This piece describes the psychology behind Newsom's attacks on Trump and why they work. I believe it was written by Chris Armitage, whoever that is. Read it.
--Kim
"Your grandmother was wrong. So was your kindergarten teacher. Turns out, when faced with a bully, ignoring them and 'taking the high road' isn't just ineffective; it's psychologically counterproductive.
Governor Gavin Newsom figured this out. While Democrats spent years wringing their hands about 'norms' and 'dignity,' Newsom did something radical: he started fighting fire with fire. He's trolling Trump with memes, calling his officials 'fascist cucks,' and posting TikToks that mock the president with Nickelback songs. The pearl-clutchers are horrified. The psychologists? They're fascinated.
Research on bullying reveals an uncomfortable truth that contradicts decades of feel-good advice. Studies of children aged 11–12 found that those who 'returned hostility with hostility appeared to be the most mature.' Boys who stood up to bullies were 'judged more socially competent by their teachers,' while girls who fought back were 'more popular and more admired by teachers and peers'.
This isn't some fringe study. It's part of a growing body of evidence that challenging bullies directly, rather than hoping adults will intervene, actually works. The kids who fought back didn't just stop getting bullied; they thrived socially and emotionally.
To understand why Newsom's strategy works, you need to decode Trump's psychological arsenal. Trump didn't stumble into power; he weaponized specific cognitive biases. Research shows 'people intuitively think that, if you speak confidently, you know what you're talking about.' Trump's 'language is lower in analytic thinking, and higher in confidence, than almost any previous American president'.
Trump's strategy uses 'emotionally charged, anti-establishment crisis narrative' that 'puts his audience in a loss frame with nothing to lose'. When people feel everything is at stake, they'll accept more extreme responses. Trump constantly uses this 'powerful political tool that involves identifying out-groups who pose a threat to the in-group.' This 'causes in-group members to band more tightly together and become more loyal to their leader'. These aren't accidents. They're the psychological equivalent of precision weapons.
Here's where it gets interesting. Newsom isn't just standing up to Trump; he's using Trump's exact playbook against him. His TikTok followers jumped from just over 500,000 in March to 1.8 million. Why? Because he's speaking the same psychological language that made Trump effective.
When Border Patrol agents showed up at Newsom's redistricting rally, he immediately posted: 'Donald Trump has sent armed agents to our rally. We will not be intimidated'. That's not defensive politics; that's offensive reframing using Trump's own crisis-narrative technique.
The psychological term is 'mirroring': adopting your opponent's communication patterns to disrupt their advantage. Bullies rely on power imbalances. When their victims start using their own tactics, it creates cognitive dissonance and levels the playing field.
But here's Newsom's brilliant psychological hack: he's using the same tactics while maintaining moral superiority. His spokesperson explicitly distinguishes their approach: 'While the Trump administration uses these tactics to demean and belittle the powerless, Gavin Newsom is using them to stand up to the powerful and call out the authoritarian methods of the current White House occupant'.
This is psychologically crucial. Research shows that social context determines whether behavior is seen as justified or aggressive. David vs. Goliath gets cheered; Goliath vs. David gets booed. Newsom has positioned himself as the David using Goliath's own weapons.
Traditional Democratic messaging fails because it assumes politics is rational. It's not. People rely upon 'images of reality that are built from what they see, hear and read through their networks' rather than first-hand experience.
People often say 'I'll believe it when I see it,' but from a cognitive psychology perspective it would be more accurate to say that we 'see what we already believe.'
When Democrats respond to Trump's attacks with policy papers and fact-checks, they're bringing a calculator to a knife fight. The human brain doesn't process information rationally; it processes it emotionally, then justifies those emotions with logic.
Newsom understands this. When Trump attacks California's fire response, Newsom doesn't release a 12-page white paper on forest management. He posts a video calling Trump 'a weak little man' and goes viral.
Newsom's aggressive pushback feels more authentic than measured political responses. People trust fighters more than diplomats when they feel under attack.
This strategy isn't without dangers. Critics note 'it's difficult to discern the differences between Trump's demands on states and Newsom's on cities and counties'. There's a risk of normalizing toxic political behavior.
But here's the epistemological problem: what if 'normal' political behavior is structurally inadequate for dealing with authoritarian threats? What if the choice isn't between 'dignity' and 'tactics,' but between effective resistance and elegant defeat?
From a purely psychological perspective, Newsom is getting more right than his critics realize. Research on anti-bullying interventions shows that having 'social referents' deliver anti-conflict messages is more effective than traditional top-down approaches.
Newsom isn't just trolling for attention; he's using scientifically validated psychological principles to challenge authoritarian behavior. He's discovered that sometimes the most effective way to protect democratic norms isn't to model them perfectly, but to prevent their opponents from trampling them completely.
Your grandmother meant well. But when dealing with bullies, psychology beats politeness every time."
~ Chris Armitage
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment