Charisma: Toxic Leaders and Their Followers
What do voters see that attracts them to toxic leaders? This is the first article in a series on the dynamics of people who align themselves with leaders.
If you see a person running down a street shouting that the world is coming to an end, be tolerant. But if you see a person running down a street shouting that the world is coming to an end and a large crowd of supporters are following, beware.
Beware of the Grift
In April 2023, Donald J. Trump, former president of the United States, was charged with 34 federal counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The Manhattan District Attorney alleges a complex scheme intended to cover up a hush money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels.
The day after his hush money indictment, Trump’s longtime religious adviser Paula White Cain, working with an evangelical group called Intercessors for America, organized an “Emergency Prayer Call” for Trump. During this prayer call, the former Minnesota congress member, Michele Bachmann, intoned on behalf of Trump as a self-sacrificing protector: “Father, our President Donald J. Trump has taken the blows for America…He has taken the blows for us. We lift him up to you.”
One month later, a New York jury found Trump to be guilty of sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll during an assault that occurred in 1995 in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in New York. The day following the jury’s verdict of guilt, Trump participated in a scheduled town hall meeting hosted by CNN and called Ms. Carroll “a whack job.”
Most recently, Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury on 37 felony counts related to his post-presidential handling of classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago residence. According to prosecutors, those documents contained sensitive military and intelligence information, including information about the nuclear and military capabilities of the U.S. and foreign countries.
Given these allegations and findings of criminality in just the past three months, what has been the response from Trump’s base of voters? They send him their money.
During the first quarter of 2023, Trump raised an average of $168,000 daily. Within 24 hours after he was charged in the Stormy Daniels hush money case, Trump’s campaign raised over $4 million. According to figures provided by his staff, more than 97 percent of those who contributed to Trump’s campaign did so in increments of less than $200. Following his indictment related to hush money payments, Trump received more than 312,000 donations, with an average contribution of $49.
And in June, the day after his federal indictment on mishandling classified documents, Trump’s presidential campaign sent an email asking supporters for donations of varying amounts, from $25 to $250 for Trump’s 2024 campaign: “Please make a contribution to SAVE OUR COUNTRY — for 1,500% impact.”
What’s The Appeal When So Many Feel Repelled?
How do those of us sickened by Trump’s juried and alleged criminality and his disregard for democratic institutions explain fellow citizens who find Trump to be an effective and desirable political leader? In November 2022, Trump was supported by 74 million voters who wanted him in office for another four years. For those who saw his administration as a treacherous assault on democracy, how do we explain his support among 74 million Americans? Not all who voted for Trump liked him, but they thought he was better than the Democratic alternative, Joe Biden. What positive features did they see in Trump that motivated them to vote for him?
These questions about the appeal of political leaders with authoritarian personalities could be asked about many others who have ascended to national leadership positions. Several so-called populist leaders come to mind, such as Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who recently won another five-year term as president of Turkey. During WWII, several fascist leaders come to mind: Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Hideko Tojo. Each of these authoritarian leaders have or had significant popular support. How do we explain their attraction to ordinary citizens?
At least one answer to this question lies in exploring the concept known as “charisma.” By itself, charisma is considered a neutral personal characteristic. Leaders can be regarded as charismatic whether they are effective or ineffective, constructive or destructive. The personal traits of either humility or narcissism seem to separate effective from dysfunctional leaders. Irrespective of charisma, humility is more likely associated with effective leadership than narcissism. Leaders who show humility tend to create networks of cooperation that inspire creativity. Leaders with narcissistic traits tend to establish hierarchies that narrow others’ participation in policy decision-making.
What, then, is the nature of charisma that it can be associated with either humility or narcissism? How does charm create interpersonal magnetism? The source of charisma may not be found where you expect.
Adolph Hitler and The Personification of Charisma
Laurence Rees is a British filmmaker who always wanted to make history documentaries. Born in 1957, he made his first film at age 25 and soon ing in history films related to the Nazis and the Second World War. Through his own independent production company, LR History, Rees has also written, produced, and directed the 2012 BBC television series The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler (and wrote the accompanying book, which I review in this essay). Rees based his research on hundreds of interviews with people with direct or proximate experience of Hitler, such as Germans who participated in his rallies during the 1920s and 1930s.
Before reviewing Rees’s findings, I will note that by mentioning the names of Donald Trump and Adolph Hitler in the same essay, I am making no associations between these two individuals. Instead, my focus is on the dynamics of charisma as a component of toxic leadership, irrespective of the particular individual exhibiting these personal traits.
In his book, Rees asks, "If Hitler was the Devil in human form, how did he get so many people to do his bidding?” Rees characterizes Hitler as the most unlikely leader of a sophisticated state at the heart of Europe. Hitler was “incapable of normal human friendships, unable to debate intellectually, filled with hatred and prejudice, bereft of any real capacity to love, and ‘lonely.’” Hitler had no friends. Before Eva Braun, he had no romantic relationships.
Although otherwise unappealing, people with direct or proximal contact with Hitler remarked about his abilities for persuasion. By Hitler’s account in 1942, as noted by Rees: “My whole life can be summed up as this ceaseless effort of mine to persuade other people.”
Hitler’s self-assessment begs this question: what did he strive to be so persuasive about? In the 1930s, the post-World War I legacy for the German people was the adverse consequences of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty’s terms held Germany and its allies responsible for all war damages, resulting in heavy reparations that crippled the nation’s economy. Additionally, territorial concessions stripped Germany of significant tracts of land, reducing its political influence and strategic capabilities. And finally, the treaty imposed stringent military restrictions, diminishing Germany’s capacity to defend itself, thus creating a sense of vulnerability.
In his early public speeches and rallies, Hitler personified these grievances. He projected blame for these ills on anyone and everyone who disagreed with him: Communists and Social Democrats, conservative elites and Christian churches that began to lose faith in him, left-leaning intellectuals and free-thinking artists, and most of all, the Jews. In short, everyone who disagreed with Hitler’s worldview was blamed for Germany’s pain and humiliation. Hitler relentlessly grieved against his “enemies” through lengthy rants at public rallies, which many described as hypnotic.
Like all authoritarian dictators, Hitler was effective at persuasion because he was good at creating myths (otherwise known as lies) that were embedded with metaphors. George Lakoff, a distinguished cognitive science and linguistics professor, has written that we primarily think in metaphors. Classic examples include: time is money, he has a heart of stone, and life is a journey. Today’s political examples: the election was stolen from me, my indictment is a witch hunt, and the woke liberal media are brainwashing our children.
The power of a metaphor is its propensity to conjure up vivid imagery and strong emotional associations. Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, said: “If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.” And when lies are rich with emotion and personalized relevance, they can create politicized realities.
As Lakoff describes the power of metaphors that can be embedded in lies:
Metaphors are omnipresent, and not just in political discourse. They structure people’s everyday language and reasoning. And yes, metaphors have a firm grip on the political decision-making of individuals and of whole nations. There is not a single political issue that we can reason about in entirely literal terms, without using metaphor. People’s understanding of the world is largely metaphoric, day in and day out.
Hitler’s public rallies showcased the metaphor-rich myths he created. Hitler spoke to the fears and pain of the ordinary German people. He blamed everyone who didn’t believe in his doctrine and argued that he alone could reverse Germany’s pain, fears, and humiliation. And the people believed in Hitler’s show of authoritarian certainty.
Reese quotes a man who witnessed a speech by Hitler in 1920. The witness describes his experience:
“The first [thing] that one felt was the speaker is somehow honest, he does not want to convince you of something that he himself does not fully believe in… And in the pauses of his speech, his blue eyes were shining passionately, while he brushed back his hair with his right hand…Everything came from the heart, and he struck a chord with all of us…He uttered what was in the consciousness of all those present…But not only that. He showed a way, the only way left to all ruined peoples in history…From this evening onwards, though not a party member, I was convinced that if one man could do it, Hitler alone would be capable of mastering Germany’s fate.”
And to quote another who heard Hitler speak in a beer hall:
“And there I sat, an unknown among unknowns I saw this man shortly before midnight, after he had spoken for three hours, drenched in perspiration, radiant. My neighbor said he thought he saw a halo around his head, and I experienced something which transcended the commonplace.”
Wherefore Art Thou, Charisma?
It is a common perception that cult leaders are charismatic. But what is the source of this magnetism? Is this ability to capture followers who have embedded in their minds the messianic attributes of their leader? Or is it the need of the followers for salvation that pulls them to a leader?
As Rees recounts stories from those who knew Hitler as an ordinary person before his rise to power. By these accounts, some of which I previously noted, Hitler was a miserable specimen. He was “at odds with the world.” He saw injustice everywhere. He could not debate issues because he was utterly intolerant of disagreement or criticism. In 1913, Hitler was seen as socially and emotionally inadequate, drifting through life without direction.
How do we account for Hitler’s messianic hold over the German people?
Hitler created metaphor-laden myths based on lies that made others appear to be the enemy. He was skilled at promoting stories that spoke to the pain and insecurities of the German people. He spoke with great authority and certainty, and people experiencing existential uncertainty believed him and believed in him.
But Hitler had a very different effect on those who did not share his worldview (Weltanschauung) of hate and grievance. Unlike his followers, these people report feeling no attraction to him. And herein lies a significant difference. People who shared Hitler’s worldview saw him as charismatic. Those who did not share his views did not experience this charisma. Rees’s witness accounts showed non-believers to be repelled by him.
We begin to see that Hitler’s charisma was found in his ability to create conspiratorial mythologies that spoke to the German people’s fears and pain. Having hooked people by incorporating their existential despair into his mythological reality, he exuded the confidence that he alone could solve their problems. In their perceived need to be rescued from their distress, many ordinary Germans believed Hitler to be their path to salvation.
And so we ask: Where then do we find charisma? The answer is that we must look into the eyes of those desperate for a savior to rescue them from existential pain and uncertainty. Hitler created a reality built on myths with uncompromising message values. Many Germans resonated with these messages and adopted this reality, whereas others did not.
The Political Polarities of Today
Charisma emerges in the nexus of the messenger and those who are soothed by the message.
Charisma, by itself, is not a negative trait for a leader. When leaders are humble and respect their followers, charisma can be a positive factor in motivating a team (or nation) to complete a job. But when charisma is combined with extreme narcissism, societies experience toxic leadership's adverse effects.
My message from this search for the source of charisma is this. When leadership is toxic, we cannot simply focus on the dysfunctional leader while we scratch our heads about the adoring followers. We must consider the social and environmental conditions that create fear in groups of people who feel exposed to perceived dangers, however unreal we believe those dangers to be.
Toxic leaders can only recruit followers who believe the political messaging about danger. The greater the perception of threat, the greater the power of dysfunctional leaders to recruit people to their belief systems. This is a recursive process by which positive feedback loops create echo chambers leading to extreme ideology.
In future essays, I will write about this toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. I will focus on the dynamic vulnerabilities of susceptible followers.
References
Lakoff, G., & Wehling, E. (2016). Your Brain’s Politics: How the Science of the Mind Explains the Political Divide.
Mayo, M. (2017). If humble people make the best leaders, why do we fall for charismatic narcissists. Harvard Business Review, 4, 2–5.
Rees, L. (2012). Hitler’s Charisma: Leading Millions Into The Abyss.
MAGA Pastors: Trump Was Indicted for Your Sins
Indictment turbocharges Trump’s fundraising
Trump seizes on likely indictment to pass begging bowl for 2024 campaign
Donald Trump uses his legal woes to plead for money from supporters — again
