Pulling Back from the Brink: Rebuilding Minds in the Age of MAGA

The MAGA movement is not just a political phenomenon. It is a psychological ecosystem—a self-reinforcing worldview that draws strength from fear, identity, and grievance. As we have explored across this series, its adherents often operate from psychological frameworks rooted in Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and Collective Narcissism. These are not fringe attributes. They are deeply human tendencies, exacerbated by economic instability, cultural anxiety, and the rise of digital echo chambers.

But if this movement was shaped by manipulable forces, then it stands to reason that it can be reshaped.

Start with Empathy, Not Condescension

Condescension fuels grievance. It validates the narrative that liberals and progressives look down on "real Americans." MAGA supporters are often primed to view disagreement as attack. That doesn’t mean we should coddle extremism, but understanding their emotional needs is not the same as accepting their conclusions. Empathy is a strategic tool. Research into depolarization shows that people are more receptive to new ideas when they feel heard and respected (Kteily et al., 2015).

Example: A former MAGA supporter recalled in a New York Times op-ed that what changed his mind was not being yelled at in debates, but a quiet conversation with a progressive coworker who simply asked him to explain how his support for Trump helped him personally.

Ask questions that invite introspection: "What made you start supporting Trump? What did you hope would change?" These are not traps. They are doors. The moment someone articulates their story in their own words, it becomes possible to challenge the narrative they have internalized—not with a hammer, but with a mirror.

Leverage Storytelling and Shared Values

Facts alone won’t do it. Nyhan and Reifler (2010) have shown that confronting misperceptions often backfires. Instead, use storytelling—personal accounts of people harmed by policies, or even former MAGA supporters who changed course. Moral reframing can also be effective. For example, emphasize loyalty to country when opposing insurrections, or fairness when discussing tax equity (Feinberg & Willer, 2015).

Example: Rather than arguing that defunding Medicaid hurts the poor, frame it as hurting working-class veterans—something that resonates with conservative values of patriotism and sacrifice.

This taps into core conservative values rather than trying to supplant them. We do not move people by replacing their morality. We move them by reapplying it.

Expose the Contradictions Gently, Relentlessly

Trump has rebranded political contradiction as authenticity. One moment he rails against globalists; the next, he entertains symbolic ties to the British Commonwealth. The MAGA base adapts on cue, because loyalty is their anchor. Our job is to make them see the cognitive dissonance, not by yelling hypocrisy but by asking, "How does that fit with what you used to believe?"

Example: When Trump supporters call for pulling out of NATO but cheer when he cozies up to monarchies, a simple question—"Didn’t Trump promise to keep America out of foreign entanglements?"—can invite pause.

Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable. But when confronted subtly, it can be powerful. Tornberg and Chueri (2025) showed how misinformation thrives in ideologically homogenous spaces. When you puncture those spaces with contradiction—from a trusted source, or within their moral framework—you create friction. And friction can lead to reflection.

Rebuild Trust in Institutions

MAGA thrives on institutional distrust. From the DOJ to public education, every authority is painted as corrupt unless it supports Trump. The only antidote is consistent, transparent, community-based engagement. Institutions must go local. They must show up where distrust festers. They must explain, patiently and often, what they do and why it matters.

Example: After the 2020 election, Republican election officials in Georgia who supported Trump but affirmed Biden's win had greater influence over local MAGA voters than Democratic leaders. Familiarity builds credibility.

Programs that foster media literacy and civics education, especially in rural areas and red states, can provide long-term resilience. Kahne and Bowyer (2016) found that well-designed digital literacy programs reduce belief in fake news. Truth cannot compete with propaganda unless people are trained to spot the difference.

Deplatform the Megaphones, Not the People

Removing disinformation without creating martyrs is a delicate balance. But the evidence is clear: when platforms downrank or remove conspiracy content, engagement with falsehoods drops (Guess et al., 2020). We should aim to disrupt the algorithmic amplification of lies, while preserving free expression.

Example: After Facebook cracked down on QAnon groups in late 2020, the visibility and engagement with QAnon content plummeted across the platform.

This also requires journalists to stop playing into outrage cycles. Not every Trump outburst deserves a headline. Amplifying chaos breeds cynicism, which MAGA weaponizes as proof that "everyone lies."

Support Exit Ramps and Safe Off-Ramps

Some will never leave MAGA. But many linger at the edge. Former cult members often say that what finally pulled them out wasn’t logic, but kindness from someone they thought was their enemy. Organizations like Free Radicals and Life After Hate have shown that creating welcoming, nonjudgmental spaces for people to express doubt is crucial.

Example: A former Proud Boy told NPR that what finally made him leave was a liberal coworker who didn’t shun him but invited him to a Fourth of July barbecue. It broke the us-vs-them binary.

We need more of those spaces—online and off. People should know that walking away from MAGA does not mean walking into humiliation or isolation. It means walking back into a community that believes in growth.

For the Survivors of Authoritarian Decline: What Happens to the Rest of Us?

While much of the focus has been on deradicalizing MAGA adherents, we must also confront the psychological toll on those forced to live under the shadow of rising authoritarianism. Liberals, progressives, moderates, and marginalized communities have had to navigate not only policy rollbacks but existential fear—the loss of rights, dignity, and security.

Psychological studies show that chronic exposure to political threat erodes trust, increases anxiety, and induces feelings of helplessness (Jost et al., 2017). For many Democrats and moderates, the Trump era was not merely ideological—it was traumatic. The erosion of truth, civility, and democratic norms can leave individuals feeling powerless and disillusioned.

Example: A 2022 Pew survey found that a majority of Democrats believed the Supreme Court was no longer impartial after the Dobbs decision. Trust in institutions doesn’t just vanish—it collapses under emotional strain.

For LGBTQ+ Americans, the rollback of trans protections meant not just political frustration but fear for their safety. For immigrants and people of color, watching policies that dehumanized them be cheered on by millions led to an identity-level psychological rupture.

Healing from this means validating the experience. It means building resilient communities, empowering civic action, and investing in mental health services attuned to political trauma. Political extremism doesn’t just radicalize—it demoralizes.

The work of pulling back from the brink isn’t just about correcting the misguided. It’s also about mending those who saw the cliff and were forced to hold the line.

Conclusion: We Fight the Fire, Not the Flame

There will always be demagogues. Always fear. Always people vulnerable to the promise of easy answers and restored glory. Trump is a symptom. MAGA is a syndrome. The real challenge is the architecture that allows lies to flourish, grievance to metastasize, and fear to masquerade as freedom.

We dismantle that architecture not just with counterarguments, but with counter-environments. With better education, better relationships, and better narratives. With enough time, even the most fortified minds can let in light.

Not all will return. But some will. And for democracy to survive, we only need some.

References

Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From Gulf to Bridge: When do Moral Arguments Facilitate Political Influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681.

Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 472–480.

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.

Jost, J. T., Stern, C., Rule, N. O., & Sterling, J. (2017). The politics of fear: Is there an ideological asymmetry in existential motivation? Social Cognition, 35(4), 324–353.

Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2016). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3–34.

Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901–921.

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.

Tornberg, A., & Chueri, T. (2025). When Do Parties Lie? Misinformation and Radical Right Populism Across 26 Countries. European Journal of Political Research (forthcoming).