Maga is an evocative word. And I mean word, noting the lack of capitalisation, as I have begun to see it stylised recently in major papers such as the Irish Times, the Guardian and the BBC. This Maga, as opposed to MAGA, changes the framing— it is no longer merely a rallying cry to Make America Great Again!, but now evokes the likes of Dada, Wicca, blah-blah and Hoodoo. It’s a movement, a non-thing, a nonsense or a creed. It does not evoke the suited politicians that guide the sails of this movement, nor the measured apathy of those whose support of Trump only extends so far as he keeps putting money in their pockets, but instead the sea of bodies from which red caps, flags and placards protrude. From where I’m standing, I understand why this enormous but particular sect of Trumpism draws comparisons to a cult. Yet while many ex-supporters, both from within the party and his voter base, have reached this same knee-jerk conclusion, how useful is this comparison really in understanding the enigma that is Maga? Although it can all seem terribly simple from where we’re standing, is this truly the case?
We must keep in mind that the way that we define the word ‘cult’ is central to our understanding of whether Maga falls within its parameters. For example, Britannica states that in contemporary use, the word cult is most commonly used as a “pejorative term for a religious group that falls outside the mainstream and, by implication, engages in questionable activities”. Under this definition, the comparison can be outright dismissed; while Maga tends to be popular amongst religious groups, it is first and foremost a political movement dedicated to promoting conservative values. However, Britannica’s general definition describes cults as a “usually small group devoted to a person, idea, or philosophy”. This more plausibly encompasses Maga, but also any fringe ideology, subculture, political movement or belief system. So where do we even start?
Cult specialist and ex-cult member Dr. Steven Hassan proposes a framework to identify cults that he believes encompass Maga. He calls this framework the BITE Model of Authoritarian Control— that being behaviour, information, thought and emotional control guided by a charismatic and narcissistic leader. In Maga, he argues, behaviour is controlled by encouraging Trump supporters to isolate themselves from non-supporters, and shunning those who do not display certain behaviours like rally attendance or refusing COVID masks. Regarding control of information, he points to Trump and his supporters’ continuous dismissal of information that is counter to the movement, the peddling of blatant lies and conspiracy theories (perhaps most famously his claims of election interference), and the media bubbles that parrot this messaging. He argues that purity of belief is essential, but also that these beliefs are subject to change at Trump’s whim. Thought control comes from the promotion of black-and-white thinking, the “with us or against us” mentality and the demonisation of any sort of opposition that is prominent within the movement. Finally, Dr. Hassan argues that Maga’s emotional control comes from the way Trump generates existential fear in his supporters, making claims that his adversaries want to destroy America and Americans’ way of life while simultaneously presenting himself as the only source of protection.
Dr. Hassan presents a convincing case, especially when considering a 2023 CBS News/UGov survey that found that 71% of the participating Republican primary voters trusted Trump to tell them the truth, indicating a significantly higher level of trust than in family and friends (63%), conservative media (56%) and religious leaders (42%). However, upon closer examination it becomes clear that these characteristics do not align with Maga as neatly as they may initially seem to. Most fundamentally, Dr Hassan’s framing of the conversation around ‘control’ negates the fact that most people who support Donald Trump have always supported the values that he stands for. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, nationalism- these ideologies that are rooted in Trumpism are not new to America, although it can be tempting to dismiss the fact that these beliefs are earnestly held by large segments of the population as something of the past. After all, we have seen significant and linear social progress in preceding years, especially during the Obama administration. But as tempting as it may be, we cannot just claim that even those we disagree with on an extreme, fundamental level are ‘brainwashed’.
Rick Alan Ross, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Cult Education Institute proposes a more clean and clear-cut way to identify a cult: firstly, a cult must have a charismatic leader who is worshiped to the point that he becomes more important than the principles that may have originally sustained the group; secondly, there must be a brainwashing process that results in group members acting in the interest of the group and its leaders above (and often against) their own interest; and finally, exploitation of the group members by the group leader and authorities must be present, including but not limited to sexual or economic exploitation. Alan Ross argues that Maga cannot be considered a cult primarily due to its failure to meet the first two criteria. This is because Trump has shaped his ideology and policies based on what appeals to his voter base instead of indoctrinating them and shaping their beliefs from the ground up. This can be seen clearly in how Maga members booed Trump when he suggested they take the vaccine (and Trump’s subsequent abandonment of this line of argument), or more recently when some of his most ardent supporters began to doubt or outright turn against him when he denied the existence of the Epstein files. In this case, Trump and his talent for conjuring up blind fervour, loyalty and fear can be understood more effectively as an application of what Richard Hofstadter calls ‘the paranoid style in American politics’: a political mindset marked by exaggerated suspicion, conspiracy thinking, and a belief that unseen forces are plotting against the nation. But again, he uses this style merely as a tool — a tool which is only useful insofar as the paranoia he peddles appeals to the intrinsic fears of his voter base.
Under this framework, Trump is less a cult leader than a successful populist politician riding the wave of a ready-made movement that supersedes him. He is, without a doubt, toeing a dangerous line, but the question is whether he is really capable of crossing it. In January 2016 Trump famously said that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and … wouldn’t lose any voters”. I don’t know if today’s Trump, in the throes of the Epstein scandal, would feel brave enough to make such a bold statement again. It is still hard to judge to what extent Maga will believe the stories that Trump tells them. If this scandal really proves to be something that Trump can’t explain away, will they follow him into the realm of fantasy, or will the wave come crashing down?
