Why Trump Supporters Refuse to Accept Russian Interference and De-humanize Their Critics
Even when confronted with clear evidence from the FBI and CIA that there was Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections, a significant number of Trump supporters remain skeptical and unwilling to accept these findings. This article delves into the reasons behind this resistance and examines the psychological and ideological underpinnings of such belief systems.
The Nature of Russian Interference
It's important to clarify the extent and nature of Russian interference during the 2016 election. According to official reports and investigations:
1. Social Media Operations
Russian operatives created numerous Facebook accounts designed to exacerbate political divisions. These actions were aimed at both Democrats and Republicans, although the spending on these efforts was insignificant compared to the campaign expenditures of both sides. These social media campaigns did not have a direct link to either campaign, indicating a more general strategy to polarize public opinion.
2. Cyber-Attacks and Email Leaks
There is evidence that Russian operatives, possibly in collaboration with Ukrainian groups, attempted to infiltrate the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) servers. Additionally, they obtained Hillary Clinton's emails and provided them to WikiLeaks. It is significant to note that the leaks would have been problematic for Clinton regardless of their content. The Democratic campaign, therefore, does not deserve sympathy for this incident. Furthermore, similar actions against the Republican party would have been equally damaging and equally likely to be leaked.
3. Expectations and Influence
Officially, the Russians expected Clinton to win the election, and any help from them to any candidate should be seen in this context. This expectation was likely influenced by Russian strategic interests to weaken the U.S. through the election process.
The Psychological and Ideological Landscape
Understanding the reasons behind such resistance involves delving into both psychological and ideological factors:
1. Belief in a Unified Framework
Many Trump supporters operate within a belief system where Trump is the ultimate truth, and any information or perspective that contradicts his stance is automatically false or maliciously motivated. This makes it challenging for supporters to accept the consensus from the intelligence agencies, as they are largely based on different narratives and beliefs.
2. So-Called "Turf War" of Ideologies
Assertions of opposition often become labels and accusations of allegiance. For example, anyone opposing Trump or the Republican party is immediately cast as a leftist, regardless of the objective truth. This dehumanization serves to solidify the in-group identity and strengthen loyalty to the belief system being criticized.
3. Malignant Sociopathic Narcissism
Rainn Wilson, a prominent writer and researcher, has noted that a characteristic of malignant sociopathic narcissists is to shift the blame and suspicion onto others when confronted. This allows them to maintain an innocent image while positioning their opponents as malicious.
4. Ideological Purification
In this context, opposing views are not just criticized but are seen as the polar opposite of the self. This polarization is more about protecting and reaffirming the in-group's identity than about rational debate. Therefore, any person or entity opposed to the supporter's views is immediately labeled as a "leftist commie socialist libtard," further strengthening the unity of the in-group.
Conclusion
The refusal of Trump supporters to accept the findings on Russian interference and the resulting de-humanization of their critics stem from complex psychological and ideological factors. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for future discussions and debates in political discourse. The healthcare and mental health industries are also being impacted by these issues, with increased anxiety and stress among individuals struggling to reconcile their beliefs with objective facts.