SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Trumpy Dumpty is thin on the facts, policies and programs, but he is as cunning as a hungry shark in detecting weakness in his opponents, especially the Democratic Party.
Now is the time to prepare anticipatory strategies against what the vengeful, avaricious, lawless Trump and his Trumpsters have boasted out loud about daily. Don’t wait until Trump’s inauguration. A short list of suggestions follows:
The anticipatory strategies here must be diverse, covering all three branches of government, and vectored toward the GOP. The citizen groups may have to work weekends, alongside the labor unions hated by Trump.
Trumpy Dumpty is thin on the facts, policies and programs, but he is as cunning as a hungry shark in detecting weakness in his opponents, especially the Democratic Party. Attached is a fable I wrote in 2022 that portrays how he might think about the Party of the Donkey. Given what happened up to and on November 5, 2024, it’s still useful to read today.
Imagine Donald Trump dining with two of his supposed political advisers. Being an advisor to Donald means you soak up Donald’s political comments and feed them back to him. At this dinner, Donald was spouting off about the Democratic Party.
“Hey guys, know why the GOP is ahead in the polls?” “Why?” the two advisors replied in unison. Donald responded, “Because the Democrats are busy losing all by themselves, backtracking out of fear. Fearing a Party they are supposed to be fighting is what I call ‘beating themselves.’”
“Tell us more,” urged the two advisers.
“The Democrats are beyond stupido. They’ve contracted out their campaigns to consultants who, with their loyalties to their other corporate clients, have sold the Dems a strategy of caution – otherwise known as cutting off your cajones. Candidates without balls can’t think for themselves and just follow the script. Lots of Dems don’t want to appear with Bernie Sanders – the one guy I didn’t want to debate – who gets huge votes in conservative Vermont. What chickens!”
“This is all so beautiful, so gorgeous for us. Dems without balls means they campaign every day with their political antennae flailing, afraid they’ll say the politically incorrect phrase and upset the word police or deviate from their consultant’s finger-waving “no-no’s” if they want to rake in big money.”
“Imagine me contracting out my run to a consultant. ‘Donald, say this, don’t do that, do this, don’t say that.’ And paying them big bucks. Never! My people want the unfiltered Donald. That’s why they turn out in standing-room-only droves compared to the empty-seat Dems.”
Adviser #1 pipes up: “And the NY Times reports that the Dems are so afraid of our blaming them for inflation that they’ve shut up on their most popular ‘bread and butter’ positions, like freedom for women, health and safety for kids, good jobs and pay for more workers, increasing Social Security benefits. You know ‘bleeding heart stuff.’”
“Stupido Fabuloso!” Trump sneered, almost choking on his sirloin steak. “They don’t know who they are or worse who they WERE! FDR clobbered the Republicans with Social Security, minimum wage, and unemployment compensation, and he pushed for unions, taxed the rich and went after business crooks. He taunted the GOP. They called him a ‘traitor to his class,’ and he said he welcomed their hatred.”
“These issues are still very popular today, but the Dems aren’t pulling their base. The idiots even let me take the word ‘populist’ from their shaky hands – me the very core of Big Business.”
“They’ve mostly gagged themselves, leaving poor little Joe Biden alone talking about his infrastructure/jobs projects. Some Dems are so cowardly they don’t want to be seen campaigning with Delaware Joe.”
Adviser #2: “The Dems don’t learn from The Trumper. In politics, you got to boast. Politics is fatal for wimps.”
Trump cupped his mouth adding – “Jeez, I boast about things that aren’t even true, just like my casino ads. The Dems aren’t puffing about what is true. On paper, they support FDR’s New Deal updated to give everyone health insurance and voting rights for everyone, even felons. But where it counts – on the road, they’re in a driverless car. Ha, ha, ha – see? They’re beating themselves.”
“Because we are with the Winners, we’re against all the ‘communist’ things the masses drool over. And we are still winning. Why? Because we are masters at controlling what the media wants to cover – outrageous charges, flagrant behavior and all kinds of red meat the profit-obsessed media barons can’t resist. I told them as much in 2016. Still, they bit. Hilarious.”
“The GOP has got the offensive down to a science. Driving Dems nuts with ‘critical race theory’ (what’s that anyway?), ‘defunding the police’ (hah, we’ve defunded the federal regulator cops big time), ‘open borders,’ ‘radical judges,’ ‘over-regulation,’ ‘high taxes,’ ‘socialism’ – these are short enraging words that stick with our people. Like deer in the headlights, the Dems freeze, mumble and fret. Remember our old mentor Lee Atwater who said ‘When you’re explaining, you’re losing.’”
Adviser #1: “The big hole the Dems dug came long ago when they wrote off half the country as being too conservative and stopped spending money on their candidates in red districts. They don’t have the energy we have – look at how we’ve beaten them in the gerrymandering fights. It’s the energy gap. Remember 2009-2010?”
Trump broke in: “David, don’t get carried away. The biggest thing was their stupidity. Dems would spend more on a single Pennsylvania Senate seat than on six Senate seats combined in the Mountain states. Those states used to have Democratic Senators. Now GOP dominates there. Year after year, they don’t listen. I don’t listen either, to be frank. But I’m a very stable genius, while they are, as New Yorkers say, ‘Tone deaf.’”
Adviser #2: “Also the Republicans listen to their outside allies. Like Heritage, Cato, and Norquist. The Dems lean on their control-freak consultants and give progressive groups the cold shoulder. I have a progressive friend who tells me horror stories. She just gave me a copy of a blockbuster collection of very practical ways – down to the rebuttals and slogans – the Dems can use to landslide us in November. I started sweating until she told me most of the Dems are not rushing to use it. Most don’t even know about the two dozen citizen leaders who put it together, edited down to fiercely powerful persuasions by wordsmith Mark Green – a long-time Dem from New York City. It’s available to the world on winningamerica.net, but Green is confident that we will never pick it up.”
Trump: “Hmm, Winning America? – Nice ring to it. This fellow Green. I remember meeting him at a fundraiser when he was running for Mayor twenty years ago. He was all business, no small talk. He scared me then.”
The MAGA/NatCon crowd on the verge of taking over government have made speech after speech outlining their ideas to wield radical violence on behalf of objectives as wide-ranging as eliminating the FBI to invading “sanctuary cities.”
The revolution may not be televised, but the counter-revolution sure will be.
In this new political era, the dominant military power in the capitalist world-system is ruled by a Venn Diagram of baddies—ethnonationalists, oligarchs, tech bros, and national security hawks. These elites take their opportunity to direct state power from the legitimacy afforded a single man. One of the only common elements about the diverse (but majority white and male) votes cast for Donald Trump is that they all saw Washington liberal elites as the enemy.
To put it differently, Trump voters were against one set of ruling-class elites and so cast their vote for a man who has surrounded himself with a different cadre of ruling-class elites, all of whom seem to fashion themselves as enemies of the previous dominant set. MAGA politics marks the emergence of political counter-elites with nothing short of revolutionary ambitions.
But what does that mean? Why is nobody talking about what is obviously emerging—counter-elites who are literally talking about revolution?
In parsing the distinctions and overlaps among conservatives, reactionaries, and the forgotten category of counter-revolutionaries, everything is at stake.
Everybody’s go-to text today for these terms and concepts—terms that typologize the political right—seems to be Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind. A fine book, but a product of its moment (2011) and definitely a distinct take rather than a consensus view about the right. Joe Mackay has also done some work parsing conservative and reactionary in particular.
George Lawson, meanwhile, has made a convincing case that in the context of the age of empires, “counter-revolution” was about countering the revolutionary projects that emerged after the French Revolution. This gave counter-revolution back then a Burkean quality, which is to say conservative in the literal sense—preserving the old order, tradition, and distributions of power. This is the conventional way of understanding counter-revolution.
But in the West right now, and specifically in America, there is no left-revolutionary situation to counter. This is why the dust-binned work of Arno Mayer might be the ideal way to make sense of where this current configuration of right-wing political power is taking America.
Seen through a Mayer-ian lens, Project 2025 is not “weird”—it’s a field manual for counter-revolution on the institutional and policy terrain.
Mayer wrote many classics, but the one that really speaks to our moment is Dynamics of Counter-Revolution. In that book, he offers three types of right-wing “forces of order” with different agendas. Two are straightforward but deserve explaining, while the third is both more controversial and more important to grasp right now.
He defined conservative thought as “designed to give coherence to the defense of traditional social, economic, and political institutions and of traditional aesthetics, morals, and manners.” Reactionaries, meanwhile, “advocate a return to a mythical and romanticized past. In this past they seek the recovery and restoration of institutions…which sustained a hierarchical order of privileges and prerogatives.”
Mayer’s counter-revolution is particularly relevant to the current moment. He defined this concept as the forces of “order, hierarchy, authority, discipline, obedience, tradition, loyalty, courage, sacrifice, and nationalism [that wield revolutionary methods,] mobilizing and regimenting superannuated, unhinged, and inert individuals and groups… that enables them to become a new but claimant political counterelite.”
Unpacking counter-revolutionaries even further, Mayer goes on to say that they combine “the glorification of traditional attitudes and behavior patterns with the charge that these are being corrupted, subverted, and defiled by conspiratorial agents and influences… its constructive purposes remain deliberately inchoate and equivocal.”
It is common to use reactionary or far-right to describe MAGA and NatCon politics. These guys are no Edmund Burkes, after all. Neither of these terms is wrong, but they say nothing about counter-revolution, which is something they actively talk about. To wit:
It’s not just that they invoke revolution in their rhetoric. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) talked about revolution rhetorically while running for president, but proposed a pretty gradualist reform agenda… and a non-violent one at that.
The MAGA/NatCon crowd on the verge of taking over government, by contrast, have made speech after speech outlining their ideas to wield radical violence on behalf of objectives as wide-ranging as eliminating the FBI to invading “sanctuary cities” to bombing Mexico and initiating mass deportations of immigrants from everywhere. Seen through a Mayer-ian lens, Project 2025 is not “weird”—it’s a field manual for counter-revolution on the institutional and policy terrain.
The “fascist debate” about MAGA has been frustrating and unhelpful. Mayer’s category of counter-revolutionary, though, captures important features, only some of which are present in the “fascist” discourse:
That checks out!
According to Theda Skocpol in States and Social Revolutions, revolution consists of “rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures… accompanied by and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below.” Counter-revolution, then, is a similarly rapid and radical transformation of the world but with two distinctions. One is that it comes from the top (by elites) even more than from below. The other is that the content of the revolution, following Mayer, is reactionary.
And now that MAGA has more institutional power to transform America than any group in the past 100 years, the future will look less like Nazi Germany 2.0 than a project of counter-revolution to transform the social order and existing distributions of power in society. American government will be ethnonationalist. It will be patriarchal. It will be violent. It will redound to the benefit of oligarchs. And it will threaten to destabilize the world.
Disturbingly, the architecture for this counter-revolutionary project has much source material to draw on in the form of existing U.S. foreign policy and the existing balance of forces between capital and labor. Even the counter-revolutionary’s impetus to dehumanize its enemies has gotten a substantial boost from the dehumanization that permeates U.S. policy, from the Mexico border to Palestine.
That “normal” U.S. politics has gifted the counter-revolution so much of what it needs to wreak havoc on the world should prompt a re-examination of what is normal.
Mayer’s various arguments are not beyond critique. His analysis of counter-revolution ties closely to the making of World War I, which he saw as an external solution to domestic political conflict between left and right. But all the belligerents in World War I were not polarized in the same ways when it came to left-right conflict. And although there is evidence that the world war had domestic political motivations, there’s not enough evidence to suggest it was more important than alternative motivations (inter-imperial competition, the boomerang effect of colonialism, the balance of power’s inevitable system failure, the “cult of the offensive,” national status pathologies, etc).
A slightly amended argument would carry more weight: World War I tilted Western politics in favor of counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries, even if that was not its primary purpose. It’s hard to argue with that.
Nevertheless, what makes Mayer notable is the very shape of these important arguments. He’s bringing together an analysis of geopolitics with left-right politics. His formulations are compatible with neoclassical realism in international relations but have much more meaning and content than that theoretical tradition.
And in the final analysis, if Mayer’s counter-revolutionary diagnosis applies to the current admixture of ethnonationalists, oligarchs, tech bros, and national security bros, then the political horizons of the progressive left are going to have to transcend donating money to the Democratic Party.
Trump’s alliance with these extremist authoritarian populists should worry supporters of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights everywhere.
Last week, a far-right politician, Francisco Wanderley, from now-banned former President Jair Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party, detonated bombs at Brazil’s Supreme Court. The terrorist attack manifested growing tendencies for violence among Brazil’s far-right against the country’s democratic institutions, which they allege are “infiltrated by communists,” requiring them to “save Brazil.”
The attack comes nearly two years after the storming of the three branches of government in the Brazilian capital by Bolsonaro supporters attempting to overturn a fair and free democratic election, a tenet of fascism. These incidents will get increasingly more common, more dangerous, and are being egged on by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, in the U.S. and Brazil.
With Trump’s second term two months away, the far-right in Brazil has been coordinating to become increasingly authoritarian, aiming to destroy democracy for its own gain.
Brazilian far-right leaders’ rhetoric and policies contribute to a climate of intolerance and authoritarianism, undermining Brazil’s democratic foundations and threatening the rights of marginalized communities.
Bolsonaro, a staunch admirer of Trump, was the first world leader to celebrate his victory with effusive praise, calling Trump “a true warrior” against “globalists and the deep state.” He hailed Trump’s victory as a win for “true democracy” that will “empower the rise of the right and conservative movements,” ironic given how neither of them stands for true democracy or conservative values.
Bolsonaro also urged Brazilians to take inspiration from Trump’s resurgence, invoking divine intervention to complete Brazil’s “mission of freedom” and “reclaim its destiny of greatness,” echoing fascist language. The former president’s rhetoric is part of a broader trend within Brazilian far-right politics, which mirrors the U.S. far-right in its populist nationalism, disdain for “leftist elites,” and use of divine interventionist language to mobilize support.
This alignment was on full display when one of Bolsonaro’s sons, Eduardo, also a federal deputy with a large following, attended Trump’s election watch party at Mar-a-Lago, later wearing a MAGA hat. In social media posts, Eduardo, Flávio, and Carlos Bolsonaro claimed they would “defeat the left” and “liberate the country.” It is reported that Eduardo and Donald Trump Jr. are close friends. The Bolsonaros’ social media pages post daily Portuguese translations of Donald Trump’s speeches.
In recent municipal elections this fall, far-right parties such as the Evangelical Republicanos party and the nationalists with União Brasil achieved sweeping victories across large cities and rural areas, including in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, with the Federal District still dominated by the far-right. This marked a significant setback for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s Workers’ Party (PT) and other leftist factions.
Despite Bolsonaro being banned from running for office until 2030, the former president has played a central role in shaping rhetoric and policy on the right, including pushing for tough-on-crime policies, removing secular government, removing Lula from office, and corruption. Still, beyond the Bolsonaro family, prominent right-wing governors, including in São Paulo (Tarcísio de Freitas), Rio de Janeiro (Cláudio Castro), Paraná (Ratinho Júnior), Santa Catarina (Jorginho Mello), and Goiás (Ronaldo Caiado) will likely be frontrunners in 2026. They all have higher approval ratings than Lula.
Brazil’s far-right movement has increasingly embraced militarism and anti-democratic actions, escalating polarization and undermining public safety. Besides the 2023 insurrection in Brasília, Bolsonaro himself has called the military dictatorship “a very good period,” justified the state’s killing and torturing of counter-militants including former President Dilma Rousseff (whom he helped impeach), and has said he would stage a military takeover if necessary. Polling by Datafolha reveals that 51% of Brazilians believe Bolsonaro could stage a successful coup, while Pew Research finds that 41% of Brazilians would favor military rule. Bolsonaro and other politicians on the far-right have also allegedly been involved in a plot to kill Lula and top cabinet officials, according to Brazilian intelligence.
Brazilian far-right leaders’ rhetoric and policies contribute to a climate of intolerance and authoritarianism, undermining Brazil’s democratic foundations and threatening the rights of marginalized communities. Their agendas include systematically dismantling all environmental regulations, opposing LGBTQ+ rights, marginalizing minority communities through broad police violence (including support for militias and death squads), supporting economic policies that exacerbate extreme wealth inequality, defunding all public education and social programs, increasing the role of religion in the state, weaponizing the judiciary against political opponents, and weakening democratic checks and balances, often under the guise of protecting “freedom” and “security.”
The Bolsonaros have even proposed banning subversive ideologies like communism. Trump’s alliance with these extremist authoritarian populists should worry supporters of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights everywhere.
Misinformation through social media has also played a large role in amplifying the far-right’s appeal, with politicians including the Bolsonaros being extremely active and amassing millions of followers. The Reuters Institute finds that 66% of Brazilians get their news mainly through social media. Platforms like Elon Musk’s Twitter/X have become hubs for misinformation. Musk himself has stoked tensions with Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, tweeting in Portuguese, “One day, @Alexandre, this photo of you in prison will be real. Mark my words.”
Justice Moraes, who leads efforts to curb digital misinformation, has been accused by the far-right of censorship. However, Brazilian studies show that the vast majority of disinformation originates from far-right networks. Now, the Brazilian far-right, with direct support from MAGA and Musk, has framed any attempt to fight the disinformation as an attack on freedom of expression. Ironically, the Bolsonarist movement insists that they are “warriors for truth, freedom, and democracy.”
Just like with American MAGA, the Evangelical Church in Brazil has been another pillar of far-right support in the country. Edir Macedo, the founder of the Universal Church for the Kingdom of God, openly endorsed Bolsonaro in 2022, stating, “We evangelicals don’t have any doubts. We vote for Jair Bolsonaro.” The Universal Church and similar evangelical institutions wield significant influence, particularly in rural and impoverished areas, where they have propagated narratives linking progressive politicians to moral decay and criminality.
Macedo, this October, gifted an annotated Bible to Donald Trump. Political-Evangelical churches’ political endorsements and media presence have reached millions of voters and shaped public opinion to bolster the far-right’s agenda.
Brazil has also become a fertile ground for MAGA-backed organizations like CPAC Brasil, which serves as a conduit for the far-right to spread its messaging, funded principally by U.S. donors. Prominent members of the Bolsonaro family, including Jair, have attended multiple times. In 2023, the former president attended CPAC in the United States. Shortly before, Steve Bannon reportedly helped the Bolsonaros plan the Brasília insurrection. With Trump’s return to power, these financial and ideological pipelines are likely to expand, further entrenching the far-right in Brazil’s political landscape.
These factors all help construct a fast-moving machine for the Brazilian far-right, with support from the American MAGA world. As one political analyst told me, “Brazil is now the Americas’ largest democracy;” however, it might not be for very long.
We must remember that Brazil has only been a democracy for four decades, and Brazil’s own MAGA movement may lead it back into dictatorship. As the 2026 election draws near, the Brazilian people will have to decide whether to follow the trend of fascism, or return to being one of the most diverse democracies in the world. Whether indictments of key figures in the Brazilian fascist movements, including Jair Bolsonaro and top military aides to the insurrection, end up leading anywhere, also remains in the balance. For democracy’s sake, they need to be punished to the fullest extent.
Just like the U.S. helped plunge Brazil into a military dictatorship on March 31, 1964, a fascist U.S. administration may do the same again.