Why Cuban Nationals Gravitate to the Republican Party: Reference Book

In Cuba where tyranny took hold,
The stories of freedom were told,
Some fled with hope,
But liberty said “nope”,
Can’t escape the shadows of old!

Edited by: ElRoyPoet, 2025

Cuban Republican Influencer

Op-Ed: This Is Why Cuban Nationals Embrace the MAGA Republican Party

Cuban Americans often claim that many U.S. citizens lack a true understanding of what happens when a country descends into political violence. They emphasize that Americans tend to overlook the profound privilege of living in a nation where dissent and free expression are protected rights. Coming from a country like Cuba, where political violence, repression, and tyranny are daily realities, many Cuban immigrants are keenly aware of what’s at stake. They know firsthand that unchecked political tensions can quickly spiral into chaos and oppression—a nightmare they managed to escape.

Historical Roots of Political Violence in Socialist Regimes

To understand this, it’s essential to examine the history of socialist and communist regimes, particularly Cuba’s. The rise of communism in Cuba was marked not only by revolutionary ideals but also by violent upheaval. Political violence—such as armed conflict, repression, and purges—became a fundamental part of the regime’s very structure. Cuba’s government has maintained power through violence and intimidation, often suppressing dissent to consolidate control. As Hannah Arendt observed, totalitarian regimes often emerge from violent upheaval, and their endurance depends on continued repression.

This pattern isn’t unique to Cuba. Many socialist regimes—such as the Soviet Union and Venezuela—have relied on violence both to seize and maintain power. The system benefits those at the top, while ordinary citizens suffer under fear, censorship, and repression. Over time, the cycle of violence silences opposition and erodes civil liberties. The tragic irony is that those seeking liberation can become trapped in new forms of tyranny—an important warning for all.

The Psychological Manipulation and Deception of Cuban Immigrants

Many Cuban refugees are now witnessing a disturbing reversal: they are being deceived by MAGA rhetoric, which relies heavily on fear, nationalism, and divisiveness. This movement’s tactics echo the oppressive strategies they fled—sowing distrust, scapegoating minorities, and promoting authoritarian ideals under the guise of patriotism. For many, it is heartbreaking to witness their adopted country drift toward the same tyranny they once fled, disguised behind a false patriotic facade.

Psychologically, this deception can be understood through trauma and cognitive dissonance. Many Cubans have endured political violence and repression, leaving deep scars. These scars can make individuals more susceptible to narratives promising safety and strength through authoritarianism—falsely equating strong leadership with security and patriotism with suppression of dissent.

Additionally, the appeal to nationalism and fear exploits cognitive biases like the “availability heuristic,” where emotionally charged fears and memories are given disproportionate weight. Leaders who manipulate these biases reinforce feelings of insecurity and distrust, making followers more receptive to authoritarian messages that promise order and safety.

The Paradox of Support and Stockholm Syndrome

Paradoxically, many Cuban Americans who have become U.S. citizens are falling into a form of psychological trap—what some might call Stockholm syndrome—developing emotional bonds or sympathies with their oppressors as a survival mechanism. In this case, the “captor” is the rhetoric of the MAGA movement, which relies on fear, nationalism, and divisive propaganda. Having endured the brutality of communist regimes, they are now unwittingly embracing tactics they once fled—sowing distrust, scapegoating minorities, and promoting authoritarian ideals—all under the guise of patriotism.

The Reverse Exodus and the Threat to Democracy

Initially, these refugees sought democracy, fleeing Cuba’s oppressive regime in search of freedom. Yet, the path to influence for MAGA Republicans depends on fear-mongering and hate—tactics that resemble the tyranny they escaped, not the democracy they yearn for. Their unwavering support is driven, in part, by a psychological inability to grasp the concept of liberty for all—principles rooted in the American Constitution that guarantees civil rights regardless of nationality.

Many cling tightly to this narrative because their “PTSD-brain”—traumatized by years of repression—struggles to accept that America was founded on equality and freedom. Their trauma distorts their perception, blinding them to the danger of rhetoric echoing their past experiences of tyranny.

The Danger of Words and the Erosion of Democracy

This phenomenon can be further understood through the lens of psychological theories like Stockholm syndrome, where captives develop emotional bonds with their oppressors. In political trauma, individuals may unconsciously associate authoritarian control with safety, despite it being the very system they fled. Their attachment to the Republican narrative is reinforced by biases like the “availability heuristic,” where fears and traumatic memories dominate their perception of reality.

Furthermore, many are caught in cognitive dissonance—knowing from personal experience that tyranny leads to suffering, yet attracted to the authoritarian tactics of some political figures, mistaking strength for oppression. Trauma hampers their ability to fully embrace democratic ideals rooted in liberty and equality.

America’s Founding Principles and the Threat of Support for Tyranny

Supporters justify their backing of the MAGA movement by claiming America remains fundamentally different from Cuba—less oppressive, more free. But this complacency is dangerous. When Democrats highlight that hate speech, scapegoating, and discrimination threaten democratic norms, they are often dismissed as exaggerating. Yet, words matter. Normalizing hate speech and dehumanization creates a fertile ground for violence and authoritarianism.

The rhetoric of leaders like Trump—characterized by insults, conspiracy theories, and dehumanization—erodes social cohesion and fosters an environment where violence becomes normalized. History consistently demonstrates that words can incite violence, and leaders who tolerate or promote hate speech threaten to unravel the very foundations of democracy.

Conclusion: Recognizing Deception and Safeguarding Democracy

The core issue is that the appeal of MAGA rhetoric is rooted in fear and division—tools historically exploited by authoritarian regimes. Cuban immigrants, having witnessed the brutality of such regimes firsthand, must recognize that the false promises of strength and patriotism are often veiled tyranny.

It is vital for all Americans to understand that true liberty—justice, equality, and dissent—must be protected from those who seek to undermine it through hate, fear, and violence. History warns us that political violence benefits the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. Vigilance, education, and a rejection of divisive rhetoric are essential to safeguarding democracy. Cuba’s history remains a stark reminder: when repression and violence are allowed to flourish, everyone suffers.

Why Many Cuban Exiles Support Trump and the Extreme Right?

Why Cuban and Venezuelan Nationals Gravitate Toward the MAGA Republican Movement: A Psychological and Historical Perspective

The political landscape of the United States often sparks intense debates about civil rights, government authority, and personal freedoms. Among these discussions, an intriguing phenomenon is the tendency of Cuban and Venezuelan nationals to gravitate toward the MAGA Republican movement. To understand this alignment, it is crucial to explore the psychological impact of trauma and the historical experiences that shape their worldview.

Historical Context and Personal Experience

Cuba and Venezuela have endured decades of political repression, economic instability, and authoritarian rule. Cuba’s history of dictatorship under Fidel Castro, with its restrictions on speech, assembly, and dissent, has left a legacy of survival against oppressive regimes. Similarly, Venezuela’s descent into authoritarianism under Nicolás Maduro, marked by political imprisonments, suppression of opposition, and economic collapse, has deeply impacted its citizens. Many immigrants from these countries carry personal or familial memories of chaos, repression, and the loss of civil liberties. These experiences form a collective trauma that influences their political perceptions and preferences.

Psychological Impact: Trauma, PTSD, and Survival Instincts

Trauma, especially prolonged exposure to authoritarian repression, can profoundly alter mental frameworks. Psychological research on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) reveals that individuals who experience or witness trauma often develop heightened sensitivity to threats and a desire for control and stability. This hyper-vigilance is an adaptive survival mechanism—once a person has experienced chaos or violence, they subconsciously seek environments that promise order and security.

The concept of “learned helplessness,” developed by psychologist Martin Seligman, explains how repeated exposure to uncontrollable adverse events can lead individuals to accept authoritarian control as a means of survival. For refugees fleeing oppressive regimes, the desire for security often overrides considerations of personal freedoms. Their “PTSD brain”—a metaphorical way of describing the lingering psychological effects—may interpret strong, centralized authority as necessary and protective, rather than oppressive.

This mental framework makes it difficult for them to comprehend liberal resistance to government overreach. Liberals, advocating for expanded civil liberties and checks on executive power, may appear to these individuals as reckless or threatening because their past experiences associate excessive government power with danger, chaos, and persecution. Their trauma creates a cognitive lens through which they perceive limited civil rights as a form of safety, not oppression.

Historical and Global Patterns of Authority Preference

Throughout history, populations fleeing chaos or oppression have often supported strong, authoritative leaders who promise stability and order. Post-World War II Germany saw segments of the population support authoritarian figures in the aftermath of devastation. Many Eastern European countries under Soviet influence preferred nationalist and conservative parties that emphasized sovereignty and order—values that resonated with their collective trauma.

Worldwide, refugees and trauma survivors tend to favor regimes or movements that promise security, even if such regimes curtail civil liberties. Their past experiences reinforce a preference for limited, controlled freedoms—perceived as safer than the chaos of unchecked liberty. This preference explains why many Cuban and Venezuelan immigrants find common ground with the MAGA movement’s emphasis on law and order, borders, and sovereignty.

The Concept of Civil Rights and Its Psychological Roots

In their countries of origin, civil rights have often been nonexistent or severely limited. For many Venezuelans and Cubans, the idea of unlimited civil rights—such as free speech, protest rights, or judicial independence—is unfamiliar or frightening, because their past experiences involve authoritarian control where civil liberties were suppressed or manipulated. For them, these rights were tools of repression, or simply absent, and thus they view the idea of unbounded civil liberties as a potential chaos trigger.

The MAGA Republican movement’s advocacy for strong borders, law enforcement, and national sovereignty aligns with their instinctual desire for order and stability. They are “quite content” with attaining limited civil rights because, for them, that level of freedom represents safety and predictability—values deeply ingrained through their personal histories.

Why This Dynamic Matters

The phrase “their PTSD brain can’t seem to wrap itself around the fact” encapsulates the psychological barrier: trauma creates a cognitive framework that perceives extensive civil liberties as dangerous, not liberating. For many immigrants from repressive regimes, the concept of unlimited rights is a foreign, almost threatening idea—akin to opening Pandora’s box. Their worldview is shaped by the need to prevent chaos they’ve known firsthand.

In conclusion, the gravitation of Cuban and Venezuelan nationals toward the MAGA Republican movement is rooted in a complex interplay of historical trauma and psychological survival mechanisms. Their past experiences with authoritarian repression and chaos shape a worldview that associates strong government control with safety and stability. Their “PTSD brain”—a metaphor for the lasting psychological imprint of repression—prefers limited civil rights, viewing them as protective rather than oppressive. Understanding this dynamic is essential to grasping their political inclinations and the broader patterns of refugee psychology. Recognizing these deep-seated fears and histories can foster more empathetic and effective political dialogue, especially as these communities continue to influence American political discourse.

Cuban-Americans worried, divided by Trump policies

Prompt: Cuban nationals often claim that many U.S. citizens lack a true understanding of what happens when a country descends into political violence. They emphasize that Americans tend to overlook the profound privilege of living in a nation where dissent and free expression are protected rights. However, Cuban Republicans struggle to understand why Democrats oppose the MAGA movement. They are working in reverse because their PTSD brain can’t seem to wrap itself around the fact that the reason liberals resist government overreach is that they are used to having full civil rights; they were born in a country with a constitution that guarantees them. Cuban and Venezuelan nationals come from countries with no civil rights, so it’s too far a stretch for them to imagine unlimited civil rights. They are quite content with attaining limited civil rights—just what the MAGA Republicans advocate for.

Latinos UNLOAD on Trump Loving Cubans Facing Deportation

Trump Has Divided the World Into Friends and Enemies | Explainer

“Truth can bear any criticism, examination, or argument; it does not need censorship or propaganda to protect it. What needs censorship is propaganda—since it is a lie—and therefore, the vast majority of what MAGA sycophants and their echo chamber are expected to believe is a lie. When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest by attempting to debunk the subject matter experts.”

Commentary: How MAGA Republicans are inciting political violence by attacking the First Amendment

The assertion that Republicans are inciting political violence by attacking the First Amendment is supported by a troubling pattern of actions and rhetoric that threaten the core civil liberties of the United States. While they often accuse liberals of fomenting unrest, a closer examination of historical events, psychological strategies, and current policies reveals that many Republican-led initiatives actively undermine fundamental freedoms such as free speech, press, assembly and religion. This manipulation not only jeopardizes democratic principles but also serves as a strategic distraction, diverting public attention from their own efforts to weaken civil liberties.

Historical Patterns of Authoritarian Tactics

Throughout history, authoritarian regimes have undermined democracies by attacking civil liberties and consolidating power under the pretense of protecting national interests. Similarly, in the United States, some Republican-led states have implemented laws that restrict voting rights and reproductive freedoms, effectively silencing marginalized voices. These measures serve to diminish democratic participation and threaten the pluralism vital to a healthy republic. Psychologically, such restrictions can induce learned helplessness—where targeted populations feel powerless to effect change—further weakening civic engagement.

Harassment and Intimidation Against Reproductive Rights

Religious conservative groups and anti-abortion activists have historically engaged in harassment and intimidation tactics aimed at abortion providers and women seeking reproductive health services. Incidents of threats, protests, and violence highlight how some groups use intimidation to silence opposition. These tactics, rooted in social psychological concepts like conformity and groupthink, serve to suppress dissent and create an atmosphere of fear, thereby chilling free expression and assembly.

Attacks on the Press and Judicial Independence

Efforts to discredit the media and undermine judicial independence are central to authoritarian tactics. Some Republican politicians have repeatedly attacked journalists and media outlets, labeling them “fake news” or partisan enemies. Such rhetoric erodes trust in the Fourth Estate, which is essential for holding power accountable. Historically, regimes that suppress independent media manipulate public perception and restrict access to truthful information. Psychologically, these attacks foster mistrust, polarization, and reduced capacity for critical thinking among the public.

The January 6 Capitol Riot and False Election Claims

The January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection exemplifies how incendiary rhetoric and false claims of election fraud can incite violence. Fueled by Trump and certain Republican leaders’ unsubstantiated assertions that the election was stolen, thousands of supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn democratic processes. Psychological concepts like confirmation bias and motivated reasoning played significant roles, as supporters interpreted information in ways that reinforced their beliefs, leading to violent action. This event underscores how rhetoric aimed at delegitimizing democratic institutions can escalate into violence.

Diverting Attention: Accusations of Liberal Threats to Free Speech

Many Republican leaders and media outlets frame liberal policies and protests as threats to free speech, a tactic that serves as a political diversion. By framing civil liberties as dangerous or disruptive, they shift blame away from their own actions and foster polarization. Within conservative echo chambers—social media and talk radio—this narrative gains traction, further entrenching distrust and hostility toward democratic norms.

Historical and Psychological Parallels to Authoritarian Regimes

Drawing parallels with historical authoritarian regimes, the suppression of civil liberties—such as press censorship, intimidation, and voter suppression—serves to weaken democratic institutions. These tactics are often justified as measures to protect national interests but ultimately aim to concentrate power and silence opposition. Psychological strategies, including exploiting biases and fostering group conformity, are employed to manipulate public opinion and legitimize these actions.

In conclusion, the pattern of actions and rhetoric from many in the MAGA movement demonstrates a concerted effort to undermine the First Amendment and, by extension, American democracy. By restricting voting rights, attacking reproductive freedoms, discrediting the press, and inciting violence through incendiary language, they threaten the civil liberties that underpin the nation’s democratic fabric. Historical and psychological evidence underscores that these tactics are not accidental but part of a broader attempt to consolidate power at the expense of democratic norms. Recognizing these patterns is essential to safeguarding the rights and freedoms that define the United States and resisting the incitement of political violence masked as defending free speech.

Can The National Guard Detain And Arrest You?

Prompt: Republicans are attempting to undermine the rights of U.S. citizens by limiting the protections of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religion. They frequently accuse liberals of inciting political violence and promoting cancel culture, framing these as threats to free speech. However, historically, many actions committed by Republicans—such as Republican-led states implementing laws that limit voting rights, restrict access to reproductive health services, and censor educational content—demonstrate a pattern of undermining civil liberties. Furthermore, efforts to undermine the independence of the judiciary and attack the press—such as attempts to discredit journalists or threaten legal action against media outlets—raise concerns about threats to free expression and democratic accountability. These actions reveal a pattern of undermining civil liberties that many Republicans covertly support. The reason they are so adamant about accusing liberals of threatening free speech is a diversion, a political tactic aimed at preventing U.S. citizens from noticing that Republicans are actually among the worst offenders. And it seems to be gaining traction, especially within Republican echo chambers.

“But it’s not just the actions that echo the past, it’s the language. Trump and his administration have revived familiar, misleading claims that crime is “out of control” in Democratic cities, and that America is under siege from within. It’s the same politically motivated, fear-driven rhetoric used by past presidents to justify crackdowns and surveillance, from Nixon’s call for law and order to Reagan’s declaration that “We must make America safe again.” The difference now is who’s listening and who’s beginning to feel the weight of those words.

Normalizing the level of state power on display right now threatens everyone’s civil liberties, not just those on society’s margins. That’s what Black communities have warned about for generations. Unchecked policing power never stays contained. What begins as targeted enforcement in certain neighborhoods will eventually expand until the entire public is subject to the same surveillance, aggression, and fear. The alarms that went unheard in the past are now blaring across the country.

We must confront America’s long history of using policing as an instrument of control, rather than protection. This reckoning can’t wait until these same tactics engulf the entire nation. It needs to happen now, while there’s still time to pull back from a path that threatens the very idea of democracy.

What we’re witnessing is more than a law-and-order campaign—and it threatens to normalize the use of state power to quiet every social problem, every protest, every perceived threat. Black communities have carried the weight of that power for centuries.

If the country refuses to listen now, this won’t be a moment of crisis, it will be a turning point. The new norm of militarized, politically-driven law enforcement will no longer just define one people’s history. It will define America’s future.” Excerpt from: Trump’s National Guard Deployment Shows America What Black Communities Have Always Known

“Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump backed his defense secretary’s new rules. “I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace,” Trump said. “The press is very dishonest.”

Even before issuing his new press policy, Hegseth, a former Fox News Channel host, has systematically choked off the flow of information. He’s […] banned reporters from accessing many parts of the sprawling Pentagon without an escort and launched investigations into leaks to the media.

He has called his new rules “common sense” and said the requirement that journalists sign a document outlining the rules means they acknowledge the new rules, not necessarily agree to them. Journalists see that as a distinction without a difference.

“What they’re really doing, they want to spoon-feed information to the journalist, and that would be their story. That’s not journalism,” said Jack Keane, a retired U.S. Army general and Fox News analyst, said on Hegseth’s former network.” Excerpt from: Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agree to new reporting rules

“Ultimately, history teaches us that temporary peace achieved through authoritarianism is often an illusion, and the true cost is the erosion of civil rights, individual freedoms, and the rule of law. Democratic societies must remain vigilant, fostering compromise and understanding, even amid polarization. Otherwise, they risk sliding into cycles of authoritarianism, where the promise of stability masks the suppression of dissent and the consolidation of power by a few.“If our democracy dies, the reason won’t be that Americans were too apathetic to save it; it will be that they voted it out of existence.” By: H. Scott Butler

“Though liberty is established by law, we must be vigilant, for liberty to enslave us is always present under that same liberty. Our Constitution speaks of the ‘general welfare of the people’. Under that phrase all sorts of excesses can be employed by [authoritarian] tyrants—to make us bondsmen.” By: Marcus Tullius Cicero

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” By: Ayn Rand

“Tyranny feeds on fear, silencing voices and binding wills; democracy prevails through courage—raising voices and resisting in the shadows.” By: A. Freeman

“Under Trump, we’ve lost decency. We’ve lost civility. We’ve lost respect for the rule of law. We’ve normalized verbal abuse on the internet. We’ve normalized bullying. As much as the woke generation tried to change that, it’s back. Out the window goes character and integrity. Nobody has great things to say about politicians, but ideally, we’re supposed to elect the best of us, not the worst. He embodies everything that’s wrong, not just with America, but with being human.” By: Jeff Daniels

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” By: Pastor Martin Niemöller

Fact-check “Op-Ed: This Is Why Cuban Nationals Embrace the MAGA Republican Party”:

Cuban Americans’ understanding of political violence

Accurate: Many Cuban Americans have firsthand experience with political violence, repression, and tyranny in Cuba. Personal narratives and historical accounts confirm this.

Stockholm syndrome analogy

Partially accurate: The term is used metaphorically in psychological discussions to describe trauma bonding or misplaced allegiance. While not a clinical diagnosis in this context, it is a common analogy to explain how trauma survivors might develop emotional attachments or sympathies with their oppressors or adopt oppressive tactics.

Historical roots of political violence in socialist regimes

Accurate: Cuba’s revolution and subsequent government have relied on violence for power and control. The Cuban regime has used repression, imprisonment, and violence against dissenters. Hannah Arendt’s work supports the idea that totalitarian regimes often emerge from violent upheaval.
Additional context: The Cuban Revolution in 1959 involved armed conflict, and the regime has used political repression, imprisonment, and violent suppression of dissenters over the decades.

Reliance on violence in socialist regimes like the Soviet Union and Venezuela

Accurate: Both regimes have histories of violence and repression used to seize and maintain power. The Soviet Union’s use of purges, Gulags, and repression are well-documented. Venezuela’s recent history involves repression, violence, and authoritarian practices.

Deception of Cuban immigrants by MAGA rhetoric

Partially accurate: Some evidence indicates that trauma and psychological factors, including susceptibility to fear-based narratives, influence political beliefs. The idea that some Cuban Americans are unwittingly supporting authoritarian tactics echoes concerns about trauma bonding and political manipulation.

Rhetoric of the MAGA movement

Accurate: Trump and other MAGA leaders and sychophants have used divisive language, fear-mongering, and populist tactics. Critics and fact-checkers have documented instances of inflammatory rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and dehumanization.

Pattern of violence and repression in socialist regimes

Accurate: Cuba’s history as a socialist regime involves armed conflict, repression, and suppression of dissent. The Cuban government has used violence to maintain control since 1959.

Hate speech and normalization of violence

Supported by evidence: Numerous studies and reports indicate that hate speech and dehumanizing language can incite violence and undermine democratic norms. Leaders who promote hate speech can create environments conducive to violence.

Psychological theories like Stockholm syndrome and cognitive dissonance

Supported: Psychological research supports that trauma can influence beliefs and perceptions, leading individuals to support systems or rhetoric that may be harmful or oppressive.

Support for the idea that American democracy is based on principles of equality and liberty

Accurate: The U.S. Constitution and founding documents emphasize liberty, equality, and justice for all. While historical injustices exist, the foundational ideals are clear.

Danger of rhetoric that promotes hate and division

Supported: Many experts warn that divisive rhetoric and hate speech erode social cohesion and can lead to violence, as historical and contemporary examples demonstrate.

Conclusion about safeguarding democracy

Supported: Vigilance, education, and rejecting divisive rhetoric are widely recommended strategies to protect democratic institutions, especially in the face of rising authoritarian tendencies.

Summary: The essay’s key assertions are generally accurate and supported by historical and psychological evidence. It correctly links the history of socialist regimes with the dangers of repression, and it accurately describes the divisive and fear-based tactics used by some political figures today. The analogy of trauma bonding or Stockholm syndrome is metaphorical but widely used in political psychology discussions.

Fact check “Why Cuban and Venezuelan Nationals Gravitate Toward the MAGA Republican Movement: A Psychological and Historical Perspective:

Historical Context of Cuba and Venezuela

Cuba
Accurate that Cuba has experienced prolonged authoritarian rule under Fidel Castro and subsequent leaders.
Documented repression of dissent, restrictions on speech, assembly, and political opposition are well-established.
Venezuela
Venezuela has faced increasing authoritarian tendencies under Nicolás Maduro, including political imprisonments, suppression of opposition, and economic crises.
Human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented repression and civil liberties violations.

Psychological Impact of Trauma and PTSD

Trauma and Repression
Prolonged exposure to authoritarian regimes can lead to psychological trauma, including hyper-vigilance and distrust of institutions.
The concept of “learned helplessness” is a well-established psychological phenomenon, where individuals accept authoritarian control as a survival mechanism.
PTSD and Survival Instincts
PTSD can cause individuals to associate strong authority with safety, based on their past experiences.
The metaphor “PTSD brain” is a figurative way of describing how trauma influences perception, not a clinical diagnosis.

Global Patterns of Authority Preference

Historical Examples
Post-World War II Germany and Eastern European countries under Soviet influence show support for strong, authoritative regimes during times of chaos.
Refugees from conflict zones often prefer regimes promising stability, even if civil liberties are limited.
Universal Traumatic Response
Populations fleeing chaos tend to favor order and security over unrestricted freedoms, supported by psychological and historical evidence.

Perceptions of Civil Rights

Limited Civil Rights in Origin Countries
Cuba and Venezuela have histories of limited or absent civil liberties.
Civil rights such as free speech and protest are often restricted or manipulated in these regimes.
Familiarity with Authoritarian Control
These populations may view unlimited civil rights as dangerous because past regimes used civil liberties as tools of repression.
Their desire for limited rights is shaped by a need for stability, not necessarily a rejection of freedom.

Psychological Barriers to Unlimited Civil Liberties

Trauma’s Role
Trauma creates a cognitive framework where extensive civil rights are perceived as threats, not freedoms.
The phrase “PTSD brain” emphasizes the lasting psychological imprint of repression influencing political preferences.
Fear of Chaos
Opening civil liberties in their view could risk chaos based on their past experiences, making them wary of unbounded freedoms.

Overall Validity and Limitations

Supported by Evidence
The historical and psychological patterns described are consistent with research on trauma, refugees, and authoritarian regimes.
Potential Overgeneralization
Not all Cuban and Venezuelan immigrants support the MAGA movement; motivations are diverse.
Individual experiences vary, and some may value civil liberties differently despite shared histories.

Fact-check “Commentary: How MAGA Republicans are inciting political violence by attacking the First Amendment“:

Republicans and restrictions on voting rights and reproductive health:

It’s accurate that some Republican-led states have passed laws that restrict voting access (e.g., strict ID laws, limits on mail-in ballots), which many critics argue suppress voter turnout.
Several states with Republican legislatures have enacted laws restricting access to reproductive health services, including abortion bans or restrictions, especially following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Harassment and intimidation tactics by conservative groups against abortion providers:

There have been documented cases of harassment and violence directed at abortion providers and clinics, including threats and protests that sometimes escalate to violence.

Efforts to undermine the independence of the judiciary and discredit the press:

Some Republican politicians have questioned judicial independence and targeted media outlets critical of them, including efforts to discredit organizations like CNN, The New York Times, and others.
President Trump and allies have repeatedly attacked the press, calling them “fake news,” which is widely seen as undermining journalistic credibility.

January 6 Capitol riot and false claims of election fraud:

It is well-documented that the riot was fueled by false claims of election fraud promoted by President Trump and some Republican leaders.
Multiple investigations, including the House Select Committee, have shown that the riot was incited by rhetoric that questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

Psychological tactics like exploitation of biases:

The use of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning to incite violence and deepen polarization is supported by psychological research, though direct causal links in specific events are complex.

Accusations of liberals threatening free speech as diversion:

This is more interpretative but aligns with common political narratives where both sides blame each other for threats to civil liberties. Conservative media often frame liberal policies or protests as threats to free speech.

Historical comparisons to authoritarian regimes:

Historically, authoritarian regimes have undermined civil liberties, and some of the tactics described (e.g., press censorship, intimidation) are consistent with such regimes.
The comparison serves as a cautionary analogy, but the U.S. remains a democracy, with ongoing debates about the scope of civil liberties.

Overall assessment:
Most of the claims in the essay are supported by factual evidence and well-documented events. The essay presents a narrative that aligns with many analyses by journalists, scholars, and observers who critique current political trends. However, some points, especially about intentionality and motives (e.g., diversion tactics), are interpretative.