A Washington Post article discusses how leaders can radically shape opinions of their followers. The article describes how the president has been able to change positive views in the GOP of foreign trade and low tariffs from 56% approval in 2015 to 29% by October 2016. The WaPo writes:
“These trends can seem disconcerting, because they appear to reverse the idealized direction of influence in a democracy, where the views of citizens are supposed to guide their politicians. Leadership surely involves the art of persuasion, but should it really drive such mercurial shifts on core issues?
Political science research shows that this ‘follow the leader’ dynamic is hardly limited to Trump. It occurs throughout history, on both sides of the aisle and in other countries. It happens even when party elites try to stop it. In general, the people who run our political parties — particularly the most prominent and charismatic figures — have the ability to reshape what voters in those parties think.
‘Leader persuasion’ is a well-documented phenomenon in political science. Before the 2000 election, for instance, more than two-thirds of Americans broadly supported giving workers the option to invest Social Security funds in the stock market. Then GOP nominee George W. Bush promoted the idea and Democrat Al Gore opposed it, and the issue became central to the election. .... Gore voters soured on the policy.
Nowhere are the consequences of voters’ deference more clear than in the coronavirus pandemic. For months, Trump has downplayed the severity of the contagion, condemned shutdowns that public health experts endorsed, ridiculed mask wearers, and pushed to reopen businesses and schools. Unsurprisingly, the resulting partisan divides on recommended behaviors have undermined our collective response to the crisis. In late April and early May, for example, the rate of mask-wearing among Republicans lagged that of Democrats by more than 20 percentage points, according to one survey.
Some observers have suggested that Trump has “hijacked” his party — and in attempting to explain why Republicans would follow him, they have focused on his distinctive (and unarguable) opportunism and disregard for norms. But the lesson of this vein of research is that all political parties are vulnerable to dramatic shifts and “takeovers” by prominent leaders (perhaps especially in presidential systems, which grant the chief executive inordinate prominence). Long after Trump is gone, American politicians who win top positions will be tugging the views of their partisans much closer to their own, adding yet more instability to an already hostile and polarized system.”
This suggests that maybe some people do not always think for themselves, and instead simply follow the leader. Maybe that is fairly common.
