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.
Wheat & Tares 
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to trauma of any and every kind. That goes double for childhood trauma.
In answer to the question raised by this wonderful article, I would say that more children are experiencing trauma of more and varying kinds based on the chaos going on in society at large. As Abraham Lincoln famously stated “Whenever the vicious portion of the population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this government cannot last.” This is occurring today, and it has a horrendous impact on children.
Society as a whole, and the Church, are not adequately addressing childhood trauma. The children are mere told to suck it up and remain strong. In absence of productive counseling, the children turn to violent video games and Bon Jovi soundtracks in an attempt to cope with
More must be done on all fronts. If not, we will face the catastrophe that Lincoln foretold.
Other occupations with very high levels of childhood trauma, nursing and related medical caring professions, and social work/mental health, counseling types of fields. So, caring for others. Those who have suffered trauma often want to help others heal the pain they are in.
On the other hand, those who hurt others and who hurt themselves are also most often child trauma survivors. So, child abusers, wife beaters, criminals, murderers, and the like also have higher than average childhood trauma—which is why society should take more care in preventing and healing childhood trauma. But also, those who self harm, alcoholics, druggies, prostitutes, suicide victims are also often child trauma survivors. Not helping a child who has suffered childhood trauma is pretty much a guarantee of problems down the road
And JCS has it too right that our culture and especially the church just expects the children to suck it up and be strong. Abused children who were never been loved are just expected to turn around and be good parents. Governments like to underfund child protective services and then provide nothing to help the children grow into emotionally healthy adults.
On the subject of trauma, I’d like to focus on national trauma and the effects it has on the electorate. I admit up front that I’m a Reagan Republican and very anti-Trump (cue the thumbs down and thumbs up on W&T).
I think the reason Trump is so unpopular and has never polled above 50% approval is because he continuously introduces instability and trauma into the American and international storyline. And the average voter does not want that. The average voter wants to live his or her life which means managing a job, managing a family, managing personal life, managing a household. The average person out there either hates politics or is disinterested in politics. The average person out there does not want world affairs or even national affairs to be a constant item in their lives.
You can agree with Trump’s policies. But you can’t make a credible argument that the nation or the world is any more stable or calm due to his leadership. And this is traumatic for many people. Many of us who aren’t particularly liberal just want a stable reasonable adult running things even if we disagree with his or her policies. If that isn’t evidence of national trauma I don’t know what is.
The LDS Church culture seems to tell trauma survivors to ignore their suffering and present a happy demeanor, which is sometimes termed as “toxic positivity.” Even Primary children sing about replacing frowns with smiles. In the recent General Conference, a women whose spouse had recently died was lauded for–immediately after learning about her husband’s tragic death–helping other women whose husbands were injured. Victims of eccesiastical sexual abuse are often required to sign non-disclosure agreements by LDS attorneys. The silencing and dismissal of trauma victims in the Church is deafening.
Agree with josh h. As the influencers say, make politics boring again.
I can therefore see the appeal of the LDS church to those who were raised in it without being harmed. It can be a comforting place. If you have the right privileges.
I’m glad you mentioned that the “idyllic 1950s” led directly to the chaos of the counter-culture movement of the late 1960s. A trauma response is to shape up and follow the rules strictly. Honestly, that’s probably why spanking “works.” If you traumatize your kid, you may actually see their behavior improve. Not because they respect you or learned their lesson, but because seeking to please the punisher is a trauma response.
Mormon trauma has a long history. Being forced out of communities that the pioneers built, in Kirtland and then Independence and then Nauvoo, caused a lot of community wide trauma. The scarcity of the early years of settling Utah. The Utah war, when the government sent the military to put down a nonexistent rebellion. Having the Church dissolved and leaders going into hiding because of polygamy. Like, we’re traumatized. Generations of trauma. The Church has a long institutional memory. I roll my eyes at Church members who seek to define disagreement as persecution. But the hyper-sensitivity is understandable on some level.
Politically, a lot of conservative trauma is self-inflicted. The hysterical view of trans people as a threat is completely fabricated. The idea that treating gays with respect will somehow destroy heterosexual nuclear families is stupid. Illegal immigrants tend to obey the law more than American citizens, other than that one infraction of crossing a border without the proper papers. Most of what conservatives fear is no more real than the monster under the bed, and yet they’ve scared themselves into a trauma response. It is really, really hard to live with people who are convinced the floor is lava. “Oh yeah? Well, if it isn’t lava, then tell me why I’m too scared to walk on it!” Dude. There is no lava. Trumpers are making up things to be scared about so they can pretend that the cruelty and war crimes are somehow self-defense.
Trauma also causes a lot of abusive behavior. They want the power, because someone with power over them hurt them, and the only way they can imagine not being hurt is to have all the power. All the power. Not just enough to protect themselves. Then the way they assure themselves they are safe from being hurt, is by demonstrating their power over others by hurting those others. So, someone like tRump, who loves to hurt others by throwing his power around, you can be pretty sure that someone with power over him hurt him when he was a powerless child. And other people with power were too afraid to protect him from the constant hurt. And he never grew into an emotionally mature adult, but stayed a sulking angry toddler.
They want so badly not to be weak that they build up an emotional wall to not be like weak people, to separate themselves from anyone too weak to protect themselves. They cannot empathize with those being hurt because it reminds them of their own pain they are desperate not to remember. So, they have zero empathy for others who are being hurt. Their only attitude is, “better you than me, you poor sucker.” They feel contempt for anyone who is so weak as to get hurt. The more those weak people protest being hurt, the more the abuser feels powerful and has to keep himself separate from his remembered pain, so he ups the contempt. He keeps hurting them because it feels powerful, which is better than being hurt.
That is why tRump has zero care about hurting his supporters. They are so weak and stupid as to believe him, so they deserve to be hurt for wanting him to protect them.
This kind of hurt child who has grown up, but never stopped being an hurt toddler, only care about themselves and not being weak or for anyone to see them as weak because then they will deserve to be hurt, again.
Kind people just cannot believe anyone could be so selfish, so his voters are not afraid of him because they cannot see him as the rattlesnake he is. They think of him as the kind strong daddy and themselves as the good kids he will reward. But this way of seeing him shows him their weakness and he turns on them, because they are weaker than he is. He also sees their desire to punish the bad kids as them wanting to take his power. Even though he is the very one egging them on to punishing the bad kids.
This is part of why fascism works at first, then fails. It does not teach or reward prosocial behavior. In fact it punishes prosocial behavior. It collects hurt toddlers. And anyone who is normal gets out. That is why there are so many resignations. So, pretty soon the government is. . . Well, tRump’s cabinet. Everyone is stabbing each other in the back trying to maintain power, protect their back, and still flatter, please, and obey the top dog. All while enjoying the power of hurting others. And a big dog fight does not make for an effective government.
I was watching the season 5 opener of The Boys (Amazon series that is not where you want to cut your teeth on R-rated content, and I’ll just leave it at that). It’s a show about “superheroes” who are divided into two camps: basically fascists and the resistance against fascism. The most powerful being literally just kills people who criticize him (and he’s incredibly thin skinned), but unfortunately, as a “super” he can also sense people’s heart rates and other neurological responses. Everyone he encounters is terrified of him, even if they are pretending otherwise. This episode was about as triggering as anything I’ve ever watched given the current administration.