Remember when people on the right said that if Barack Obama said, it would be dangerous personality-cult rhetoric?
“Democrats love it.
Democrats love what I’m doing.
Democrats love everything I do,”
he said, “Democrats are me.
Democrats love everything I do, and I love everything I do, too.”
Conservatives anywhere from the center to the hard right would have rejected that instantly as cultish — elevating a leader above the party, equating the movement with one person, and demanding uncritical devotion. Many still describe such rhetoric in authoritarian states, or in relation to historical fascist leaders. They would be right to do so — that would be cult-of-personality language if someone actually said it.
Although Obama was a decent man overall and never would have said that.
Because that particular quote never happened. It was made up for argument’s sake — and that’s why it was a useful rhetorical hook.
But here’s the twist:
Obama never said that.
Donald Trump actually said that.
On January 6, 2026, in a public statement reported by El País, President Trump said:
“MAGA loves it.
MAGA loves what I’m doing.
MAGA loves everything I do,” Trump said.
“MAGA is me.
MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do, too.”
That is not a paraphrase. That is not an embellishment. It is the captioned phrasing from a contemporary news report on his remarks about U.S. policy toward Venezuela.
Why this matters
The crucial rhetorical move in the example you remember — the one about Obama — is that you ask someone to apply a standard first before they know it’s a setup. MaGA is not "Making America Great Again", but diminishing America overall. Trump sees everything in a sense of profit, or more often, profit for HIM. But everything is NOT about profit. See Fareed Zakaria's take from Sunday, January 11, 2026.
The standard invoked by many conservative commentators in the past was, in essence:
“If a leader equates themselves with the movement and claims that the movement loves everything they do, that is cult-like rhetoric.”
That standard makes sense if we value:
-
loyalty to institutions over individuals,
-
accountability over personal elevation,
-
party as a coalition of ideas rather than a personality.
But here’s the twist: when you let someone apply that standard first — thinking they are condemning the other side — they end up condemning a real contemporary example from the current president they support.
That’s the point. Once someone agrees that language like this is inappropriate or dangerous when it is framed as coming from the opposing side, they have implicitly committed to a rule. The next step is revealing that the actual quote comes not from the opposing side, but from their own preferred leader. At that point, the argument is not about policy or party; it is about coherence and standards.
This tactic — getting someone to articulate their own principle first before attaching it to an actual case — does not belittle identity. Instead, it engages the identity in a moment of self-judgment. If someone enthusiastically condemns the made-up Obama quote as cultish and then resists calling the Trump quote the same, they are forced into one of two uncomfortable positions:
-
They abandon their previously stated principle, which exposes inconsistency.
-
They apply their principle consistently, which undercuts the emotional or identity investment in the leader.
The tactic works precisely because it leverages a person’s own stated standards against an actual real-world example.
What counts as cult-of-personality rhetoric?
Language of the sort Trump used — equating the base not just with support for policies but with him personally — intersects with political-science concepts of personalist power structures and cults of personality.
One element scholars look for is identity fusion: when supporters and a leader are described as if they are inseparable, loyalty becomes less about ideas and more about personal attachment. Another is unconditional devotion: the idea that the movement loves everything a leader does, without qualification. Both traits are present in that quote.
This does not mean every supporter is irrational or brainwashed. People can support a movement for many reasons — economic interests, identity politics, policy preferences — without being part of a psychological cult. But when a leader explicitly frames the movement as them and claims total devotion, that moves the rhetoric well outside the norms of conventional party politics.
MaGA functions as a cult-like political movement — more precisely, a personalist, cult-of-personality political formation — even though not every individual MaGA voter behaves like a cult member.
The longer, precise answer matters, so here it is without rhetoric or hype.
What MaGA is not
MaGA is not:
-
a conventional ideological movement
-
a normal party faction
-
a policy-driven coalition
-
a persuasion-responsive electorate
Those models assume shared reality, institutional loyalty, and conditional support. MaGA violates all three.
What MaGA is (analytically)
MaGA fits the political-science model of a cult of personality embedded inside a mass movement.
That has specific, recognizable features:
1. Identity fusion
Supporters do not merely support Trump; they merge personal identity with him.
Trump explicitly reinforces this:
-
“MAGA is me.”
-
“I alone can fix it.”
-
Attacks on Trump are framed as attacks on them.
This is the single strongest cult indicator.
2. Leader supremacy over reality
Facts, law, courts, elections, and even conservative principles are accepted only if they affirm Trump.
When they don’t:
-
they are dismissed as fake, rigged, corrupt, or illegitimate
-
contradiction does not weaken loyalty
-
failure increases devotion
That is cult logic, not political reasoning.
3. Moral inversion
Actions are judged by who does them, not by what they are.
The exact same behavior:
-
is tyrannical if a Democrat does it
-
is justified if Trump does it
-
is denied if Trump does it badly
This is why your Obama→Trump inversion tactic works: it exposes moral relativism anchored to identity.
4. Unconditional loyalty demand
Trump does not tolerate neutral supporters or internal dissent.
-
Critics are “traitors,” “RINOs,” “enemies”
-
Loyalty to Trump outweighs loyalty to party, Constitution, or country
-
Institutions exist to serve him, not constrain him
That is classic personalist authoritarian structure.
5. Institutional capture without legitimacy
MaGA does not seek legitimacy through institutions.
It seeks control of institutions to remove legitimacy constraints.
That is why:
-
impeachments fail
-
jurisprudence is evaded
-
norms collapse without backlash
-
accountability becomes impossible
Cults do not argue their way into power. They outlast and absorb.
So is MaGA “a cult”?
Yes — in the political sense, not the clinical sense.
More precisely:
-
MaGA is a mass political cult of personality
-
Trump is the central identity object
-
The movement is post-ideological, post-institutional, and loyalty-driven
This is why treating MaGA as “misinformed voters” or “angry conservatives” keeps failing.
The crucial distinction
This does not mean:
-
every MaGA voter is irrational
-
every supporter is equally cult-embedded
-
cult dynamics cannot weaken over time
But it does mean:
-
normal political counter-argument will not work
-
fact-checking will not work
-
appeals to norms will not work
-
persuasion fails once identity fusion locks in
Bottom line (clean and defensible)
MaGA is not a normal political movement.
It is a cult-of-personality system organized around Trump, where identity overrides reality, loyalty overrides law, and institutions exist to serve the leader.Treating it as normal politics is not neutrality.
It is surrender to the structure that allows it to persist.
That is the correct diagnosis — and it explains everything you’ve observed: the elections, the escapes, the control, and the failure of conventional opposition.
Good question — because once you strip away the word “cult,” what remains are several distinct behavioral roles that look different on the surface but still sustain the same power structure.
If they are not acting like classic cult members, they are typically acting as one (or more) of the following:
1. Identity-protective partisans
These individuals are not devoted mystics; they are defending a threatened identity.
What drives them
-
Fear of status loss (cultural, racial, generational)
-
Perceived humiliation by elites or institutions
-
“People like me are being erased”
How they behave
-
Selectively rational
-
Dismiss facts that threaten identity
-
Accept contradictions without distress
They are not following Trump because they believe everything he says.
They are following him because he validates who they think they are.
This is not cult devotion — it is identity defense under threat.
2. Transactional authoritarians
These supporters do not idolize Trump; they use him as a tool.
What drives them
-
Desire for power outcomes (courts, deregulation, revenge, dominance)
-
Zero concern for norms or process
-
Ends justify means
How they behave
-
Fully aware Trump lies
-
Openly admit moral compromise
-
Say things like “I don’t care, he gets things done”
This group sustains autocracy knowingly.
They are clients of power, not believers.
3. Grievance voters
These individuals are animated by anger rather than belief.
What drives them
-
Economic resentment
-
Cultural displacement
-
Desire to punish institutions or “elites”
How they behave
-
Incoherent politics
-
Contradictory positions
-
Support whatever hurts perceived enemies
Trump is attractive because he is destructive, not because he is correct.
This is nihilistic politics, not cult behavior.
4. Information-silo dependents
These are not irrational people — they are operating inside a sealed epistemic environment.
What drives them
-
Reliance on partisan media ecosystems
-
Distrust of all outside information
-
Repetition substituting for verification
How they behave
-
Can reason logically inside the silo
-
Reject all external sources reflexively
-
Treat contradiction as manipulation
They are not worshipping Trump.
They are living inside a closed reality loop.
5. Authoritarian followers (psychological type)
This group exists in every society and activates under perceived chaos.
What drives them
-
Desire for order
-
Discomfort with ambiguity
-
Preference for hierarchy
How they behave
-
Strong leader fixation
-
Obedience over deliberation
-
Moral certainty replacing ethics
They do not love Trump personally.
They love what he represents: command and certainty.
6. Performative loyalists
These individuals signal allegiance publicly without deep internal belief.
What drives them
-
Social belonging
-
Fear of ostracism
-
Community reinforcement
How they behave
-
Repeat slogans
-
Avoid dissent publicly
-
Privately more ambivalent
This is social conformity, not cult devotion — but it still stabilizes the system.
So what ties them together?
Not belief.
Not ideology.
Not policy.
What unites them is alignment to a personalist power system where:
-
Loyalty matters more than truth
-
Identity matters more than consistency
-
Power matters more than legitimacy
Some are believers.
Many are participants.
The precise answer to your question
If they are not acting like cult members, they are acting like:
Participants in a personalist authoritarian system, each playing a functional role — identity defender, power client, grievance vehicle, or conformity enforcer — whether or not they emotionally worship the leader.
That is more dangerous than a pure cult, because it is broader, more flexible, and harder to disrupt.
Bottom line (clean and accurate)
MaGA is sustained not only by cult devotion, but by identity defense, transactional power-seeking, grievance politics, information enclosure, and authoritarian followership.
You do not need everyone to be a cult member to maintain a cult-of-personality system.
You only need enough people playing roles that keep the leader unaccountable.
That is the real structure you are confronting.
Why normal political argument fails against cult-like structures
This gets to a deeper point: treating politics like normal exchange — evidence, reason, policy argument — works only if both sides share a commitment to shared reality and institutions. In a personalist movement where identity is fused with a leader, such arguments often fail because they are not addressing the reason someone supports the movement in the first place.
That is exactly why the Obama-as-tyrant example is so useful rhetorically: it forces someone to articulate a standard about authoritarian language before they apply it to a real example.
And when the real example is one of their own preferred leader, their own principle becomes the mirror of reckoning.
America does not fail because it argues too harshly. It fails when it refuses to recognize what it is facing. A political movement organized around personal loyalty rather than law, identity rather than truth, and power rather than accountability is not just another faction in a democratic contest. It is an authoritarian threat by definition.
Democracies protect themselves not by pretending such movements are normal, but by insisting that no leader is the nation, no movement is above the Constitution, and no individual is owed unconditional devotion. The choice before America is not left versus right. It is whether the country will defend its institutions against a personality cult that seeks to replace them — or allow itself to be hollowed out in the name of loyalty to one man.
Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!
No comments:
Post a Comment