Author Archives: Sheila

The Roots Of MAGA

Regular readers of this blog have already encountered my analysis of the MAGA cult: white people–mostly but not entirely male– terrified of losing social dominance, and deeply disoriented by a modern world in which ambiguities and “shades of gray” threaten to overwhelm the “faith-based” verities they cling to.

These are the same people who supported Hitler in the 1930s, and support other autocrats today–and the rest of us are in danger of losing America to these limited and terrified folks if we don’t understand the roots of their movement. A recent Substack essay from The Rational League mined the available research and confirmed much of my thesis. (In the quotes below, I’ve omitted the copious citations–to access them, you should click through.)

It began:

It was never about taxes or trade or immigration, at least not in the ways its supporters claim. It was about fear. About losing status. About the aching dread that the world no longer bends to you. And when power begins to slip, the mind scrambles to make sense of its new fragility. That’s when people reach not for reason, but for revenge.

As the research demonstrates, our divisions are not political –they are far deeper and more primal. The essay quotes studies that explain “what happens when large groups of people feel their dominance is being eclipsed, by demographic shifts, cultural liberalization, economic globalization, and the slow unraveling of myths that once placed them at the top of the social food chain.” In such environments, “facts become irrelevant. The mind will do what it must to protect the self. And it will vote for whomever promises to punish the world for changing.”

Support for Donald Trump, and the movement that continues to orbit him, is not best explained by ideology. It is better understood as a reaction to psychological discomfort. A fusion of fear, status anxiety, and identity protection. It draws power from ressentiment, not reason. From feelings of insulted entitlement, not informed civic interest. Trump didn’t awaken this current, he merely performed it better than anyone else .

This is not speculation. It is the clear consensus of two decades of psychological, neurological, and political science research. What follows is not just a condemnation of MAGA’s authoritarian drift, but a forensic examination of how it thrives, in the mind, in culture, and in power.

The research tells us that fear is situational–a “psychological accelerant that turns political disagreement into existential warfare.” When people feel threatened, when they find themselves living in a world they no longer understand, they respond by demanding order and obedience, and the punishment of those who refuse to obey. Fear, the academic literature tells us, isn’t just a side effect of MAGA– it’s the selling point. Trump’s message was simple: “the world is dangerous, but I will protect you, and hurt the people you fear.”

MAGA cultists believe that society is under siege. In numerous studies, MAGA folks have scored high for Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), defined as “submission to strong leaders, aggression toward deviant groups, and strict adherence to tradition. The more threatened people feel, the more they long for control, hierarchy, and retribution, all things Trump promised in spades.”

Trump’s followers are not irrational. They are reacting, often viscerally, to a perceived collapse of the world they knew. Crime is down, but they feel unsafe. Immigration enriches the economy, but they feel invaded. Diversity increases opportunity, but they feel erased. Trump doesn’t need to solve these problems. He just needs to affirm that they exist, and promise to punish whoever caused them.

In other words, status anxiety is what motivates the MAGA base–fear of irrelevance. The MAGA base consists of those who once felt socially dominant and now feel displaced. Trump promises to put them back on top.

The essay is lengthy and well worth reading in its entirety. It cites the copious scholarship that explains the authoritarian phenomenon and the danger it poses to democracy.

This isn’t just a movement of bad ideas. It’s a movement of deeply felt insecurity, fused to a political figure who offers vengeance, not vision. And in that fusion, the need for power replaces the desire for truth. The need to dominate replaces the value of liberty. The need to feel morally superior replaces the capacity for self-reflection….

The threat is not just Donald Trump. The threat is the psychological scaffolding that made him possible, and that will remain long after he is gone, unless we dismantle it at its source.

Unfortunately, this informative essay doesn’t tell us how to go about “dismantling it at its source.”

Comments

Do Protests Work?

In the run-up to Saturday’s “No Kings Day,” there were several comments to this platform and to my Facebook feed to the effect that protests “don’t work.” (I think some of those commenters are folks making excuses for their non-participation, but a couple came from people I think of as activists, people I know to be deeply concerned about where we Americans find ourselves today.) I’ve previously shared my belief that these protests–when peaceful and large-scale–can be enormously consequential mechanisms for change, and in the run-up to the most recent demonstrations, I took a look at the academic literature, to see whether the evidence supported or rebutted my conviction.

As always, it depends.

The scholarship confirmed the effectiveness of protests that are large-scale, sustained and nonviolent. Broad-based, diverse demonstrations have been shown to bring pressure on government–one study documented instances in which sustained protests over three years accomplished desired changes. Others traced historical examples; in the U.S., there was the civil rights movement, in India, Gandhi’s nonviolent movement.  In the Philippines, protests toppled Marcos, and in several Eastern European countries, anti-communist demonstrations contributed to the weakening of the USSR.

Reading the academic literature is one thing. Personal experience is another–and as I read through some of these articles, I couldn’t help comparing today’s political protests with a not-altogether-different type of demonstration–Gay Pride.

Speaking of Pride, in Indianapolis, No Kings Day coincided with the city’s annual Gay Pride parade. This elderly blogger joined with Indivisible of Central Indiana this year, before departing to join the No Kings protest at the Indiana Statehouse. (A busy day for an old lady…)

Pride celebrations began as protest demonstrations. They are now common, but I still remember when they began, and I think there is a real parallel to be drawn between the protests now erupting nationwide and the expressive effects of those early Pride parades. Like today’s protests, they sent a message. Over time, as those celebrations have grown to include many thousands of participants and onlookers, that message has been culturally adopted by a majority of Americans, although there is still a minority frantically trying to reverse that acceptance. (I was happy to see that the Indianapolis event was once again enormous–if there was fall-off in participation from corporations or institutions intimidated by the Trump administration, or by our stae-level Trumpers like Attorney General Todd Rokita, it sure wasn’t evident.)

As JVL wrote in The Bulwark,

There are two ways protest movements break through. The first is when they create violence. The second is when they become stunningly large.

Violence can cut both ways. If protestors are violent, the violence hurts their cause. But when peaceful protests provoke the state into violence, it can help.

Size, by contrast, has no valence: Mass is power. Full-stop.

Size is persuasion. It creates bandwagon effects. It sows doubt in the minds of the opposition. It opens new avenues of resistance.

Massive, sustained nonviolent expressive activities matter politically. As JVL noted, they essentially act as a holding action. “They cannot themselves achieve tangible objectives. But they can slow the authoritarian project’s advance.”

Such events have another, underappreciated positive effect: they give encouragement to the participants, who see evidence that they are most definitely not alone–that many other people share their goals and aspirations (not to mention their anger and/or anguish.) That recognition stiffens spines and encourages additional activism.

The academic research I consulted suggested that large-scale demonstrations increase democratic attitudes–and longer-range, increase voter participation.

Given the current state of insanity in Trump’s America, it’s also worth noting that massive decentralized protests make it harder for our would-be dictator to focus on individual locations to which he can send the National Guard or the Marines.

With that generalized background, what can I say about Saturday’s No Kings Day? First and foremost, turnout nationwide was enormous. Demonstrations involved millions of people in some 200 cities and towns across the country. Despite the fact that it rained in many cities, including mine, thousands of angry Americans ignored the downpours and took their signs and tee-shirt slogans to the streets. During the day, media from cities large and small featured videos of huge and animated crowds.

If they were paying attention, the composition of the enormous crowd in the protest I attended should have frightened  elected Republicans. Although they were far more diverse than the town halls I’ve previously attended, a significant percentage of the participants were middle-aged and older White folks who in other times might have been expected to vote Republican. These angry citizens can’t be dismissed as wild leftists–they were pissed off Americans, many of whom had never previously joined a protest.

It was great!

Comments

An Action Plan

I’ve been getting the same anguished question from friends and family members who feel helpless in the face of the sustained assault on everything that makes America, America. Other than participating in protests, what can one person do? What can I do? Goodness knows, I don’t have an answer to that question. But I recently received an “action plan” from a local reader that lays out steps that she has taken–steps that have “activated” her friends and neighbors–and I think it is valuable. I’m sharing it, below.

_________

Organizing for a Better Future

For those of us who are devasted by the re-election of Trump and are watching news reports, reading newspapers and on-line communication which indicates that America is headed down the path to authoritarianism, here is an idea that may be helpful to many who want to save our democracy, but are not sure what to do.

Find your peeps

If you belong to a book club, exercise group, play bridge, mahjong or pickle ball, have neighbors or other groups of friends, you can begin to form an affinity group based on your interests, values and available time.  These are people that likely know how you think, share your frustrations and want to make a difference.  It can start with just you and one other person.

Find a political activity that interests you and invite a friend or two to go with you

Find an event, a rally, a protest, a town hall, a Democratic club that interests you and make plans to attend. After attending, talk with your friend about how you felt and create a list of others who might want to join you to attend a future event.  Go on-line to find webinars, meetings, activities that appeal to you. Invite your friend to do the same and decide together what you want to do.  Gather all the information you need and each of you then contact others who might be interested.  Organize a carpool or two if necessary. 

Recap, review, recall your experience in a relaxed social setting

Make plans to meet with this small group for coffee or a drink a few days after your first event. At this first gathering let everyone talk about their feelings and how they best cope with the overload of bad news.  Encourage participants to share their meditation, exercise, relaxation tips with others.  Ask them to talk about their current volunteer activities such as food banks, soup kitchens, classroom volunteering, environmental cleanup, working with teens who need support, etc. Ask what they think might be the most effective thing to do next and get each to commit to researching and organizing a next step. Talk about who else could be in this group and invite each one to invite one or two others to join.  Decide if you need to meet again or if you just want to “get in action.” Record what you talked about and send the notes to the group with details about the first activity this larger group will do.

Focus

While it may be difficult to affect what’s going on at the national level, you can make a huge difference by learning from and supporting your local candidates. Go to their town halls, send a donation or two to candidates (even a small donation gets you on their communication list), write a letter to your local newspaper, host a fundraiser for them.  Share what you learn with others. Always be on the lookout for new people to join your efforts.

Educate

Educate yourselves and get involved as a precinct chairperson or vice chairperson, volunteer to knock on doors or work on a campaign to really learn how “the sausage is made.”  Did you know that if the Marion County November, 2024 voter turnout had been 68% instead of 54%, Indiana quite likely would have had Jennifer McCormick as our governor and Destiny Wells as our Attorney General.  Marion County is a huge factor in Indiana elections and we need to participate in the current structure and make it better.

Communicate

Ask each person in your group to send you (the leader of this effort and the monthly email communicator) information about activities that someone or all the group may want to participate in.  Try not to overload the group with too many emails – send something about once a month unless you need to finalize details about an activity.  Some folks will decide not to participate – always ask if they still want to be on the mailing list or opt out. 

Keep communication simple

Encourage participants to share activities and ideas with their families and friends outside of the group.  Have them forward your emails, but don’t get bogged down by adding random people that you don’t know personally to your email list.

Grow

Hopefully your group will grow – if it does, ask 3-4 of the most active people to be on the “Lead Team.”  These are the ones to call on to get a read on what to do next or to help solve an issue.  Plan purely fun social events to build relationships.  Continue to add new people.  Create mutual support among the members – people have illnesses and surgeries, jobs and travel, loved ones need their time and attention, some just get burned out.  Always have a Plan B if someone doesn’t come through.

Author’s Notes

This plan is written by a retired senior and indicates how her peers might be most comfortable with emails and in-person meetings.  A younger group could take some of the ideas and use social media to organize activities.  Our group consists of about 20-25 neighbors in our condominium community making it easy for social events, carpooling to various venues, getting together to make rally signs, etc.  We originally met in early 2017 to plan our participation in the Women’s March and kept in touch loosely as we worked on campaigns for Carey Hamilton (IN State Representative), Dee Thornton (5th District Congressional District), and Valerie McCray (U.S. Senate).

For more information or if you have questions or ideas to share, please contact Jayne Thorne at 317/694-5615 or [email protected].

Here are additional suggestions provided by ChatGPT:

Additional Ideas to Build and Expand Affinity Groups

1. Skill-Sharing Circles

Host monthly “skill nights” where members teach each other something useful—letter writing, public speaking, using Canva for activism, or calling legislators.
These gatherings build confidence and deepen the group’s leadership bench.
2. Affinity Pods for Action

Break your larger group into smaller “pods” based on interests (climate, education, voting rights, etc.).
Each pod meets independently and commits to one collective action a month—attending a meeting, writing op-eds, organizing phone banks, etc.
3. Storytelling Gatherings

Host small storytelling events where participants share how political decisions have affected them personally.
These emotional connections build solidarity and provide content for persuasive outreach and social media.
4. Intergenerational Exchanges

Pair retirees or older adults with younger activists for skill swaps and dialogue.
Older adults bring lived experience and institutional memory, while younger members may offer tech skills or social media fluency.

5. “Bring a Friend” Month

Designate a month when each member is encouraged to bring a new person to a meeting or event.
Offer low-barrier, friendly events like potlucks, coffee meetups, or sign-making parties to ease people in.
6. Group Texts or Chat Threads

For groups more comfortable with digital tools, use WhatsApp, Signal, or GroupMe to share updates and keep momentum between meetings.
These platforms help maintain urgency and build an informal community.
7. Create an Affinity Group Toolkit

Offer a starter pack PDF or printout with tips on forming a new group, sample invitation messages, and a calendar of upcoming events.
Empower members to become “mini organizers” in their own networks.
8. Monthly Themes

Choose a theme for each month (e.g., Voting Rights in April, Climate Justice in May, Reproductive Rights in June) and plan one activity around it.
This keeps engagement fresh and education ongoing.
9. Partner with Local Institutions

Collaborate with churches, libraries, or community centers to host public forums, movie nights, or civic teach-ins.
This helps normalize political dialogue in shared spaces.
10. Wellness and Resilience Focus

Regularly include activities for emotional well-being, such as group walks, mindfulness exercises, mental health check-ins, or laughter yoga.

Political work is exhausting—resilience practices keep people engaged long term.
 

Comments

Disturbing…

When the candidate they supported loses, some percentage of that candidate’s most avid supporters will suspect–or even allege–a conspiracy to “steal” the election. Before Trump, those allegations used to be limited to fringe folks and sore losers. (They’re still voiced by sore losers…Trump being a prime example.) Most of us properly consider these recurring accusations of electoral impropriety as one common type of conspiracy theory. Eminently dismissable.

So I was stunned to read about a lawsuit in New York, where “electoral impropriety” would be a kind word, at least if the facts are as the local news media have reported.

A seminal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 Presidential and Senate election results in Rockland County, New York, is moving forward. In open court last Thursday, Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court, ruled that discovery must proceed, pushing the lawsuit brought by SMART Legislation into the evidence-gathering stage. The lawsuit seeks a full hand recount of the Presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County.

The Court has now ordered that hand count, in an effort to explain the statistical anomalies.

As stated in the complaint, more voters have sworn they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, directly contradicting those results. Additionally, the presidential election results exhibit numerous statistical anomalies. The anomalies in the presidential race include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but where zero voters selected the Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

Additionally, a statistician determined that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results.

It certainly appears that Rockland County experienced “irregularities,. Granted, it is highly improbable that those same irregularities were widespread enough to throw the national election to Trump (although a finding that he did, in fact, “steal” the election would certainly improve my opinion of the electorate…) While it might be technically possible to interfere with a presidential election, successfully altering the national outcome would require the thief to overcome overwhelming legal, logistical, and security barriers. The states, after all, are in charge of administering these elections–the decentralized nature of the nation’s federal elections would make large-scale manipulation incredibly difficult.

Would it be impossible?

At risk of descending into a Pillow Man degree of insanity, I keep thinking about Elon Musk’s complaint that Trump is insufficiently grateful to him for Musk’s help in getting him elected. The media (undoubtedly correctly) attributed that help to the many millions of dollars Musk donated to Trump’s campaign. But what if Musk’s techie bros figured out a way to overcome those legal, logistical and security barriers?

What if some proportion of that huge number of “no shows”–the millions of missing voters– actually did cast ballots, but those ballots disappeared?

What if it turned out that the madman currently desecrating the Oval Office stole the election?

Let me be clear: much as I’d like to believe that, I don’t. But just by indulging in that bit of conspiratorial daydreaming, we can see how much damage such suspicions can do to the civic trust that democracy demands. Trump’s accusations–and his cult’s acceptance of them–didn’t just trigger the insurrection on January 6th. It poisoned large parts of the body politic, sowing a distrust that has affected and damaged virtually every aspect of American political life.

If and when the U.S. emerges from its current downward spiral, restoring that trust–in democracy, in science, in education, in accurate history–should be the first order of business. But restoration of trust won’t come from the sorts of people who currently occupy America’s public offices. And while I’d love to believe that We the People didn’t really elect some of these sleazy lunatics, we probably did.

Just not, apparently, in Rockland County…

Comments

That “Big Beautiful Bill”

Ever since Trump’s abominable “Big Beautiful Bill” emerged from the House, we’ve been buried in analyses of what it will do–essentially, rob the poor to further enrich the obscenely wealthy. But I continue to think about the initial reaction of Paul Krugman. What did this Nobel-prize-winning economist think in the immediate aftermath of the House passage?

Krugman began by noting that he’d expected House Republicans to pass this “surpassingly cruel, utterly irresponsible budget” in the dead of night, in an effort to escape notice. And as he said, “they tried! Debate began at 1 A.M., and if you think that bizarre timing reflected real urgency, I have some $Melania coins you might want to buy.”

The House has now passed what must surely be the worst piece of legislation in modern U.S. history. Millions of Americans are about to see crucial government support snatched away. A significant number will die prematurely due to lack of adequate medical care or nutrition. Yet all this suffering won’t come close to offsetting the giant hole in the budget created by huge tax cuts for the rich. Long-term interest rates have already soared as America loses the last vestiges of its former reputation for fiscal responsibility.

What struck me most about Krugman’s reaction to this massively irresponsible–indeed, evil–budget was his enumeration of what that budget ought to look like. Krugman isn’t one of the “fiscal scolds” who want to eliminate all deficit spending, but he is worried that the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path–a path that this horrific bill will worsen. He acknowledges that the path to fiscal sanity will require some hard choices and tradeoffs. But he also insists that we could immensely improve our current situation with a series of easy choices, “actions that would mainly spare the middle class and only hurt people most Americans probably believe deserve to feel a bit of pain.” He proceeds to list four of them.

First, get Americans — mainly wealthy Americans — to pay the taxes they owe. The net tax gap — taxes Americans are legally obliged to pay but don’t — is simply huge, on the order of $600 billion a year. We can never get all of that money back, but giving the IRS enough resources to crack down on wealthy tax cheats would be both fiscally and morally responsible, since letting people get away with cheating on their taxes rewards bad behavior and makes law-abiding taxpayers look and feel like chumps.

As he notes, Republicans are doing the opposite, by starving the IRS of resources and trying to make tax evasion great again.

Second, we could crack down on Medicare Advantage overpayments. The insurance companies running Medicare Advantage game the system and get overpaid; one recent estimate found that Medicare is at risk of overpaying Medicare Advantage plans between $1.3 trillion and $2 trillion over the next decade.

Third, Krugman advises going after corporate tax avoidance, especially by multinational firms using strategies to make profits that are earned in the United States look as though they were earned in low-tax nations like Ireland. “Such maneuvers cost the Treasury around $70 billion annually.

And finally,

We should just get rid of Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut. That tax cut wasn’t a response to any economic needs, and there’s not a shred of evidence that it did the economy any good. All it did was transfer a lot of money to corporations and the wealthy. Let’s end those giveaways.

Would doing all these things be enough to put America on a sustainable fiscal path? Honestly, I don’t know. But they would make a good start toward putting our fiscal house in order. And none of them would involve the “hard choices” fiscal scolds tell us we need to make.

As Krugman concludes, the politicians who aren’t even willing to do these things have no business lecturing anyone about fiscal responsibility.

Krugman doesn’t speculate about why we don’t do the “easy” things, but I will. We don’t do them because we have elected people who don’t consider themselves representatives of the people who voted for them, but obedient servants of the plutocrats who funded them. And nothing will change until enough of those voters send an unmistakable message to the cowards and quislings that “time’s up.”

I’ve previously quoted a scholar whose research suggests that peaceful protests by 3% of a population are enough to send that message. That translates to something like ten million people. Our next chance to achieve that goal is No Kings Day, tomorrow.

Please participate. Time is running out to save the America we thought we inhabited….

Comments