In listening to a lot of the extremist political rhetoric that has become the norm, and some of the strange rants calling “strongman” leaders Daddy, the thought I often have about the people saying these things is “Who hurt you?” You may recall a very bizarre and creepy rant by Tucker Carlson who was pumping up the crowd at a Trump rally in 2024:

“Dad comes home. He’s pissed. Dad is pissed. And when dad gets home, you know what he says? ‘You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl, and you’re getting a vigorous spanking right now. I’m not going to lie. It’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You’re getting a vigorous spanking because you’ve been a bad girl. You’re only going to get better when you take responsibility for what you did. It has to be this way.”

The crowd began chanting “Daddy’s home,” celebrating the idea of retribution as analogized by a vengeful father spanking a rebellious daughter “vigorously.” It might be one of the strangest things I’ve ever heard in American political discourse. I’ve occasionally heard similar sentiments at church from old codgers who hanker for the days when corporal punishment of children, students or even wives was an acceptable norm, or who yearn for a time when rape victims can be sidelined for “asking for it.” Apparently whatever the patriarch says or does is A-OK to some people.

Both my parents grew up during the Depression. They came of age during World War II, and my Dad (believe it or not!) is a veteran of that war. In the aftermath of these world-changing events and all their accompanying trauma, the culture steered hard into structures like black and white gender roles, law and order policing, racial segregation, and regular church attendance. Many LDS leaders still consider that post-WW2 era (the 1950s) to be the best time ever. A few of our commenters appear to agree. Some conservatives would like to go back to that time. Posters used by the current administration show images that would be nearly indistinguishable from 1950s-style propaganda. In many cases, the children of that generation found the strictures of the 1950s to be exclusionary, sexist and racist, stifling of individual expression, or hypocritical. They pushed for civil rights for all and gender equality, although like all progress, their efforts were sometimes flawed, wrongheaded or carried unintended negative consequences.

I read a quote from a psychologist during the 1940s who said that in his opinion, the average emotional age of people from the Silent Generation was around 10 years old due to all the trauma they experienced. That’s clearly an exaggeration and an oversimplification of what trauma does to one’s emotional development. Healthy emotional development involves gradually learning:

  • How to regulate feelings
  • How to tolerate uncertainty and frustration
  • How to trust appropriately
  • How to balance your own needs with others’ needs

It’s more accurate to say that someone who experienced significant early trauma may be advanced in some areas (e.g. more aware of feelings or emotions) and less developed in others (e.g. bad at boundaries, self-soothing). This is due to behaviors that were useful and necessary when they were in the traumatic environment:

  • Hypervigilance
  • People-pleasing
  • Emotional numbing

Those strategies may no longer serve them, but people who’ve experienced significant trauma often rely on them even after the traumatic environment has changed.

Early trauma often leads to a higher level of threat perception or sensitivity to uncertain factors in the environment that may constitute a threat. Those with childhood trauma may develop a higher desire for stability, order, and protection. Roughly half of military service members report that they were physically abused as children. Police officers also report higher instances of childhood trauma, roughly 25%. This is much higher than the population at large where 17% report having experienced 4 or more ACEs (Adverse Childhood Events). ACEs include:

  • physical, emotional or sexual abuse
  • physical or emotional neglect where basic needs and emotional support are lacking or absent
  • household environment issues like domestic violence (even if the child is not the target), parental separation or divorce, living with household members with mental illness, substance abuse issues in the household, or parental/caregiver incarceration

As with all types of trauma, these percentages are subjective, self-reported, rely on memory and idiosyncratic discernment, and are unverifiable. I only share these statistics because over the population at large, they illustrate directional trends.

Those with heightened threat perception see the world as more dangerous or unpredictable, and therefore they prioritize safety, control, and social order. This is why those who have experienced trauma may be particularly motivated by messages of law and order, strong institutions, stability and tradition.

But trauma can also push people in the opposite direction. Not every survivor of trauma would chant “Daddy’s home” in response to Tucker Carlson’s spanky vignette. Some who’ve experienced childhood trauma have increased

  • empathy for marginalized groups
  • support for social safety nets
  • skepticism of authority (especially if authority was the source of harm)

Let’s take a closer look at the psychological effects of different types of trauma.

Childhood abuse or neglect (family-level trauma). Can lead to trust issues, heightened threat sensitivity, or a need for control or predictability, but can also lead to strong empathy for vulnerable people. Did the person adapt by seeking control and order or by seeking protection and reform?

Exposure to violence (crime, assault, unsafe environments). Can lead to strong fear of danger, desire for safety and protection, heightened vigilance, but can also lead to supporting criminal justice reform if they distrust police or their community was treated unjustly. Was protection they experienced coming from authority or did authority fail or harm them?

Economic trauma (poverty, instability, job loss). Can lead to chronic stress and insecurity, a focus on survival, sensitivity to fairness and opportunity. But it can also lead to support for safety nets and a concern about systemic barriers to success and inequality. Does the person attribute hardship to personal circumstances or systemic forces?

War, displacement or large-scale instability. Can lead to a deep need for safety, order, and national cohesion, strong in-group identity, and a sensitivity to external threats. It can also lead to strong anti-war or humanitarian views. Did the trauma reinforce “circling the wagons” or preventing harm for all?

Discrimination or identity-based trauma (racism, sexism, etc.) Can lead to awareness of systemic injustice, strong group identity, or sensitivity to fairness and rights, but can also lead to embracing traditional structures or ingroup conservatism if those structures provide protection through identity or stability. Is the system seen as something to reform or to belong to and preserve? (This explains a lot about conservative women)

Institutional trauma (abuse by government, church, police, etc.) Leads to distrust of authority and institutions and skepticism of power structures. Is the distrust channeled into reducing hierarchical obstacles or rejecting the institutions altogether?

A very simplified view of how trauma informs one’s views in life is:

  • Conservative: “The world is dangerous → we need order, strength, and clear rules”
  • Progressive: “People are vulnerable → we need protection, fairness, and support systems”

You can see both of these attitudes in the LDS church. Even though the membership as a whole may vote “R,” their attitudes reveal that quite a few of them aren’t really as conservative as their votes. And yet, there are certainly some tendencies for the church (which is very authority-based, top-down, and has a conformist culture) to reinforce conservative values.

  • Have you noticed how trauma informs the way you or others see the world and respond to it politically and religiously?
  • Do you notice both attitudes among church members (regardless of their political affiliation)?
  • Are you surprised by how many people have significant childhood trauma?
  • Did you immediately try to tally up your own childhood trauma to see if you meet the “4 Adverse Childhood Events” threshold?

Discuss.