Binary Thinking: The Hidden Psychology Behind America’s Drift Toward Authoritarianism

How cognitive rigidity fuels rule-based professions, and sometimes, political extremism.

Walk into a police precinct, a Marine base, or an umpire’s locker room, and you’re likely to find more MAGA hats than mindfulness apps. That’s not just a cultural artifact. It’s a deeper cognitive pattern. One that helps explain not only what many conservatives believe, but why they’re so often drawn to professions where rule enforcement isn’t just a duty. It’s the job.

I’ve been watching this pattern since I was young. Back in school, the kids who bullied others, and who couldn’t handle nuance or tolerate ambiguity, almost always came from deeply conservative homes. More often than not, their families had roots in law enforcement, the military, or strict religious traditions. I was the opposite. An explorer of the gray areas, and that contrast sparked a lifelong fascination with the kind of mind that thrives in black-and-white thinking.

The Psychology of Binary Thinking

Psychologists have long studied the cognitive split between liberals and conservatives. One of the most consistent findings is that conservatives score higher on the need for cognitive closure: a preference for order, certainty, and fixed answers. These aren’t just political leanings, they are psychological patterns.

Liberals, by contrast, are more comfortable with ambiguity. They tend to be open to new experiences, and more accepting of moral and social complexity. Where a conservative might ask, "What’s the rule?", a liberal is more likely to ask, "What’s the context?"

Studies in Moral Foundations Theory show that conservatives prioritize loyalty, authority, and purity, which are values that benefit from clear boundaries and enforced norms. Liberals emphasize care and fairness, which require empathy, relativism, and situational nuance. So when the world becomes morally complex, binary thinkers don't adapt, they double down. They crave clarity. They seek enforcement. They draw lines.

The Evolutionary Mindset: Why the Binary Brain Exists

This cognitive divide is not just psychological. It's biological. And evolutionary.

Political orientation is influenced in part by heritable psychological traits. Conservatives tend to exhibit higher threat sensitivity, stronger disgust responses, and lower tolerance for ambiguity. In dangerous environments, these traits promoted survival through group cohesion and conformity.

Liberals, on the other hand, evolved traits better suited to dynamic environments: curiosity, cognitive flexibility, and openness to outsiders. They explored, adapted, and questioned norms. Evolutionarily, both paths mattered, but in modern society, they clash.

One mindset says, "Protect the rules." The other says, "Reconsider the framework."

When Authority Becomes Identity

For many conservatives in uniformed professions, the rulebook isn’t just a guide. It becomes identity.

The badge, the uniform, the oath. These symbols of authority can become fused with a person’s sense of self. Breaking the rules feels like a personal violation. Calls for reform feel like betrayal. Professional loyalty calcifies into ideological rigidity.

This explains much of the cultural divide. Liberals want to revise. Conservatives want to preserve. One asks, "Is the rule just?" The other asks, "Was it broken?"

When Certainty Becomes a Threat: How Binary Thinking Slips Toward Fascism

Binary thinking isn’t inherently dangerous. But under threat, it becomes fertile ground for authoritarianism.

Traits like need for cognitive closure, authoritarian submission, and threat sensitivity correlate strongly with support for punitive policies, strongman leaders, and ideological purity. Bob Altemeyer’s research on Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) explains how ordinary rule-followers can embrace fascist policies, not out of malice, but out of fear.

When the world feels chaotic, fascism doesn't look like oppression. It looks like safety.

Historically, fascist movements have emerged from conservative worldviews, not liberal ones. Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, each mobilized traditionalist, nationalist, order-oriented populations. They weaponized purity, pride, and punishment. Their enemies? Liberals, intellectuals, pluralists. Those who live in the gray.

Fascism doesn't grow from openness. It grows from fear and the longing for control.

From Rulebook to Strongman: The American Slide Toward Authoritarianism

We don't need to look to Europe to see this dynamic at play. We can look at the United States.

Donald Trump’s rise is a case study in the psychological appeal of binary thinking. His language is relentlessly absolute: winners vs. losers, patriots vs. traitors. There is no middle ground. And that’s the point.

Studies show Trump’s base scores high in RWA, social dominance orientation, and cognitive closure. They are more likely to see the world as dangerous and chaotic. They don’t want debate. They want discipline.

Trump’s strongest support comes from professions steeped in binary logic: police, military, border patrol, corrections. His political machine has actively reshaped these institutions to favor loyalty over law. Project 2025, a right-wing transition plan, proposes purging civil servants and replacing them with ideological enforcers. This is authoritarianism by design.

January 6 was not an outlier. It was the natural collision of binary minds, institutional decay, and a demagogue with a microphone. It wasn’t about policy. It was about control.

The Mind Shapes the Role

If you want to understand who becomes the cop, the soldier, the umpire, or the border guard, don’t just look at their politics. Look at their psychology.

Conservatives are drawn to rule-based professions because rules feel like truth. There is pride in enforcing them. But when those rules grow outdated or unjust, binary minds struggle. They do not adapt. They entrench.

Liberals, by contrast, question systems. They see complexity. They ask, "Should the rule exist at all?" That mindset is crucial for a society that wants to evolve.

The danger lies in imbalance. When only one kind of mind dominates the institutions of power, the rulebook stops evolving. And those who enforce it forget that the game has changed.

---

Sources & References

1. Jost, J.T., et al. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.433

2. Tetlock, P.E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 118–126.

3. Napier, J.L. & Jost, J.T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals?. Psychological Science, 19(6), 565–572.

4. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Harvard University Press.

5. Pew Research Center (2017). The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider

6. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon Books.

7. Gallup (2022). Republicans Dominate U.S. Police Forces. https://news.gallup.com/poll/509052/republicans-dominate-police-forces.aspx

8. Dodd, M.D., et al. (2012). Political ideology and attention to negative stimuli: A review of the evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 421–470.

9. McCrae, R.R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323–337.

10. Military Times (2020). Poll: Troops prefer Trump to Biden, but support slips. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/08/31/poll-troops-prefer-trump-to-biden-but-support-slips/