Social science: Regarding the minds of DJT supporters

A fascinating NYT opinion/analysis writes about the disregard for truth and a basis in animus or hostility toward marginalized groups that drew ~14% of the American electorate early on in 2015-2106. According to the opinion, that disregard and animus now binds “roughly 43 to 45 percent of the electorate” to DJT today:

The Real Trump Mystery

The mystery of 2024: How is it possible that Donald Trump has a reasonable chance of winning the presidency despite all that voters now know about him? .... The litany of Trump’s liabilities is well known to the American electorate. His mendacity, duplicity, depravity, hypocrisy and venality are irrevocably imprinted on the psyches of American voters.

John Podhoretz, in a 2017 Commentary article, “Explaining Trump’s Charlottesville Behavior,” .... “Whose early support for Trump itself played a key role in leading others to take him seriously and help propel him into the nomination?” .... a conspiracy-oriented constituency with little regard for truth:

If there’s one thing politicians can feel in their marrow, even a non-pol pol like Trump, it’s who is in their base and what it is that binds the base to them. .... Trump found himself with 14 percent support in a month. Those early supporters had been primed to rally to him for a long time.”

I’m talking about Alex Jones and Infowars, the conspiracy-theory radio show/website on which Trump has appeared for years; the radio show has 2 million listeners a week, and Jones was said in 2011 to have a larger online presence than Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

I’m talking about American Media, the company that owns the National Enquirer, the Star, the Sun, and the Weekly World News run by Trump’s close friend David Pecker; the combined weekly circulation of its publications is well in excess of 2 million.

The pervasive denial of truth has, in turn, been crucial to Trump’s continued viability.

Partisan loyalty is crucial to Trump’s success. He has a base of support — roughly 43 to 45 percent of the electorate — that sticks with him through good and bad times.

One reason for this is what Yphtach Lelkes, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, calls the “crystallization” of the electorate. In an email, Lelkes explained what he meant:

Crystallization describes a world where people’s attitudes won’t be swayed, no matter what new information they get. Campaign dynamics do very little to move attitudes. Polarization is the engine of crystallization.

MAGA loyalists believe “the investigations against Trump are witch hunts and baseless.” Taking this logic a step further, “people think that the other side is dangerous and that we need someone willing to do whatever it takes to stop them. That is, they think they are protecting democracy by supporting Trump. Finally, in a polarized world, people value policy and partisan outcomes over democracy — they are willing to tolerate some authoritarianism to further their own political goals.”

The political scientists Lilliana Mason, Julie Wronski and John V. Kane capture this phenomenon in their June 2021 paper “Activating Animus: the Uniquely Social Roots of Trump Support.” .... “feelings of animosity toward Democratic groups do not predict favorability toward the Republican Party, Paul Ryan, or Mitch McConnell,” Mason, Wronski and Kane write. Instead, “Trump support is uniquely predicted by animosity toward marginalized groups in the United States.” .... Their conclusion amounts to a warning, even if it’s veiled in academic language:

This research reveals a wellspring of animus against marginalized groups in the United States that can be harnessed and activated for political gain. Trump’s unique ability to do so is not the only cause for normative concern.

Instead, we should take note that these attitudes exist across both parties and among nonpartisans. Though they may remain relatively latent when leaders and parties draw attention elsewhere, the right leader can activate these attitudes and fold them into voters’ political judgments.

I love it, the opinion refers to the “crystallization” of the electorate. I sometimes use crystallization to describe what DJT has been able to do and maintain ever since 2015. 

Even before DJT, many or most of his current acolytes had been primed for decades by authoritarian radical right animosity (bigotry, racism, hate, fear, intolerance). That bad state of mind was intentionally fomented by America's authoritarian radical elites and their right dark free speech Leviathan, e.g., Faux News, the GOP, Christian nationalist propagandists, elite American plutocrats, etc. 

This opinion assesses evidence that DJT's committed rank and file supporters are significantly different from the portion of the American population that (i) still mostly allows inconvenient truth to have some impact on belief and behavior, and (ii) does not harbor significant animosity toward marginalized groups.

I queried the Perplexity search engine about how it assessed the importance of truth and animosity toward marginalized groups in supporting DJT. It responded that both factors seemed to be important. My follow-up question referenced this NYT opinion piece. Perplexity then commented:

Based on the new information from the New York Times opinion piece, I would revise my assessment to emphasize the importance of animosity toward marginalized groups and disregard for inconvenient truths as key factors binding committed supporters to Trump.

Animosity and disregard for truth are not the only two factors in play, but it seems plausible that each is important. So maybe together the two are dominant.

Q1: Does the evidence presented here and other things known to constitute a convincing case that most of DJT's committed rank and file are bound to him more by (i) disregard for truth, and (ii) animosity toward marginalized groups than other factors alone or together, e.g., feelings of being disrespected, and fear of the Great White Replacement catastrophe (assuming one can meaningfully disentangle GWR fear from probably overlapping animosity toward marginalized groups)? 

Q2: On the basis of what is presented here and other things you know or believe, is it (i) unfair, (ii) inaccurate and/or (iii) counter-productive to refer to committed DJT rank and file supporters as MAGA or part of the MAGA movement, or are they otherwise unremarkable people like you or me but who just happen to support DJT?