MAGA Cult is Over

Political movements do not collapse all at once. They collapse in layers, from the outside in, with the least committed leaving first and the most committed holding on until long after everyone else has moved on. This pattern is not unique to MAGA. It is one of the most consistent findings in the psychology of group identity, cult behavior, and political disillusionment. And the research that explains it stretches back over seventy years. What makes MAGA’s collapse worth studying is not that it is happening. It is that we already have a detailed historical model for exactly how it will play out, because it already happened once in postwar Germany. The timeline, the psychology, and the sequence of departures are remarkably similar. The research tells us who leaves first, who leaves last, and what happens to the people who never leave at all. **Level One: The Identity Tourists** In the 1970s, social psychologist Henri Tajfel at the University of Bristol conducted a series of experiments that became the foundation for one of the most cited theories in social psychology. Tajfel wanted to understand what it takes for a person to adopt a group identity. His findings were surprising in their simplicity. He discovered that people will identify with almost any group, even one assigned to them randomly, as long as that group provides them with a sense of positive distinctiveness. As long as belonging feels good, people stay. Tajfel called this Social Identity Theory, and its implications for political movements are enormous. People do not need to deeply understand a group’s ideology to join it. They do not need to agree with every position. They do not even need to care very much. They just need the group to make them feel like they are part of something that is winning. This explains the first wave of MAGA’s expansion and the first wave of its collapse. The casual MAGA supporters, the ones who wore the hats to rallies, flew the flags from their trucks, and posted memes online, were never ideologically committed. For many of them, especially younger voters in 2024, MAGA was social currency. It was something to do on a Saturday night in a town where nothing else was happening. The rallies felt like concerts. The online communities felt like belonging. The red hat was a ticket to a party that seemed, briefly, like the winning side. Tajfel’s research predicts exactly what happens to these members when the group stops feeling like a winner. They leave. Quietly, without explanation, without confrontation. One day the flag comes down. The hat goes in a drawer. The social media posts stop. They do not announce their departure because, psychologically, they were never deeply enough invested to require one. The identity was worn, not internalized. And worn identities are easy to take off. This is the level of MAGA that has already evaporated. These former supporters do not want to talk about politics anymore. They insist both sides are equally bad. They bristle when someone brings up the rallies they attended eighteen months ago. They are already rehearsing the line they will use for the rest of their lives: “I was never really into it.” Tajfel’s research tells us this level does not come back. Once the positive distinctiveness is gone, once the group stops providing the feeling of being on a winning team, low-commitment members do not reconnect. They find another source of identity. The group they left becomes something they would rather not remember. **Level Two: The Invested** The second level of departure is slower, more painful, and psychologically more complex. These are the people who did not just wear the hat. They built their social lives around it. Their friend groups became MAGA friend groups. Their media consumption became exclusively MAGA media. Their sense of who they were as people became inseparable from their political identity. Walking away from MAGA, for these members, is not like taking off a hat. It is like amputating a limb. The psychological mechanism at work here is what economists call the sunk cost fallacy: the tendency to continue investing in something because of how much you have already put into it, regardless of whether the investment is still rational. The more time, money, relationships, and credibility someone has poured into MAGA, the higher the psychological cost of admitting it was a mistake. Every argument they had with a family member. Every friendship they ended. Every Thanksgiving they ruined. All of it becomes retroactively meaningless the moment they admit they were wrong. The research on sunk cost psychology, developed extensively by behavioral economists Hal Arkes and Catherine Blumer in their 1985 study at Ohio University, shows that people are not weighing the current evidence when they decide to stay or go. They are weighing the past investment. The question is not “is this still worth supporting?” The question is “can I afford to admit that everything I already invested was wasted?” This is why the second level fractures rather than collapses. People at this level do not leave in a wave. They leave one at a time, each triggered by a different personal breaking point. The breaking point is almost never ideological. It is personal. A specific betrayal. A specific humiliation. A moment when the cost of staying finally exceeds the cost of admitting they were wrong. The media figures who helped build MAGA’s cultural infrastructure are instructive here. One by one, the podcasters and commentators who amplified the movement and drove voter turnout in 2024 have distanced themselves. The reasons they give vary, but the underlying psychology is the same. They hit a personal threshold where the brand damage of continued association outweighed the sunk cost of everything they had already invested. Their audiences, many of whom were at this same level, took the permission signal and followed. The departure of these figures matters psychologically because they served as identity anchors for their audiences. When a media personality that someone trusted, listened to daily, and built part of their worldview around publicly breaks from the movement, it creates a permission structure for the audience to do the same. The sunk cost feels lighter when someone you respected has already paid it first. But the departure at this level comes with a specific emotional residue that Tajfel’s casual members do not experience. The people at level two are not just quietly moving on. They are angry, embarrassed, and defensive. They do not want to talk about it, but not because they have forgotten. They do not want to talk about it because they remember everything and they cannot stand what it says about them. The narcissistic investment in having been right, in having seen something other people did not see, makes the admission of error feel like a public humiliation. Many of them will never fully admit they were wrong. They will simply stop talking and hope the conversation moves on without them. **Level Three: The Unreachable** In 1954, social psychologist Leon Festinger and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota infiltrated a small doomsday cult led by a woman named Dorothy Martin in suburban Chicago. Martin claimed to receive messages from extraterrestrial beings who warned that a great flood would destroy the world on a specific date. Her followers believed her completely. Some quit their jobs. Others gave away their possessions. They gathered together on the appointed night and waited. The flood did not come. The world did not end. And Festinger was there to document what happened next. The finding was counterintuitive and has become one of the most important discoveries in the history of social psychology. The members who had invested the least, who had kept their jobs and maintained outside relationships, left the group after the prophecy failed. But the members who had sacrificed the most did not leave. They became more committed. They generated new explanations for why the prophecy had not been fulfilled. They began proselytizing with more intensity than before. The failure of the prediction, rather than destroying their belief, deepened it. Festinger called the mechanism behind this behavior cognitive dissonance. When a person holds a belief that is contradicted by reality, they experience a painful psychological tension. There are two ways to resolve it. They can change the belief to match reality. Or they can change their perception of reality to match the belief. The more someone has sacrificed for the belief, the more psychologically expensive the first option becomes, and the more likely they are to choose the second. This is the psychology of MAGA’s third and final level. The Christian nationalists. The militia members. The people who participated in January 6th. The people who have broken laws, destroyed relationships, and built their entire existence around the movement’s success. For these members, the cost of admitting they were wrong is not just embarrassment. It is existential. If MAGA was a lie, then everything they sacrificed for it was meaningless. Every relationship they burned was burned for nothing. Every law they broke was broken for a fantasy. Festinger’s research tells us these people do not deradicalize through evidence or argument. They do not respond to facts. The dissonance is too strong and the investment is too deep. What the research shows, and what the historical record confirms, is that this group does not change its mind. It becomes irrelevant. **The German Precedent** The postwar German data is the closest historical parallel to what is happening now, and the numbers are striking. In 1952, seven years after the war ended, after the concentration camps had been liberated and the full scope of the regime’s crimes had been documented and publicized around the world, 25 percent of West Germans still expressed a favorable opinion of Hitler. In US occupation zone surveys from 1951 and 1952, 41 percent of West Germans said they saw more good than evil in Nazi ideology. In 1949, 59 percent said National Socialism was “a good idea badly carried out.” These numbers did not decline because people were persuaded by better arguments. They declined because the generation that held those views aged out of public life and was replaced by a generation raised in a different political reality. The fanatics did not convert. They became irrelevant. This is the trajectory that MAGA’s third level is on now. The first level is already gone. The second level is walking out the back door, one broken threshold at a time. What remains is the smallest group, the loudest group, and the group that history consistently shows will never admit it was wrong. They will get louder as the movement shrinks around them, because volume is the only tool left when numbers are gone. The research suggests they will not recover. Not because recovery is impossible in theory, but because the psychological cost of recovery requires confronting every sacrifice they made, every relationship they destroyed, and every law they broke in service of something that turned out to be exactly what everyone told them it was. Festinger’s subjects could not do it over a failed prediction about a flood. The odds of someone doing it after participating in an attempted overthrow of the government are not high. Movements do not die when the last member changes their mind. They die when the last member loses their audience. And that process, for MAGA’s third level, is already well underway. Sources: Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), *The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations*. Brooks/Cole. Arkes, H. R. & Blumer, C. (1985). The Psychology of Sunk Cost. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 35(1), 124-140. Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). *When Prophecy Fails*. University of Minnesota Press. Judt, T. (2005). *Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945*. Penguin Press. Merritt, A. J. & Merritt, R. L. (1980). *Public Opinion in Semisovereign Germany*. University of Illinois Press. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lucasbean.substack.com/subscribe