Analyzed through the works of Martin Marty and Jonathan Z. Smith, Trump's rhetoric echoes that of Jim Jones, building loyalty and sharpening division.
Donald Trump has gathered a strong following that seems to be centered as much or more on him as a person as the policies he stands for. Some of Trump’s critics have invoked the dubious term “cult” to describe Trumpism, invoking comparisons to religious groups like The Peoples Temple, at least as it was understood in the public imagination.
This language is fraught, and religion scholars are typically reticent to label any group a cult. Even so, comparisons can be drawn between Trump and Jim Jones, particularly in their leadership styles and use of rhetoric. Jones achieved dubious notoriety in 1978 when he convinced members of his religious group, the Peoples Temple, to take their own lives. Former Congressional Representative Jackie Speier, a survivor of the Jonestown massacre, notes that both leaders use their charisma to connect with disillusioned individuals, creating a sense of loyalty among their followers. Yulanda Williams, a former member of Peoples Temple, observes that Trump's rhetoric reminds her of Jones's speeches, stoking audiences’ fear and convincing people to take actions that are self-destructive. Others have remarked that both leaders display a tendency to prioritize their own power and influence over the well-being of their followers.
Jonathan Z. Smith's analysis of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple provides a framework for understanding the dynamics of charismatic leadership, group identity, and belief systems. Smith emphasizes the role of a leader in creating a sense of belonging and purpose among their followers. Jones achieves this by presenting himself as a messianic figure offering salvation and social justice. Trump cultivates a strong personal brand, positioning himself as a disruptor who “drains the swamp" and restores a lost greatness. Both leaders rely on rhetoric that resonates deeply with their audiences, often framing themselves as embattled conquistadors fighting against a corrupt establishment and describing their truths as the falsehoods of others. In Smith’s words, this constructive employment of dishonesty operates “at the moment of tension generated by the double sense of ‘fabrication’ … it means both to build and to lie.”
Smith observes that the use of symbols and rituals reinforces group cohesion. Jones uses communal living and shared practices to bind his followers. Trump leverages rallies, slogans like "Make America Great Again," and social media to create a sense of unity among his supporters. These elements foster a strong in-group identity, intensifying an "us versus them" mentality. Examining Trump through Smith's lens helps us recognize how Trump’s appeal is not limited to his policies and political philosophy but to the sense of “us”-ness his rhetoric provides to his supporters.
Martin Marty’s insights on fundamentalism provide another, more sociological and historical, framework to compare Trump and Jones. Marty describes fundamentalism as a modern phenomenon, often emerging as a reaction to rapid societal changes like globalization and technological advancements. Leaders in fundamentalist movements tend to use symbols and rhetoric to create a strong group identity, which can be seen in both Jones's and Trump's leadership styles. Jones uses religious reinterpretation and communal practices to foster loyalty, while the militant aspect present in many fundamentalist movements resonates in Trump’s role in events like January 6.
Both leaders, through their charismatic approaches, create environments where their followers feel part of something larger, often at the expense of critical thinking and individual autonomy. More recently, Trump's message on tariffs aligns with dynamics explored in both Smith's and Marty's work. Trump's rhetoric frames tariffs as a tool for reclaiming economic sovereignty and combating perceived exploitation by others. This "us versus them" narrative mirrors the in-group/out-group dynamics seen in both religious leadership and fundamentalist movements.
Smith's analysis of charismatic leadership highlights how leaders like Jones—and, in a contemporary context, Trump—use symbolic actions to reinforce loyalty. Tariffs serve as a concrete expression of dedication to safeguarding American/MAGA interests, aligning with what Smith identifies as a locative religious framework. This parallels Jim Jones's use of communal practices to embody his vision of equality, reflecting what Smith would term a utopian ideal. Both approaches rely on symbolic actions to reinforce loyalty and shared identity among their followers.
According to Smith's analysis, a locative worldview emphasizes being in a proper, consecrated place, where the primary religious goal is to maintain congruence with that specific location. In contrast, a utopian worldview is centered on a portable sacred text or a set of laws, allowing a community to create a meaningful world wherever they are. This distinction highlights how both leaders use different foundations—one geographical and protective, the other ideological and movable—to achieve the similar end of group cohesion
Marty's views on fundamentalism emphasize reactionary movements that achieve similar ends. Tariff policies are a response to globalization, an appeal to those who feel left behind. This approach fosters a sense of unity among his base—even as it polarizes broader society.
In both leaders, the focus on uncritical loyalty and in-group identity overshadows practical outcomes. Nothing is sui generis. A complex chemistry among leadership style, group dynamics, and policy decisions catalyzes further polarization, increases societal division, and widens political and economic divides.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Carl Southwell (Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California) was a Religion and the Humanities major in The College contemporaneous with the Jonestown massacre. He experienced both the humor and insight of J.Z. Smith’s discussions and the rich thicket of reality unveiled in Dr. Marty’s classroom. His doctorate focuses on disaster risk and decision analysis, and he is currently the CTO and co-founder of PublicRisk.ai.
|
|Back to Title|
LINK TO THE CURRENT ISSUE
LINK TO THE HOME PAGE
