Republican Politics: The Bully’s Court
Content is just material. The structure is decisive. And Republican politicians are well aware of that.
A colleague of mine talks about bully dynamics in schools.
When his son was enrolled, another kid began calling him names and making fun of him. Some of the other children joined in, not necessarily because they had any particular grievance against the boy, but because joining the bully was safer than becoming his next target. Others stood by and did nothing. Before long, the bully’s preferences had become social instructions. The people he shunned were shunned. The people he approved of became preferable. His contempt circulated as common knowledge, and his approval became a small form of currency.
My colleague saw this happen in multiple schools, across multiple cohorts. The personalities changed, but the structure did not. A bully appeared. He selected a victim. A few children became his assistants. Others reinforced him through laughter, imitation, silence, or deference. The rest learned to read his signals and arrange themselves accordingly.
People sometimes talk about bullying as though it were principally an encounter between two children: one child bullies and another is bullied. But the bully is not merely doing something to a victim. He is organizing the room.
The victim is where he demonstrates his authority. The real audience is everyone else.
This is what I see when I look at Donald Trump.
Trump’s practice of calling political opponents heinous names, belittling them personally, and turning ordinary disagreement into ritual humiliation is usually described as a defect of character. Even many of his supporters frame it that way: they like his policies, they say, but wish he would stop insulting people.
I think this gets the causal relationship backward.
The insults are not an unfortunate ornament attached to his political power. They are one of the means by which he acquires and maintains it.
Trump demonstrates that he can violate the ordinary restraints governing public behavior. He can ridicule a person’s body, intelligence, disability, ancestry, spouse, military service, or personal dignity. He can invent a degrading nickname and repeat it until thousands of people use it. He can choose someone who possessed status yesterday and reduce him today to an object of communal laughter.
Every such performance carries two messages.
The first is addressed to the victim: I can do this to you.
The second is addressed to the crowd: Stand beside me, and I will not be doing it to you.
This is not a political philosophy. It is a social arrangement, and one most Americans encountered long before they knew anything about tax policy, immigration, international trade, constitutional law, or the administrative state. They encountered it in grade school and saw it perfected in middle school.
Middle school is an unusually concentrated education in informal power. It teaches children that the person with official authority is not necessarily the person who controls the room. The teacher may have the title, but another child determines who is ridiculous. Another child decides what clothes are humiliating, what mannerism deserves punishment, which table confers status, and whose exclusion must be observed by everyone else.
The successful bully is not simply the strongest or cruelest child. He is the child who makes other people carry out his preferences for him.
He does not need to attack everyone. He needs to attack a sufficient number of people conspicuously enough that everyone else begins anticipating his judgment. Once that happens, the ecosystem becomes self-administering. Children laugh before checking whether something is funny. They withdraw from people they privately like. They repeat insults they did not invent. They avoid defending the victim because the act of defense might move them into the victim’s position.
Eventually, the bully does not merely possess followers. He possesses a court.
The court contains several kinds of people. There are true admirers who experience cruelty as strength. There are assistants who enjoy exercising delegated aggression. There are opportunists who sense that proximity to power may improve their own rank. There are frightened conformists purchasing safety. There are spectators who dislike what they see but consider resistance too expensive. There are even people who privately despise the bully while publicly observing every one of his social rulings.
From outside the system, all these people can look like supporters. They are not supporting him for the same reason, but their behavior produces the same visible result.
This matters because human beings treat visible agreement as information. If everyone around me laughs, perhaps the victim really is contemptible. If everyone treats the bully as powerful, perhaps he really is powerful. If no one objects, perhaps my objection would expose some deficiency in me. If his favored people keep rising while his enemies are driven out, perhaps standing near him is simply an accurate reading of reality.
The distinction between admiration and submission begins to disappear. Power attracts support because support proves power.
Political analysis ordinarily treats voters as people who possess positions and then select the candidate whose positions most closely resemble their own. That model is not wholly false, but it is radically incomplete. It assumes the decisive question is what voters think the leader will do.
Under bully dynamics, the prior question is where the voter imagines himself standing when the leader does it.
Beside him or beneath him?
Inside the circle or outside it?
Get Asher Black’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Laughing or being laughed at?
This helps explain why cruelty may increase political support rather than diminish it. Every conventional violation demonstrates that the leader is not constrained as ordinary people are constrained. Every unanswered insult confirms his ability to define another person publicly. Every opponent who protests appears, within this system, not morally superior but wounded — and the ability to wound is taken as evidence of dominance.
The victim’s objection therefore completes the performance. He objects because he has been injured; the crowd sees that he was injurable. His humiliation becomes proof of the bully’s potency.
People who identify with the bully experience this potency vicariously. They are not merely watching him insult an enemy. They are borrowing his exemption from restraint. Through him, they may say the forbidden thing, punish the resented person, reverse an old humiliation, or experience themselves as members of the class that acts rather than the class acted upon.
This is why calling Trump’s followers hypocrites has so little force. Yes, many of them claim to value courtesy, Christian morality, family dignity, personal responsibility, constitutional restraint, or respect for military service while supporting a man who violates those standards whenever they obstruct him. But the contradiction assumes those standards occupy the highest position in the hierarchy.
They do not. Dominance does.
The rule is not that cruelty is wrong. The rule is that cruelty from below is insolence, while cruelty from above is authority.
The same act changes moral character depending on who performs it and against whom. An insult directed toward the leader is an unforgivable degradation of public life. An insult delivered by the leader is honesty, courage, comedy, strength, authenticity, or “fighting back.” The moral vocabulary is applied after the hierarchy has determined the result.
We continue describing this phenomenon primarily as a contest between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. Those divisions are real, but they may not be the decisive structure. They supply the costumes, policies, historical allegiances, and designated enemies. Beneath them lies something older: the bully, the court, the assistants, the spectators, and the outcasts.
Trump did not invent that structure. He recognized it, intuitively, as bullies do. He was that kind of boy in school. He’s that kind of boy now.
More precisely, he behaves as though no other structure has ever existed. He enters every institution — a business, a television program, a political party, a presidency — and asks the same primitive questions: Who can be humiliated? Who will join me? Who will remain silent? Who requires my approval? Who can be expelled from the circle? Who will attack the person I have marked without requiring further instruction?
This is why his political movement can absorb contradictions that would destroy a movement organized principally around doctrine. Doctrine requires coherence. A bully’s court requires alignment.
The leader may reverse positions, discard allies, embrace former enemies, condemn yesterday’s loyal servant, or elevate yesterday’s heretic. The court adjusts because consistency resides not in the proposition but in the source. Whatever the bully favors today becomes favorable. Whoever he humiliates today becomes humiliable.
The political content changes. The social instruction remains the same.
There are established names for pieces of this mechanism: identification with the aggressor, authoritarian followership, social dominance, defensive conformity, preference falsification, pluralistic ignorance, bandwagoning. School-bullying researchers classify assistants, reinforcers, passive outsiders, defenders, and victims.
But these terms divide into components what is experienced as a single atmosphere.
I would call the whole thing the bully-court dynamic: a dominance hierarchy in which public aggression establishes the leader’s power to distribute belonging, while followers reproduce that power through imitation, protective affiliation, and obedience to his patterns of approval and ostracism.
Or, less clinically, middle-school authoritarianism.
The phrase is not meant to suggest that Trump’s supporters are intellectually equivalent to children. Adults can be educated, competent in some field, sophisticated in some areas, and still organize themselves according to emotional structures acquired in childhood. We leave middle school. Middle school does not necessarily leave us.
In fact, there is a substantial scientific case for saying that many adults are, emotionally and socially, older versions of who they were in middle school. Rank-order stability persists. Ego and moral development plateaus.
Likewise, by adolescence, many people have already developed a durable answer to the question posed by the bully’s entrance: resist him, disappear from his attention, accommodate him, entertain him, or join him.
Politics later gives that answer an ideology, along with a tribal vocabulary by which its adherents can recognize one another. Every in-group develops such signals: favored terms, ritual jokes, approved objects of contempt, small verbal proofs that one knows who belongs and who does not. Signals that convey rank, cachet, privilege and belonging. We see it in fan cultures, fundamentalism, and the tribal masculinity that can identify any break from the safety zone as “gay” or “effeminate” far more readily than it can say what masculinity substantively is. The language does more than express a belief. It displays membership and establishes position inside the group.
Tribalism appeals to those still seeking a place at the cool kids’ table, long after the middle-school cafeteria. The weakness of the signal is illustrated by the need for continual maintenance. Membership is not inherently durable.
MAGA makes its tribal admission remarkably easy. A person need only master a handful of phrases, ridicule the designated people, and reproduce Trump’s judgments to acquire an immediate identity and a seat at the table. From there, rank can be pursued through increasingly conspicuous demonstrations of loyalty: who will repeat the insult most eagerly, defend the latest contradiction most completely, or subordinate himself most visibly to the leader while calling the submission strength. The old middle-school problem has found an adult solution. Instead of developing an identity capable of standing outside the group, one may borrow the tribe’s identity, wear its signals, and let belonging answer the question of who one is.
The ideology may be sincere. It may include economic fear, racial hierarchy, religious identity, resentment toward institutions, cultural displacement, contempt for professional classes, or legitimate dissatisfaction with the political order. But none of those explanations excludes the social mechanism. They tell us what material the movement uses. The bully-court dynamic tells us how the material is organized.
It also explains why the spectacle feels so familiar.
A man points at someone and gives him a humiliating name. The crowd laughs. A few people repeat it more viciously. Others decide they never liked the victim anyway. People who know better say nothing. Former friends step away. Aspiring favorites move closer. The designated target becomes contaminated, while the person who contaminated him appears stronger than before.
We have seen the room.
We know the children.
Only the building has changed.
