Saint Trump and the Church of Birtherism: When Conspiracy Becomes Religion

 

Dayna Wilson

Dr. Noelle Phillips

English 1130 - 103

13 December 2020

Saint Trump and the Church of Birtherism: When Conspiracy Becomes Religion

The birtherism conspiracy theory, aiming to challenge the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, was never a particularly novel or surprising phenomenon.  Rather, its inception and subsequent circulation was the product of a culture that owes its nascence to the oppression and undermining of Black Americans. The fact that Obama was both the first Black presidential candidate and the first presidential candidate to be accused of lacking the authority to run is no coincidence. The racism inherent in the theory has been widely acknowledged and discussed, with a 2018 study demonstrating clear correlation between racist bias and belief in birtherism (Jardina and Traugott 60-80). The fervor with which proponents of the theory have sought to defend it in the face of conclusive evidence disproving its validity, however, has been less considered. Though Obama’s short form birth certificate was released to the public in 2008, with the long form version following in 2011, a January 2016 poll reported that 34% of respondents continued to believe that Obama was born outside of the United States (Morning Consult 5).  This rejection of empirical evidence to cling to a belief that cannot be substantiated draws parallels with how an individual might validate their religious and spiritual beliefs. In seeking to fully understand how the birther conspiracy theory became so widespread and difficult to combat, one can benefit from examining the cognitive theories behind religious adherence. When considering the relationship between organized religion and birtherism, it is possible to develop an understanding of how the theory came to pass, and as such, how the popularity of similar future theories might be prevented.

One cornerstone of most organized religions is the concept of “holy men” (and occasionally women), institutionally elevated individuals who claim to speak the divine truth, and who adherents of the faith view as divine representatives: Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, Islamic imams. Those who believe in birtherism, meanwhile, have Donald Trump. Though Trump was not the originator of the birtherist conspiracy theory, he is inarguably the most vocal proponent of birtherism. Trump paved the way for his own presidential run by relying heavily on the contentious nature of the theory to gain popularity with Republican voters eager to discredit Obama (Serwer). Even when evidence mounted to disprove the theory, Trump continued to argue for its validity, and followers continued to believe him. This blind belief in the unsubstantiated claims of an authority figure is consistent with the institutional cognition model of religion, which suggests that “religious beliefs espoused by high-prestige exemplars should spread and evoke more commitment than beliefs espoused by others” (Wood and Shaver 6).

Had birtherism remained a low-profile theory, passed around between individuals, it is unlikely that the same steadfast belief in it would have been witnessed. Just as power is invested in religious figures due to their position within the institution, birtherists afforded power to Donald Trump due to his wealth, prestige, and visibility. He became a uniting figure in the movement, and as an institution developed around the beliefs he espoused, he was afforded institutional authority.

            The establishment of Donald Trump as a figurehead in the birtherist movement serves the further purpose of lending guidance and order to its members, the desire for which has been identified as integral in those who experience a high degree of religiosity. A 2000 study by Steven Reiss identified 15 fundamental human desires, and the propensity for highly religious individuals to experience each. Reiss found that those who described themselves as extremely religious reported a much lower desire for independence than those who were not religious, and as such tended to relish being led by an external force (Reiss 50-51). It follows that a strong correlation between belief in the unsubstantiated and a desire for external leadership can be made. Donald Trump, a willing leader instilled with institutional authority, serves to fulfill that apparent desire for leadership. The result of this relationship between Trump and his followers is a willingness to reject empirical evidence such as Obama’s short and long form birth certificates. The birtherist’s faith in the word of Donald Trump surpasses their willingness to accept demonstrable fact, just as a religious adherent places all faith in a holy leader.

Though Donald Trump’s position among believers is an important part of the religiosity of birtherism, it is by no means the only parallel to be drawn. Psychologists have long studied the cognitive thought processes behind the suspension of disbelief in matters of religion, and one prevalent factor considered to be involved is the human tendency towards confirmation bias. As Fiona Macdonald explains in an article on ScienceAlert.com, individuals universally tend to seek out source material that supports their belief systems, while rejecting those sources that do not (Macdonald). An adherent might read one hundred articles explaining that a statue of Jesus Christ appearing to weep blood is the result of wax melting on a hot day, but will ignore them in favour of the one article that claims that the phenomenon is a sign from God. Correspondingly, a birther can find any number of articles enumerating the proofs that Barack Obama was born on American soil yet choose to latch onto the few that claim without evidence that he is foreign-born. Once the individual finds those few sources that confirm irrational beliefs they might hold, these sources are valued above the many that disprove the same beliefs.

 Similarly. a phenomenon called minimally counterintuitive (MCI) bias is considered to play a factor in the willingness to view stories with glaring irrationalities, such as religious tenets or urban legends, as indisputable fact. Stories that play into MCI bias “will balance a minority of counterintuitive concepts with a majority of everyday, intuitive events” (Stubberfield 90). In birther rhetoric, confirmable facts such as those that Obama was born in Hawaii rather than on the American mainland, that his father was African, and that he spent time living outside of America in his youth have been conflated with counterintuitive inaccuracies, such as his mother lying about his place of birth, or that he is secretly Muslim. Not only are the irrationalities in the story more palatable when balanced with facts, scholars have shown that the brain is actually more likely to latch onto the counterintuitive aspects of a story and remember them above the factual aspects (Stubberfeld 90).

The cognitive similarities between those who subscribe to religious dogma and those who believe in the legitimacy of the birther conspiracy are easily identifiable, but the dilemma remains as to how one might apply understanding of these processes towards preventing racist and harmful theories to achieve legitimacy and widespread belief in the future. Given that Donald Trump can be acknowledged to have lent a large amount of credibility to the movement, it would be prudent to avoid allowing a media platform for such harmful and inaccurate statements as those he has made. Without the frequent media attention given to Trump’s spreading of the birther conspiracy, it would likely have received less traction. Likewise, without an identifiable leader continuously returning to the point and legitimizing it in the minds of the public, it could have been forgotten along with any number of irrational campaign accusations. Donald Trump’s involvement in the movement is an extremely critical part of why it enjoyed the success it did.

            As cognitive biases also can be shown to play a substantial role in the development of dogmatic belief, ways to confront them should also be examined in the prevention of further conspiracy theories. While there is much speculation amongst psychologists on the best way to do this, there is no identifiably agreed upon best course of action. In an Economist interview, authors Nancy Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead argue in favour of “fighting this fire with water: scrupulous recourse to argument and evidence and explanations that are available to everyone and above all, subject to correction” (N.C.), though like the religious adherent, proponents of birtherism are unlikely to abandon their beliefs in the face of correction. It seems that the preferable option is to avoid allowing such theories to develop a quasi-religious following in the first place, again by avoiding media attention and denying platforms to those who would claim harmful beliefs as truth.

            Religion serves an important purpose in human existence, offering comfort and reassurance in the face of anxiety, a sense of community, and an explanation for that which is beyond understanding. When used to turn the community against a common enemy, however, it can become dangerous and problematic, just as the birther conspiracy theory has been a steppingstone to widespread racism and political unrest within the American public. Given the similarities between religious thought processes and those that lend to belief in conspiracy theories, much can be gained from the consideration of how religious beliefs form and are supported by their adherents. With a better understanding comes better ability to counter and prevent political arguments and racist fallacies from becoming etched into the American conscience and causing irreparable harm.

 

 

Works Cited

Jardina, Ashley, and Michael Traugott. “The Genesis of the Birther Rumor: Partisanship, Racial

   Attitudes, and Political Knowledge.” The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, vol. 4, no. 1, 2019, pp. 60–80., doi:10.1017/rep.2018.25.

Macdonald, Fiona. “Researchers Say They've Figured Out Why People Reject Science, And It's

Not Ignorance.” Science Alert, 27 Jan. 2019, https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-say-they-ve-figured-out-why-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance.

Morning Consult. “National Tracking Poll.” Questionnaire. 14-17 Jan. 2016. p. 5,

                                         morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160102_topline_MCFull_v1_AP-2.pdf

N.C. “Conspiracy Theories are Dangerous- Here’s How to Crush Them.” The Economist, 12

Aug. 2019, https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/08/12/conspiracy-theories-are-dangerous-heres-how-to-crush-them. Accessed 13 December, 2020

Reiss, Steven. “Why People Turn to Religion: A Motivational Analysis.” Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 39, no. 1, 2000, pp. 47–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1387926. Accessed 14 Dec. 2020.

Serwer, Adam. “Birtherism of a Nation.” The Atlantic, 13 May 2020,

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/birtherism-and-trump/610978/. Accessed 13 December, 2020.

Stubbersfield, Joseph, and Jamshid Tehrani. “Expect the Unexpected? Testing for Minimally

Counterintuitive (MCI) Bias in the Transmission of Contemporary Legends: A Computational Phylogenetic Approach.” Social Science Computer Review, vol. 31, no. 1, Feb. 2013, pp. 90–102, doi:10.1177/0894439312453567.

Wood, Connor, and John H. Shaver. “Religion, Evolution, and the Basis of Institutions: The

Institutional Cognition Model of Religion.” Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, vol. 2, no. 2, 2018, pp. 1–20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.26613/esic.2.2.89.