Why Smart Commentators Don't Understand Trump Supporters

It's not about logic.

I keep reading brilliant political analysts express genuine bewilderment: How can Trump supporters simultaneously demand law and order while accepting pardons for January 6th rioters who assaulted police officers? How can they rally behind "backing the blue" while supporting someone who wants to federalize law enforcement in cities with solid downward-trending crime rates? The commentators sound dubious, as if they're witnessing a mass cognitive breakdown. I think there is an answer, but it’s not where they expect.

The Values Development Gap

The answer isn't found in thinking about it logically, as they strain to do—it's in comparing value stages. Specifically, in understanding the difference between what developmental theorist Clare Graves identified as different stages of human value systems, a theory later called Spiral Dynamics.

Most educated political commentators operate from what the framework calls "Orange" values—where logical consistency, systematic thinking, and evidence-based reasoning are paramount. Importantly, they assume everyone else shares these same principles for organizing thought. But Trump and his core supporters are operating primarily from "Red" and "Blue" value systems, where entirely different priorities govern decision-making. Let’s review:

Red values prioritize power, dominance, and tribal loyalty. From this perspective, loyalty to your leader and your group trumps abstract principles about logical consistency. The January 6th pardons aren't a contradiction—they're an expression of loyalty to "our people" who were fighting for "our side."

Blue values emphasize hierarchy, order, and absolute authority. When Trump defines what "law and order" means, that definition becomes correct by virtue of his authority. Traditional Blue thinking doesn't question the ultimate authority figure—it seeks to align with and defend that authority.¹

Orange values, by contrast, would subject even authority figures to logical scrutiny and demand internal consistency between stated principles and actions.

It’s important to remember that these value systems, Red, Blue, and Orange, are adopted sequentially rather than selected from a menu.²

It's Not About Intelligence

Here's the crucial insight: this isn't about cognitive development or intelligence. A highly educated person can possess sophisticated analytical skills while operating from Red or Blue value systems. The classic example is the scientist who develops weapons of mass destruction: great cognitive development combined with limited moral development. Values development and cognitive development don't necessarily progress in sync.

The Commentator's Blind Spot

The incredulous smart commentators are making a classic Orange mistake: they're projecting their own value system that honors evidence and logic onto people operating from earlier value systems. In this case, they are applying their system to those who deeply value loyalty to what their leader tells them to believe and do. They assume logical consistency should matter the most to everyone because it matters the most to them.

But for Red/Blue values systems, logical consistency is far less important than loyalty, hierarchy, and group identity. When commentators point out logical contradictions, it’s like they're speaking a foreign language. They are criticizing people for failing to prioritize something that people whose center of gravity is in the Red or Blue value systems do not yet prioritize in their lives.

Understanding, Not Dismissing

This framework isn't about creating rankings of "better" or "worse" thinking. It's about developing what might be called "values literacy"—the ability to understand other value systems different from the perspective of your own. As I’ve discussed elsewhere, it is important to remember that people at later stages are better able to understand earlier stages than vice versa. After all, later stages have lived through the earlier stages.

When I apply this lens to my own family's Trump supporters, it transforms the dynamic entirely. Instead of thinking Uncle George is being illogical, I can see that he's being perfectly consistent within his values framework. I can disagree with his political conclusions while taking into account the internal coherence of his decision-making system.

The Real Challenge

The deeper challenge for our political discourse isn't converting people to different value systems—that's not realistic. People develop into their next stage. In fact, those who try to bypass the developmental tasks of stage growth often end up needing to go back and take care of those tasks before the new stage can be inhabited with stability.

Given that growth through a stage can take years—adolescence is nearly a decade—we have to come up with strategies to create healthy versions of each of the stages.

We also need to develop the capacity to communicate across different value stages rather than talking past each other.

Orange or later level critics will never persuade Red/Blue supporters by pointing out logical inconsistencies, because logical consistency isn't the primary organizing principle for Red/Blue thinking. And Red/Blue supporters will continue to frustrate Orange-level thinkers as long as the latter expect systematic reasoning to govern political choices.

Understanding these different values systems doesn't resolve our political divisions, but it might help us stop being quite so incredulous about them. Sometimes the gap isn't about information or intelligence—it's about fundamentally different ways of organizing what matters most.

One Other Thing: Religion

I really should devote more thought and care to this, but I just read this Note from the former Evangelical, Tim Whitaker:

Sometimes at night I lay awake in bed staring at the ceiling wondering how American Christianity has brought such horrors and dehumanization to its neighbors.

I don’t know how you read the red letters and come away with kidnap immigrants, arrest unhoused people and bow the knee to a man who was best friends with a pedophile.

I just don’t get it. ~ Tim Whitaker

I believe the same dynamic I’ve discussed above is at work. If you are a Red or Blue Stage Christian, you will follow your leader. If the leader is Jesus, you will be okay, and you will need to grow to later stages or risk losing your faith.³ If your leader is a Christian Nationalist, you’ll be one of those people Tim Whitaker doesn’t understand.

My undeveloped thought is that we need to think deeply and compassionately about how we can guide the followers of Christian Nationalism to understand the red letters Whitaker refers to. Stay tuned.

1. You might ask, why didn’t this person at the Blue level accept Obama’s authority while he was President? Some did, but others, for other complex reasons, had alternative authority figures that they were listening to instead of Obama.

2. There are several other value levels in Spiral Dynamics, but I’m keeping it simple here, referring to just 3 of the levels.

3. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, by James Fowler.