Trump’s Wound Is the Country’s Wound: A Psychological and Political Analysis
How Emotional Repression, Shame, and Projection Built a Movement
I. The Emotional Appeal That Deserves More Analysis
This essay is a more academic follow-up to Trump’s Wound Is the Country’s Wound, which explored Trumpism through an emotional and psychological lens.
That original piece resonated with many—but also sparked debate. This version builds on that foundation, sharpening the argument with a more formal structure and deeper analysis.
For nearly a decade, we've examined Donald Trump's political rise from numerous angles: economic anxiety, cultural backlash, media fragmentation, algorithmic radicalization, and policy preferences. These frameworks offer valuable insight, but I believe there's another dimension worth exploring—one that helps explain a specific segment of his support base.
This piece isn't about every Trump voter.
It's not about conservatives who voted based on tax policy, Supreme Court appointments, or regulatory approaches.
It's not about voters who chose Trump as the "lesser of two evils" or those who supported some of his policies while condemning his personal behavior.
Instead, I'm focusing on a specific phenomenon: the unwavering loyalty of his most devoted supporters—those who've remained steadfast through scandals, controversies, and actions that would typically damage political careers. Understanding this core support may offer insights into our broader political landscape.
The central question I'm exploring is: What if, for some supporters, Trump's appeal isn't merely political but deeply emotional?
II. Trump as a Complex Figure: The Personal and Political
Before examining Trump's appeal, it's important to acknowledge the complexity of his support base. People support political figures for numerous reasons—ideological alignment, specific policy positions, party loyalty, and personal charisma all play roles. Research has demonstrated this diversity of motivations among Trump voters.
A 2023 study by the Pew Research Center found Trump supporters cited multiple reasons for their support, including economic policies (67%), immigration stances (64%), and opposition to progressive social policies (58%). Only a subset—approximately 39%—cited personal connection or emotional resonance with Trump himself as a primary factor.
For this subset, however, there appears to be something deeper at work.
Fred Trump, Donald's father, valued dominance, toughness, and status—something Trump himself has acknowledged in interviews. In a 2016 interview with Playboy, Trump stated: "My father was a very strong, tough guy. He taught me to be tough, to be strong." This upbringing seemingly shaped Trump's public persona: assertive, unapologetic, and resistant to admitting weakness.
This isn't armchair psychoanalysis but an observation based on Trump's own accounts and public behavior. His communication style—combative, direct, and dismissive of criticism—resonates with some supporters precisely because it models an approach to handling vulnerability that feels familiar.
As one ardent supporter told The Atlantic in 2020: "He fights like we feel. He doesn't back down when they come after him, and that's how we feel every day." Another explained to researchers at Vanderbilt University: "He says the things we're thinking but aren't supposed to say anymore."
III. Emotional Resonance: A Piece of the Puzzle
Political scientists increasingly recognize that voting decisions aren't purely rational calculations. Jonathan Haidt's research on moral foundations theory demonstrates how emotional and intuitive responses shape political affiliation. Similarly, Drew Westen's work in "The Political Brain" shows how emotional connections to candidates often precede policy analysis.
For some—not all, but some—Trump's appeal appears connected to his embodiment of particular emotional responses to perceived threats: defiance rather than accommodation, certainty rather than doubt, and counterattack rather than concession.
Consider these trends identified in research:
A 2019 study by Diana Mutz found that status threat—concerns about changing social hierarchies—was a stronger predictor of Trump support than economic anxiety.
Work by Karen Stenner demonstrates how perceptions of social disorder can activate authoritarian predispositions.
Research by Arlie Hochschild identified feelings of being "strangers in their own land" among some conservative voters—a sense that cultural elites had jumped the line while looking down on traditional values.
These findings suggest that for some supporters, Trump offers emotional validation for feelings of marginalization and dismissal.
A Trump supporter from Pennsylvania told researchers: "He's the first person who didn't make me feel ashamed for my concerns." Another from Wisconsin said: "When everyone calls you deplorable for long enough, you start wanting someone who will hit back."
IV. Defense Mechanisms and Political Loyalty
Political loyalty isn't solely about policy alignment. Research on political psychology shows that partisanship becomes part of social identity—making disaffection from a political figure feel like a threat to self-concept.
When strong supporters are confronted with information that challenges their assessment of a political figure, several psychological processes can activate:
Cognitive dissonance reduction: Minimizing contradictory information to maintain consistency in beliefs
Confirmation bias: Seeking information that validates existing perspectives
Identity protection: Defending positions that have become intertwined with self-concept
For die-hard supporters, abandoning Trump would require not just changing political allegiance but reconsidering aspects of personal identity. As political scientist Lilliana Mason notes, "When partisanship becomes social identity, changing sides feels like betrayal of self and community."
This explains why some supporters remain loyal despite actions they might condemn in others. Research on identity fusion suggests that when individuals feel emotionally fused to a leader, challenges to that leader are processed as personal attacks—intensifying defensive loyalty (Swann et al., 2012). As Swann et al. note, “When people fuse with a group or leader, their personal and social identities become functionally equivalent, making threats to the leader feel like threats to the self.” A 2022 focus group participant captured this dynamic: "I don't agree with everything he does, but at this point, walking away feels like admitting I was wrong about everything."
V. Media Frameworks and Emotional Analysis
Our political discourse rarely examines emotional dimensions of political support in depth. Media analysis tends to focus on policy positions, electoral strategy, and partisan conflict—frameworks that, while important, can miss deeper currents.
There are several reasons for this gap:
Methodological challenges: Emotional connections are harder to quantify than policy positions or voting patterns.
Professional norms: Political journalism traditionally emphasizes observable facts over psychological interpretation.
Perceived condescension: Analysis of emotional motivations can easily be misinterpreted as pathologizing political differences.
Yet as Bessel van der Kolk’s The Body Keeps the Score illustrates, unprocessed trauma doesn’t just live in the mind—it shapes behavior, identity, and response patterns. As van der Kolk writes, “The body keeps the score: if the memory of trauma is encoded in the viscera, in heartbreaking and gut-wrenching sensations, in autoimmune disorders and skeletal/muscular problems … then a top-down approach to healing is doomed to fail.” This underscores how trauma, when unaddressed, can manifest in non-rational behaviors—including political identification.
Political identity may be another terrain where unresolved emotional wounds unconsciously express themselves.
Understanding emotional dimensions of political support isn't about delegitimizing viewpoints—it's about developing fuller understanding of our political landscape. As political scientist Jonathan Haidt notes: "To understand anyone's politics, we must understand their moral intuitions first."
VI. Building Bridges Through Understanding
If emotional connection plays a role in some supporters' loyalty to Trump, what does this suggest for addressing political polarization?
First, it underscores the ineffectiveness of purely fact-based counter-arguments. If support is emotionally grounded, logical rebuttals alone won't persuade.
Second, it suggests the importance of acknowledging legitimate concerns that may underlie support. Economic anxiety, cultural change, and feelings of dismissal are real experiences, even when responses to them differ.
Third, it highlights how leadership that acknowledges vulnerability rather than projecting invulnerability might offer healthier political models. As researcher Brené Brown notes, true strength often comes from acknowledging, not denying, vulnerability.
Progress might come through:
Political discourse that addresses both material needs and emotional concerns
Leadership models that demonstrate strength through collaboration rather than dominance
Community-building that crosses political divides through shared experiences
VII. Moving Forward: From Understanding to Action
Political polarization in America isn't simply about different policy preferences—it reflects deeper divisions in how we understand ourselves and our place in society.
For some Trump supporters—again, not all, but a significant core—his appeal speaks to feelings of being unheard and undervalued in a rapidly changing culture. For many opponents, his approach represents a destabilization of democratic norms through emotional projection and identity fusion.
Building bridges across this divide requires more than better arguments. It requires creating spaces where legitimate concerns can be acknowledged without reinforcing harmful dynamics.
This doesn't mean abandoning principles or normalizing harmful rhetoric. Rather, it means recognizing that behind political positions often lie human needs for dignity, security, and belonging—needs we all share, even when expressing them differently.
The path forward isn't about convincing everyone to agree, but about fostering a political culture where disagreement doesn't require dehumanization.
Because ultimately, healing our national wounds will require seeing each other—across political divides—as complex human beings rather than political caricatures.
If this piece resonated...
🗨️ Leave a comment. What perspective did it add to your understanding?
🔁 Share it—especially with someone who might see politics differently than you do. 🧠 Subscribe. More's coming—on politics, polarization, and building bridges in divided times.
Thanks for reading.