I’m hearing conversations about how Steve Bannon, the man who ran Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign is, shock, horror, gasp, a con man.
Of course he is!
So is Donald Trump and so was Barack Obama.
And so are the great preachers.
F.M. Alexander was a bit of con man, but he also had the real deal.
Great political activists and religious activists and social activists share a psychological profile with the successful con man because both roles require the mobilization of belief. An activist sells a future that does not yet exist. They must convince a large group of people that a specific sacrifice today leads to a collective salvation tomorrow. They create a shared myth. When the gap between the current reality and the promised utopia grows too wide, the activist uses the same tools as the grifter to maintain momentum. They use selective data, emotional manipulation, and the suppression of internal doubt to keep the movement unified.
The overlap between these two archetypes exists primarily in the realm of social signaling and alliance building. According to Alliance Theory, leaders gain power not just through the truth of their claims but through their ability to punish enemies and reward friends. A great activist understands that loyalty often matters more than accuracy. If a leader admits a mistake or acknowledges the complexity of an opponent’s position, they risk weakening the resolve of their followers. To prevent this, they may lean into deceptive tactics or oversimplify moral narratives. They project an air of certainty that they do not truly possess. This performance serves a functional purpose in high stakes politics even if it borders on fraud.
Personal charisma also acts as a bridge between the visionary and the swindler. Both figures possess social intelligence and the ability to mirror the desires of their audience. They sense what people want to hear and they feed those desires back to them in a structured format. While the con man seeks personal gain, the activist seeks institutional change. However, the methods are similar. Both must manage a buffered identity that protects their private skepticism from their public fervor. They operate in a world where the ends justify the means, and truth becomes a secondary concern to the survival of the cause.
