Partisan Identity and Polarization
Lilliana Mason's (2018) seminal work, "Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity," provides a crucial framework for understanding the resilience of Trump's support base. Mason argues that political affiliations in the United States have evolved beyond mere policy preferences to become integral components of personal identity. This phenomenon, known as "social sorting," has led to a situation where political parties are increasingly aligned with other social identities such as race, religion, and geography.
In this context, supporting Trump becomes not just a political choice, but an affirmation of one's broader social identity. Mason's research suggests that as these identities become more closely aligned, individuals become more resistant to changing their political allegiances, even in the face of negative information about their preferred candidate. This is because changing one's political stance would require a fundamental shift in self-perception and social belonging.
Furthermore, Mason's work demonstrates that this strong partisan identity leads to increased animosity towards the opposing party, a phenomenon known as "negative partisanship." This heightened inter-party hostility can cause supporters to rally around their leader even more strongly when they perceive him to be under attack from the opposition, including legal challenges.
Motivated Reasoning
The concept of motivated reasoning, as explored by Redlawsk, Civettini, and Emmerson (2010) in their study "The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever 'Get It'?", offers valuable insights into why Trump supporters might discount or rationalize negative information about him. Motivated reasoning refers to the tendency of individuals to seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs while discounting contradictory evidence.
Redlawsk et al.'s research demonstrates that supporters of a political candidate will often counter-argue or outright reject negative information about their preferred candidate. This process can actually lead to a "backfire effect," where exposure to negative information paradoxically strengthens support for the candidate.
The authors do identify an "affective tipping point" at which the accumulation of negative information becomes too great to ignore or rationalize. However, they note that this point is often much further out than one might expect, especially for highly committed supporters. In the context of Trump's legal challenges, this suggests that many supporters may be engaging in motivated reasoning to maintain their positive view of him, interpreting the charges as political persecution rather than legitimate legal issues.
Cultural Backlash and Status Threat
Diana Mutz's (2018) influential study, "Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote," published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides a compelling explanation for the durability of Trump's support base. Mutz argues that support for Trump is significantly driven by perceived threats to the status of traditionally dominant groups in American society.
Mutz's research challenges the common narrative that economic anxiety was the primary driver of Trump's 2016 victory. Instead, she finds that changes in the domestic status quo, such as the increasing racial diversity of the United States and the country's perceived decline on the global stage, were more predictive of Trump support.
This "status threat" hypothesis suggests that many Trump supporters view him as a bulwark against perceived threats to their social status and way of life. In this context, legal challenges against Trump may be interpreted not as legitimate concerns about his conduct, but as further evidence of the system working against the interests of his supporters and their vision of America.
Distrust in Institutions
The work of Uscinski and Parent (2014) in "American Conspiracy Theories" provides valuable insights into how distrust in traditional institutions can fuel support for political outsiders like Trump, even in the face of legal challenges. Their research demonstrates that conspiracy theories and general distrust in institutions have been a persistent feature of American political life, but that these tendencies can become more pronounced in times of social and political change.
Uscinski and Parent argue that conspiracy theories often flourish when people feel powerless or perceive threats to their status. In this context, Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric and his framing of himself as an outsider fighting against a corrupt system resonate strongly with those who distrust traditional institutions.
This institutional distrust can lead supporters to view legal challenges against Trump not as legitimate concerns about potential wrongdoing, but as evidence of a "deep state" conspiracy against him. This narrative of persecution can actually strengthen support, as it reinforces the image of Trump as a champion fighting against corrupt elites on behalf of his supporters.
Media Ecosystem and Information Bubbles
Benkler, Faris, and Roberts' (2018) comprehensive study, "Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics," offers crucial insights into how media ecosystems can shape political beliefs and maintain support for political figures even in the face of negative information.
The authors argue that the American media landscape has developed into two distinct and asymmetric ecosystems. The mainstream media ecosystem, they contend, generally operates within traditional journalistic norms of fact-checking and self-correction. In contrast, they identify a right-wing media ecosystem that is more insulated and less tethered to these traditional norms.
This right-wing media ecosystem, according to Benkler et al., can create and sustain alternative narratives that downplay, reframe, or outright reject negative information about favored candidates like Trump. Within this ecosystem, legal challenges against Trump can be consistently framed as political witch hunts or deep state conspiracies, reinforcing rather than diminishing support.
Furthermore, the authors argue that social media platforms and algorithms can create "filter bubbles" that limit exposure to diverse viewpoints and amplify existing beliefs. For Trump supporters, this can mean a media diet that consistently reinforces positive narratives about Trump while dismissing or reframing negative information, including news about legal challenges.
Charismatic Leadership
The concept of charismatic leadership, as discussed by Mayer (2004) in "Leading by Feel," provides another lens through which to understand the resilience of Trump's support. Mayer argues that charismatic leaders can maintain follower support even in the face of contradictory evidence or personal failings.
Charismatic leaders, according to Mayer, often create strong emotional bonds with their followers. They typically present a compelling vision of the future and position themselves as the unique individual capable of realizing that vision. This emotional connection can lead followers to overlook or rationalize negative information about the leader.
In Trump's case, his charismatic style, combined with his promises to "Make America Great Again" and "drain the swamp," created a powerful narrative that resonated with many supporters. This charismatic bond can be so strong that supporters view attacks on the leader (including legal challenges) as personal attacks on themselves and their values, further solidifying their support.
Populist Appeal
Jan-Werner Müller's (2016) work, "What is Populism?", provides a theoretical framework for understanding how Trump's populist appeal contributes to his enduring support. Müller argues that populist leaders maintain support by positioning themselves and their supporters as the "true people" fighting against corrupt elites.
In this populist framework, any opposition to the leader - including legal challenges - can be framed as attacks by the corrupt elite against the will of the "true people." This narrative can be particularly powerful in a context of institutional distrust, as it provides a ready-made explanation for legal troubles that absolves the leader of wrongdoing and instead paints him as a martyr for the cause.
Müller's work suggests that this populist narrative can create a sort of siege mentality among supporters, where backing the leader becomes a matter of defending democracy itself against perceived elite corruption. In this context, legal challenges may paradoxically strengthen support, as they reinforce the narrative of the embattled leader fighting against a corrupt system on behalf of the people.
Selective Exposure
Natalie Jomini Stroud's (2011) book, "Niche News: The Politics of News Choice," examines the phenomenon of selective exposure in the modern media landscape. Stroud's research demonstrates that people tend to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs and avoid contradictory information, a tendency that has been exacerbated by the proliferation of niche news sources.
In the context of Trump support, selective exposure can create a self-reinforcing cycle. Supporters are more likely to seek out and trust news sources that present Trump in a positive light or that frame legal challenges against him as politically motivated attacks. This selective consumption of information can lead to a skewed perception of reality where negative information about Trump is either unseen or quickly discounted.
Stroud's work suggests that this selective exposure can lead to increased polarization over time, as individuals on different sides of the political spectrum are effectively operating with different sets of facts. In the case of Trump's legal troubles, this could mean that his supporters are simply not exposed to, or are quick to dismiss, information that might otherwise lead them to question their support.
Conclusion
The continued support for Donald Trump despite his legal challenges is a complex phenomenon that cannot be attributed to a single factor. Instead, it is the result of a confluence of psychological, social, and political dynamics. Partisan identity, motivated reasoning, perceived status threats, institutional distrust, media ecosystems, charismatic leadership, populist appeal, and selective exposure to information all play roles in maintaining this support.
These factors combine to create a resilient support base that can withstand significant negative information or events. Supporters' strong partisan identities, reinforced by like-minded media ecosystems and selective exposure to information, make them resistant to changing their views. The perception of cultural threat and institutional distrust makes them more likely to view legal challenges as illegitimate attacks rather than genuine concerns. Trump's charismatic leadership and populist appeal provide a narrative framework that can reinterpret negative events as further evidence of his fight against a corrupt system.
Understanding these dynamics is crucial for comprehending the current political landscape and the challenges it presents to democratic norms and institutions. It also underscores the complexity of political behavior and the limitations of assuming that new information will necessarily change political allegiances.
Sources
Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
Mayer, J. D. (2004). Leading by feel. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 27-37.
Müller, J. W. (2016). What is populism? University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mutz, D. C. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), E4330-E4339. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718155115
Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J., & Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever "get it"? Political Psychology, 31(4), 563-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x
Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. Oxford University Press.
Comments