The Cult Analogy

Americans who follow politics often refer to the MAGA movement as a cult. (As one wag has put it, the only difference beween Jim Jones and Trump is that Trump would charge for the Kool Aid…). Most of us, however, use the term without recognizing its explanatory power. In a recent essay for Lincoln Square, Kristoffer Ealy did–and it was eye-opening.

The essay is lengthy, but I encourage you to click through and read it all. Its primary focus was on the staying power of the Epstein files, and how–despite Trump’s frantic efforts to distract–the files are still there, undermining his hold on the cult, which had been promised disclosures that would (surely!) hurt those “others.” But it was Ealy’s examination of cult behavior that explained so much that I have found inexplicable.

Calling MAGA a cult isn’t simply an analogy or clever putdown. It IS a cult. And that explains why the true believers continue to support an obvious madman.

As Ealy explains, cult rules aren’t designed to govern–they are loyalty tests.  Followers don’t follow the rules because they’re fair or rational. They follow them “because the act of following becomes proof that they belong.”

Which is why cult rules can be humiliating. Contradictory. Pointless. Even self-destructive. It doesn’t matter. In fact, the more irrational the rule is, the better it works—because nobody makes sacrifices like someone trying to prove they’re still in the inner circle.

This is how you get the classic arrangement where the leader can do the kind of thing that would get a normal person fired, divorced, indicted, or laughed out of town—then turn around and demand strict purity from everyone else. The hypocrisy isn’t a bug. It’s a feature. The point isn’t “rules.” The point is hierarchy. The point is demonstrating there is one set of consequences for the faithful and another set for the sovereign.

In other words, the lack of criticism isn’t because everyone is stupid, or hypnotized. It’s in the nature of cults, which Ealy tells us are “engineered environments where speaking plainly comes with penalties.” Criticism–no matter how mild–can trigger “exile, retaliation, or humiliation.” Even asking the wrong question will bring charges from other followers that one is disloyal, divisive, or working for the enemy. The leader doesn’t need to censor everyone directly.

A cult leader isn’t simply “charismatic.” A cult leader is someone who turns emotional weather into governance. If he can make his approval feel like oxygen and his disapproval feel like exile, he doesn’t need policy. He doesn’t need evidence. He doesn’t even need coherence. He just needs followers tuned to his moods the way sailors stay tuned to the sky.

So everything becomes personal. Every critique is treated as an attack. Every investigation is framed as persecution. Every consequence is recast as betrayal.

But there’s a downside. Cult leaders who are constantly surrounded by people who applaud the indefensible and treat the leader like a religious figure start believing their base is  the whole country.

And here’s the crucial psychological mistake: after living in a loyalty-based world for long enough, the cult leader assumes every other world is loyalty-based too.

So he steps outside the cult and looks at outsiders—critics, journalists, investigators, the opposition—and he can’t process a simple possibility: these people might not be organized around worship the way his followers are. He can’t imagine a political tribe that doesn’t have a sacred figure whose protection overrides all principles. He can’t picture a coalition where people argue with each other openly and survive it. Because in his world, disagreement is disintegration.

And that leads to miscalculation.

For years, Trump promised his followers an Epstein “big reveal.” It was, as Ealy says, “a promise made to people who want the world to be simple enough to fit into a villain plot.” It was a sacred prophecy–thus Trump’s distractions haven’t worked.

In such situations, Ealy says cult leaders reach for “hostage logic,” believing that the “other side” must have an equally sacred figure that it will protect no matter what. So MAGA cult members threaten to investigate Bill Clinton.  “But Democrats are not organized around a single sacred figure in that way. They are a coalition that can barely agree on lunch.”

Trump and his supporters believe the world outside MAGA’s bubble is a cult too. But it isn’t. The response Trump keeps running into is brutally simple: If there’s evidence, bring it. If Clinton is guilty, release the files and prove it. It’s okay with us.