The psychology behind Christians supporting Trump.

[sjastro]

Since psychology is a soft science what better place to ask the question why Christians particularly Evangelicals largely support Trump.

Hopefully part 2 not yet released will provide more substantial answers.

 

[Neogaia777]

Since psychology is a soft science what better place to ask the question why Christians particularly Evangelicals largely support Trump.

Hopefully part 2 not yet released will provide more substantial answers.

Or it could maybe not have anything to do with what he said maybe? But maybe it just simply came down to good ole fashion what they saw or decided or perceived as being the most in line with their own selfishness, or own self-interests maybe? I mean, isn't that the way that a lot of us choose, or do a lot of things? When we're all stripped down, and are 100% completely honest with ourselves I mean anyway, etc. People don't like that answer, because they don't like to think of themselves that way, but it is why a lot of us do a lot of things.

For me personally though, I had a lot of a lot of difficulty deciding that this last election season though, and it led to me ultimately not deciding actually, but deciding to yield to whatever the majority of the rest of the American people decided this last election season, and then doing my best to settle myself with whatever that was or would be after, etc.

They didn't make it very easy at all for someone like me to decide this last election season. Because it most definitely was not because one choice was so much "higher", or "better", or "greater" than the other, and that's putting it mildly, etc, as I'm also prevented from what I'd like to use that are a lot of other words for much better describing it on here, etc. They were "very, very great poop", or "very, very sizeable excrement", etc.

But I suggest that psychologically, most people are driven by their own perceived most self-interest in almost anything they do or choose a lot of the time, and that's with pretty much anything, etc. And they perceived Trump to be the most in line with their own self-interests, etc. Especially over the other alternative/candidate/party, like I said.

We all like to dress it up, because of how we all like to think of ourselves, and think we are all always better than another, or the other, etc, but that's all anything really is with anybody with almost any kind of choice (or anything) in the end. It's almost always very, very selfish, and chooses to serve/honor only all of our own egos in the end. We all are always trying to take the moral high ground(s) over others, or the other, etc, but it's really only because we all know just exactly how we all are only the exact opposite of that in the end, and that's all as clear as day, or as transparent as glass, etc. The fact that we all are always doing it is proof of that. It's a desperate extremely vain attempt to way, way overcompensate for something that we all know we are all completely void of, or inherently lack. Process that into your psychology, or psychoanalysis.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems to me you can't even vote anymore without be psychoanalyzed.

 

[Neogaia777]

Trying to weigh those two on the scales of balance just wound up very, very much and greatly and severely frustrating me daily for me almost daily, etc, and as the election got closer and closer and closer daily, and I still couldn't decide, I just ultimately decided not to choose in the end, but yield to whatever the the rest of the American people decided in or by the end of it, and do my best afterward to be supportive of such a person, no matter how hard they might make that for me, in or by the end of it, etc. I won't ever idolize any mere man (or woman) though, etc.

God Bless.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Probably the same psychology that allows a person who identifies as christian to believe in evolution.

 

[sjastro]

Or it could maybe not have anything to do with what he said maybe? But maybe it just simply came down to good ole fashion what they saw or decided or perceived as being the most in line with their own selfishness, or own self-interests maybe? I mean, isn't that the way that a lot of us choose, or do a lot of things? When we're all stripped down, and are 100% completely honest with ourselves I mean anyway, etc. People don't like that answer, because they don't like to think of themselves that way, but it is why a lot of us do a lot of things.

For me personally though, I had a lot of a lot of difficulty deciding that this last election season though, and it led to me ultimately not deciding actually, but deciding to yield to whatever the majority of the rest of the American people decided this last election season, and then doing my best to settle myself with whatever that was or would be after, etc.

They didn't make it very easy at all for someone like me to decide this last election season. Because it most definitely was not because one choice was so much "higher", or "better", or "greater" than the other, and that's putting it mildly, etc, as I'm also prevented from what I'd like to use that are a lot of other words for much better describing it on here, etc. They were "very, very great poop", or "very, very sizeable excrement", etc.

But I suggest that psychologically, most people are driven by their own perceived most self-interest in almost anything they do or choose a lot of the time, and that's with pretty much anything, etc. And they perceived Trump to be the most in line with their own self-interests, etc. Especially over the other alternative/candidate/party, like I said.

We all like to dress it up, because of how we all like to think of ourselves, and think we are all always better than another, or the other, etc, but that's all anything really is with anybody with almost any kind of choice (or anything) in the end. It's almost always very, very selfish, and chooses to serve/honor only all of our own egos in the end. We all are always trying to take the moral high ground(s) over others, or the other, etc, but it's really only because we all know just exactly how we all are only the exact opposite of that in the end, and that's all as clear as day, or as transparent as glass, etc. The fact that we all are always doing it is proof of that. It's a desperate extremely vain attempt to way, way overcompensate for something that we all know we are all completely void of, or inherently lack. Process that into your psychology, or psychoanalysis.

God Bless.

If voting was based on personal issues, it becomes difficult to explain why particular voting blocs occurred such as 82% of white male evangelicals voters preferred Trump or 61% of college educated females voted for Harris.

What I didn’t find satisfactory in the video was Trump’s popularity amongst evangelicals was his authoritarian style of leadership reflected how evangelicals raise their own children leading to a binary viewpoint of the world of being for us or against us.
It ignores the moral code which evangelicals supposedly abide to which clashes with Trump’s amoral or immoral behaviour.

 

[ozso]

Since psychology is a soft science what better place to ask the question why Christians particularly Evangelicals largely support Trump.

Hopefully part 2 not yet released will provide more substantial answers.

This is a lot of malarky. From their perspective Trump has been viciously attacked since the day he was elected. Certain people went completely insane over it and one accusation after another piled up as they tried anything and everything to bring him down. Endless persecution including a ridiculous amount of lawfare. Therefore they concluded charges brought against him were/are bogus, and that he was falsely convicted. Which they've made abundantly clear. End of story.

 

[Neogaia777]

If voting was based on personal issues, it becomes difficult to explain why particular voting blocs occurred such as 82% of white male evangelicals voters preferred Trump or 61% of college educated females voted for Harris.

What I didn’t find satisfactory in the video was Trump’s popularity amongst evangelicals was his authoritarian style of leadership reflected how evangelicals raise their own children leading to a binary viewpoint of the world of being for us or against us.
It ignores the moral code which evangelicals supposedly abide to which clashes with Trump’s amoral or immoral behaviour.

That's because all people motives about the moral high ground is basically a smokescreen or an illusion. (From my perspective or point of view anyway) (but I thought I made that clear already?)

Any time you see anyone that is claiming that their true reasons or motives for choosing/doing anything is because they think it's more right morally, then you basically automatically know that you can't believe anything else they say after that, because none of us is ever that right or that pure morally, etc. People do/say/choose what suits or serves them best, or what they think does or will in the moment, and that's pretty much it, or is almost always the real truth about anything, or, at least, anything involving people at least, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Needless to say, I'm tired of all the self-righteouness, and I'm definitely tired of all the parrots. True objectivity is no where to be found, and people who can think/decide truly for themselves are truly rare, and all of these things that I have right now been discussing, are all very, very great hindrances to all of that.

 

[linux.poet]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has been moved from Physical & Life Sciences to General Politics. ​

I hate to be an academic about this, but psychology is not a Physical or a Life Science. Also, I think that this is a sensitive theory for Christians that I don't think we want the atheists ridiculing us over for now.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[FireDragon76]

If voting was based on personal issues, it becomes difficult to explain why particular voting blocs occurred such as 82% of white male evangelicals voters preferred Trump or 61% of college educated females voted for Harris.

What I didn’t find satisfactory in the video was Trump’s popularity amongst evangelicals was his authoritarian style of leadership reflected how evangelicals raise their own children leading to a binary viewpoint of the world of being for us or against us.
It ignores the moral code which evangelicals supposedly abide to which clashes with Trump’s amoral or immoral behaviour.

Though many Evangelicals have authoritarian parenting styles, I don't think its universal, and I offered some alternative explanations in the video's comments.

Trump's strongest support is actually among people that are nominally religious, rural and suburban white Americans who hold Christianity as more of an ethnic or cultural identifier than a religious practice. They aren't people deeply involved in their religion.

That's because all people motives about the moral high ground is basically a smokescreen or an illusion. (From my perspective or point of view anyway) (but I thought I made that clear already?)

Any time you see anyone that is claiming that their true reasons or motives for choosing/doing anything is because they think it's more right morally, then you basically automatically know that you can't believe anything else they say after that, because none of us is ever that right or that pure morally, etc. People do/say/choose what suits or serves them best, or what they think does or will in the moment, and that's pretty much it, or is almost always the real truth about anything, or, at least, anything involving people at least, etc.

God Bless.

People like to use sanctimony or self-righteousness as a deflection from introspection and criticism.

 

[Neogaia777]

People like to use sanctimony or self-righteousness as a deflection from introspection and criticism.

All people do, or have a tendency to do this, it's a part of our nature, even including me or you, or anyone on here trying to come up aganist anything, we'll do this when it's someone trying to come up against the much more religious, or more political towards one side or the other in favor of themselves and their own position about some issue, and vice-versa. The only hope we have in being truly objective is in trying to fight this tendency that exists among each one of us all each individually, etc, and that's because it's all egotism, and vanity, which is an enemy of objectivity, or of seeing anything through truly objective lenses, etc.

 

[Neogaia777]

All people do, or have a tendency to do this, it's a part of our nature, even including me or you, or anyone on here trying to come up aganist anything, we'll do this when it's someone trying to come up against the much more religious, or more political towards one side or the other in favor of themselves and their own position about some issue, and vice-versa. The only hope we have in being truly objective is in trying to fight this tendency that exists among each one of us all each individually, etc, and that's because it's all egotism, and vanity, which is an enemy of objectivity, or of seeing anything through truly objective lenses, etc.

How much of the news or the headlines you see people write, and then try to argue, are all about trying to make themselves or their side appear better morally or more on the side of right then the other guy? That alone right there proves what it is really all about really, etc. We'll never get down to the real true facts about anything for as long as we are doing this, etc. Facts don't matter in those cases, but only you and your side just only looking better than the other guy. And when you do, you think you've then "won", but the real truth is, everyone is losing is those cases when the only thing we care about is just only that, and that only, etc. And the whole entire world seems to be just only caught up in just only that nowadays, and nothing else matters, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have to watch this in my own self even, even though I'm well aware of it, I still have to always constantly watch myself, and keep myself in-check about it. There is something in us that is always, always constantly wanting/desiring to put ourselves on higher moral ground than others, or wants to think ourselves better or higher in some area or another than the other. And people who don't try at all to keep themselves in-check about this have no hope at all of ever knowing the real true facts, or the real true truth at all whatsoever, but have already given themselves fully over to it, or this habit/tendency, and have become blinded by the habits/tendencies of their own egos or selfishness, and have no hope of ever really ever truly seeing or knowing "the truth" about anything ever at all ever, etc. And from my perspective or point of view, it is almost everyone in this entire world that is right now caught up in this, etc, so that they have no hope of knowing the real true facts, or of ever seeing/fully knowing the truth, etc. People are truly sitting/dwelling in darkness with no light and cannot see, blinded by this/these habits/tendencies, etc. It's not easy to fight it for anyone, and those not even aware of it, or not even trying, have no hope at all, etc. The world's most definitely not helping, or doesn't make this easy either, and so everyone has to fight that as well, etc. By putting others under us or beneath us, we automatically make ourselves feel better, which is another reason people do this as well, etc.

Anyway,

God Bless.

 

[Jermayn]

Since psychology is a soft science what better place to ask the question why Christians particularly Evangelicals largely support Trump.

Hopefully part 2 not yet released will provide more substantial answers.

Thanks for sharing the video, definitely a thought-provoking topic, but I noticed several issues in how it approaches the discussion:

-The thumbnail alone is misleading. Using the phrase “Why Christians WORSHIP Trump” sets a false pretense right from the start. It primes viewers to see Christian support through a lens of fanaticism rather than sincere political alignment or values-based decision-making.

-Equating parental conservatism with dictatorship is a serious oversimplification. Suggesting that traditional parenting styles naturally create authoritarian adults is not only unfair, it paints a massive group of people with a brush that lacks nuance or compassion.

-The claim that Christian Trump voters blindly follow authoritarian figures ignores the fact that many Christians vote for policy positions, not personalities. It’s one thing to critique behavior or rhetoric, but another to reduce millions of diverse people into a stereotype.

-There's no acknowledgment of political mirroring. Videos like this imply that only one side is susceptible to cult-like behavior or tribalism. That simply isn’t true. Political allegiance, across the board, often becomes emotional and reactive. Singling out one group while ignoring similar patterns elsewhere weakens the argument.

-It generalizes an incredibly diverse group of people. “Christian Trump supporters” include a wide range of ethnicities, denominations, education levels, and personal convictions. Reducing all of them to one psychological profile does more to divide than to understand.

I am a Christian who voted for Trump, and I want to say it’s absolutely fair to ask why people support certain candidates or causes, but real answers require more humility and less stereotyping. Otherwise, we’re just feeding the same polarization we’re trying to critique. And just to be clear, I’m not trying to bash Dr. Razzaque personally. But the fact that a trained psychiatrist overlooked (or chose to ignore) these major issues raise serious concerns about the intent behind this video. It feels less like a good-faith psychological analysis and more like an attempt to push a specific narrative.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks for sharing the video, definitely a thought-provoking topic, but I noticed several issues in how it approaches the discussion:

-The thumbnail alone is misleading. Using the phrase “Why Christians WORSHIP Trump” sets a false pretense right from the start. It primes viewers to see Christian support through a lens of fanaticism rather than sincere political alignment or values-based decision-making.

-Equating parental conservatism with dictatorship is a serious oversimplification. Suggesting that traditional parenting styles naturally create authoritarian adults is not only unfair, it paints a massive group of people with a brush that lacks nuance or compassion.

-The claim that Christian Trump voters blindly follow authoritarian figures ignores the fact that many Christians vote for policy positions, not personalities. It’s one thing to critique behavior or rhetoric, but another to reduce millions of diverse people into a stereotype.

-There's no acknowledgment of political mirroring. Videos like this imply that only one side is susceptible to cult-like behavior or tribalism. That simply isn’t true. Political allegiance, across the board, often becomes emotional and reactive. Singling out one group while ignoring similar patterns elsewhere weakens the argument.

-It generalizes an incredibly diverse group of people. “Christian Trump supporters” include a wide range of ethnicities, denominations, education levels, and personal convictions. Reducing all of them to one psychological profile does more to divide than to understand.

I am a Christian who voted for Trump, and I want to say it’s absolutely fair to ask why people support certain candidates or causes, but real answers require more humility and less stereotyping. Otherwise, we’re just feeding the same polarization we’re trying to critique. And just to be clear, I’m not trying to bash Dr. Razzaque personally. But the fact that a trained psychiatrist overlooked (or chose to ignore) these major issues raise serious concerns about the intent behind this video. It feels less like a good-faith psychological analysis and more like an attempt to push a specific narrative.

He's British. In Britain, bringing religion into politics would automatically mark you out as authoritarian. Nobody in England wants to go back to the days when religious bigotry mingled with nationalism.

The association of authoritarian politics with parenting styles is not his own idea, it goes back to Theodore Adorno's work in the 40's and 50's, and has been supported by a fair amount of research.

 

[Jermayn]

He's British. In Britain, bringing religion into politics would automatically mark you out as authoritarian. Nobody in England wants to go back to the days when religious bigotry mingled with nationalism.

The association of authoritarian politics with parenting styles is not his own idea, it goes back to Theodore Adorno's work in the 40's and 50's, and has been supported by a fair amount of research.

That’s a fair observation, if Dr. Razzaque is approaching this from a British or more European mindset, then sure, we’re going to see some cultural assumptions baked into the analysis. But I don’t think that fully excuses the issues I pointed out. Even within a cultural lens, certain things, like oversimplifying large groups, implying blind authoritarian loyalty, or ignoring equivalent dynamics on the other side, should raise red flags. Cultural context can shape how we see a situation, but it shouldn’t justify ignoring nuance or making sweeping generalizations. If anything, a psychologist should be especially aware of that.

That being said, even if we assume the video reflects a British or European perspective, I don’t think that fully explains, or excuses, the tone set by the word “worship” in the thumbnail. That’s not just a cultural difference in language; it’s a loaded and provocative word that immediately frames the conversation in a negative light.

To me, that choice of language suggests that the video was at least partially motivated by resentment or political bias, rather than a purely good-faith psychological analysis. If the goal were to truly understand or engage Christians who support Trump, starting with the assumption that they “worship” him shuts the door on any honest dialogue before it even begins.

 

[FireDragon76]

To me, that choice of language suggests that the video was at least partially motivated by resentment or political bias, rather than a purely good-faith psychological analysis. If the goal were to truly understand or engage Christians who support Trump, starting with the assumption that they “worship” him shuts the door on any honest dialogue before it even begins.

It's provocative language but I think it raises an important point: many people don't understand the appeal of Trump except as a form of personality cult. Trump himself doesn't personally align with the values that many Christians claim to espouse, or the teachings of Jesus Christ, which would be seemingly important for an understanding of Christian ethics. And excessive devotion can be understood as a kind of idolatry or worship in its own right.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's provocative language but I think it raises an important point: many people don't understand the appeal of Trump except as a form of personality cult. Trump himself doesn't personally align with the values that many Christians claim to espouse, or the teachings of Jesus Christ, which would be seemingly important for an understanding of Christian ethics. And excessive devotion can be understood as a kind of idolatry or worship in its own right.

A lot of people may have chose Trump due to being all caught up in a kind of "movement", or quote/unquote "personality cult" that had a lot to do with Trump personally, etc, but I don't think everybody did. Some probably chose him just because of the other side of the aisle, and how far they were taking that, or were now going with that, which many thought was just "too far" for them this time around to ever fully support or fully get behind personally, etc. Or at least, that played a big huge part in the difficulty of the choosing for me, and was a big part of why I just couldn't decide, etc.

And while Trump himself personally most definitely doesn't align with some of the values that most Christains should espouse or embrace most especially personally, etc, many probably also thought that he would at least be on the side that they thought would, or did "more so than the other side", etc, and that part is very, very important, "more so than the other side", as many probably just simply thought that the left was just taking it way, way "too far" this time, etc, even to the point of possibly fully embracing Sodom and Gommarah, or fully embracing 100% complete and total insanity or total lack of either very, very general or common sense this time around I think, etc. Or at least, this was some of the difficulty in the choosing for me anyway, etc.

And the fact that I was still seriously considering the left over Donald Trump, and was still having a lot of very great difficulty choosing still, despite what I just now told you about all of this, should tell you almost exactly just what I was exactly thinking about Donald Trump this time around I think, etc.

They didn't make it easy for anyone this time around, and I think we all knew it was always a choice between what would be less evil, or less worse for our country, etc. I still couldn't decide in the end, and wound up not voting in or by the end, etc. But I quote/unqoute "very easily", (and I use those words very, very loosely, because there was nothing easy about it, etc) but and/or anyway, I very, very easily could have chose the right and Donald Trump over the left this time around, and can most definitely understand why a lot of people did, etc, and I don't think it's at all because they just automatically started out liking or approving of everything the man was or did, or because of everything he was being/representing personally, etc, but I think that had to kind of be "forced", or is something people knew they were going to have to kind of force themselves to try and do later on, etc, probably to try and justify their choice, and make themselves feel better about it, etc, because they knew the choice was evil either way, etc, or when they all probably all already knew that the choice always started out bad, and was always going to be bad, or was always going to come with a lot of "risk" either way, etc, which is a part of why the choice was so difficult this time around I think.

I don't think the Dems lost because of Donald Trump, but I think they lost because they moved so far away from the people who under normal circumstances would have normally supported them, and who maybe did fully support them before this in the past, but who also just couldn't see where all of this would lead, which I think was what many of them decided was a "bridge too far" for them to continue to go down, or fully follow this time around I think, etc, They maybe decided or thought it was no longer "normal circumstances", and that actually "normal circumstances" had been 100% completely abandoned, and we had actually begun to move "way, way past normal circumstances" I think, and that's why the Dems actually lost this time around I think.

I'm from Gen X, and I think a lot of them were thinking this, and were very conflicted about it. We grew up probably mostly Democrat over Republican, and were all for "pushing the envelope" pretty much all of our lives, etc, but we also maybe realized that we lacked the foresight to see where this all was going I think, and maybe decided we had to "reign it in" a little bit, or maybe actually "a lot" this time around I think, before we destroyed ourselves I think, etc. We also have children of our own now (most of us now) and had to consider where we were taking them, or where we decided they would be going in the future I think, etc, which was what we finally concluded was a "bridge too far" I think. And that's why the Dems actually lost this time around I think. Trump, and the right, actually had very little to nothing to do with it I think, etc.

God Bless.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't mean to be flippant by saying that support for Trump is a personality cult, BTW. I mean that some people seem to act as if everything Trump does is beyond criticism.

My parents are a perfect example. My father in particular. He has a signed picture of Trump in his family room, thinks Trump is some kind of genius and that people who critique him are just brainwashed or have some ulterior, nefarious motive: he rejects alternative explanations or criticism of Trump's behavior or policies, no matter how reasonable. He's also taken a noticeably anti-intellectual turn in the last eight years.