MENU

“Getting” the MAGA Movement: Think “Political Reaction”

By Walter Donway

February 4, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

Introduction

The 2024 presidential election results have been met with varying responses: jubilation or anger, fear or reassurance, despair or happiness. But whether people are pleased or not by the results, the reaction common to almost everyone is bewilderment: how and why did Donald Trump win?

My colleagues at The Savvy Street, Walter Donway and Roger Bissell, have provided thorough and insightful analyses of the 2024 presidential election results that explain exactly how and why Trump won. The first of these, by Walter Donway, follows.

— Donna F. Paris, Editor

After eight years crisscrossing America and dominating the media—and his first week in returning to office—President Donald Trump still baffles people.

After eight years crisscrossing America and dominating the media—and his first week in returning to office—President Donald Trump still baffles people, including some supporters, but emphatically detractors (now called “enemies,” with good reason). Part of the reason for the bafflement, it is obvious to me, is that Trump has no philosophy of politics, no theory of economics, and so no consistency on a theoretical level (a portent for those who invest their hopes in him). When he is at his best, he stands for American values, traditions, and “the American sense of life,” as Ayn Rand called it—and stands for a lifetime of experience in New York City, Atlantic City, Las Vegas, Florida, and international real estate.

I suggest a “spin” on this that explains a great deal about President Trump, but even more, the near-reverential devotion of his followers, their longing for what he promises, their hopes. Have you seen those close-ups of his audiences—women weeping as Trump promises better times (making them feel the force of their frustration), men madly shouting, clapping, and nodding, and surprisingly the young men jumping up and down with their Trump signs?

But we can top even that. Those supporters made abundantly clear in the 2024 presidential election that they didn’t give a bloody donkey hide for what they (the few still listening) heard from the liberal/left/postmodernist/woke “talking heads” on programs of news and opinion (you can’t tell the difference anymore), with their nightly comments, clips, and panel discussions on Trump the “buffoon,” “felon,” “liar,” “authoritarian,” “fascist,” and “neo-Nazi.” They didn’t care what the newspaper headlines said. They did not care what Kamala Harris or Barrack Obama said.

What drives this near-revolutionary (and occasionally violent) conviction that it must be Trump, that something must be done?

They did not care. They were ready for someone to do something about the world they saw emerging, the world in which their children would live, and Trump was the only one who convincingly said (and shouted, thundered, and reverentially swore) he would do something—and that no politically-correct storms, criminal indictments, felony convictions, insanely disproportionate fines, congressional investigations, special prosecutors, or bullets would stop him. It brings to mind the unfortunate campaign slogan of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election: “In your heart you know he’s right.”

Now, the question: What drives this near-revolutionary (and occasionally violent) conviction that it must be Trump, that something must be done?

 

From Revolution to Reaction

The term “reactionary,” born at the end of the French Revolution, refers to a political stand that fiercely rejects the present, seeks a return to a previous state of society, opposes “progressive changes,” and often advocates for restoration of traditions, the social order, and previous policies. (Ayn Rand once commented that what you view as “progressive” will depend upon your definition of progress). Such movements typically arise in response to periods of social or political transformation; they are a pushback against perceived excesses or radical overreach of policies, cultural trends, and governance. The classic example, from which the term came, is the Thermidorian Reaction in post-revolutionary France, when radical Jacobins, who had guillotined thousands and let more thousands die in jail, were arrested and they and their leader, Maximilien Robespierre, were executed, the guillotine then being retired.

Edmund Burke (1729–1797) acknowledged the pristine Enlightenment ideals—such as liberty and the rights of man that inspired the French Revolution—but reacted with rage and scorn at their descent into disaster. “They have found their punishment in their success: laws overturned; tribunals subverted; anarchy in the place of government; industry without vigor; commerce expiring; the revenue unpaid; yet the people impoverished; a church pillaged, and a state not relieved; civil and military anarchy…”

America, too, has had reactionary eras, though less violent, such as the “Era of Good Feelings” after the War of 1812, which saw a return to political unity and nationalism, and the Eisenhower years after WWII, which emphasized stability, traditional values, and economic prosperity. (Sometimes accompanied by noisy and turbulent reaction, such as the decidedly reactionary appeals of Senator Joseph McCarthy thundering about communist ideas and pro-Soviet intellectuals in Washington, academia, and Hollywood.)

If I focus exclusively on “reaction,” it is not to attack President Trump or imply there is nothing to hope for in the second term of his presidency. In fact, I have supported him, beginning in 2016, and even managed to publish two books about it. Indeed, as I will explain later, reaction can be the best choice when it is the only alternative to ever-accelerating tyranny, including of the leftwing, postmodernist, “woke,” “progressivism” that we faced.

Source: ChatGPT
 

 

The MAGA Themes

“Make America Great Again” is quintessentially reactionary as are Trump’s more recent promises of “a new golden age.” His supporters see a better past, a better America, rapidly disappearing under a tidal wave of postmodernist, politically-correct corruption of 1960s “ideals.” Examples that immediately come to mind are rational civil rights demands for “color blindness,” tolerance for different lifestyles such as same-sex unions, and clean air and water, which by 2020 degenerated into federally mandated racially-biased Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, same-sex “marriage,” transgender surgery, and curtailment of the industrial revolution on behalf of “climate change.”

Resisting Progressive Social Movements. Trump frequently criticizes DEI initiatives, arguing that they have “gone too far” and have unfairly disadvantaged certain groups. His opposition to Critical Race Theory (CRT), affirmative action, and corporate DEI policies reflects a broader reaction to “progressive racial and gender policies.”

Opposition to Social “Liberalism.” Trump supporters include many who violently object to same-sex marriage, transgender “rights,” and modern feminist movements. The Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade—facilitated by three conservative nominations made during Trump’s first presidency—represented a legal reaction in the name of Constitutionalism (specifically returning the matter from the federal to the state level).

Climate Change Skepticism and Anti-Green Policies. Trump’s rejection of “global warming” policies, including twice pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, aligns with reactionary opposition to environmental regulations now viewed as not only bureaucratic and anti-industry but as postmodernist rejection of technology, capitalism, and the industrial revolution.

Law and Order, Anti-Immigration Stance. Trump’s emphasis on border security, mass deportations, and tough-on-crime rhetoric fits within a long reactionary tradition that defends law and order, and fights to preserve national identity and culture.

 

Anti-Elite and Anti-Globalization Themes

Trump early positioned himself as an opponent of political and corporate “elites” who, in his view, have sacrificed American jobs and sovereignty in favor of globalist policies. His rhetoric on trade (e.g., opposition to NAFTA and the TPP) and foreign policy (e.g., “America First”) fits within reactionary trends that push against globalization.

“Elites”

He portrays them as an entrenched class pushing globalization, progressive social policies, and regulatory overreach at the expense of everyday Americans.

Now, zero-in on a few individuals, policies, and positions that make real the “elites”—that rather ill-defined mass often characterized as Public Enemy Number One in Trump’s rhetoric. He portrays them as an entrenched class pushing globalization, progressive social policies, and regulatory overreach at the expense of everyday Americans. His reactionary messages paint them as responsible for America’s decline.

Political Elites

Hillary Clinton (former Secretary of State, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee) advocates globalization, progressive social policies, and free trade agreements. She commented in 2015: “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

Barack Obama (President, 2009–2017) pushed DEI initiatives, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In 2008, he said of the rural working-class voters: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

Joe Biden (President, 2021–2025) kept the policy legacy of Obama intact by advocating for climate-change action, DEI programs, and pro-LGBTQ policies. In a 2020 interview with Charlamagne tha God, he recognized and attacked the Trump movement: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black,” and also said: “These MAGA extremists are trying to take us backwards.” (This was a recycling of his accusation during the 2012 presidential campaign that the Republican Party was going to “put y’all back in chains.”)

Corporate Elites

Larry Fink (CEO of the BlackRock investment behemoth) became a voice for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing, integrating climate and social justice concerns into corporate strategy, and said in 2022: “Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net-zero world.” Trump has responded that ESG policies prioritize woke ideology over economic growth, harming industries like oil and gas.

Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Meta/Facebook) has always advocated progressive social policies and DEI initiatives; and in response to media panic after Trump’s 2016 election went whole-hog for “content moderation.” He boasted in 2021 that “We take down more hate speech now than ever”—a position he has reversed with Trump’s 2024 election. (Trump had previously responded to the policies of Zuckerberg and others by accusing social media platforms of censorship, particularly against conservative viewpoints.)

Jamie Dimon (CEO of the world’s largest bank, JPMorgan Chase) advocates “global economic integration,” “green energy” investments, and corporate diversity initiatives. He said in 2020: “Stakeholder capitalism is about delivering long-term value to customers, employees, and communities.” Trump, by contrast, has maintained that “stakeholder capitalism” dilutes corporate responsibility to shareholders in favor of progressive causes.

Media and Cultural Elites

The New York Times & CNN, leading mainstream media giants (though both losing their audiences), obviously advocate all progressive policies from climate-change action to racial/gender “equity” (equal outcomes regardless of merit). A CNN headline in 2020: “Trump’s mishandling of COVID-19 will be his legacy.” Trump often refers to “fake news” and unmistakably he means, among others, CNN and the New York Times, portraying them as tools by which the elite mislead the public.

Hollywood Figures

And then, of course, there is the Hollywood elite, the likes of George Clooney and Taylor Swift who push liberal ideology, reliably plugging for LGBTQ+ rights, climate activism, and progressive political candidates.

Taylor Swift (singer, activist) advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, and voter engagement. She said in 2018: “We live in a world where anyone who says, ‘Stay out of politics’ is actually in politics by not speaking.”

George Clooney (actor, philanthropist) advocates for human rights, refugee aid, and “progressive policies.” He commented in 2016 during Trump’s first campaign for office: “When you direct the anger and the frustration that people have, and you tell them the problem is Mexicans or Muslims, it’s an easy target.”

 

Reaction and Conservatism

I focus the above list (and this essay) on “populist” reaction—mostly to single issues. This is not to imply that what has been called the most surprising “political comeback” and election in U.S. history was driven only by reaction. The mid-20th century saw the beginnings of the first genuine conservative movement in America in response to leftish policies, ideas, and intellectual figures of the New Deal (and earlier “Progressivism”). The modern conservative movement, often said to have been launched in 1955 by William F. Buckley, Jr., and National Review (“the leading conservative journal in the United States,” says the Britannica), and the intellectuals around it (many becoming famous in their own right), was followed by hundreds of other so-called “rightwing” movements for limited constitutional government, cultural individualism, capitalism, and assertion of American self-interest and power abroad—to name just a few themes.

Ayn Rand’s “radical” philosophy and politics of Objectivism (rooted in fundamentals and logically systematic), the Hoover Institute, the Austrian school of economics, the Foundation for Economic Education, Reason magazine, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the American Conservative Union, and many hundreds of  organizations (527 by this count) were launched with substantial funding. Ultimately many hundreds of individuals—scholars, writers and editors, radio and TV hosts, and publishers—found large audiences in the following decades. Hundreds (at least) of brilliant, powerful books have awoken and educated three generations of Americans to the meaning and history-in-practice of ideas including socialism, the interventionist-welfare state and its inevitable devolution into the totalitarian state, the new collectivism of race and gender politics, the workings of “crony capitalism” in government, the philosophical foundations of Western civilization now under concerted attack, the nature of individual rights and their application, and the principles of a free society and limited government.[*]

Their focus overwhelmingly was on attacking “big government,” intervention in the economy, “socialized medicine,” socially motivated leniency in law enforcement, ideological takeover of education, anti-communism, the counter-culture in many fields, “collectivized rights” including overreach of civil rights, environmentalism that morphed into radical “ecology,” and much else, of course. These conservative movements, in contrast with today’s reactionary movement, have been focused on systems—a foremost example being advocacy of a developed theory of laissez-faire economics and of the applications of libertarianism to our public lives. These movements distinguished themselves from today’s reactionism by their consistent opposition to regulations, taxes, deficit spending, overreaching new “rights,” and environmental initiatives. They were defending, in principle, the best of the status quo; they were acting to conserve America and the American system.

 

Delaying Tactics Versus Victory

This systematic advocacy of free markets, government constrained by individuals’ rights (particularly property rights), and consistent libertarianism in social areas, is far less frequently heard in President Trump’s rhetoric or seen in his proposals and actions. For one thing, America to a disturbing extent has moved past a time when it is possible to conserve a private medical care system the teaching of Western values in higher education, limited government with balanced budgets, or even peaceful schools without armed guards, or recognition of biological sexual identity and man-woman marriage.

It is too late for such conservatism. Now, the default choice (if we do not have a philosophically principled and economically consistent candidate) is a determined, charismatic reactionary who cannot be intimated by anything, because the postmodernist Left will stop at nothing to destroy such a candidate. Nothing…as we witnessed with increasing disbelief from 2016 to date.

The problem, of course, is that political reaction is a holding action, a delaying tactic, a “pushback” against “intellectual sedition” (if I may coin a phrase). Reaction can never achieve permanent change against a philosophically rooted political trend (like the postmodernist neo-Marxism we observe today). The reasons are found in the process of change itself. Change, in the final analysis, comes from new generations (“boys with new beards,” said Plato, or college students “shopping for a philosophy,” said Ayn Rand). New generations typically do not share the experience of an earlier time that an older generation of reactionaries cherish and will defend. New generations are not motivated by the prospect of a return to a golden past. (Except if that past is presented in terms of essential, universal, timeless values and principles, as conservatives portrayed America’s founding and as Ayn Rand portrayed the best of Western civilization, especially the Age of Enlightenment.)

In the longer run, political and cultural reaction only “buy time” that intellectual radicals must have for the extended, painstaking process of education.

In the longer run, political and cultural reaction only “buy time” that intellectual radicals must have for the extended, painstaking process of education—on every level and in all media—to change a culture and its ruling premises. This educational process requires that they use logic to build their case from philosophical premises such as objectivity, reason, individualism, and political liberty. There are no quick fixes, no short cuts.

If the MAGA reactionaries truly can slow down the degrading of American culture, society, and politics, then those who grasp the need for a philosophical renaissance, a new age of reason, must seize every possible opportunity to exploit the temporary reprieve.

 

[*] Here is a sampling of works published by American conservative writers, 1944–2020, that achieved notably publish attention and influence:

The Road to Serfdom, 1944, by F. A. Hayek (1899–1992); God and Man at Yale, 1951, by William F. Buckley Jr. (1925–2008); The Conservative Mind, 1953, by Russell Kirk (1918–1994); Atlas Shrugged, 1957, by Ayn Rand (1905–1982); Capitalism and Freedom, 1962, by Milton Friedman (1912–2006); Man, Economy, and State, 1962, by Murray Rothbard (1926–1995); Making It, 1967, by Norman Podhoretz (b. 1930); Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974, by Robert Nozick (1938–2002),; The Meaning of Conservatism, 1980, by Roger Scruton (1944–2020); Reflections of a Neoconservative, 1983, by Irving Kristol (1920–2009); A Conflict of Visions, 1987, by Thomas Sowell (b. 1930); The Bonfire of the Vanities, 1987, by Tom Wolfe (1930–2018); Beautiful Losers, 1993, by Sam Francis (1947–2005); The Death of the West, 2001, by Patrick Buchanan (b. 1938); America Alone, 2006, by Mark Steyn (b. 1959); American Assassin, 2010, by Vince Flynn (1966–2013); Civilization: The West and the Rest, 2011, by Niall Ferguson (b. 1964); Things That Matter, 2013, by Charles Krauthammer (1950–2018); Adios, America, 2015, by Ann Coulter (b. 1961); The War on Cops, 2016, by Heather Mac Donald (b. 1956); The Right Side of History, 2019, by Ben Shapiro (b. 1984); The Case for Trump, 2019, by Victor Davis Hanson (b. 1953); The Conservative Sensibility, 2019, by George Will (b. 1941); The Age of Entitlement, 2020, by Christopher Caldwell (b. 1962).

 

 

(Visited 10 times, 10 visits today)