Eyes Wide to Blind Loyalty

By Herman M. Lagon

Few sights are as fascinating and baffling as watching people defend their political idols with the zeal of a devout follower. Whether on social media, at rallies, or even during tense family gatherings, these loyalists or ‘tards’ present a curious case of almost religious fervor. To them, their leader is not just another politician or public figure but someone nearly infallible. While loyalty can be a powerful motivator, critical thinking often takes a back seat when it veers into cult-like devotion. Here, we explore what drives this intense following and why some leaders attract it.

This is not a new phenomenon. History has seen rulers hailed almost as gods—from Egyptian pharaohs to medieval kings claiming divine rights. Today’s leaders do not need to declare themselves divine to inspire the same level of loyalty. A study in Political Psychology finds that certain personality traits make people more likely to align with such figures, including high conscientiousness, low openness, and a preference for solid hierarchies (Goldsmith & Moen, 2024). This combination fosters rigid loyalty, creating an environment where questioning the leader feels like a betrayal.

Much of this loyalty comes from a desire for identity and belonging. Amid the uncertainty of modern life, it can be comforting to place unwavering trust in someone who claims to have all the answers. These followers see their leader as a stable force, representing security in an increasingly chaotic world. Followers do not just see policies; they see a part of themselves reflected in the leader’s words and actions. Freud’s concept of “primitive thinking” explains why we cling to simplified worldviews. When reality gets too complex, it is easier to let a leader define our beliefs than to grapple with endless ambiguities.

Social media has amplified this dynamic, creating echo chambers that reinforce loyalty. Unlike traditional cults requiring physical isolation, today’s “political cults” thrive online, where users can block out opposing voices and filter their feeds to show only what aligns with their beliefs. Research shows this digital cocoon allows for extreme ideas to go unchallenged, as these echo chambers reinforce the sense that only “insiders” know the truth (Cialdini, 2022). In this setting, followers double down on their loyalty, tuning out anything that could disrupt their chosen reality.

Charismatic leaders play a huge role in sustaining this loyalty, positioning themselves as figures who “get” the fears and frustrations of their base. Studies reveal that these leaders often score high in traits associated with authoritarianism, focusing on clear-cut rules and a strong “us versus them” mentality (Duckitt, 2021). Their appeal comes from tapping into a deep-seated need for security, especially in times of social upheaval. For these supporters, the leader becomes a beacon of protection, promising to fend off threats real or imagined.

This strong personal attachment explains why criticism of the leader feels so personal to followers. To question the leader is, in a sense, to question themselves. Drawing on Carl Jung’s “shadow” concept, this reaction can be seen as a projection of insecurities—followers defend the leader not just for their sake but as a shield for their self-worth. In their minds, they are not merely defending a politician; they are defending a worldview that keeps them anchored.

Complicating this further, loyalty often prevents these followers from acknowledging the leader’s flaws. Cognitive dissonance—the discomfort we feel when presented with evidence contradicting our beliefs—plays a big role here. The more these loyalists invest in their leader, the harder it becomes for them to admit any shortcomings. They rationalize or dismiss negative information rather than face the unease of doubt. According to Social Influence studies, the emotional and social cost of changing beliefs can feel too great, reinforcing this cycle of self-deception.

In times of crisis, such leaders often portray themselves as the last defense against chaos, heightening followers’ loyalty by presenting a vision of doom that only they can avert. This creates an existential attachment where supporting the leader feels like a matter of survival. For the followers, defending the leader is not just about political preference; it becomes an all-encompassing identity. Their fears and hopes converge in a narrative where any threat to the leader feels like a direct threat to their security.

But what could ever shake such devotion? Historical patterns show that political “cults” often unravel when leaders face undeniable public failure or scandal. Over time, the idealized image can erode, especially when external forces—journalistic investigations, legal consequences, or visible contradictions—break through the veneer of invincibility. For many, disillusionment is not sparked by others’ arguments but through personal encounters with truth, leading to painful but transformative shifts in perspective.

Ultimately, breaking free from blind loyalty requires more than confronting facts; it demands a reawakening of individual values and deeper engagement with critical thinking. True patriotism is about critical loyalty—not to a single figure but to the principles that keep society fair and just. For democracy to work, our loyalty needs to be rooted in collective ideals, not in individuals who claim to embody them all. In nurturing a culture of thoughtful skepticism and genuine civic engagement, we strengthen democracy by honoring values over personalities.

History reminds us that devotion to principles outlasts devotion to people. To build a future on solid ground, we need to place our faith not in infallible leaders but in the shared commitment to integrity, truth, reason, fortitude, and social justice. Real patriotism demands more than loyalty; it requires the courage to ask, think, and choose beyond the seductive pull of unquestioned allegiance.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a ”student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.