MAGA’s fast-moving coup is upending the longstanding arrangements that have undergirded domestic politics and the US role in the world. What does this mean for the resistance, and how can the US Left maximize our impact?

No wonder all our heads are spinning. The foundations of the world and domestic order that everyone under 80 years old has grown up in have been under strain for two decades. Now they are being cracked wide open. A MAGA bloc that has meshed white Christian nationalists, right-wing populists, and a Musk-led “broligarchy” (now MAGA’s dominant faction) has captured the citadel of global power. And it is conducting a Constitution-scrapping coup to consolidate authoritarian rule and implement its take-over-everything-everywhere agenda.  

It is urgent to get caught up with the breadth of the changes underway. Doing so requires the broad Left to sustain a difficult, deep-going analytic conversation even as we intensify our practical efforts to put roadblocks in MAGA’s path and build mass traction for a vision of a post-MAGA future that centers multiracial democracy.

In that spirit, I offer four initial theses as one potential entryway into the urgent political and strategic exploration this moment demands.

1. There is no going back.

The takeover of the US government that is currently underway aims to change the US political and economic system and shift the map of global politics in fundamental ways. 

This moment of epochal change has not come out of the blue. The US-led neoliberal order with its forever wars, growing gap between the wealth of a few and the poverty of the many, and pathological inaction on climate change has lost its capacity to undergird social stability or political legitimacy. An exit from that order in one direction or another has been on the horizon since the 2008 financial crisis.

The acceleration of the system’s “polycrisis” intersects with a new phase of the 60-year backlash against the gains of the “long ‘60s” upsurge driven first and foremost by the Black-led Civil Rights Movement. The political bloc organized around this full-spectrum counter-offensive had gathered enough power by 2020 to prevent any accountability for its first attempt at a political coup. MAGA spent the years after January 6, 2021 building out their disinformation-demagogy infrastructure and making detailed plans for coup number two, which was to be activated whatever the vote count in the 2024 election and is now fully underway.

The system of “checks and balances” codified in the US Constitution is rapidly being replaced by the unchecked power of a “unitary executive,” sparking a Constitutional crisis. Every part of the Right’s “long march through the institutions” is now being taken to a new level. Under the banner of fighting DEI and an “immigrant invasion,” the post-Civil Rights Movement racial order is being replaced by a 21^st-century version of Jim Crow. Women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are being curtailed and the very existence of trans people is being challenged via a theocracy-based gender-hierarchy regime. Government bodies and policies that put restrictions on capital, protect workers’ rights, or have a “safety net” component are being dispensed with, as are tens of thousands of federal workers. 

Foreign policy is now officially based on the doctrine of might makes right. Multilateralism is out and the pretense of respecting international law (already shredded by Biden’s backing for genocide) is explicitly rejected. The groundwork is being laid for a global alliance of oligarchs, dictators, and fascists (Netanyahu, Putin, Orban, Modi, Trump et al). Using military threats, actual military force, and/or economic warfare (tariffs and sanctions), Washington will now take everything it can get from previous allies and targeted opponents alike.

Even if every administration move is stopped tomorrow there is no going back to the pre-MAGA world. The combination of continuing polycrisis and the damage Trump and Musk have already wrought means the only question is what comes next. 

2. The range of possible near-term scenarios is very wide

A common view among militant anti-MAGA liberals is that over the course of Trump’s  second term MAGA will transform the US government into something in between a liberal democracy and a dictatorship. Tweaking a term Victor Orban uses to describe his rule in Hungary—“illiberal democracy”—Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, writing in Foreign Affairs, describe the arrangement to come as “competitive authoritarianism.” Chris Cillizza summarizes their view this way:

“What lies ahead is not fascist or single-party dictatorship but competitive authoritarianism—a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent’s abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition… Opposition forces are legal and aboveground, and they contest seriously for power. Elections are often fiercely contested… And once in a while, incumbents lose.”

Something like that could certainly be in the cards. But other scenarios—most worse, but some better—are possible over the next two to four years as well.

Worse scenarios are possible because predictions about a shift to “competitive authoritarianism” assume this transition takes place without economic crises, major wars (tariff protectionism has often spurred both of those), large-scale popular upheavals, and/or a serious uptick in organized and semi-organized violence. There is no reason at all to adopt that assumption. On the contrary, the degree of shock (with or without awe) Trump and Musk are applying to a Constitutional system that has lasted more than 200 years and to a global economic and political order which has the US at its very center makes some kind of out-of-control catastrophe quite likely. 

And in light of Trump’s “I am your retribution” pledge, his pardon of all January 6 defendants, and the  cheers from the MAGA base for dehumanizing vitriol directed at immigrants, trans people, Palestinians, Marxists, and “libtards,” assuming that some kind of new state-sanctioned, lynch-mob enforced order “can’t happen here”  is simply a manifestation of denial. Descent into a system closer to outright fascism (“techno” or otherwise), may not be the most likely outcome of Trump’s second term, but it cannot be ruled out.

On the other hand, with or without economic crisis or war, the MAGA project has vulnerabilities. It could stall and open the door for a project taking the country in a progressive direction. 

The coalition that propelled the GOP to victory in 2024 has numerous parts and Trump’s governing program—as opposed to his campaign messaging—does not appeal to all of them. The biggest divide is between those people, largely working-class, who voted for Trump because they thought he would address their economic hardship, and the billionaires who want more wealth and profit for themselves. With Musk in the lead, Trump 2.0 has governed so far solely in the interests of the latter. 

Add to that the fact that even if all components of the MAGA 2024 coalition stay on board, they do not constitute a majority of the US people. Trump won at the ballot box because a large section of the anti-MAGA majority was either uninspired by or downright alienated from the Democratic campaign and stayed home.

Also, it matters that for all his skills as a demagogue, Trump remains an unpredictable narcissist who surrounds himself with yes-men. The potential for over-reach and strategic stupidity are heightened in a movement with that kind of leader. 

Can these factors be transformed from vulnerabilities into a political force that blocks MAGA’s agenda? That depends on the scope and depth of the anti-MAGA resistance. 

3. In the resistance, spread courage, be flexible, look for fresh leadership

After a slow start compared to 2016, MAGA’s across-the-board assault has begun to spark an across-the-board resistance. Organizations and leaders that fought hard to stop MAGA before last November have pivoted and are throwing down. Bernie is on a nationwide “Fighting Oligarchy” tour targeting working-class districts and AOC is threatened with arrest by Trump’s “border czar” for providing “know your rights” information to immigrants. The Working Families Party and Justice Democrats are recruiting and training working-class people to run for office in 2026. 

Grassroots groups in every targeted constituency (United We Dream, “Rise Up for Trans Youth,” and hundreds more) are organizing their bases and pressuring Democratic Party leaders and electeds to join the fight. Most recently, criticism of the Democratic spokesperson’s weak-tea response to Trump’s lie-and hate-filled State of My Kingdom address – and outrage at the ten Democrats who voted to censure Texas Rep. Al Green – bubbled up from the grassroots. And progressives offered alternatives: newly elected Rep. Latifah Simon gave a far different response to Trump on behalf of the Working Families Party, calling for Democrats to fight back with a progressive political agenda. And a broad spectrum of Black activists and leaders spoke in the State of the People 24-hour program under the banner of “We refuse to let the lies go unchecked.” 

In the labor movement, resistance actions are coming from the AFL-CIO leadership (including the “The Department of People Who Work for a Living” initiative) and from rank-and-file initiative (the newly formed Federal Unionists Network (FUN)).  Choose Democracy has published “What can I do to fight this coup?” a resource based on their study of anti-authoritarian organizing worldwide.

And it’s not only pre-existing organizations that are engaging in the fray. Like the FUN network above and #50501, new organizations are springing up. And like the 19,000 students in the Fresno and Madera Unified School Districts in California’s Central Valley who stayed out of school on the national “Day Without Immigrants” protests Feb. 3, new people are stepping into activist and leadership roles. 

Practical priority number one for the Left is to bring everything we have to the battles underway: our energy and resources; our proposals for action; our willingness to take risks; our commitment to “an injury to one is an injury to all” as a guide to action. At the same time, to maximize our contribution we also need to understand our limitations. The political forces from Bernie leftward are not strong enough to halt the MAGA offensive on our own. A far broader anti-MAGA coalition is needed, as are new strategies and tactics for this new period.

Those new approaches will not all be generated within our current ranks. The resistance movement is already broad and diverse, it will (and must!) become even more so, which means no single strategy, however insightful, will guide all its parts. Polling shows majorities disapprove of Trump and Musk and oppose bedrock elements of their agenda, but it’s hard to predict what issue will turn public opinion into activity that imposes political consequences on MAGA. 

Translating this combination of urgency and a sense of proportion into action can make us most effective at playing the roles we are best equipped to play.

We can bring a measure of leadership to each battlefront but should be alert to leadership potential in people first stepping forward from working-class and specially oppressed constituencies, and nurture that potential.

We can model courage, amplify it when it is displayed, and recognize that courage will also be demonstrated by some people that surprise us.

We need to build out the on-ramps into our organizations and networks and lean toward boldness in bringing people who get on those ramps into leadership positions. 

Overall, we can think of ourselves as one of the smaller wheels that move bigger wheels, and act accordingly. 

4. Aim for a leap in political and operational unity 

The Left has an opportunity to make not just an important but a unique contribution to the broad resistance by offering a positive, motivating, and convincingly realistic vision of a post-MAGA-in-power society .

Gaining mass traction for such a vision is important for two reasons. First, it strengthens the resistance. We learned from the 2024 election that opposition to MAGA is not enough to move a large portion of the anti-MAGA majority into action; a positive vision of what MAGA’s opponents are fighting for is required. Two, if and when MAGA is pushed back, in the absence of a progressive force with a credible post-MAGA vision, some variant of the “back to the pre-MAGA status quo” perspective that characterizes a big section of the Democratic Party leadership will win out. That kind of arrangement will not address the needs of the US majority, and leaves the door open for MAGA to posture again as an agent of positive change and for future elections to look a lot more like 2024 than 2020.  

Over the last several years, a broad swath of US radicals have gravitated toward advocacy of participating in a broad electoral front against MAGA while working to increase the independent strength of social justice organizations. (Convergence formulates this as “Block and Build.”) When describing the political and economic arrangement this current is fighting for, the most common approach as of now is to advocate for a robust political democracy that is anchored in the interests and needs of the multiracial working class. And in organizational terms, since January 20 there has been a leap in interaction between groups in or close to this political ballpark, and an increased measure of cooperation in mass education, message coordination, and practical organizing work. 

Building on that progress, leaps forward both on the political/strategic and operational/organizational levels are now required. 

The vision of a multiracial working-class democracy, and the strategy to gain enough governing power to put the country on that path, must be fleshed out and made more concrete. The key issues that process will need to address include: 

• Getting specific about different strategies for power at the local, state and federal levels, and in red, blue and purple areas; 
• Deepening both components of an inside/outside strategy—fighting inside government and Democratic Party structures and engaging in disruption and mass non-compliance outside those structures; 
• Understanding the ways in which today’s fights around gender and patriarchy are central to the MAGA vs. anti-MAGA conflict; 
• Figuring out how to win or “win back” sectors of the Black, Latino/a and Asian-American constituencies that have drifted toward MAGA;  
• And, since without an internationalist vision any progressive movement in the US is vulnerable to an imperial version of patriotism, developing our foreign policy vision in today’s rapidly changing global landscape.  

As the Left takes up these and other matters, I think drawing on the framework of fighting for a Third Reconstruction can be of great help. This framework roots us in US history, sheds significant light on the ways democratic and class struggle intersect and interweave and highlights the driving-force role of the Black working class. The Third Reconstruction outlook is already part of Left discussion (See Peniel E. Joseph, Rev. William Barber, Carl Davidson and Bill Fletcher, Jr., and my own writing) and propels those who take it up to look (or look again) at the work of W.E.B. Dubois, which is valuable even beyond its bearing on this framework.

Even the best radical vision and strategy needs to be offered by a force embedded in the conditions and struggles of workers and the oppressed. And here too there is a foundation to build on. Increasingly, both veteran and new activists agree that skilled paid staffs alone are insufficient for building a durable working-class movement. What’s needed is a large cohort of activists who are embedded in the workplaces, neighborhoods, and cultural and religious institutions of working-class life and act as catalysts to unleash the energy, combativeness, and all-around political leadership potential of those with whom they share the conditions of life. Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) makes a large contribution here and could make a bigger one if the organization shed its political ambivalence—in some factions downright opposition—toward positioning itself solidly within the broad anti-MAGA front and seeing the strengthening of the front’s progressive wing (not just its socialist component) as a prime strategic task. 

Facing a common threat, organizations building bases among workers and the oppressed are breaking out of silos. Cross-organizational dialogue and cooperation are on the rise even as outward-facing activity is intensifying. 

As this process moves forward, a few centers of gravity are emerging for forces that oppose MAGA and center working-class interests. Two show particular promise of being able to bring together large portions of today’s progressive trend, forging a political force whose participants range from elected officials to scholars, podcasters, professional organizers, and grassroots activists.

One is the Working Families Party, which has built working alliances on the national level with MoveOn, Indivisible, Public Citizen, Seed the Vote, the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) and Showing Up for Racial Justice and with numerous state-based power building organizations in the states where it has active operations. WFP has thrown down hard for Palestinian rights and was the initiator of the largest post-election mass call on Zoom with 150,000 participants registered and 200 endorsing organizations. 

The second is the motion in the labor movement generated by UAW President Shawn Fain’s call for unions to align contract expiration dates for May 1, 2028 and prepare for a nationwide strike on that date. That initiative taps into the new militancy bubbling up from rank-and-file workers and the growing support for unions fighting for the interests not only of their members but of the working class as a whole, manifested especially in the work of Bargaining for the Common Good.   

The political landscape is changing fast. Perhaps other formations with comparable savvy and reach will emerge. The key point is that even as we go all-out in day-to-day resistance to the MAGA blitzkrieg, we need to be investing in an effort that can spearhead the development of a united radical force where the whole adds up to more than the sum of its parts. 

.

Most recently, criticism of the Democratic spokesperson’s weak-tea response to Trump’s lie-and hate-filled State of My Kingdom address – and outrage at the ten Democrats who voted to censure Texas Rep. Al Green – bubbled up from the grassroots. And progressives offered alternatives: newly elected Rep. Latifah Simon gave a far different response to Trump on behalf of the Working Families Party, calling for Democrats to fight back with a progressive political agenda. And a broad spectrum of Black activists and leaders spoke in the State of the People 24-hour program under the banner of “We refuse to let the lies go unchecked.”

…

The people of the USA are experiencing the equivalent of an invasion. The “enemy” is moving quickly, taking few prisoners, and aims to annihilate all opposition. It is stoking fear even though it represents, in this case, only a minority of the U.S. population. We had months, if not years, to prepare for this “invasion,” yet too many good activists and thinkers either believed that the return of the prince of darkness —and his MAGA followers — would never happen or that the threats inherent in this movement were simply campaign rhetoric. Worse yet were those who thought that sitting out the November 2024 election was an acceptable response to an unacceptable situation.

The response to the MAGA assault by the Democratic Party establishment has been mixed, at best. The “Squad,” of course, champions resistance, as do forces aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders. Democratic state attorneys general are planning various important legal strategies. Many organizations ranging from the Working Families Party to the Sierra Club to the Service Employees International Union have been engaged in struggle against the attacks. That said, it is not enough.

Resistance to an “invasion” necessitates strategic coordination. It necessitates a cold assessment of our opponents, including both their strengths and weaknesses. It also necessitates a self-assessment and the recognition that this is an asymmetric fight. As such, we cannot combat our opponents using the same approach or resources they possess.

What needs to be done? Here are a few suggestions:

Noncooperation:  Do not give in to the impulse towards so-called bipartisanship; “…they go low, we go high…”; and fatalism. Not only was the November 2024 election a very close call, but the anti-MAGA forces remain the majority and the antics of the prince of darkness seem to be taking a toll. Resist!

Join or build organizations that are resisting: Standing4democracy.org, a group that I cofounded, is an example of an effort to focus on building a force among workers to combat the far Right and create broader coalitions to not only defeat the attacks but lay the foundation for a counter-assault. Get involved in an organization that is actually doing something.

The activities of any one individual organization are not enough:  There are countless organizations that are doing great work in the resistance, but they are largely doing it on their own or, at best, in some level of interaction with elected officials. To defeat the MAGA “invasion” we need strategic coordination. For instance, unions and other organizations need to be uniting together to get relief assistance to Los Angeles and the Southeast to help in the recovery from the natural disasters. The Republicans are attempting to put conditions on that assistance. NO!!  We need to have activities in every state supporting assistance. This cannot be done by one organization. We must join together.

Begin thinking about and drafting a program for the “Third Reconstruction”:  The term “Third Reconstruction” has emerged over the last 20+ years to signify the need for radical structural reforms that address social and economic injustices and the environmental catastrophe. Defeating MAGA necessitates having a program that not only points out the irrationalism of MAGA, but also points us in the direction of progress and rebirth.

There is no longer any time for mourning. The time now is for inspiration, resistance, courage and vision.

…

This post originally ran on Progressive Hub

“How do we resist Trump’s doings and at the same time build something that can reverse a point in American politics that has been a long-time coming.“

Evidently, little of what President Biden did on the economic front actually materialized as jobs on the ground, so the actual political beneficiary of when people are hired will be Trump because he inherits it.  This fact alone makes it difficult to evaluate whether sheer “economism” —i.e. jobs, even good ones, or income (guaranteed annual wage) are sufficient for a program to defeat Trump, and more generally to defeat the right.

Some History

We would do well to recall that the turn toward the right started in the mid-1960s with white working class voters’ support for George Wallace, and grew stronger especially after the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Friends of mine who worked in the Appalachian Volunteers at the time told me how RFK supporters became Wallace supporters in the time it takes to blink an eye.  We cannot understand that shift by looking only at the economy.

On his campaign ’72, “One of [Wallace’s] supporters, who was horrified [at his rabid use of racism in the campaign], came up to him after his speech and said, ‘George, why are you doing this?’” recalls Wallace biographer Dan Carter. “And Wallace, sadly he thought, said, ‘You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened.’”  “I’ll never be out nggrd again” he concluded after this earlier campaign in which he was a racial “moderate”. 

It’s worthwhile remembering that in the 1964 Democratic primary in Wisconsin he got upward of 30% of the vote; in his 1968 American Independent Party third party run his votes were 20% or more in Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania; 30% or more in West Virginia Maryland, and topped 40% in Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina and Florida; and in the 1972 Democratic primary topped 20% in Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Tennessee and North Carolina. In “white ethnic” working class precincts in the suburbs of Detroit, it was over 50%.

Further, around the same time (1966) Ronald Reagan defeated the previously popular Governor Pat Brown of whom the Los Angeles Times recalled in 1996 “was a third generation Californian whose main ambition was not  higher office, but to be a great governor for his native state. He succeeded.

“Brown turned California from a Republican to Democratic State with his major programs and public expenditures, so you can’t even say, ‘Too little, too late.’ He was on-time.

“While voters may not have appreciated his greatness 30 years ago, millions probably do today. And historians certainly will tomorrow.”

The point isn’t to enter an “either/or” question (economics versus ______) but a “when/where/why” one.  When are questions of economic welfare of sufficient electoral saliency to overcome various issues raised by those who well understand, and are quite ready to use, the strategy of “divide and conquer”.

If Not Economics, Then What?

New York Times columnist David Brooks goes too far in the opposite direction: “The Biden administration was built on the theory that if you redistribute huge amounts of money to people and places left behind, they will return to the Democratic fold. It didn’t happen because you can’t use money to solve a problem primarily about recognition and respect.” (NYT 1/19/25). 

If we could answer affirmatively these questions, we would know a lot more:

1: Did Biden’s program actually create jobs on the ground?  If so, where?  How many?  Paying what, with what benefits?, etc?

2: Are the deliverers of the message that “good jobs are coming” believable?  Or are they “elitists” who now occupy most key leadership positions in the Democratic Party, and aren’t trusted by blue collar workers?

3: When, and under what conditions, is economic improvement, especially well-paying union jobs, sufficient?  Where and when in the past has it overcome general alienation from the system and distrust of its everyday politicians?  When does such alienation run so deep that it overrides material interests?  When does it overcome racial and other prejudices?

4: Most  basically, what are the facts on the ground for individuals, families, friends, neighbors and other associates?  Whatever the GNP might be, are their lives better?  Are there more-or-less of them living paycheck to paycheck?  And even if it’s a close call, do pessimistic and painful stories travel farther and faster than do optimistic and hopeful ones?

The Turn To the Right Didn’t Just Start 

We would learn a lot by carefully examining the shift to Wallace in Appalachia after the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

Let’s look further back.  FDR’s speeches (i.e. “messaging”) and programs were a big part of the New Deal’s success.  He assured the American people that things were going to get better, that he was on their side against the plutocrats, and that he could win politically in Congress.  And he delivered, if not enough at least enough for the electorate in 1936, 1940 and 1944 to give him four more years.

What’s the difference between then and now?  The barrier of race among working class people has been broken in unions that were intentional about getting workers to put class above race, and where relationships among those workers contributed to mutual respect.  But not always.

What leads to those different outcomes in roughly similar circumstances?  The truth is we don’t fully know.

There is no equivalent to the CIO or Popular Front “at the base” to make Presidential (or any other Democrat’s) policies or promises believable.  Without rebuilding unions that don’t vigorously oppose racial/ethnic and other forms of discrimination; without a more generally vital civil society, we are not in a position to win because to win now requires big money for media, and that money comes from wealthy people who are pursuing their agendas, not from the bottom up.

The challenge is, “How do we resist Trump’s doings and at the same time build something that can reverse a point in American politics that has been a long-time coming.

Maybe that requires parallel strategies.  If so, these considerations are central:

— Those engaged in direct action need to carefully balance the need for militancy required to express their anger at injustice with the need to communicate with those who don’t share that anger, or don’t share it that militantly.

— Those engaged in the more careful building for the long-haul processes have to persuade the militants to be more careful lest their action create a bigger counter-reaction.  I believe we are dealing with the absence of such care in the recent past.

In 1961/62 Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee field secretary Bob Moses traveled to Mississippi to meet an underground network of civil rights leaders who had worked with Ella Baker when she was Director of Branches for the NAACP.  While they admired the courage of the “sit-ins” and “freedom rides,” what they really were interested in was the right to vote.

At the August, 1961 SNCC staff meeting, the issue almost split the organization.  Ella Baker, who attended but rarely spoke at such gatherings, interceded with the question, “Why not both?”  The problem was resolved.  After a period in which SNCC had two divisions, it became apparent that voter registration work was as likely to get people thrown in prison as sit-ins or freedom rides.

Increasingly, SNCC became an organization of organizers building local “units” of Black people power across the Deep South.  At the same time it is worth noting that SNCC couldn’t do both in the same place at the same time.  That was tried in McComb. It frightened local Black adults, who backed away from the voter registration program.

The Amazon “plants” or “salts” are analogous to the voter registration people in SNCC.  Protest action will inevitably go on.  At the same time, some of the protestors or others who support the causes for protest need to dig deep roots in poor-to-middle class communities of all colors and build people power organizations that have the capacity to move from protest to power.

…