A buddy of mine in Texas is a student of history and because of what he has learned about how democracies can decay, he has begun doing something that, under normal circumstances, would sound almost absurd: he is trying to camouflage his political identity. He has studied what happens after authoritarian movements consolidate power, particularly to people who have been branded enemies of the state. Authoritarian politics has a predictable appetite for enemies because they need their followers to have someone to fear, someone to fight, someone to fault for every failure. Jean-Paul Sartre captured the psychology in Anti-Semite and Jew: “If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him.” His point was that antisemitism often tells us less about actual Jewish people than about the psychological need of the antisemite to manufacture a scapegoat.

Looking around the United States today, my friend sees plenty of scapegoats being supplied. Immigrants have been portrayed as criminals and rapists, even though research has repeatedly found that undocumented immigrants are not more crime-prone than native-born Americans. The LGBT+ community has become another convenient cultural target. In Texas, Muslims increasingly find themselves drawn into the political crosshairs. And on a national level, Trump has repeatedly described political opponents and Democrats in language suggesting they are enemies threatening the country from within. My friend is a liberal living in Texas, and watching the rhetoric ratchet upward has made him nervous, especially being on the left, and thus one of the “enemies”. So, partly to protect himself and partly to protect his business, he decided it might be a good idea to look a little more Republican than he actually is. Apparently we have reached the stage of American democracy where political camouflage is becoming a hobby.

Your ballot in a general election is secret, but participation in a party primary can reveal which party’s primary you chose to vote in. So my friend voted in Republican primaries, selecting what he considered the most moderate candidates available. He quickly discovered that “moderate” can be a remarkably flexible term. Finding the least extreme candidate sometimes felt less like choosing between shades of grey and more like deciding which flamethrower had the friendliest safety label. Nevertheless, he voted, and somewhere along the way his phone number apparently entered the Republican fundraising ecosystem. Soon came the texts. And more texts. Candidates wanted $5. Candidates wanted $25. Candidates urgently needed $47 before midnight to stop civilization from collapsing due to the evil, communist Democrats.

Then something different arrived: a questionnaire (bottom). The first question asked him to grade President Trump: A, B, C, D, F, or Unsure. Holding his nose (figuratively), he chose A. Then came another question, and another, and another. He kept answering in ways he believed would make him appear Republican. Then he reached a question that stopped him cold: 

Which is more important to you?

• Loyalty to President Trump
• Standing up to Both Parties
• Unsure

That word, “loyalty”, disturbed him deeply. In a constitutional democracy, loyalty is supposed to run upward toward the Constitution, the law, and the country, not downward toward the individual occupying the presidency. Personal fealty is the language of monarchs and Führers, not republican government. Yet because the entire purpose of his little political masquerade was to appear loyal, he selected Trump anyway. He disliked the answer even as he clicked it. But only a few days later, when another message arrived, he finally understood what the questionnaire had really been measuring.

The message (right) offered an invite to the 2026 Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas. Suddenly the questions looked different to him. This was not simply a political survey, it was a tool to identify the sort of supporters most likely to enthusiastically participate in a highly pro-Trump event! And more so, as he would see on a YouTube clip, to pledge allegiance to an authoritarian which came next.

During the 2026 Republican Midterm Convention, Trump asked supporters to publicly pledge themselves to him and used rhetoric about cheating “like hell” in the midterm elections. Watching it, my friend felt the pieces snap together. The questionnaire was not only a “survey” used to find the right attendees, but to find extreme, enthusiastic supporters who could fill an arena, perform their loyalty publicly, and produce powerful television images of thousands of people falling enthusiastically in line behind the leader.

The psychology behind a public loyalty ritual like this is deeply disturbing. It is not just political theatre. It can change how people think, how they judge dissent, and how willing they are to question the leader later for the following reasons:

• Public pledges deepen commitment and make defection harder – Once someone publicly declares loyalty, they feel pressure to stay consistent with that pledge. Walking it back later can feel embarrassing, disloyal, or like admitting they were fooled. The pledge does not merely express belief; it can reinforce it.
• Repetition reduces resistance and normalizes the extraordinary – What initially feels extreme can become ordinary through repeated exposure. Show the ritual often enough, repeat the language often enough, and yesterday’s outrage becomes today’s oddity and tomorrow’s tradition. Which may explain why, after my friend declined the convention invite, he was thoughtfully offered the livestream version of the indoctrination package instead (below).
• Crowds create social proof and silence dissent – When thousands of people stand, cheer, chant, and pledge together, the message is powerful: This is what people like us do. Even those who privately feel uncomfortable may stay silent because everyone else appears enthusiastic. That appearance of unanimity can become stronger than the actual support in the room.
• Politics becomes a loyalty test instead of a policy debate – The question shifts from “What do you believe?” to “Are you with us?” Those who demonstrate devotion are welcomed into the faithful, while those who hesitate become suspect. Supporters may even begin competing to show who is most loyal and who loves the Führer most.
• Identity begins to fuse with the leader – The leader is no longer simply a politician someone supports; he becomes part of their identity. Criticism of him can feel like criticism of them, their family, their tribe, their religion, or their way of life. That makes independent judgment much harder.
• Moral judgment can become tribal – Instead of asking, “Is this right?” people begin asking, “Did our side do it?” Behaviour they would condemn in an opponent can become excusable, humorous, necessary, or even admirable when performed by the leader. And when the leader signals that rule-breaking is acceptable, some followers may take that as permission to cross lines they previously would not have crossed.

And when that leader flirts with rule-breaking, even jokingly, another psychological phenomenon appears: permission. Some followers will interpret his words literally, others metaphorically, and still others as a signal that previously forbidden behaviour is now acceptable. The precise intention matters less than the atmosphere being created. If the leader repeatedly suggests that normal rules are obstacles erected by enemies, supporters can gradually begin viewing rule-breaking not as misconduct but as courage.

So my friend watched the pledge to Trump on YouTube with a mixture of fascination and fear. From his perspective, the sequence seemed disturbingly logical:

Identify loyalty ➜ invite loyalists ➜ encourage a public pledge ➜ televise the spectacle ➜ normalize personal fealty, and ➜ strengthen the emotional bond between leader and followers.

Every step designed to shift loyalty away from the Constitution of the United States and toward fealty to the Führer.

This along with being labelled an enemy of the state is why my friend worries so much about where the United States is heading. He would seriously consider moving to Canada (yes, buddy, I know you’re reading this, and I still think you should), but his business and livelihood remain in Texas, so packing up and crossing the border may be too much of a challenge. So for now, he stays, votes, watches, and hopes.

And I hope, too. I hope enough Americans turn out in the midterms that sheer participation overwhelms whatever barriers, intimidation, or suppression voters encounter. Democracies can deteriorate, but deterioration is not destiny. Hungary recently demonstrated that even after many years of increasingly illiberal government, voters can still produce dramatic political change when enough of them participate. Americans should take that lesson seriously. The antidote to authoritarian enthusiasm is not authoritarian enthusiasm from the other side. It is participation… massive, peaceful, stubborn participation. But I fear that, for our neighbours to the south, the damage may already be too deep, especially after hearing what an acquaintance recently expressing how “fascism can be good“.

P.S. I haven’t spoken with my fascist acquaintance since. Saying “fascism can be good” is just one of those phrases that makes me quietly back away toward the exit.

P.S.S. I know I should probably be writing about lighter topics—like how Oakville Maids won the Oakville News Readers’ Favourite Award for our amazing house cleaning, or how to survive the back-to-school cleaning rush without losing your mind. But expressing my thoughts and feeling about the dysfunction south of the border has become a form of therapy for me. Cheaper than a therapist, I suppose.

Complete survey follows, compliments of my Texan friend:

The post The Trump Loyalty Pledge: Allegiance to Authoritarianism in America appeared first on Oakville Maids | House Cleaning Services.