthening oneself in order to do the do above.

*The Morality of Reward and Punishment involves gaining rewards from the pursuit of self-interest and being punished for challenging authority.

**The Moral Order is a view that there is a natural hierarchy. This includes that God has moral authority over people; people have moral authority over nature; adults have moral authority over children; and men have moral authority over women.

Americans really do, and have for a long time, operate under two different moral systems. Both systems revolve around the family, but one emphasizes structure and discipline while the other emphasizes fairness and helping. Lakoff’s model can go a long way toward explaining our differences of opinion in the political arena. For instance, conservatives would be more likely to vote for a billionaire than liberals because conservatives tend to view wealth as the reward for moral behavior. Liberals, on the other hand, would be more likely to see wealth as derived from immoral behavior and to question why someone with great wealth isn’t doing more to help those with less. Conservatives aren’t against helping people who have been harmed by something like a natural disaster, but they are very much against helping people whom they view as undisciplined or lazy.

Self-promotion

One important thing to note is that it is the top priority of the Strict Father Morality to promote its own system. The Nurturant Parent Morality has no equivalent self-perpetuating impulse. The implications are enormous. The Strict Father Morality depends on acceptance of a natural order. When something that is outside that moral order (such as a family with two fathers or a woman who chooses not to have children) is successful, that may cause children to question the Moral Order and thus be less obedient. Anything that doesn't fit the conservative view of the natural hierarchy is seen as a threat that needs to be stamped out. It is not a tenant of the Nurturant Parent Morality to view difference as threats, so it’s no surprise that liberals will be more welcoming to minority groups of all types. However, the deemphasis on self-promotion gives liberals a disadvantage in political races.

Trump’s Manipulation

Psychopaths are well known for their ability to manipulate others, and on this measure, Trump is masterful. Lakoff has suggested several ways in which Trump has been especially successful at manipulating those who subscribe to the Strict Father Morality. Kahneman reminds us that once Trump has manipulated someone’s emotions, he is very close to controlling how they will vote.

Repetition

Lakoff discusses ten mechanisms that a political leader might use to influence how people think. Trump seems to use these mechanisms instinctively, especially repetition, framing, and metaphorical language. Our thoughts are made up of neural circuits, and the more often a circuit is used, the stronger it gets. So, Trump’s frequent and simple messages such as “Win, Win, Win,” “Make America Great Again,” and “Drain the Swamp” literally get into our heads. Trump is by no means the only politician who does this (who hasn’t heard Kamala Harris say “turn the page” or “we’re not going back” over and over?) but Trump certainly utilizes the power of repetition.

Framing

Framing, which is often combined with repetition, is describing someone in the way you want them to be understood. The phrase “Crooked Hilary” framed Hilary Clinton as having done something illegal, when she had not. The Benghazi Committee and the FBI both investigated her and found her to be honest and moral.

If the previous sentence sounds a little off to you, re-read it as found her to have not broken the law. Both statements are true, but the second frames Ms. Clinton as someone who potentially broke the law and just hasn’t been caught yet. If the second version sounds more like what you remember from the 2016 election, it means the framing was at least partially successful at getting you to think of Ms. Clinton as a criminal, even without evidence. The popular Trump rally chant of “Lock Her Up” is proof of how powerful this framing can be.

Trump also framed the thousands of professionals who work hard to keep our society operational as the “Deep State.” The federal workers whom Trump is talking about are the doctors and nurses who work for the VA, the Homeland security agents who prevent terrorist attacks, the engineers and architects who design our infrastructure, the IRS agents who keep the money flowing, and the administrators and clerical staff who ensure that the things we depend on every day are actually getting done. Society as we know it would fall apart without the work these people do every day, but Trump has been successful in villainizing them. Now that he is in the process of selecting cabinet members who will certainly wreak havoc on these workers, we can see the motivation behind this framing.

Metaphors

Metaphorical language can have the effect of making something that is not possible seem as if it is not only possible, but logical. Lakoff uses the example of Brexit as the United Kingdom leaving the EU. The United Kingdom didn’t actually go anywhere - it’s in the same location it’s always been - so the idea of leaving is a metaphor. In particular, it’s a metaphor that implies that if the UK leaves the EU, it’s possible that the UK will be able to return to the place it was before joining. But reality doesn’t follow the metaphor, since it’s not possible to return to the past. This subtle metaphor replaces the complex idea of ending an agreement between nations with the simple idea of changing one’s location, and in so doing gives a very incorrect impression.

Trump uses similar metaphors to manipulate his followers. For instance, he will frame a female as weak then imply that any nation lead by a female must also be weak. By contrast, a nation run by a strongman like himself will be able to dominate other nations. None of it makes any sense outside the metaphor, but if you don’t try too hard to challenge the logic, you can find yourself going along with it.

Trump Presents Himself as the Ultimate Strict Father

Those who subscribe to the Strict Father Morality are especially susceptible to Trump’s manipulation because he is able to attach himself to the metaphor they have already internalized that replaces the idea of the president of a country with the idea of the father of a family.

As previously discussed, the qualities that this father should have include breadwinner and disciplinarian. When Trump presents himself as a wealthy businessman, conservatives are prone to feel that we will all share in this prosperity, just as children are supported by their father. When Trump presents himself as a strongman or “retribution” candidate, conservatives may respond positively, thinking that the punishment will be reserved for those who, unlike them, disobey the father.

Furthermore, conservatives who see the world as organized into a natural hierarchy may feel comforted when Trump denigrates those who are of an order lower than himself. Trump is reassuring them that he will maintain the order that gives structure to their worldview.

Trump’s threat to deport millions of undocumented immigrants is seen as cruel and inhumane by liberals who prioritize empathy and protecting those who can’t protect themselves. However, if Trump frames these immigrants law breakers and vermin, he can activate conservatives’ need to impose order on society with the means of rewards and punishments. If empathy can be bypassed, then illegal immigrants can be seen as deserving of punishment. Furthermore, if conservatives feel threatened when someone circumvents the “natural order” that they adhere to, then framing immigrants as vermin will make removing them feel like the morally correct action.

By manipulating his supporters’ emotions in this way, Trump was also able to manipulate their votes. Even knowing about his malignant narcissism, his convictions for fraud, the fact that he is a sexual abuser, his obvious lack of traditional family values, his strange attraction to murderous dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, and his reckless disregard for human life during the covid crisis, millions of Americans still voted for Trump. This is because they made an emotional decision and then searched for just the right “facts” to justify it. Trump was happy to help them feel like he would maintain the world order that gives them comfort (he won’t) and to supply them with convenient cover stories such as that his convictions were politically motivated (they weren’t).

Education and Thoughtful Reflection

I do try to end these articles on a positive note, so I’ll mention once again that there is a solution to our predicament that lies in the realm of education. System 2 decision making does exist, and we can train ourselves to use it more often and more effectively. We can resist falling to the power of suggestion when politicians use framing rather than facts to manipulate us. We are capable of thinking through complex ideas without reducing them to simple metaphors. In my last article, I recommended that we invest more time and resources into teaching civics in our public schools. Decision-making and critical thinking would be excellent additions to the curriculum.

Those who are old enough to vote will benefit when candidates release clear platforms and participate in moderated debates. Journalists can help by providing more programming that avoids opinions and spin. However, we cannot expect our politicians to stop trying to manipulate us because it’s undeniable that the manipulation works. Rather, we need to improve ourselves so that we are less susceptible to trickery. We also cannot expect our media to provide the programming we need without making it worth the cost. If the type of information we need for effective decision-making can’t compete with the type of information we crave, we should consider supporting grants and non-profit organizations that will help us become better than what we are now.

As far as our adults who already made the poor choice to vote for a psychopath, I do not mean to imply that they are stupid. Many of my friends and family fall into this category, and they are educated, intelligent, caring, and mostly Christian. Several of them do tend toward a hierarchal way of ordering humans, especially with putting men above women, but they are able to override that impulse when they want to. Certainly, they depended on the quick and easy System 1 process to decide on their vote, but I honestly did the same. I was just fortunate enough to be emotionally drawn to the non-psychopathic candidate. So, I don’t think any of them are stupid. I do, however, think they were manipulated. Moreover, they were complicit in their own manipulation because they did not use their mental capabilities to challenge their emotionally driven System 1 decisions.

If you are one of my friends or family who voted for Trump, thank you for reading this far. Maybe I gave you something to consider. If you are a liberal like me, I hope you are considering some new ideas as well. Our conservative neighbors made a poor choice, but not a stupid one. We liberals are equally susceptible to System 1 decision making and metaphorical thinking. Our moral system makes us less likely to follow a dictator, but it introduces weaknesses of our own that we won’t want to admit. One of these weaknesses is that our need for fairness prevents us from capitalizing on political advantages, even when the other side would not hesitate to do so. I’ll keep working on identifying more of these weaknesses and welcome you to share your ideas on this topic with me.

1. https://imtheresistance.substack.com/p/is-donald-trump-a-psychopath