The impact of even a provocative social media post doesn’t often linger with me for long. In a presidential election year, even less so. But two of them struck me last week, neither of them mentioning Indiana politics, but to this Hoosier columnist, they feel entirely about us.
The first post came from a politico named Mike Madrid on Aug. 2. Madrid is a Latino campaign consultant, a former Republican and co-founder of the anti-Trump group, The Lincoln Project. He wrote: “There was a time when it could be argued that not all Trump voters were racist, but they were comfortable voting for a racist. Not anymore.”
Madrid was referring to Donald Trump’s outburst during an interview at the National Association of Black Journalists convention questioning Vice President Kamala Harris’ rather uncomplicated and well documented ancestry. The racist nature of it was remarkable in and of itself. What is more remarkable, however, is how GOP leaders immediately began repeating the attacks.
Even those who would rather Trump not say these offensive things out loud also didn’t object. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.”
At the top of the GOP ticket in Indiana this election year are three Trump sycophants: Mike Braun for governor, Jim Banks for US Senate, and Todd Rokita for attorney general. They are all unapologetically devoted to anything and everything the former president says and does. I want their views confirmed on the Harris issue, though I think it’s obvious.
These three Republicans don’t cross their leader. And as Madrid implied, Trump’s racism can no longer be shrugged off as a bug. It’s a feature.
The second post lingering with me came from Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.
Trump was campaigning in Atlanta on Sunday, where he is under indictment for his attempts to steal the 2020 election. While on the stage and in his own social media posts, the former president reignited his attacks on Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Kemp, and oddly, Kemp’s wife for their collective disloyalty. It was as odd as the Harris ancestry attack in that it makes no sense how it helps Trump’s campaign. Kemp and Raffensperger are both extremely popular Republicans in that swing state. They both responded, but Kemp’s response was troubling.
“My focus is on winning this November and saving our country from Kamala Harris and the Democrats — not engaging in petty personal insults, attacking fellow Republicans, or dwelling on the past. You should do the same, Mr. President, and leave my family out of it.”
Interpretation: “You’re awful, but I’m still with you.”
Sycophancy is hard to maintain I suppose. I grew up with a challenge-the-man approach programmed into me and am just incapable of living any other way. We often underestimate the moral betrayal that unconditional loyalty requires. And when large groups of people openly engage in it, the cultural damage is incalculable.
The notable study on the topic, Edward E. Jones’ 1964 “Ingratiation: A Social Psychological Analysis,” was detailed in Psychology Today in 2017. This is how the trickle-down effect of the phenomenon matters in places like Georgia, and importantly, Indiana.
Jones concluded, “Sycophancy ultimately requires a willingness to deceive and be deceived on the part of both parties … For the underling, opinion conformity is always safer, but one runs the risk of proving oneself pathetically deficient in leadership capacity.”
It forces choosing party over spouse, like Kemp did. While that’s sad and telling for Kemp, there are more problematic results for America.
On Aug. 4, Politico published Ian Ward’s detailed account of the process used for the creation of the now infamous “Project 2025,” the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump term. Putting aside the offensive contents of the 900-page screed, how it was created and how the Trump campaign engaged in it details a level of chaos that is jaw-dropping.
In Indiana, the rollout of Mike Braun’s property tax relief package last week is easily the most disorganized, thoughtless cornerstone of a leading gubernatorial candidate I have ever seen. Following a hotly contested and expensive primary about nothing, Braun’s first meaningful policy plan is a tax plan that was apparently developed without using any math.
The truth is, he’s not running on this attempt at a governing commitment. He’s running on the sycophancy. So, the campaign isn’t riled by the obvious flaws in his mathless accounting plan. Or as Jones wrote in his Ingratiation study, the “pathetically deficient leadership.”
There will be a time in the not too distant future when Trump’s time will end. And in the absence of an individual to unequivocally suck up to, governing plans might have a chance to return to Republican campaigns.
Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. This commentary was previously published at indianacapitalchronicle.com. Send comments to [email protected].
