Are there previous historical examples of cult-like followings of US political candidates?

circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 197 points –

(This post was intended for politics@lemmy.world, but as it seems they don't allow text posts, I'm posting it here)

This post will likely not go over well with everyone and some people may not agree with the premise of the question. Mods please remove if not allowed.

I am curious if the MAGA-esque approach to politics is new for the US, or if there have been other examples of similar political movements which may be considered "cult-like". To better define what I mean, here are some examples:

  • Large amounts of signs bearing a candidate's name being shown by single individuals (e.g. big trucks covered in Trump signs everywhere)

  • Use of a candidate name over the US flag

  • Use of a kind of supporter uniform (e.g. the red MAGA hat)

  • The "alternative facts" of MAGA, where debate can be impossible because supporters believe anyone who is a detractor must be lying

  • In some cases, voter intimidation or coercion from staunch supporters

It seems to me that some of this is new but I'd love to hear other thoughts. I have heard and seen many relatively obvious parallels to German politics in the 20s-40s, but I'm specifically wondering if anything similar has ever been seen in the US before.

62

People still talk about Reagan like he was some kind of god-king. He never had the kind of rabid violent followers like Trump does but that's the closest one I know of

I was pretty young when Reagan was a thing, so I wasn't quite sure how intense his original supporters were (modulo his election results).

But, I guess it's also worth noting that he's been glorified by the GOP over and over again.

I was young then too, but it seemed to me that while Reagan was popular among Republicans during his Presidency, he didn't get an actual personality cult til after he left office. His popularity came from evoking nostalgia, so afterwards, he himself became an object of nostalgia. He died in 2004 and his funeral was turned into a tremendous media event glorifying him. It was sometimes called the "Reagasm".

It seemed to me that Barack Obama had a personality cult of his own, at least during his campaign and early time in office. I think that his followers got disillusioned after that, but he retained some popularity and got re-elected despite intense opposition from the other side.

As a non-US person, it blows my fucking mind how frequently y'all haul out a goddamn Ouija board to channel the founding fathers on any issue. What would George Washington think about ChatGPT? Uh probably that it comes out of a box possessed by the a demon and then he'd ask if you owned a comfort girl he could borrow for the night? What a valuable exercise. Much wow.

Spaceman pointing a gun at other Spaceman "wait it's all a cult?"

It helps to realize that most of the people "defending" the Constitution have literally never read it, and they even admit that.

Like religion, "God" is whatever the TV (and radio) people say that He is - he's so strong, he's so precious, he rides around shirtless on horseback and wrestles bears, literally barehanded, and so forth.

Such people don't care one bit what the founding fathers have to say - heck, they don't even listen to Trump Himself when he said to take the vaccine (which he invented ofc). On the other hand, May The Founding Fathers Be Praised (and other chants that sound nice).

Not only have they not read the Constitution, but they also haven't read any of what the founders actually wrote, and most of them were prolific writers.

I feel like you also have people who've read it enough to understand that a rewriting of the Constitution would lead to them losing power. The deification of the Founding Fathers makes the Constitution a sacred document and you don't change sacred documents.

Which is funny because the Founding Fathers understood that the Constitution shouldn't be a sacred document. While this is the only base law the USA has had in two centuries, this was the third base law for the overall country they lived in within their lifetimes.

Hence the cognitive dissonance yeah, though those looking to (ab)use the document can still make it work for them even while maintaining the fiction that "we didn't change it".

One example is the recent SCOTUS ruling that iirc allows a sitting President to assassinate their political opponents if they so choose, publicly and openly, and yet the conservatives who pushed for and made that happen are still (atm) calling the USA as a "democracy" rather than a totalitarian regime. Meanwhile, the liberal side doesn't even bother with advocating for a platform any longer and instead focuses purely on attacking their opponent and shoring up the appearance of their own (independently of any specifics I mean) - a recent development for them (in the degree to which it is enacted, if not quite entirely), though conservatives have been doing that since at least Ron Desantis lost to Trump.

In short, "facts don't matter", to so very many these days, whereas what does is matters of presentation - tone of voice, who you know, how much money is backing you, etc. We see this all up and down the scale - in people trying to be famous on YouTube/Insta/Tiktok/etc., in the stock market, daddy's nephew getting the cushy VP job at the office, and the very presidency itself, as well as most of (all of the entrenched) Senators, Representatives, judges, and most other things down in-between. Our society has forgotten the past struggles that gave the people of the past reasons to avoid certain things - e.g. actual literal full-on Nazi-ism - therefore we will now commence repeating them, our only hope to learn from firsthand experience what we refused to learn from reading books and listening to those who were actually there. i.e. we won't take time to listen, bc we are too busy speaking.

Oh yes. As a US person it blows my mind as well. We have an unhealthy fear of changing the Constitution, despite its many amendments. Of course that also precludes changing portions of it that were clearly designed under different pretenses than currently exist (e.g. 2A, but that's a whole can of worms I'm just tired of opening at this point).

The main issue there in my view isn't actually the Constitution but the sheer division at every decision. Nothing can be changed anywhere if people can't even agree on the same facts anymore. It ultimately means the US is at a constant government standstill. Fun times.

In many ways we now feel like two different countries. The blue country with dense populations centered around either coast, and the red country with sparser population in the middle.

Nothing can be changed anywhere if people can’t even agree on the same facts anymore

the "change" republicans want is to tear the whole thing down and turn it into a dictatorship

Which is exactly what their beloved Founding Fathers™ were trying to prevent.

What's even sillier is that they don't even respect his views and it doesn't change anything. He strongly opposed to a two-party system, yet here we are.

Correction! You non-American! You mean Waifu body pillow, they didn't use comfort girls until Abe (stick it where you can) Lincoln. God read the Decloration of Indopence!

It may not be an exact comparison, given changes in both popular media and US culture, but Huey Long (1893-1935) is possibly one of the closer comparisons.

A wildly popular populist demagogue, Long similarly set about expelling political opponents from the government system following his election and engaging in political maneuvering and strongarming which ultimately got him impeached (though, like Trump, the effort collapsed before before long). His efforts included setting up Louisiana state boards which directed the distribution of state money to political allies, a move to deny hostile newspapers "official printer" status, worked with a businessman to create an oil company which profited from public lands allotted to it, produced his own newspaper which published positive stories, and other similarly totalitarian moves.

However, it must also be noted that unlike Trump, Long actually achieved many populist goals, such as dramatically expanding the road system and increasing school enrollment. He was hostile to Roosevelt's New Deal, claiming it was actually insufficiently populist and overly friendly to businesses, but also was highly isolationist and opposed to US involvement leading up to World War II.

Long was assassinated in 1935 by the son of a political opponent. Most believe he was shot by the assassin, though some believe his bodyguards accidentally shot him in confusion after the assassin missed.

Long is an interesting example, since he definitely did strongman Louisiana politics, but he did seem to have the working class interests at heart, where as Trump only pretends to. We didn't get to see what he would do long term, but its been argued that his presidential run, and more specifically his 'share our wealth' program forced Roosevelt even farther left in his policy.

Share the wealth proposed to put into federal law a wealth cap of 5 million for every American, with the excess used to fund what amounts to a universal basic income back in the 1930's, and didn't discriminate against minorities. It also advocated for free education, free healthcare, and a 30-hour work week.

From all the information I've seen, including the excellent Ken Burns documentary, the poor and working class of Louisiana loved Huey for legitimate reasons, while the rich and politically corrupt, who were targeted by him, absolutely hated his guts.

I'm beginning to think that whoever wrote the history books might not be terribly fond of leftism

Agreed. And it wasn't just blind trust in his promises despite a lack of deeds, unlike Trump's wild promises. Like I said, Long actually managed to achieve many positive things for the working-class Louisianian. I also didn't mention it, but he was remarkably hostile to racism for a 1930s Louisiana politician; one of his issues with the Social Security system implemented by Roosevelt was that individual states might deny its benefits to African Americans.

I do wonder if he would have remained so benevolent indefinitely - there is the aforementioned secret control of an oil company profiting from State-owned lands, whose profits Long used for political purposes - but at the same time I can't deny he did a lot of objectively good things which helped the people who needed it the most, was rightly beloved for it, and didn't seem to be stepping away from it in his future plans.

If nothing else, he's a fascinating study on how the political positions associated with populism have shifted over time in the US.

I think it also shows that some one who is a "good leader" can also do corrupt things for personal gain. We expect our politicians to be better people than a lot of us are (and we should) but are often surprised when they don't live up to what we think they should be.

I would look at some one like Baltimore City mayor Sheila Dixon. She was actually a pretty good mayor especially when comparing her to some that came after her. But she stole gift cards from the city that were ment for low income families.

It's probably a slippery slope. Like why shouldn't I benefit some from all this good I'm doing. In the case of Long it probably had something to do with him needing the money to help get reelected to continue to help people. Again I'm not saying any of this is ok, just that it is pretty complex to figure out why people do stuff and that it's pretty human to do both good things and be greedy and self serving.

Very interesting figure and exactly what I was hoping to find through this post. Thanks.

For a long time — like probably into the 2000s — LSU’s Tiger Stadium had dorm rooms because when Huey Long couldn’t get funding approved for a football stadium, he got money for dorms approved and built one dorm in the shape of a football stadium.

Other posters have already come up with Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, Lyndon LaRouche...

No American Presidential candidate before Trump has been so widely popular whilst also having a cult following of people who basically believe in an entirely different reality whilst also being so brash and brazen about it.

There have been demagogues before, with cultish followings, but they've not been anywhere near as popular as Trump.

To attempt to add a few:

Technically, Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, attempted to run for President back when Mormons were basically what we would now call a domestic terrorist group, and when most non Mormons viewed them as a dangerous cult.

He was assassinated by a mob, who stormed the jail he was in whilst awaiting trial for treason and other charges, before the election took place.

Also, you might be able to consider the fairly brief existence of the Anti-Masonic party at least somewhat akin to the living in a totally different reality attribute of MAGA people.

Basically, following the inciting incident of the Morgan Affair, where a William Morgan was apparently planning to publish a book outlining the evils of a Freemason conspiracy to control government and business in the US, but he was jailed, a bit of a circus trial ensued, and then he disappeared.

The Anti Masonic party was the US's first third-party and basically it was built off of what we'd now call conspiracy theories stemming from the Morgan Affair, and called for Masons to renounce their fraternity or to be uprooted from positions of prominence.

Much like the modern MAGA movement, it was full of highly religious conspiracy theorists, but it didn't really coalesce into also being a cult of personality around any of their more prominent members the way such reverence exists for Trump.

There have been demagogues before, with cultish followings, but they've not been anywhere near as popular as Trump.

This is pretty much where I was coming from with the post. It seems like a new thing to have something so culty be so popular in the US.

Thanks for these. Joseph Smith in particular is an interesting example. I didn't know he attempted to run for President at one time. On the Mormon side, I find it quite interesting that his religion still exists despite him being outed as a charlatan. I guess that also says something about human nature.

I find it quite interesting that his religion still exists despite him being outed as a charlatan.

The resilience of obviously garbage beliefs among people who are manifestly not stupid is a mystery worth solving.

It's not a great mystery, these are people raised in a Fox News propaganda bubble. Their reality is based on lies.

The problem is much bigger than Fox News, the MAGA Republicans, or the United States.

Lyndon LaRouche

LOL oh man I have not thought about that fool in years... I would spit on the ground when I would walk by those fools. There was a lot of them in Seattle. One time a guy took offense on me looking him in the eye and then spitting at his feet. Since I lived in the neighborhood I went home and grabbed a couple eggs and tossed them at their booth. Good times!

I was born and raised in the PNW and first saw the LaRouchies at the UW, with a large display of Obama with a Hitler mustache... though I did not spit at them lol.

I was living downtown in Seattle and they were always near the market bothering people. They would setup their little booths right on the sidewalk and force people to walk around them. When they would try to talk to me is when I would just spit at their feet. I probably fit the street punk look and they would talk shit at me so I escalated it that one time. The Obama Hitler shit just enraged me

Interesting enough, Morgan’s widow became one of Joseph Smith’s plural wives. It’s a small country.

I think John F. Kennedy qualified; he's been practically deified since his assassination, and his supporters were MAGA-level enthusiasts. Just the sheer level of conspiracy theory around his assassination, missing from all other assassinations - successful or attempted - is a good indicator. Even the attempted Trump assassination, which generated considerable tin-hat response, is now almost completely forgotten; certainly, nobody's talking about it in mainstream forums.

In my opinion, Kennedy was an incredible president and great statesman, but yeah, I think you could reasonably claim there was a cult of personality around him.

This is a huge reach and false equivalency. There is a difference between being a pop culture focus of a moment where you're mom was compelled to volunteer at his local election office and wear a button versus the maga bullshit that OP describes.

No. It's never been to this level, or close for that matter. Not because a candidate didn't want it, but because society maintained a basic level of decency and civil education that made today's depths impossible at scale really. Of course a huge focus of the last 50 years for Republicans has been denying access to and attacking public education to help form the undereducated and easily frightened mass that they now use to support trump. And then social media feeds and predatory news algorithms were probably the nail in the coffin to break that once held floor of civility.

Not on the same scale as trump, but there was an American Nazi party and there's the kkk. Those are probably your closest analogies in this country.

Even the attempted Trump assassination, which generated considerable tin-hat response, is now almost completely forgotten; certainly, nobody’s talking about it in mainstream forums.

Well yeah, that's how attempted assassinations work. People don't remember the ones that don't work, they remember the ones that do. If it did succeed then it would be all anyone would talk about. The outcome is what matters in these situations, and greatly changes when and how people talk about it. That's just how these things go.

Right. I'll bet a lot of people here don't remember, or never knew that someone tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan.

The assassination attempt on Reagan also failed, and was bigger news, for far longer. Not JF Kennedy level, but it was more enduring than the attempt on Trump.

The news cycle on the Trump attempt was astonishingly brief.

You might enjoy this 1964 essay "the paranoid style in American politics" : https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.

Back in the day I nearly kissed the ground Ron Paul walked on. There was also about as much conspiracy theory swirling among his followers as there is with MAGA.

I knew someone who was a Ron Paul supporter. Definitely heavily into the conspiratorial stuff. I think at the time, the movement was relatively small, so I hadn't considered that it was somewhat culty.

Every election within my life has been a battle between "Literal Reincarnation of Jesus" supporters and "If you don't vote for The Party, we will put your photo in the Two Minutes of Hate for being a fascist" supporters.

That should tell you what you need to know.

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? Because elections were not like this when I was younger. I'm middle-aged.

A gentleman doesn't ask, and a lady doesn't tell. I'm too old to think fascism's new, but too young to remember its last go round

I guess that depends on your age. Even for some of the most contested elections in my lifetime (e.g. Bush v Gore 2000), supporters of either side did not have the kind of rabid quality that so many have now.

Having lived in the Deep South at that time, I can assure you that there were definitely Bush stans who treated him like Maga treats Trump. The main difference was that they hadn't found a global network of support that could be broadcast to the public 24/7

I remember logging into BBS systems in the 90's and seeing a lot of hate for the Clintons. This was in St. Louis, a fairly blue city, but surrounded by red (the rest of MO as well as southern IL)

I mean, Mount Rushmore is a thing.

I take that more as a general nationalistic symbol. Yes, nationalism is also pretty cultish in a way, but it is less reliant on a single individual.

(And the faces of Mt. Rushmore are very much a blight on what the Lakota call Six Grandfathers).

What about Roosevelt then? He got voted into serving four terms before he established a term limit. This was two hundred years after anyone thought to add term limits, because the issue of voting people in for more than two terms had never happened before.

Or John F Kennedy, whose face defined a decade the same way Princess Diana defines a decade in the UK? Or Ronald Reagan, who almost any American can quote? Or Barack Obama whose likeness was plastered on the walls of schools everywhere in the nation even despite orders not to impose on faith or political groups.

What about Roosevelt then? He got voted into serving four terms before he established a term limit.

But how were his voters? Did you see the kinds of things I listed in the post? I'm not saying it isn't the case, but I wouldn't think that FDR being reelected multiple times necessarily means his supporters were doing culty things as I listed.

Same with JFK, etc. (modulo Reagan who is mentioned in another comment). I'd say all of them have definitely been elevated to a weird status after the fact, but I'm not sure that puts them in this group.