Skip to main content

Is the modern-day GOP/Trumpism a cult?

Just recently, Republican Senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker, said this regarding his party and its current leader:

"We are in a strange place. It's almost, it's becoming a cultish thing, isn't it? It's not a good place for any party to end up with a cult-like situation as it relates to a president that happens to be of, purportedly, of the same party."

Just how accurate is Senator Corker's claim? Let's check, shall we?

According to the Cult Education Institute, there are ten warning signs to look out for with regard to the behavior of a potential cult leader and potential cult followers. Let's start with the former.

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

I'd say Trump's intent is authoritarianism, but his execution often falls short of that. The man can't seem to hold himself accountable for anything, however. So, since I believe this to be 3/4 truthful, I'll give it a grade of 0.75/1.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

This is a definite yes. When's the last time you saw Trump take kindly to criticism? Ah, that's right - never. 1/1 (1.75/2 total).

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as independently audited financial statement.

Two words: tax returns. 1/1 (2.75/3)

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

Considering Donald Trump is the conspiracy president, I think it's safe to say he fits this description as well. 1/1 (3.75/4)

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

How many officials have resigned since Trump took office? How many of them did he speak kindly about afterwards? Yeah, Trump fits this listing to a T. 1/1 (4.75/5)

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

Trump's rather notorious for treating his workers poorly. There have been exceptions, however, so I'll cut him a little bit of slack here. 0.75/1 (5.5/6)

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Um, yes. Why else do you think he refers to the media as "American's worst enemy"? 1/1 (6.5/7)

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

I'm not seeing this one. A big reason Trump won the election wasn't that he made millions of people not feel "good enough." Unfortunately, he had the opposite affect on bigots everywhere. 0/1 (6.5/8)

9. The group/leader is always right.

That's what he thinks anyway. Fact-checkers have a far different idea on the matter... 1/1 (7.5/9)

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing 'truth' or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is acceptable or credible.

I'd say this is partially, but not fully accurate. After all, Trump, while he regularly lambasts 95% of the media, he does often speak glowingly of Fox News. 0.5/1 (8/10)


Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

This is so accurate, I'm tempted to give it a f*ck yes grade. 1/1 (1/1)

2. Individual liberty, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

Considering it's seemed as though the lines between fact and fiction have been so greatly blurred under this president, I'm thinking this one is accurate as well. 2/2 (2/2)

3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

"Persecution," "bias," "fake news," among other things... 3/3 (3/3)

4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

I would say this is at least partially accurate, but until I see a horde of people exhibiting similar mannerisms to Trump, I'm not ready to say it's fully accurate. 0.5/1 (3.5/4)

5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

Like with #4, I think this is only partially accurate. Many Trump supporters do often look to him for guidance, but I also believe they had trouble thinking critically prior to him becoming president, so the link isn't absolute. 0.5/1 (4/5)

6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

I'll continue with the partially-true trend, as while there may often be hyperactivity amongst Trump's followers with regard to his agenda, their personal goals and individual interests can also intertwine with said agenda. 0.5/1 (4.5/6)

7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

This is difficult to measure, in my opinion. While I've noticed this on occasion, I have a hard time giving it a whole lot of credence to this point. 0.25/1 (4.75/7)

8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

I've observed this very thing here and there, but have a difficult time giving it more than half a point. 0.5/1 (5.25/8)

9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

Like with #1, this is a f*ck yes. 1/1 (6.25/9)

10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

We're finishing strong, as this is a definite yes as well. 1/1 (7.25/10)

So, there we have it. On the cult scale, Donald Trump received a score of 8 out of 10 and his supporters garnered a score of 7.25 out of 10, for a combined score of 15.25 out of 20. Yes, the modern-day GOP, led by Donald Trump, is a cult.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/13/sen-bob-corker-gop-becoming-cult-like-its-support-trump/698086002/

https://culteducation.com/warningsigns.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"