Commentary on a MAGA Trigger Meme
Some thoughts on nihilism, “do-gooders”, zero-sum thinking with quotes & research
The above meme was found on my social media feed this morning, posted by someone from my home county in Eastern Montana. I found it interesting in that it may indicate a worldview of the modern MAGA Republican, a view they may not want to express openingly in most cases, but certainly it has been no secret, especially in the age of Donald Trump. Much of this movement’s philosophy is embedded in this meme. It is a mistake to entirely assume all members of this movement to be alike, however the great need to conform is an undeniable force within this population, so assuming that there is a good correlation to a widespread worldview differing little seems not a stretch to me.
The MAGA Republican’s preconceived notions of those “woke liberals” as indicated in the meme are perhaps standard fair of imagining all who are liberal are a cookie cut, i.e. liberals are easily offended, and delicate, and a certain pride is held for triggering these people they dislike. This pride is so dominant that it overpowers any reasoning in questioning actual principles or policy to address problems which they share with other Americans regardless of all factors. They are content to live and breathe within their contempt for others, and appears to be a rather nihilistic approach to life. As long as there can be a feeling of superiority over others, there is contentment within their lives. And the meme above indicates a deep contempt for the future of the planet, it says so explicitly. This seems deeply nihilistic in my understanding.
Our thoughts on our futures are of paramount importance in this discussion. How we view the future, and what importance we place on the planet once we are no more. It is said that to concentrate too much on the future leads to anxiety, but to think nothing of it indicates a certain degree of unconsciousness, and a certain irresponsibility in my opinion. The nihilistic person may even desire a future of a state of degradation from the present state.
He who has no future, has no life; he exists, but does not live.
— O. A. Brownson.
BROWNSON, ORESTES AUGUSTUS, LL.D., born at Stockbridge, Vermont, September 16, 1803: an American theologian and writer; died , April 16, 1876.
“It is vain [useless] to be always looking toward the future, and never acting toward it.
— J. F. Boyes.
BOYSE , John Fredrick (1811-1879) author of Life and books; or, Records of thought and reading, London 1859.
To not work for a better future is vain, it seems rather clear to me that the quote above is right on point for this discussion. It’s interesting that vain has two conventional meanings, that of producing no effect or in self conceit, these definitions have relation to each other in my mind.
The future in the minds of some, of a return to the presidency of Donald Trump, is of course terrifying to many of us. If the wrong choices for our future are acted on, such as the January 6th insurrection two years ago, then perhaps this instructional quote may harm rather than bring enlightenment.
We must have “skin in the game” for the future most certainly, or our lives take on much less importance. To exist without concerns for the future seems rather pitiful according to the quote above, and this aligns with my particular worldview.
I detect a sense of hopelessness in the author of the meme within this discussion. The years of neoliberalism have taken their toll, but those who are still champonioning these policies will certainly not put two and two together as being a victim of their own beliefs. But undoubtedly many, if not most are feeling hopeless to their station in life. Those attuned to the reasons for much despair may act to enact change, whereas the hopeless nihilistic person may soak in their misery.
“Hopelessness is the mark of an abject* soul.”
— Euripides.
EURIPIDES, born at Salamis, 480 B.C.; an eminent Greek tragic poet; died, 406 B.C.
*2. (of a person or their behavior) completely without pride or dignity; self-abasing.
“Those who have nothing are not always the most hopeless.”
— Martial.
MARTIAL, or MARTIALIS, MARCUS VALERIUS, born at Bibilis, in Spain 40 A.D.; a celebrated Latin epigrammatic poet; died, 103.
It is quite apparent that many a Trump supporter has been successful in wealth attainment, to own a boat for a boat parade indicates not being in poverty. But it seems that many may have deep hopelessness in this America that years of Reaganomics have brought to us. And for self-proclaimed Christians, who seem to worship and trust a billionaire (in their minds) who is greatly undeserving of their admonitions, indicates “a roll of the dice” within a state of hopelessness. It was assumed to be only a temporary occurrence in 2016 as I remember, but as time has shown it is still actively at work in many minds to this day. They are locked in stubbornly, and at its core is hopelessness, in my opinion. There are other factors at work, primarily racism, but this factor related to the economy still has importance in the discussion.
Now to nihilism itself. This paper from an Iranian researcher on nihilism cited in this discussion gives a good history of the concept of nihilism
The term nihilism first came into prominent use in Russia with the 1862 publication of Ivan Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons. Early in the novel, Arkady, the young disciple of Bazarov (the novel's chief character), refers to his hero as a nihilist. Arkady's father inquires into the meaning of this term, and the son explains that a "nihilist is a man who does not bow down before any authority, who does not take any principle on faith, whatever reverence that principle may be enshrined in." Later, Bazarov himself declares to Arkady's father and uncle, "We act by virtue of what we recognize as beneficial. ... At the present time, negation is the most beneficial of all and we deny...everything." Arkady's father then states, "You deny everything. ... But one must construct too, you know." Bazarov responds with a scornful air, "That's not our business now. ... The ground wants clearing first" (Turgenev: 24, 56). It is not hard to understand how this statement of the nihilist outlook, which became widely known because of the influence of Turgenev's novel, came to be associated with programs of political revolution and terrorism in which negation or destruction for its own sake seemed to be the dominant aim. This is precisely the first sense of the term nihilism (Crosby, 1988:10).
Political Nihilism: This form of nihilism was associated with political struggles appearing in Russia at the 19th and early 20th, to struggle with despotic power of Tsars. The indication of this kind of nihilism was political dissatisfaction, low levels of social participation and intentional indifference to the future. Russian revolutionaries of the 1860s named themselves nihilist, to negate the traditional beliefs and the institutions in which these beliefs and practices were rooted in them.
It was above all Friedrich Nietzsche who in the latter part of the nineteenth century gave the word its contemporary meaning, designating by it the view that "there is no answer to the question: 'to what purpose.’ For Nietzsche, the term “nihilism” remains ambiguous. Though he divides the concept into a large number of sub-categories, two divisions are primary: Nihilism as a sign of increased power of the spirit: as active nihilism. And Nihilism as decline and recession of the power of the spirit: as passive nihilism. Active and passive nihilism, according to Nietzsche, form a dyad making it overly simplistic to claim that nihilism as a whole is a purely negative or destructive force. Nihilism is a process that lies at the very core of life, and can be observed in the continual struggle of human beings to advance and improve themselves and their culture.
“Nihilism: any aim is lacking, any answer to the question "why" is lacking. What does nihilism mean?--that the supreme values devaluate [remove value from] themselves.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (15 October 1844 – 25 August 1900) was a German philosopher, prose poet, cultural critic, philologist, and composer whose work has exerted a profound influence on contemporary philosophy.
The Iranian study of nihilism in which university students of diverse backgrounds were studied started with the hypothesis that the following being components of the dependent variable making up the condition:
Hypotheses
1- There is a relationship between gender and nihilistic thoughts.
2- There is a relationship between age and nihilistic thoughts.
3- There is a relationship between education and nihilistic thoughts.
4- There is a relationship between ethnicity and nihilistic thoughts.
5- There is a relationship between marital status and nihilistic thoughts.
6- There is a relationship between economic and social status and nihilistic thoughts.
7- There is a relationship between adherences to religious practices and nihilistic thoughts.
8- There is a relationship between fatalism and nihilistic thoughts.
9- There is a relationship between fear of failure and nihilistic thoughts.
10-There is a relationship between the need for achievement and nihilistic thoughts.
The study results eliminated five of the above factors, with the five remaining found to be important in determining the presence of nihilistic thoughts is as follows:
Need for achievement - as the need for achievement is increased, nihilistic thoughts are decreased.
Gender - nihilistic thoughts of men (1.09) are more than women (0.922).
Adherence to religious practices - Religious peoples have less nihilistic thoughts.
Fear of failure - as fear of failure is increased, nihilistic thoughts are increased too.
Fatalism - fatalism has a positive relationship with nihilism, so as to an increase of the amount of nihilistic thoughts among respondents.
Ordinarily, five variables of fatalism, fear of failure, Adherences to religious practices, gender and need for achievement could predict 33% of dependent variable (R2=0.338)
This university study from Iran published in June 2015 may give some insight into the nihilistic mind. That religious practice has a positive effect on reducing nihilistic thought seems counterintuitive to me, but it is of interest. Need for achievement would perhaps lend purpose, and a “dead-ender” might be inclined to be nihilistic, and that men being more prone to nihilism seems to make sense. Anxiety over failure, and a fatalistic mindset would seem to increase the possibility of nihilism.
The following is from the study’s results:
The approach applied in this study was a sociological approach toward nihilism. The results showed that there is a relationship between nihilistic thoughts and gender, Adherence to religious practices, fatalism, need for achievement and fear of failure. In fact, in the statistical population of this study men have much nihilistic thoughts than women. As fatalistic thoughts are increased, the nihilistic thoughts are increased too. It means that whereas individuals presume their fate predetermined, they don’t attempt to change the situation. Also as fear of failure is increased, nihilistic thoughts are increased too. Religious peoples have less nihilistic thoughts and as the need for achievement is increased, nihilistic thoughts are decreased.
“You sanctimonious one, you must save the planet”
It seems that there is a natural resentment toward the “do-gooder.” From a Psychology Today article Why Some People Really Resent Do-Gooders, How a good deed can feel like a personal affront, some factors are discussed for this phenomenon. The meme above specifically focuses on the sanctimonious liberal. The people in their opinion who foolishly must save the planet (me for instance). The word sanctimonious may however only appear in the meme above because it is part of Donald Trump’s name calling vocabulary, but we must assume the writer of the meme is aware of its true definition. The article referenced in the following writing is focused at the charitable acts in altruism, but may give a clue about the sentiment of the MAGA Republicans against the “woke liberal,” they who have contempt for the sanctimonious “do-gooder.” The article describes the following:
People may regard altruists negatively if they misunderstand their motives or believe they are too vocal.
Negative reactions may also stem from feeling inadequate or distrusting people who help strangers.
On motives:
It may be harder for people to understand the motivations behind behaviors that they would not personally choose. If we can’t imagine wanting to engage in an extreme act of altruism for its own sake, we might assume that sinister ulterior motives must be involved. But people’s brains work in different ways, and what seems outlandish to one person might seem normal to someone else.
On being too vocal, too visible:
People who aren’t familiar with a specific form of altruism may have misconceptions about what it involves. Without understanding this broader context, people may interpret social media posts or public events as a selfish attempt to seek social validation, when in reality, they are for raising awareness.
On feeling inadequate:
Research finds that feeling inadequate in comparison to a “do-gooder” may threaten a person’s self-esteem, which can then lead them to disparage the do-gooder in an effort to defuse the threat and feel better about themselves. There’s a reason the term “do-gooder” is often used derogatively.
On distrust:
Research suggests that people may be less trusting of certain types of altruists—those who focus on maximizing the good for the greatest number of people—because they fear they will be less loyal friends or partners. These types of altruists might spend a significant amount of their time and resources serving people they don’t know, as opposed to prioritizing close relationships, a decision people might disapprove of.
I must confess that I have a certain distrust in the ostentatious beneficial acts of some of the mega-wealthy in America. There is a cynicism which I always seem to be burdened with upon hearing or reading of such charitable acts, and having someone’s name on a building after a donation seems to have a level of distaste regardless of the individual involved.
From another article on this phenomenon of hating the “do-gooder,” from a evolutionary psychology viewpoint:
Why we hate do-gooders
Evolutionary psychology’s take on our motivation for hating the altruistic goes something like this: While generosity among, say, cavemen, would have led to greater group cohesion, it also often led to the generous person achieving a higher status in the group. Because our ancestors apparently saw life as a zero-sum game** (evolutionary psychologists make a lot of assumptions), we didn’t like seeing someone trying to move up in their status, because it meant we were moving down. This could explain the inherent distrust and distaste we often feel toward people who seem to be purely selfless.
The important word in that sentence is “seem.” We tend to dislike generous people when they remind us they’re being generous, even if it’s subtle. When we see people who are obviously seeking some kind of reward for their selflessness, we tend to hate them—and if we don’t know why someone is being selfless, we’re suspicious of them at best.
**In psychology, zero-sum thinking refers to the perception that a given situation is like a zero-sum game, where one person's gain is equal to another person's loss.
The zero-sum game mentality mentioned above certainly is only a characteristic of our ancestors as this particular writer might have implied. I have often heard of this term, and wished to know a little more about it. A 2019 study [one author @ShaiDavidai ] goes into it rather closely, in terms of politics and ideology. And indeed according to this study both of those on the left and right have their own versions of this thinking. From the paper we find this:
Although pure zero-sum situations are rare, many people perceive non–zero-sum situations as zero-sum, believing that one person’s gains are balanced by another person’s losses. In negotiations, for instance, both parties typically assume that their interests are opposed to the other side’s interests, making it difficult to achieve mutually beneficial agreements. These zero-sum assumptions often pervade political debates, ranging from gender and race relations to immigration. For example, many white Americans believe that the decrease in anti-black prejudice has been offset by an increase in anti-white prejudice and that rising immigration threatens the economic well-being of North American employees. Similarly, many men believe that the decrease in gender discrimination against women has been offset by an increase in discrimination against men.
We argue that both liberals and conservatives view life as zero-sum when it benefits them to do so. Zero-sum thinking, we suggest, is not linked to a specific political ideology but rather reflects a motivated process that allows both liberals and conservatives to maintain their ideological beliefs. Specifically, we suggest that conservatives are more susceptible to zero-sum thinking when the status quo in society is being challenged but that liberals are more susceptible to zero-sum thinking when the status quo is being upheld.
From the results of this study:
…conservatives are more prone, not less prone, to zero-sum thinking. Whereas liberals often believe that social policies that support underprivileged groups benefit society as a whole, conservatives tend to view the gains of some groups (e.g., women, African-Americans, and immigrants) as offset by other groups’ losses (e.g., men, European-Americans, and U.S. citizens). Conservatives, for example, are more likely to believe that expanding civil rights for minorities comes at the expense of the majority (1) and that increasing job opportunities for women diminishes opportunities for men (2).
At the end of each of six studies one finds this statement:
Thus, conservatives should be more prone to zero-sum thinking when an issue is framed in terms of challenging the status quo, but liberals should be more prone to zero-sum thinking when the same issue is framed in terms of maintaining the status quo.
And in one study in particular the following:
Compared with liberal participants, conservatives were less prone to view economic gains by the rich (which maintain the status quo) as zero-sum but more prone to view economic gains by underprivileged groups (which challenge the status quo) as such.
Emphasizing how challenging the status quo leads to various undesirable outcomes may bolster conservatives’ beliefs about the legitimacy of the current state of affairs as well as help them rally others’ support for their own position. As a consequence, conservatives should be especially prone to view challenges to the status quo (e.g., demographic shifts, civil right movements, and pro-immigration policies) as zero-sum.
And for the question of the ideological driven liberal, and not only of one siding with underprivileged groups, it was surmised that indeed the zero-sum game thinking is very real for liberals as well.
Thus, zero-sum thinking appears to have a unique link with ideology that goes beyond liberals’ perceptions of progress or their tendency to side with underprivileged groups.
On the discussion portion of the paper:
These findings highlight the role of ideology in shaping people’s views of life as zero-sum. Rather than being a stable mindset associated with a specific ideology or worldview, we found that zero-sum thinking is exhibited across the political spectrum.
And some suggestions on more useful political interaction based upon the findings:
Since many policies preserve some aspects of the status quo while challenging other aspects of it, politicians and policy-makers can (for better or for worse) strategically frame contentious policies in a manner that either increases or decreases zero-sum thinking among their constituents. For instance, many policies may be more likely to attain bipartisan support if framed in a manner that emphasizes the status quo when presented to conservative voters but in a manner that emphasizes the challenges to the status quo when presented to more liberal-leaning voters. Similarly, emphasizing how a proposed policy is not zero-sum (e.g., emphasizing how similar policies in the past had no effect on the majority group or may have even benefitted it) may help increase support for it.
The research paper from 2019 may be dated, and due to the increased extremism of the political right from that time, its conclusion may not be as assumed the same as then, but it is food for thought perhaps. I veered from the original intent to address a far-right meme, but it has been valuable for me to better understand zero-sum game thinking, nonetheless.
So this ends my discourse on another right-wing meme posted by a MAGA Republican who has openly said he enjoys triggering his perceived enemies, although he gladly remains a “friend” on the platform. I tire of their littleness of humanity, their support for a criminal pathological liar, but unfortunately we are stuck with their extremism for the immediate future. I see no light at the end of the tunnel they choose to inhabit, I can only try not to display a commonality of contempt with their behavior. Trump’s base is mostly the uneducated, one must always remember that, and as some of the nation’s founders said, democracy demands an educated electorate. We can only try to impart some knowledge to them when the opportunity arises. It will not be easy.
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
— Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
30th posting, April 28, 2023