Absolute Loyalty Means Committing to a Fool’s Paradise

Philip Kotler

So many Republicans and ordinary citizens have continued to support one of the most disgraceful and destructive Presidents the U.S. ever had. What is the human chemistry that led so many voters to disregard every scandalous behavior of another person? Trump said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” How can a voter be so dismissive of his own intelligence and morality to willingly place his mind and life in the hands of a tyrannical and unforgiving leader?

Suppose you were Texas Republican senator John Cornyn who spent a decade carrying Trump’s total wishes into legislative action. He courted Trump’s wishes 99% of the time. But maybe that missing 1% was enough to be stabbed in the back. Trump decided that Kex Paxton would better serve Trump’s interests in the Senate. John Cornyn experienced a shocking awakening. Nearly 100% of John Cornyn mind had been enslaved to Trump’s interests. John is one of countless victims in this fool’s paradise.

People remain loyal to leaders even when those leaders appear to violate moral norms, tell falsehoods, or engage in conduct that outsiders find indefensible.

Several mechanisms are at work according to psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists.

1. Loyalty as a Source of Benefits

People often remain loyal because they believe the leader delivers more benefits than harm.

A supporter may reason:

• “I don’t like everything he says, but he lowered my taxes.”
• “He protects values I care about.”
• “He is strong against our enemies.”

The person’s loyalty is not to every action of the leader but to the overall package of perceived benefits.

2. Group Identity

Political loyalty is often less about policies than about identity.

People may feel:

• “People like me support this leader.”
• “My community supports him.”
• “The other side looks down on us.”

Criticism of the leader can feel like criticism of oneself or one’s group.

This helps explain why evidence that would persuade outsiders often fails to persuade committed followers.

3. Cognitive Dissonance

Psychologist Leon Festinger argued that people experience discomfort when facts conflict with their beliefs.

If a person has spent years defending a leader, donated money, voted repeatedly, and argued with friends, admitting they were wrong become psychologically costly.

Many people reinterpret troubling evidence rather than abandon their commitment.

4. The “Lesser Evil” Argument

Some supporters do not think their leader is admirable. Instead, they believe:

“He has flaws, but the alternative is much worse.”

Here loyalty is not really loyalty to the person; it is opposition to the perceived alternative.

5. Charismatic Leadership

Max Weber, the sociologist, described charismatic authority as arising when followers see a leader as extraordinary, heroic, or uniquely capable.

Such leaders often inspire emotional commitment that goes beyond rational policy analysis.

Followers may forgive actions they would condemn in ordinary politicians.

6. Distrust of Other Information Sources

If supporters come to distrust the media, universities, experts, courts, or other institutions, they may regard criticism of their leader as politically motivated.

Negative information does not weaken loyalty if the information source itself is rejected.

7. Moral Loyalty as a Virtue

Many cultures teach that loyalty itself is a virtue.

People admire loyalty to family, friends, religion, nation, military units, and political movements.

We can be concerned, however, when loyalty becomes detached from moral evaluation. Philosophers distinguish between virtuous loyalty (loyalty to a worthy cause) and blind loyalty (loyalty regardless of evidence or conduct).

When someone says even if he “shot someone on Fifth Avenue,” they are usually expressing an extreme form of political identity. The leader becomes a symbol of values, grievances, hopes, or group membership. Supporters no longer evaluate every action independently; they evaluate whether abandoning the leader would threaten something they value even more.

Super loyalty to leaders is not unique to Donald Trump. Similar patterns have occurred throughout history, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Nelson Mandela. But none of these leaders has as many deep flaws as Donald Trump.

Conclusion

In a democracy, one needs a right balance of loyalty and critical thinking. Loyalty can create stability, trust, and cooperation. But when loyalty becomes absolute, it can weaken a person’s willingness to judge a leader’s actions on their own merits. Philosophers from Aristotle to Hannah Arendt have argued that good citizenship requires both commitment and independent judgment.