The hallmark of the MAGA movement is its lust for law-breaking both at home and abroad. Multiple assaults on the Constitution and international institutions stem from the same impulse—the determination of white supremacists to smash whatever they cannot dominate. It is a scorched-earth strategy of deadenders who believe that American society and global governance are slipping into the hands of people they regard as inferior and undeserving. If white racists can’t control democracies and world markets, they’d rather smash them now than see their future benefits shared more equitably with foreigners and people of color.
Globalization and the era of American hegemony that enabled it produced dramatic improvements in the former colonies and dependencies of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Decades of decolonization were accompanied by steady increases in standards of living, education, health care, and political participation. The democratization of the United Nations system unleashed demands for greater power sharing between non-Western societies and the imperial states that had dominated them for generations. Slowly and fitfully, people around the world aspired to create a single community that could strive toward common goals and universal values.
But the more those desires approached reality, the more animosity they generated in the historic bastions of privilege, especially in the United States and Western Europe. Before long, countries that had been the stewards of international law became its greatest critics. The former architects of free trade and collective security turned into champions of protectionism and militarism. Elites that once touted the superiority of democratic institutions did their utmost to corrupt and dismantle them.
Torching Your Home to Spite the Neighbors
Why the sudden turnabout? Americans have known for many years that a non-white electorate and a multi-polar international system were in the making. In both cases, they have speculated endlessly on the pace of change and the likely tipping points in the future. Most of the time, however, the discussion seemed theoretical and denial felt possible. Like climate change and the national debt, the dangers looked remote enough to pass on to later generations without requiring immediate action.
But denial soon gave way to alarm and, then, to panic. The cascade of changes seemed overwhelming and irreversible: a black president, a robust women’s movement, a new tolerance of sexual preferences, and growing dependence on immigrant labor. Add to this an infectious hip-hop culture led by ghetto millionaires whose coded chants of pride and defiance resonated with young people of all races.
At the same time, America saw the collapse of its reputation as the indispensable nation and the benevolent hegemon. From Truman onward, presidents handed their successors unpopular wars with no clear victor. Battle-weary and indebted citizens began to resent the world’s ingratitude for their sacrifices and protection. Washington claimed it was resisting aggression and terrorism, but other nations increasingly viewed it as imperialist and overbearing. As American indignation grew, it targeted both new rivals and old friends. Obama complained that China was a free rider, taking advantage of U.S. defense efforts without sharing the costs. Trump and Biden leveled the same criticism at the entire NATO alliance.
As white voters’ share of the electorate declined, they gravitated toward a Republican Party that was drifting sharply to the right. Democratic presidential candidates regularly lost the majority of the white vote—male and female, working class and professional. Soon right-wingers more openly embraced racist and xenophobic positions which, in the Trump era, morphed to explicit support for authoritarianism and vigilantism. Disillusionment with majority rule at home merged with growing contempt for international laws and institutions—the fragile architecture of global governance that the United States had fostered since the end of World War II.
With the assault on the Capitol in January 2020, flouting the law became an end in itself. For the MAGA movement, political violence is an act of intimidation and a criminal record is a badge of honor. In foreign policy as well, inflicting pain is the point—serving as retribution and deterrent at the same time. The Trump tariffs and deportations are arbitrary and counterintuitive for a reason. They aim at sewing confusion and paralysis in every quarter, at extracting compliance and concession with nothing given in return. The MAGA state acts like a crime syndicate, extorting revenue from its citizens and selling protection to other nations.
MAGA’s Demise and Likely Successors
Ultimately, the criminal character of the enterprise is precisely what will destroy it as MAGA supporters realize they’re being scammed and fleeced. Rival leaders are already splitting into factions vying for power. Foreign markets are forming new trading coalitions that will leave Americans to stew in their own juices. The abuse of power is provoking the emergence of countervailing forces with greater energy than ever. In the end, white power movements are likely to accelerate the very tendencies they fear—the rise of multiracial societies, multipolar geopolitics, and stronger demands for social justice.
The post-MAGA universe can’t appear spontaneously. There are at least two missing elements that reformers must create first—a progressive substitute for the Democratic Party in the United States and a set of non-Western nations that can bolster international institutions before they break down altogether.
Democracy Without the Democrats
The Democratic Party cannot mount an effective opposition to the right. Democratic leaders have enabled Republican-led gerrymandering, court packing, and union busting. They have imitated their opponents’ reliance on big donor finance and high-priced media consultants. Democrats have helped to weaken the regulatory state and social safety net they inherited from the New Deal. Taken together, these misguided policies have promoted a massive transfer of wealth to the rich at the expense of the middle class and the least advantaged. Whenever progressive challengers have gained momentum in primary elections or in Congress, the old guard has undercut them—determined to keep control of the party even in the face of repeated defeat in the national area.
American political institutions have become twisted into a cluster of knots that make reform impossible unless all of them are untangled together. Indivisible’s “Hands Off” marches show that well-targeted protests can operate with intelligence and synergy—attacking disfunction issue by issue and in the system as a whole. Most of the Indivisible marchers were not ordinary Democrats. They included an array of liberal and leftist voters—many of whom showed up as three-generation families—who were clearly pushing and not following the paralyzed party leaders. With few exceptions, Democratic officials were hard to find on the podiums or in the crowds.
The protesters attacked fascism and plutocracy head-on. Their signs pictured Trump, Musk, and Vance in Nazi uniforms and German helmets. A thick-wigged Marie Antoinette pranced through the crowd urging them to “Make Guillotines Great Again.” Nearby, another placard proclaimed, “Eat the Rich, Eggs are Too Expensive.” A couple in their thirties was helping their young son read a sign they deemed particularly important. They zeroed his attention on one word—Fascism—making sure he could pronounce it and understand its meaning. The boy was no more than six or seven years old, but his parents were determined to inoculate him early against a scourge he was sure to face in years to come.
Replicating Indivisible Around the World
The Indivisible coalition has no counterpart in the international arena, but similar forces could emerge from several directions. As the United States withdraws from the key pillars of global governance, European democracies will be unable to carry the load on their own. Non-Western nations will have to step up to positions of greater leadership. In terms of sheer power and wealth, China is an obvious candidate. But, throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America, people trust China even less than the United States because of its widespread human rights abuses and its constant bullying in business and diplomacy. The last thing post-colonial societies want to see is a rising hegemon replacing a fading one.
In the developing world, what nations seem strong enough to lead regionally but not to dominate globally? And which of them can point to enough success in promoting democracy and civil society to attract support from younger generations battling tyrants on every continent?
Unfortunately, the answer depends on who happens to be in power at the moment and on external pressures beyond their control. Many countries possess democratic traditions that have survived years of military rule and one-party dictatorship. Prime examples include Turkey, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan, Mexico, the Philippines, and Thailand. Other nations have achieved economic gains that were nearly erased by world-wide financial shocks, internal corruption, and civil war. Senegal, Peru, Columbia, Kenya, Malaysia, and Algeria share these persistent vulnerabilities.
All of these societies have benefitted enormously from global governance and they have every interest in helping it prosper. Even so, they can’t provide the necessary finances and leadership unless they pool resources on a permanent basis. Only then, will it be possible to preserve the network of international bodies struggling with climate change, biodiversity, arms control, public health, refugee law, money laundering, human trafficking, and a host of similar problems.
Radicals and Reformers
On the basic level of citizen activism, the backbone of a world-wide Indivisible is already in place. Global civil society movements are pressuring governments and corporations with demands for freedom and social justice in all quarters. Most students of great power politics ignore these forces because they are not state actors with armies and formal jurisdictions. In reality, civil society leaders are working together to multiply their influence in many fields, especially workers’ rights, women’s issues, environmentalism, and the protection of indigenous peoples.
The fallout from MAGA chaos will increase the internationalization of civil society groups and push them into closer alignment with pro-democracy movements around the world. As organized protest becomes more global, it will also become more radical, more resourceful, and more permanent. Would-be authoritarians will encounter multiple oppositions using technological savvy and networking skills that cannot be overcome by coercion alone.
If this sort of radicalization occurs, it might be a blessing in disguise. Greater chances of revolution can also create stronger incentives for reform. Indeed, that is one of the most enduring lessons that Albert Hirschman drew from his studies of Latin America—the prospects of reform are highest when entrenched elites believe that the threat of revolution is rising, but still avoidable. According to Hirschman, a ruling coalition is most likely to crack when it fears that mass violence is on the horizon. That is when reformers can expect to win concessions in return for efforts to restore social peace.
Because MAGA is inherently violent, it is also naturally self-destructive. Its damage can be extensive, but its intended victims are much stronger than Trump’s henchmen imagine. They are already poised to hasten MAGA’s demise and to deepen the fight for justice in America and beyond.
Beyazomar 