What Does A Post-Trump MAGA Look Like?

Thursday, September 12, 2024.

To explore how the MAGA movement (Make America Great Again) might evolve, we can draw on historical patterns of populist movements, psychological theories of group dynamics, and current political and cultural shifts.

In this post, I’ll speculate on how MAGA might change or adapt in the years ahead, perhaps even productively.

Historical Context: Understanding Populism

MAGA is nothing new.

MAGA fits within a long tradition of populist movements, which tend to arise in times of societal upheaval and are often marked by a desire to return to a perceived better past. It would be productive to look at these sorts of movements through the lens of attachment theory.

Historically, populism thrives when people feel disconnected from elites or the government, and they yearn for a leader who speaks directly to their concerns. In other words, they are seeking reassurance and attachment from their chosen despot.

A similar example is the Populist Party of the late 19th century in the U.S., which focused on economic disenfranchisement.

The movement emphasized returning to traditional values and protecting American workers from global economic forces.

Much like MAGA, the Populists sought a return to "greatness" that they felt had been lost due to industrialization and the growing power of the elite. Considering the brutalities of early capitalism (i.e. child labor), they had a point, didn’t they?

Evolution Through Fragmentation or Institutionalization

Populist movements tend to either fragment into smaller groups or become more institutionalized as they adapt to the political landscape. For MAGA, this could mean:

• Institutionalization: MAGA could evolve into a core part of the Republican Party. This has already begun to some extent, with many Republican politicians adopting MAGA’s populist, nationalist rhetoric on issues like immigration, trade, and American exceptionalism. If it continues on this path, MAGA may shape the GOP's platform for years to come.

• Fragmentation: Alternatively, if internal divisions arise—perhaps between more extreme and moderate factions—MAGA could splinter. This would be similar to how the Tea Party, another populist movement, eventually fractured. If MAGA were to break apart, we might see offshoots that are more focused on specific aspects, like economic nationalism or cultural conservatism.

Historically, movements like MAGA have struggled to maintain cohesion once their original charismatic leader leaves the stage, which brings us to the role of leadership after the incarceration of Donald Trump.

The Role of Leadership: Trump vs. New Voices

Leadership plays a pivotal role in the direction of populist movements. Donald Trump is undeniably the figurehead of MAGA, and as long as he remains involved in politics, the movement will likely continue to focus on loyalty to him personally.

However, when Trump goes to the Big House instead of the White House, a new leader will find daylight to emerge, and MAGA may either adapt or radicalize.

One scenario is that a new leader with similar views but a different style could take over, shifting the focus to more actionable policy goals. Alternatively, without a strong central figure, parts of the movement could turn inward, radicalizing further and creating factions.

Historically, charismatic leaders often act as a unifying force. When they exit, movements either find new leadership or lose momentum. In the case of the Know-Nothing Party in the 1850s, the lack of sustainable leadership after the initial surge caused the movement to fade quickly. MAGA might face a similar existential crossroads.

Psychological Research: Group Identity and Radicalization

MAGA is not just a political movement; it’s a strong identity for many of its supporters.

Research in social identity theory shows that people find meaning and purpose through the groups they belong to, and when those groups are threatened, their loyalty and sense of belonging can intensify (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

For MAGA supporters, the perceived threats come from cultural changes, globalization, and what they see as an encroachment on traditional American values. They have a point.

I remember in 2005, I was getting my Labor Studies degree. My professor, Dr. Elaine Bernard was teaching a course in globalization and labor.

She said, “Daniel, It’s called the ‘Washington Consensus’ because both political parties are pro-globalization. It’s well underway, and unstoppable. Researchers predict that there will be massive job dislocations, but everyone is whistling in the dark on the way to the bank.”

She was more than right.

Existential threats such as globalization typically lead to the radicalization of certain factions, as we’ve seen with other populist movements in history.

For instance, the radicalization of elements within the French Poujadist movement in the 1950s led to violent outbursts and increased division.

Alternatively, if MAGA members feel their goals are being achieved through mainstream politics, the movement may moderate over time. Historically, when populist movements feel represented, they can evolve into more institutionalized political forces.

Demographic and Cultural Shifts

The U.S. is going through significant demographic and cultural changes, which will likely impact the future of MAGA.

As younger, more diverse generations come of age, political movements that don’t adapt to these shifts risk becoming marginalized.

The current MAGA base is predominantly older and whiter, which means the movement will need to evolve its messaging to attract younger or more diverse supporters if it wants to stay relevant. It has failed utterly to do so.

Historically, we can look to the Dixiecrats, a Southern populist movement that fought against civil rights in the mid-20th century. Over time, as the country became more diverse, the movement faded into political obscurity.

If MAGA fails to address these cultural and demographic shifts, it may face a similar trajectory.

However, MAGA has unique qualities. It is remarkably forgiving to the prodigal and, like the early Roman Empire, remarkably porous and tolerant of exotic beliefs, as long as you throw a pinch of salt upon the altar of Trump.

If MAGA adapts—perhaps by focusing on economic issues that resonate across essential demographics, such as job security, automation, AI, and concerns about globalization—it could continue to grow, and perhaps become, ironically, a progressive voice in the politics of 2030-2050.

Wouldn’t that be a hoot? Follow the tech money today, and you’ll be able to more freely see a role for MAGA with a new antagonist: AI has come to take your job. And by 2030, they just might find a cause worth fighting for.

Digital Echo Chambers and Evolution

One aspect of MAGA that sets it apart from earlier populist movements is the digital environment in which it exists.

Social media platforms create echo chambers where like-minded folks reinforce each other’s beliefs. Research has shown that these echo chambers can accelerate radicalization (Sunstein, 2001).

If the MAGA movement continues to rely on social media for organization and communication, it could evolve into a more extreme and isolated subculture, with its own media ecosystem and internal discourse.

However, these digital spaces also allow movements to adapt and expand more quickly by sharing ideas and reaching new audiences. Whether MAGA moderates or radicalizes may fundamentally depend on how it decides to use these digital tools.

Final thoughts

The future of MAGA will depend on several factors: leadership, the ability to adapt to demographic and cultural changes, and the impact of digital media on the movement’s internal dynamics.

As a mental health professional, I have to notice the cultural resonance of the word “weird” to describe MAGA.

It’s just not talked about openly, but there are lots of personality disordered and neurodiverse MAGA adherents in a huge melting pot of performative resentment in a virtual rage room. That’s a hell of a lot of passion and desultory talent.

If MAGA can arise from this primordial political online ooze with an articulated roster of grievances, it could migrate from the margins and utterly transform itself with a political agenda of some urgency in 2030 to 2050.

As a student of labor movements, I’ve always respected the potential genius of huge throngs of disaffected men. Their concerted action moves history.

AI and other technologies will have the potential to severely threaten entire silos of careers in a plethora of industries. The capitalists will barely be able to restrain themselves. There could be huge tensions within the Democratic Party in the 2028 and 2032 election cycles.

If MAGA institutionalizes within mainstream politics and adapts to a broader base with legitimate concerns about AI, it could continue to have a significant influence on American politics for years to come. However, if it fails to adapt or fragments, the movement could radicalize and become a more marginal, albeit vocal, political subculture.

In many ways, the evolution of MAGA will reflect the broader changes happening in American society.

But to become anything, MAGA must first dispense with the hagiography of Donald J. Trump.

In the weeks to come, the full extent of his self-dealing will be meticulously brought to light, just as he is, most likely, being sentenced to prison.

As America becomes more diverse and as the economic and cultural landscape shifts, MAGA will either evolve past Trump to meet these challenges, or risk pitilessly fading into history, like so many other populist movements before it.

It’s clear that MAGA and the USA are clearly experiencing Anxious Attachment. It’s understandable. It’s hard to process. Daddy is going away.

But the MAGA cry for love and attachment might persist, and echo in the halls of power.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.