MAGA and its discontents

I saw this tweet going viral:

This is a response to statements, like below, which argue that Trump has betrayed “MAGA principles” or the “MAGA base” by attacking Iran:

Despite Michael Tracey being a lefty, I 100% agree. This alludes to yesterday’s post, where I argued that those who claim to speak on behalf of the “MAGA movement”–by insisting that Trump has betrayed his principles or sold out “the base”–are in fact representing only a small but vocal online minority.

There are two dynamics at play here: status and projection.

In agreement with Tracey, Trump is opposed to war in so far that he sees a land invasion as a last resort, not that he opposes military intervention entirely. If you oppose foreign intervention as a matter of principle, and this is a core or nonnegotiable issue, your position would be more closely aligned with that of a third-party candidate. It’s implicitly understood in the job description that the President must defend ‘American interests’ abroad, however that is broadly defined, including the use of military force, even when not directly provoked (preemptively). Either party does this, whether it’s Biden or Trump aiding Israel and Ukraine.

Point blank, I oppose the attacks (beyond just limited strikes on nuclear facilities). It feels like the prelude of an Iraq-like situation, in which Trump is tasked with rebuilding the leadership of Iran, and this can go well or very badly. As others have noted, Iran is not at all like Iraq, being much larger geographically and having a much stronger defense. Even Dick Cheney, who was not exactly a figure endeared to the left, in an April 1994 C-Span interview opposed a regime change of Iraq, warning it would be a quagmire. Although, I predict a resolution that exceeds the expectations of Trump’s doubters.

In agreement with @Ravarora1, I would like to see a greater emphasis on domestic policy and less ‘world policing’. But I am under no illusion Trump ever campaigned as an anti-war president. To claim so is a misreading of reality, or the invention of one’s own reality by projecting onto Trump beliefs or values he never professed at all. America has and always will continue to police the world, and Trump never in 2016, 2020, or 2024 said or even signaled he was opposed to this. Trump seeing a land invasion of Iran as a last resort does not mean he’s opposed to war or regime rebuilding altogether.

In a previous post, astutely timed before the attacks on Iran, I argued that the GOP is fundamentally the party of foreign intervention and ‘big business’ interests–a point that should be evident to anyone paying attention to politics and not viewing it through a naïve or idealist lens. Its focus is not primarily on household domestic policy issues such as healthcare affordability, home ownership attainability, or student loan debt. However important those issues may be to some on the Right, particularly online, they are generally championed by Democrats rather than Republicans. The neglecting of domestic issues by Republicans is part of the problem inherent with the two-party system.

The second factor is status. Consider a prescient podcast by Patrick Casey, “Is the Right-Wing Influencer Class Irredeemable?”

What can explain the alt-right/dissident ‘bad actors’ or ‘grifters’ (e.g. Fuentes, Jones, Tucker, Candace) who are overly inclined to criticize Trump or ‘blackpill’ at every opportunity?

Now, with the Iran attacks, we’re seeing more critcism then ever before. The funny thing is, compared to the likes of Nick Fuentes, Trump comes off as the metaphorical ‘adult in the room’ despite being considered ‘unhinged’ by the liberal media. Yet the liberal media routinely positions Fuentes as a viable alternative, dissenting voice, or ‘voice of reason’ against Trump. This is no coincidence.

Imagine you don’t have much money, a family, or social status, and are greatly dissatisfied with the direction of society and one’s own position in life. Thus, there isn’t much to lose with a more radical approach to politics or a resetting of the system. This reflects the mindset of the typical follower of Nick Fuentes or Candace Owens. It has less to do with finding viable political solutions, and more to do with a vague sense that society is fundamentally rigged, coupled with the projection of one’s own personal dissatisfaction onto Trump and society as a whole.

To these people, leftist rule collapsing into disorder is preferable to Trump compromising and the word deadlocked between competing elite interests. They see Trump as someone who seeks to restore order, social hierarchy, and is high-status himself. This makes Trump anathema to low-status people who seek disorder to raise their own relative status after society collapses. Trump restoring order only keeps low-status people in their preexisting positions.

Iran fits into this perfectly, because letting Iran run amok and build nuclear weapons as America does nothing, increases possible disorder and lowers America’s relative standing in the world. The same for the rise of a South America-China-Iran-Russia alliance. But at the same time, the Iran situation getting worse under Trump and turning into a quagmire, also lowers Trump’s status and makes America weaker. So either outcome is desirable to these people.