How Conservatives’ and White Evangelicals’ Emotions were Hijacked by MAGA

Love Light or Black Heart

Love for the one,
outshines hate for many.

If you share the love,
the one will be loved.

Hate for many,
eclipses love for the one.

Your love dims for the one,
when you share the pain.

So don’t follow the Broadway,
that turns love into spite.

For hate can turn daylight,
into a darkened night.

The Stanford Prison Experiment & The Psychology of Evil

From Language to Collective Punishment: The Consequences of Dehumanizing Rhetoric

Imagine being thrust into a role where authority blinds you to compassion, where words can turn ordinary people into agents of cruelty. This unsettling reality was vividly demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo. In just a matter of days, well-intentioned individuals transformed into figures of tyranny, illustrating how unchecked power and dehumanizing environments can unleash the darker side of human nature. This experiment reveals a chilling truth: cruelty isn’t solely the domain of bad or psychopathic individuals; it can arise from the most unexpected places.

As we delve into the dynamics of power and cruelty, we must consider the rhetoric wielded by influential leaders. Research shows that dehumanizing language—words that strip individuals of their humanity—can ignite collective punitive behaviors against entire communities. A study by Haslam and Loughnan (2014) identifies how labeling opponents as “vermin” or “monsters” legitimizes harmful actions against them, creating a toxic atmosphere in which punishment feels justified.

This phenomenon echoes through history, as we witness leaders who have used incendiary language to vilify others and pave the way for violence. Adolf Hitler’s propaganda depicted Jews as dangerous threats to the German nation, fueling widespread persecution and culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust. Similarly, Joseph Stalin dehumanized perceived enemies in the Soviet Union, leading to brutal purges and mass executions justified by the need to protect the state.

In today’s context, Donald Trump’s rhetoric surrounding immigration offers a contemporary example of this dangerous trend. His characterization of migrants as “animals” during a 2018 speech not only stripped these individuals of their humanity but also empowered law enforcement and certain segments of society to act with alarming aggression. This mirrors Hitler’s language, which fostered a collective mindset that sanctioned violence against entire communities.

The consequences are stark. A 2017 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center documented a troubling rise in hate crimes following Trump’s inflammatory comments about immigrants, pointing to a direct connection between his rhetoric and a chilling normalization of aggression toward marginalized groups.

The ramifications extend into institutions such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), where Trump’s language has been linked to aggressive enforcement actions. A 2020 report by Human Rights Watch chronicled instances of excessive force used by ICE agents, revealing that the hostile framing of immigration enforcement as a battle against threats emboldened these agents to act without restraint.

In a 2024 reelection campaign speech in Michigan, Trump doubled down on his rhetoric, describing immigrants who committed crimes as “animals” and “not human.” He dismissed criticisms with a strikingly callous retort: “The Democrats say, ‘Please don’t call them animals. They’re humans.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not humans, they’re not humans. They’re animals.'” Such rhetoric fosters a culture in which entire communities are held accountable for the actions of a few.

Research by Kearns et al. (2018) highlights that leaders’ inflammatory language can significantly influence followers’ attitudes, encouraging a climate where cruelty toward migrants is tolerated and even condoned. This phenomenon recalls the tactics used by historical figures such as Benito Mussolini, who also employed derogatory language to rally support against perceived enemies.

The psychological dynamics of power and authority extend beyond mere language. They create an environment ripe for sadism, where those who feel omnipotent, especially within echo chambers of groupthink, can justify their cruel actions. The patterns observed in the Stanford experiment resonate with historical trends in authoritarian regimes, where the corruption of power proliferates through societal structures.

As we explore these dynamics, it becomes evident that rhetoric profoundly shapes how we view our fellow humans. When influential figures devalue empathy and frame certain groups as threats, they cultivate an environment conducive to cruelty. We must remain vigilant, recognizing that the language leaders employ can either inhibit or amplify the darker aspects of human nature.

To truly understand the roots of cruelty, we must scrutinize not only systemic structures but also the cultural and rhetorical frameworks that dictate behavior. Implementing safeguards against systemic abuse requires a commitment to responsible leadership and thoughtful dialogue, ensuring that we shape societal attitudes positively.

In conclusion, the Stanford Prison Experiment reveals that even ordinary individuals can succumb to cruelty when overwhelmed by systemic structures and situational forces. As we learn from historical examples of tyrants, we must engage in a constant effort to prevent the normalization of cruelty in our society. Through recognizing the powerful role of language, we can foster a climate where compassion prevails over dehumanization, promoting a more humane world.

Questions and Answers for Students:

What is the main argument that connects rhetoric to historical figures?
Answer: The main argument is that both contemporary leaders like Donald Trump and historical figures such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin used inflammatory rhetoric to dehumanize specific groups, which facilitated societal aggression and justified collective punishment.
How does the Stanford Prison Experiment help you understand the dynamics of power and cruelty?
Answer: The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates how ordinary people can engage in cruel behavior when placed in positions of power without accountability. It illustrates how systemic structures and dehumanizing environments can lead to abuse, similar to the rhetoric used by historical tyrants.
What role does dehumanizing language play in creating an environment for cruelty?
Answer: Dehumanizing language strips individuals of their humanity, making it easier for society to justify aggressive actions against them. This realization mirrors the tactics used by figures like Hitler, who referred to Jews as “vermin” to rationalize violence against them.
Can you provide an example of how Trump’s rhetoric mirrors past tyrants?
Answer: An example is when Trump labeled migrants as “animals,” which dehumanized them and justified harsh treatment by law enforcement. This is similar to how Hitler’s terminology created a shared belief that brutality against Jews was acceptable.
What evidence supports the idea that Trump’s rhetoric influenced societal behavior?
Answer: You might consider the 2017 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which documented a rise in hate crimes following Trump’s inflammatory immigration comments, illustrating how rhetoric can lead to real-world aggression.
How did Trump’s rhetoric impact institutions like ICE?
Answer: Trump’s inflammatory language led to an increase in aggressive actions by ICE agents, as reported by Human Rights Watch. The hostile framing of immigration enforcement encouraged agents to act without restraint, reminiscent of Stalin’s oppressive strategies.
What psychological factors contribute to cruelty in societal contexts?
Answer: Factors such as authority, anonymity, and lack of accountability can create an environment where cruelty flourishes. This aligns with the dynamics seen in both the Stanford Experiment and historical authoritarian regimes.
How does groupthink exacerbate the impact of leaders’ rhetoric on societal behavior?
Answer: Groupthink creates an echo chamber that reinforces collective beliefs, making it easier to justify cruel actions against targeted groups. This phenomenon is evident in how Nazi propaganda rallied individuals to commit atrocities against Jews.
What safeguards are suggested to mitigate systemic abuse?
Answer: Systemic safeguards, oversight, and responsible rhetoric from leaders. These measures can help ensure accountability and prevent the normalization of cruelty in society.
Why is it essential for you to understand the connection between rhetoric and behavior?
Answer: Understanding the connection between rhetoric and behavior is crucial because it highlights how language shapes societal norms. By recognizing this influence, you can work toward advocating for responsible leadership and preventing the cruelty that arises from dehumanizing language.

Why Good People Comply with Evil

The Path to Radicalization: How Authority and Conformity Shape Fear, Hatred, and Scapegoating

“Love for the one outshines hate for many. If you share the love, the one will be loved. Hate for many, eclipses love for the one. Your love dims for the one, when you share the pain.” This poetic insight underscores a fundamental truth: connection and empathy can counteract division, yet societal forces often push individuals toward fear and hostility. Understanding how majority groups can be manipulated into fearing, hating, or scapegoating minorities requires examining the powerful influence of authority, social conformity, and psychological factors illuminated by landmark studies and human nature itself.

At the heart of this process lies the subtle but potent influence of authority. The Milgram experiments at Yale University in 1961 revealed that ordinary individuals are capable of inflicting harm when instructed by an authority figure. Participants believed they were administering painful shocks to others and continued despite ethical concerns, simply because an authority demanded it. This demonstrated that obedience can override personal moral judgment—especially when authority legitimizes harmful behavior. When authoritarian leaders incite or incentivize hostility—whether through rhetoric, policy, or intimidation—they activate this obedience, convincing followers that their actions serve a higher purpose or protect societal integrity.

Similarly, the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo, demonstrated how situational authority and assigned roles could lead ordinary people to engage in abusive and inhumane behavior. Participants assigned as guards adopted cruel behaviors, illustrating how environments infused with authority and perceived power can distort moral boundaries and foster hostility.

Conformity further deepens this influence. The Asch conformity studies highlight how social pressure can lead individuals to conform to group norms—even when these norms involve prejudice or hostility. Participants often conformed to the majority’s incorrect or biased responses, suppressing their own judgments to avoid social disapproval. In a society influenced by authoritative narratives, individuals may find it easier to adopt collective fears or hatreds, believing that conformity maintains social cohesion or safety. The desire to survive, avoid conflict, or meet societal expectations can thus transform individual indifference into collective hostility.

The diffusion of responsibility also plays a crucial role. The Bystander Effect, exemplified by studies surrounding the case of Kitty Genovese, shows how individuals are less likely to help or intervene in emergencies when others are present, assuming someone else will act. This diffusion of responsibility—reinforced by social norms and authority cues—can lead to inaction or passive acceptance of hostility toward minorities, especially when authoritative figures reinforce the idea that “others are responsible” for societal safety.

Moreover, the Robbers Cave Experiment by Muzafer Sherif demonstrated how intergroup conflict could be manipulated through competition and authoritative directives. When told to see each other as enemies, groups fostered hostility; when cooperative goals were introduced, hostility diminished. This shows how social and authoritative influences can dramatically shape attitudes, fostering or reducing hostility depending on the environment.

The Good Samaritan Study by John Darley and Daniel Batson further emphasizes how external pressures—such as time constraints—can override moral instincts. Participants under perceived urgency ignored individuals in distress, illustrating how situational factors influence moral action. When authorities or societal pressures stress obedience or conformity, individual moral judgment often takes a backseat.

The development of Social Identity Theory by Henri Tajfel and John Turner explains how group membership influences behavior. When authority figures promote stereotypes or prejudiced norms, individuals are more likely to conform, leading to discrimination against out-groups. This process is further reinforced by phenomena like groupthink, described by Irving Janis, where cohesive groups under authoritative influence suppress dissent and adopt extreme or hostile positions.

These studies collectively demonstrate that the transformation of a majority group into one that fears, hates, or scapegoats minorities is not an inherent trait but a consequence of manipulative authority, social conformity, and environmental influences. The regime’s narrative, fueled by propaganda and reinforced through social pressures, can distort moral intuitions and normalize hostility.

Consider a scenario where a charismatic leader exploits existing societal tensions. They begin by framing a minority group as a threat—perhaps suggesting that this group is responsible for economic decline or moral decay. Through conservative social media and propaganda, authorities amplify fears, depicting the minority as dangerous or untrustworthy. Ordinary citizens, motivated by a desire for safety and social acceptance, start to conform, echoing the leader’s narrative. As social psychologists have shown, once a few individuals express hostility, others follow suit, fearing social exclusion or retribution if they dissent.

This process is further reinforced by a reductionist approach to life—those who prefer small, safe lives often avoid engaging with complex societal issues. They might not actively seek conflict but become passive participants or unwitting accomplices in systemic scapegoating. The regime’s narrative is reinforced, and the collective mindset eventually becomes ingrained.

Authoritarian regimes distort moral intuitions, elevating the state and leader above individual worth. Under such regimes, morality becomes conditional—punishment and reward are arbitrary tools wielded by the state. As a result, citizens learn to prioritize survival over principle, often at the expense of their moral integrity. This environment makes it easier for individuals to rationalize hostility toward minorities, viewing them as enemies necessary for national security or unity. The moral culpability diminishes because the regime has twisted the moral compass, making cruelty seem virtuous or justified.

Furthermore, the “comfort cult” of complacency—believing that reason will prevail—can lull societies into a false sense of security until a crisis erupts unexpectedly. When the crisis hits, ingrained conformity and obedience facilitate rapid shifts toward hostility and scapegoating, often out of fear that they are defending their survival.

The powerful influence of figures like President Trump and MAGA Republican leaders, along with social conformity and environmental cues, shows how ordinary individuals can be led to fear, hate, or scapegoat vulnerable groups such as immigrants. By framing immigrants as threats to national security, economic stability, or cultural identity, these leaders activate underlying fears and prejudices within the majority population. Influenced by authoritative rhetoric, conservative media, and social pressures, many people go along with these narratives—even when they conflict with their personal morals or Christian principles—because such actions are normalized, incentivized, or accepted within the societal framework.

In conclusion, the transformation of a majority group into one that fears, hates, or scapegoats minorities is not an inevitable outcome but a consequence of manipulative authority, social conformity, and psychological susceptibility. These studies collectively reinforce the idea that authority figures, social pressures, and environmental contexts can strongly influence individuals to act against their personal morals—sometimes leading to hostility, scapegoating, or violence—especially when such actions are normalized, incentivized, or made acceptable within the group or society. This dynamic demonstrates how easily societal fears can be manipulated into collective hostility, “So don’t follow the Broadway, that turns love into spite. For hate can turn daylight, into a darkened night.”

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.“

The Patriot’s Motto:

Nobody has the right to make you feel inferior or superior to anyone or any group. Your worth is inherent and unchangeable; it does not depend on others’ opinions or societal labels. Nobody has the right to compel you to act against your will or to manipulate your emotions or provoke you. We all possess the same constitutionally protected civil rights—the first amendment is fundamental, inalienable, and must be respected by all.

If someone attempts to undermine your dignity, stand firm and assertively tell them to stop. Ask yourself: “Who do they think they are, that they believe they can control or diminish me?” Your worth is not theirs to determine. Do not let any bigot, smooth talker or populist disrespect you or assume authority over your spirit. Such behavior is unacceptable, and you have every right to reject it.

Never tolerate disrespect, injustice, or any form of abuse. Do not sell your integrity for temporary acceptance or approval. Your character and morals define you; guard them fiercely. We are all adults, capable of kindness, understanding, and respect. We are all equal in dignity and rights—no one is inherently better than another.

Let it be clear and unequivocal: we are all God’s children, deserving of love, respect, and compassion. Our diversity is a gift, and our shared humanity is what binds us. In the face of hatred and evil that lurks in the hearts of bigots and racists, we must stand united. We must be courageous in defending justice, kindness, and truth.

Remember, true strength lies in humility and compassion. Stand tall, be unwavering in your principles, and never allow anyone to diminish your light. In unity, love, and faith, we can overcome the darkness and build a world where everyone is valued equally and treated with dignity. Amen.

Don’t Put People in Boxes

Op-Ed: Love and hate are complex, intertwined emotions—both deeply personal and intimate, shared only with the object of our affection or indignation. They reside on the same emotional spectrum, yet their potential to shape a life for good or evil makes them profoundly different in their outcomes. Love, when genuine, can uplift, heal, and unite. Hate, on the other hand, can destroy, divide, and corrupt.

Remarkably, it’s possible for love to turn into hate. One can start by loving someone dearly, only to end up despising that person due to betrayal, heartbreak, or disappointment. These emotional shifts are often subtle at first but can escalate into destructive forces. Both love and hate, when executed maliciously, possess the power to incapacitate—not only the individual but also those around them. This destructive potential can ripple outward, affecting families, communities, churches, and even the state.

Often, what begins as a simple misunderstanding or conflict can spiral into collective contempt, eroding group identities and fostering deep-seated resentment. When hatred takes root, it can overshadow the memory of love, transforming bonds of trust into walls of hostility. Tragically, this descent into bitterness can be fueled by the very human tendency to share pain and resentment, which, if left unchecked, infects whole societies.

Looking at the evil rooted in the hearts of some men, I come to a sobering realization: God did not create that rage. Hate is not a divine gift but the tragic consequence of turning away from God’s love. When humans reject divine grace and choose instead to nurture anger, resentment, and vengeance, they give rise to darkness that can engulf entire nations.

Ultimately, love and hate are not just personal feelings—they are powerful forces that can shape history. The choice to nurture love rather than succumb to hate is a conscious act, a reflection of faith and humility. Because when we let go of hatred and embrace love—especially for the one—we preserve the light within ourselves and foster hope in a world often overshadowed by despair. True strength lies in choosing love, even when it is tested, and recognizing that turning away from hate begins with turning toward divine love—because it is only then that we find the true path to peace and healing.

“The safest road to hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” By: C. S. Lewis

“We inherit our ideas about morality, duty, and truth from the people around us. When we grow up, we gravitate toward social groups and settings that mirror our views and experience implicit pressure to conform to social conventions.” Excerpt from: The illusion of consensus is powerful. Here’s why you should fight it.

“When you start understanding the science and psychology of hate, you begin to realize that there are numerous complex reasons for your hatred towards people. In an ideal world, we would love and respect everyone we interact with. Everyone will be compassionate, emphatic, generous, considerate and kind. We will accept each other’s views no matter how opposing they may be to ours and would learn from different perspectives. But reality is far from ideal. And this is perhaps why we often get upset, angry and annoyed with others.” Excerpt from 5 Reasons Why You Hate People According To Psychology

“People don’t (stop hating) because a veil lifts and they are suddenly able to see hate for what it is…They leave because it makes sense for them, because the value hate once gave them has diminished or evaporated…The reality is, people rarely change their personality or ideals during adulthood, and if they do, it needs to be something they do on their own, for themselves…I realized much too late that (hate) is a huge waste of life.” By: Corinna Olsen

“In every encounter, we either give life or we drain it; there is no neutral exchange.” By: Brennan Manning

“It is we who nourish the ‘Soul Of The World’, and the world we live in will be either better or worse, depending on whether we become better or worse.” By: Paulo Coelho

“I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.” Romans 16:17-18

“If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.” I Timothy 6:3-5

References:

These experiments explore how authority, social conformity, and environmental influences contribute to the transformation of majority groups into entities that fear, hate, or scapegoat minorities. It highlights that this process is fueled by psychological mechanisms demonstrated in landmark studies, propaganda, and societal pressures. Authority figures manipulate narratives, exploiting these psychological tendencies to justify hostility. Understanding these influences emphasizes the importance of critical awareness to prevent such destructive dynamics and promote empathy and moral integrity.

Itemized List of Studies:

1. Milgram Experiments (1961, Yale University)

Demonstrated that ordinary individuals are capable of inflicting harm when instructed by an authority figure, often overriding personal moral judgment.

2. Stanford Prison Experiment (Philip Zimbardo)