Transactional Morality

“Transactional Morality” feels like one of those terms you see in an upper-level psychology course, but the concept is far more straightforward. It simply means that one’s moral behavior is guided not by an inner sense of right and wrong, but by an inner question: If I pretend to conform to some moral code, how many people can I trick into supporting me?

“Transactional Morality” explains how Donald Trump could forcefully, and perhaps illegally, clear Lafayette Square just to stage a photo of himself holding up a Bible — a book he likely never read. The photo-op allowed him to merely appear to conform to the moral codes of Christianity, and the appearance was all that mattered. Once the cameras were gone, the transaction was complete. Trump could return to playing golf, satisfied that he had successfully purchased another round of public relations support for his authoritarian ambitions.

The ugly reality is that authoritarians are not bound by any true sense of morality. On the contrary, they use morality only when it serves their ambitions and then violently discard it when they’re done with it.

Consider some recent examples in history. Adolf Hitler promised to restore the dignity of workers, only to ban labor unions and crush worker autonomy once in power. Joseph Stalin championed the working class, but ultimately enslaved them in service to the state. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini called for freedom from tyranny, only to establish a theocratic dictatorship far more brutal than the Shah he replaced.

This dangerous pattern is emerging again today.

In his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump positioned himself as a defender of LGBTQ+ Americans, citing the horrific Pulse nightclub shooting as a call to action. Yet once in office, he stacked the courts with judges hostile to LGBTQ+ rights, rolled back workplace protections, and stripped federal funding from almost anything with “LGBT” in its name. What began as a posture of moral support quickly became another discarded tool.

More recently, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg warned that Donald Trump’s current campaign against antisemitism is a prime example of transactional morality. Trump, whose political movement often flirts with open antisemitism, now weaponizes antisemitism. Why? Certainly not to protect Jewish people. Rather, he finds antisemitism a convenient cudgel to bludgeon liberal institutions like Harvard and to discredit protesters, many of whom are actually Jewish. These actions resonate with strong pro-Israeli sentiments among parts of his base and help him solidify political control by faking moral concern for Jewish causes. But be prepared: an about-face is already in the works.

Already, we see hints of betrayal emerging. Prominent right-wing figures aligned with Trump’s movement, such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, are giving oxygen to Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Carlson recently hosted a guest who downplayed the Holocaust, while Owens has repeatedly attacked Jews and Israel, blaming “Zionists” for chaos in Syria and minimizing the persecution of Christians by extremist Islamic forces. And who can forget Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Jewish space lasers? These are not isolated incidents. They are early cracks in a fake foundation of moral righteousness.

If history is a guide, we can already see what comes next: outright betrayal.

Those who cheer today’s weaponization of antisemitism should understand the bargain they are making. When the political winds shift — and they will shift — no one will be safe from betrayal, including those who once thought they were inside Trump’s circle of protection.

And be prepared for some surprising turns in Trump’s betrayal. For example, the Second Amendment is likely to come under attack. Today, gun rights are celebrated by the Trump-aligned movement as a cornerstone of freedom. But as Trump’s authoritarian ambitions tighten their grip on America, widespread civilian gun ownership will come under attack.

How will this happen? We can only guess, but consider that the machinery for selective gun restrictions is quietly being assembled. Already, we see the label of “enemy of the state” aimed at Democrats, liberals, progressives, journalists, anti-Trump activists, and anyone who refuses to pledge blind allegiance to the current regime. Loyalty-based background checks and patriotism tests for federal employment, outlined in Project 2025, are already in place. And if history is our guide, we know this: When bureaucrats must prove ideological loyalty to keep their jobs, it’s only a matter of time before civilian privileges demand the same. Would those labeled as “enemies of the state” be allowed to own firearms? It’s doubtful. Why would an authoritarian regime allow its opponents to arm themselves? There’s no reason to appeal the Second Amendment; it would simply be denied to the enemies within.

This is how freedom withers away; not through a single sweeping decree, but through a thousand quiet reclassifications of who is worthy of rights and who is not.

We must not fool ourselves. Those who believe that today's moral causes, whether the fight against antisemitism or the defense of gun rights, will remain safe under Trump’s authoritarian rule are about to make a deadly mistake. Transactional morality has no loyalty. It only serves the ambitions of those who seek unchecked power.

The warning signs are here.

History is both our teacher and our witness. Resist! This is our time. This is our fight.