SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nationalism
Trump’s Sovereigntist Imperialism Will Trigger Self-Defeating US Decline
As Trump transforms the United States into pariah nation, he will be accelerating the nation’s fall from power, generating increasingly dangerous domestic and international turmoil and insecurity.
Feb 15, 2025
Days after November’s Trump-MAGA election victory, a senior Russian diplomat asked his American interlocutors how great a historical transformation it signaled. Was it the equivalent of the Civil War, Reconstruction, the New Deal, or the South deserting the Democratic Party in response to the 1965 Civil Rights Act?
Within days of his inauguration it was clear, Jamelle Bouie wrote in The New York Times, that U.S. President Donald Trump and his cronies were “waging war on the American system of government.” Billionaire plutocrats captured Washington to increase their immense fortunes, to eviscerate our limited social safety net, to eliminate corporate regulations, and to turn the clock back on 70 years of civil and human rights gains. A month on we find ourselves in the midst of what is politely described as a “constitutional crisis,” as Trump and his co-conspirators signal they will refuse to respect court orders that overrule their illegal and unconstitutional actions.
The chaos and calamity the Trump regime is wreaking within the United States extends beyond our borders, near and far. Counter-productively Trump and company are swinging their recking ball at the foundations of the United States’ liberal and sometimes democratic empire which has subsidized the U.S. economy for more than a century. The murder of as many as 3 million Vietnamese; NATO’s generation-long Afghanistan War; and continuing supply of billions of dollars’ worth of advanced weapons, as well as diplomatic support, for Israel’s genocidal second Palestinian Nakba, give lie to a benign U.S. led “international rules-based order.” Reinforcing the image of the Ugly American, the Trump-Musk assault on the U.S. Agency for International Development is killing innocent aid recipients around the world by denying them food and medicines. Trump’s 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, targeted primarily against China, provide an unexpected opening to the Middle Kingdom. They violate the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement and a trade agreement with Australia, signaling to the world that, like Hitler before him, Trump operates as if treaties are not worth the paper they are written on, and that the U.S.’ word is not to be trusted. This spells international chaos and economic pain for many U.S. Americans.
Trump’s needs and insistence on dominating anyone or any nation that refuses to kowtow to his demands will inevitably result in the alienation of valued and essential partners and painful isolation.
That era of liberal imperialism is over. It has been coming since the end of the Cold War, as China’s rise and that of the most influential nations of the Global South have created the still uncertain and fluid multipolar disorder. Trump and company’s “peace through strength” is a response to the United States’ relative decline and is being pursued in a nationally self-defeating sovereigntist imperial tradition.
A New York Times article explained that the early sovereigntist movement sought “not only America’s formal sovereignty… but also the traditional forms of rule to which its white, native-born leaders were accustomed… they understood international cooperation as a threat to their personal sovereignty as well that of their nations.” Sovereigntists played leading roles in the 1930s’ fascist “America First” movement and opposed creation of the United Nations, the International Court, NATO, and the World Trade Organization as infringements on U.S. sovereignty. Sovereigntists supported racist Rhodesia as a “brave little country” and defended apartheid South Africa against U.N. sanctions. The Trumpist Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 proclaimed that “international organizations and agreements that erode our Constitution, rule of law, or popular sovereignty should not be reformed. They should be abandoned.”
The conservative Trump critic Bret Stephens describes the sovereigntist ideology serving as a means for “a country doing what it wants to do… an indifference to the behavior of other states, however cruel or dangerous, so long as it doesn’t impinge on us.” It means that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” In Trump’s case, we know that he despised the “rules-based order.” His former National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien reported that he ”adheres not to dogma but to his own instincts.” That is to say his personal narcissistic sovereignty.
Thus, we have threats to seize Greenland and to annex Canada for minerals in order to outpace China in the technological and economic races for dominance. Panama is threatened in order to restore U.S. control over the strategically vital canal. And while the U.S. spends 3.4% of its GDP, nearly a trillion dollars, Trump has raised his demand that NATO nations increase their military spending to a staggering 5% of their GDP so that the Pentagon can concentrate its military and economic power on containing and dominating China. A fool’s errand.
Some governments, for example Poland, Japan, and Colombia, are kowtowing to Trump’s crude demands. Others—including Denmark, France, and even Germany, at least in the face of Trump’s Greenland demands—are insisting on respect for their national sovereignty. We can expect linkages as Trump goes beyond his threat to encourage Russia to invade nations that don’t meet his exorbitant military spending demands with tariff threats and other demands for those who fail to kowtow to the new lord’s orders.
Trump has yet to fully reveal his military and diplomatic approaches to Europe and Russia. In his return to power, Trump seems less smitten by Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the Russian autocrat is “destroying Russia.” Trump has threatened further and useless sanctions against Moscow and increases in military support for Kyiv if Moscow refuses to come to the negotiating table on Trump’s terms. He has also offered continued military support for Ukraine in exchange for significant quantities of rare earth minerals needed for the industrial and the technological arms race with China. The Ukraine War, of course, is not only for control of that long-tormented borderland. On all sides, it is being fought to shape and define the Post-Post-Cold War’s European order and strategic architecture.
At the same time, Trump, who believe it or not is driven in part by his Nobel Peace Prize ambitions, as well as his transactional way of being, could attempt to negotiate a comprehensive grand bargain with Putin over the heads Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Ukraine, and European leaders. It could include everything from the future of Ukraine to conventional and nuclear weapons in Europe, and to whatever follows the expiration of the New START nuclear treaty in February 2026.
On the other hand, if Putin is not willing to accommodate Trump’s demands we could see renewed commitments to the Biden administration’s goal of dealing Moscow a “strategic defeat,” and to the new Cold War.
On the international economic front, Trump’s tariff threats are more than temper tantrums. Rejection of the 70-year-old liberal imperial disorder includes the ambition of replacing the Bretton Woods-WTO systems with what Trump’s former Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer terms a “new American trade system.”
Lighthizer, who ignited the economic warfare with China during Trump’s first term, recently wrote that “countries with democratic governments [as of this now applies to the U.S. -jg!] and mostly free economies should come together to create a new trade regime. This system could enforce balance by having two tiers of tariffs.” Punitive tariffs would target “nondemocratic countries as well as those that insist on beggar-thy-neighbor aggressive industrial policies to run large surpluses.” Those within his new regime “would pay lower tariffs and they could be adjusted over time to ensure balance.”
The imperial naivety and ambition of this strategy brings to mind the disastrous Bush-Cheney-Abrams belief that with “shock and awe” that they could simultaneously export democracy to Iraq and seize control of the “sea of oil” on which that nation floats.
By definition, the narcissism of admiring one’s reflection in the mirror and insisting on personal or national sovereignty at the expense of others means ignoring the needs and agency of others. Trump’s needs and insistence on dominating anyone or any nation that refuses to kowtow to his demands will inevitably result in the alienation of valued and essential partners and painful isolation. Just as no man is an island, neither is a nation. As Trump transforms the United States into pariah nation, he will be accelerating the nation’s decline, generating increasingly dangerous domestic and international turmoil and insecurity.
We saw that with the end of the Cold War, based on common security and win-win diplomacy, there are alternatives that will enhance our personal and national security. In the words of the Jewish sage Hillel, “If not now, when? If not me [us] who?” We and the world’s nations are not powerless. U.S. and international strategies that target Trump’s stock market Achilles heel or ultimately a general strike could discipline this most undisciplined and dangerous despot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
MAGA's Global Roots: Why 'America First' Isn't American
To effectively counter MAGA, it must be accurately framed, not as an embodiment of American exceptionalism, but as part of a global populist strategy.
Jan 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's early actions in his second term under the "Make America Great Again," or MAGA, banner prioritized populist rhetoric over national interests. Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization further isolated the United States and eroded its global leadership. Domestically, policies like federal hiring freezes, attempts to redefine birthright citizenship, and pardons for January 6 participants deepened national divisions and hindered effective governance. Meanwhile, rolling back protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or removing resources like the reproductiverights.gov website directly targeted "unworthy" groups of Americans. Although these actions energized his base, they sacrificed long-term stability and progress for short-term political gains. Beneath the "America First" rhetoric, these divisive policies weakened the country both at home and abroad.
The MAGA movement, championed by Trump during his 2016 campaign, is often framed as a uniquely American phenomenon. With promises to restore manufacturing jobs, secure borders, and challenge global elites, MAGA tapped into deep-seated grievances within the American electorate. However, while its slogans and imagery evoke American exceptionalism, its ideological and strategic foundations are not exclusive to the United States. Instead, MAGA represents a chapter in the global populist playbook that has been refined and exported across borders in recent decades.
To effectively counter MAGA, it must be accurately framed, not as an embodiment of American exceptionalism, but as part of a global populist strategy. Democrats and other opponents have struggled to expose its true nature, allowing it to masquerade as a grassroots response to American grievances. In reality, MAGA draws heavily from international populist tactics, employing nationalism, scapegoating, and anti-globalist conspiracy theories to consolidate. This is not about a secret "populist cabal" but about recognizing the shared strategies of political programs to counter them effectively. This challenge extends to all activists and policymakers working to counter MAGA's agenda of racism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism.
By recognizing MAGA as part of this global trend, its origins, contradictions, and vulnerabilities become clearer, providing a critical framework for countering its divisive agenda.
Recognizing MAGA's universal nature highlights its contradictions. While claiming to champion "the people," it advances policies that benefit elites, marginalize vulnerable communities, and undermine protections for workers and the environment. Situating MAGA within the broader context of global populism dismantles its American exceptionalist narrative, exposing its rhetoric as hollow and manipulative. This reframing is essential to addressing the systemic issues MAGA exploits and protecting democracy from its corrosive impact.
At its core, MAGA embodies a classic populist framework, dividing society into two opposing groups: the "pure" people and the "corrupt" elites or perceived enemies. While rooted in American political history, its binary "us vs. them" rhetoric mirrors strategies employed by populist leaders worldwide. MAGA's blend of nationalism, anti-immigration policies, economic protectionism, and cultural grievances aligns with populist campaigns in regions as diverse as Europe and Latin America. From Viktor Orbán's nationalist agenda in Hungary to Marine Le Pen's rebranding of far-right politics in France, the tools and messaging of modern populism have become strikingly uniform across borders. Far from an organic response to collective grievances, it is a calculated political strategy tailored to the cultural and domestic contexts of each country.
Much of MAGA's populist DNA can be traced to the political consulting work of Paul Manafort, a pivotal figure in Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. Before working with Trump, Manafort refined his strategies in Ukraine, where he advised pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych, who was later deposed following the Maidan protests and the Revolution of Dignity. Yanukovych's campaigns relied on nationalism, cultural division, and anti-elite rhetoric to consolidate power. These were tactics Manafort later brought to Trump's campaign, including the use of disinformation, targeted messaging, and framing Trump as an outsider fighting entrenched elites.
Manafort first entered Ukrainian politics during the Orange Revolution of 2004, when widespread protests erupted over electoral fraud favoring Yanukovych in a contentious runoff election. Following massive demonstrations, Ukraine's Supreme Court annulled the results and ordered a revote, which resulted in a decisive victory for Yanukovych's opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. While Manafort's initial efforts failed, his subsequent tenure as a campaign consultant for Yanukovych and the Party of Regions proved more successful.
Manafort is widely credited with shaping the Party of Regions' slogans and political rhetoric, emphasizing themes like the "threat of NATO" and the "suppression of the Russian language in Ukraine." These strategies deepened cultural and linguistic divisions within Ukraine, particularly alienating Russian-speaking communities in the country's east. He also crafted slogans appealing to national pride and promises of immediate improvement, such as "Improving Your Life Already Today" (Ukrainian: "Покращення життя вже сьогодні"). This approach sought to resonate with citizens' desire for swift change while portraying Yanukovych as the champion of "Ukraine first" policies in contrast to his rival, then-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
The Party of Regions portrayed Tymoshenko's pro-European integration agenda as a threat to Ukraine's sovereignty and traditional values. Their rhetoric suggested that closer ties with NATO and the E.U. would usher in liberal policies, including those supporting LGBTQ rights, which they argued would undermine Ukraine's cultural identity. By framing Western institutions as cultural aggressors, the Party of Regions positioned itself as a defender of national values, effectively galvanizing conservative segments of the population against perceived external threats.
Manafort also orchestrated sophisticated disinformation campaigns to undermine Tymoshenko and then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This included creating a fake think tank to spread negative narratives through media outlets and manipulating online platforms to disseminate false information. Tymoshenko, like Yushchenko before her, was branded as a pro-American radical who prioritized foreign interests over Ukraine's well-being. These tactics, honed in Ukraine's politically fractured environment, were later adapted to resonate with the grievances and cultural divides of the American electorate.
While Manafort's role in shaping Trump's campaign was significant, his strategies are part of a broader international trend. MAGA's populism is not a spontaneous eruption of uniquely American discontent but a chapter in the global populist playbook. From exploiting cultural divisions to leveraging "anti-globalist" conspiracy theories, these methods have been employed, refined, and exported by populist leaders worldwide.
Understanding MAGA within this international context underscores the interconnected nature of modern politics, where ideas and strategies transcend national boundaries to influence movements across diverse cultural and political landscapes. By recognizing MAGA as part of this global trend, its origins, contradictions, and vulnerabilities become clearer, providing a critical framework for countering its divisive agenda.
Thousands of miles away from the U.S., a supporter of Romanian far-right candidate Călin Georgescu, who campaigned under a "Romania First" slogan, starkly declared: "She [Elena Lasconi] will pass a law on marriage between two men, I cannot accept such a thing," while asserting that Romania needed "a capable man to lead us, not a woman." Statements like these exploit cultural anxieties to galvanize conservative support, a hallmark of global populist movements.
The early 2000s marked the rise of a powerful wave of populism across Europe, fueled by economic stagnation, cultural insecurities, and widespread disillusionment with traditional political elites. This period saw far-right movements rebranding themselves as defenders of the "ordinary citizen" against globalist, technocratic, and multicultural agendas. Leaders such as Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Matteo Salvini in Italy capitalized on these dynamics, reshaping the political landscape through nationalist rhetoric and anti-immigrant sentiment.
Marine Le Pen's leadership of the National Front (later renamed National Rally) exemplified the far-right's strategic makeover. While her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, had built the party on overt racism and xenophobia, Marine sought to soften its image without abandoning its core nationalist message. She framed immigration—particularly from Muslim-majority countries—as a threat to French identity and values, tapping into fears of cultural erosion.
Le Pen also embraced Euroscepticism, portraying the European Union as a bureaucratic overreach that undermined France's sovereignty. By combining economic protectionism with cultural grievance, she expanded the party's appeal beyond far-right fringes, positioning it as a populist alternative to the French political establishment.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom adopted an equally divisive platform. Wilders presented himself as a staunch defender of Dutch culture, depicting immigration and multiculturalism as existential threats. His rhetoric painted Islam as incompatible with Western values, using inflammatory language to link immigration with terrorism.
Wilders also criticized the European Union, framing it as an elitist institution disconnected from ordinary citizens. Like Le Pen, he weaponized nationalist sentiments to challenge liberal democratic norms, portraying his movement as a bulwark against an overly accommodating political elite.
In Southern Europe, populism took on a more authoritarian tone under leaders like Matteo Salvini. As head of the League (formerly the Northern League), Salvini shifted the party's focus from regional separatism to a nationalist agenda. He vilified immigrants, often blaming them for economic hardship and cultural decline.
Salvini's rhetoric resonated deeply with Italian voters grappling with the aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis. His rise to prominence illustrated how economic grievances and cultural fears could be weaponized to undermine establishment parties. Salvini also positioned himself as a critic of European integration, calling for stronger national sovereignty and rejecting E.U.-imposed policies.
Across the Atlantic, Trump's 2016 campaign borrowed heavily from the European populist playbook. Trump frequently employed anti-Muslim rhetoric, framing Muslim communities as security threats and proposing a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States. This culminated in the so-called Muslim Ban, a series of executive orders restricting travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.
Trump justified these policies as necessary for national security, leveraging fear and xenophobia to energize his base. Simultaneously, he criticized global institutions like the United Nations, portraying it as an encroachment on American sovereignty. This "America First" rhetoric closely mirrored themes seen in Viktor Yanukovych's pro-Russian campaigns in Ukraine, where nationalism and cultural division were used to consolidate power.
Trump's populist appeal also pitted him against establishment Republicans, a trend that had gained momentum during the Tea Party movement. By labeling establishment figures as "Republicans in Name Only" (RINOs), Trump positioned himself as the voice of disenfranchised Americans battling entrenched elites.
The European populist wave demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt its messaging to local contexts while drawing on common themes of nationalism, anti-globalization, and cultural conservatism. Leaders like Le Pen, Wilders, and Salvini pioneered tactics that not only reshaped their own political landscapes but also provided a blueprint for populist movements worldwide.
The modern American populist movement that evolved into MAGA traces its roots to the Tea Party, a movement that rose to prominence in the late 2000s with significant backing from the Koch network. Many of Trump's staunchest supporters within the Republican Party have roots in the Tea Party, highlighting a continuity of populist sentiment. Studies have shown that individuals who supported the Tea Party in the early 2010s were more likely to align with Trump's agenda in subsequent years, demonstrating the movement's lasting influence on the Republican Party's ideological trajectory.
A key figure in this transition was Steve Bannon, the co-founder of Breitbart News and later the CEO of Trump's 2016 campaign. Breitbart News played a pivotal role in promoting Tea Party ideas and candidates, amplifying the movement's anti-establishment and nationalist messaging. By the mid-2010s, Bannon was leveraging the momentum of the Tea Party to advance a more explicitly nationalist agenda, aligning himself with Trump and broadening the scope of American populism.
Bannon's strategic vision extended beyond the United States. He actively sought to unify and strengthen populist movements in Europe, forging connections with right-wing parties and leaders. His efforts aimed to create a global network of populist movements united by shared principles of nationalism, anti-globalism, and opposition to progressive international institutions. By fostering these alliances, Bannon sought to build a cohesive international populist front that could challenge the global liberal order.
By understanding its connections to international populism, it becomes clear that MAGA is a calculated political construct rather than a genuine grassroots movement.
The transition from the Tea Party to MAGA underscores the evolution of modern American populism. While the Tea Party emphasized economic grievances and a distrust of government, MAGA expanded its appeal through cultural and nationalist rhetoric, effectively reshaping the Republican Party's identity. Bannon's role as a bridge between these movements highlights the deliberate efforts to harness and repurpose the Tea Party's energy for a broader populist agenda.
By situating MAGA within this lineage and connecting it to international populist trends, it becomes clear that modern populism is neither a spontaneous phenomenon nor a uniquely American one. Instead, it reflects a calculated and evolving strategy that draws from shared grievances and ideological frameworks to build power both domestically and globally.
Alexander Dugin, the Russian political philosopher and architect of Eurasianism, has played a significant role in shaping contemporary populist ideology. His Fourth Political Theory rejects the supremacy of liberal democracy, offering an alternative that combines traditionalism with elements of socialism and nationalism. This framework provides ideological backing for populist leaders seeking to distance themselves from Western liberal values, advocating a return to traditional cultural and religious norms.
A similar narrative has emerged in the United States, where "liberal values" are portrayed as an external, malevolent force threatening Western traditions. This narrative creates a shared ideological foundation among global populist movements, highlighting their interconnected strategies while adapting to different cultural contexts.
The convergence of these ideologies highlights a broader trend in modern populism: the collaboration and exchange of ideas among populist leaders worldwide. This interconnectedness has enabled the rapid dissemination of populist rhetoric and strategies, strengthening the global populist movement. Parallel populist victories in Europe and the rise of MAGA in the United States underscore the growing international reach and influence of these movements.
Modern populism also facilitates and normalizes the presence of far-right radical groups. In the United States, MAGA exhibits subtle overlaps with Third Position politics in its emphasis on "America First" nationalism and critiques of globalism. Trump's appeal to the working class, paired with his anti-elite and protectionist economic rhetoric, reflects a syncretic approach. Like the Third Position's rejection of both capitalist elites and socialist internationalism, MAGA positions itself as a champion of the "forgotten" American worker while opposing progressive social movements.
This fusion of cultural conservatism and economic populism resonates with a wide range of disillusioned voters, blurring traditional ideological lines. While MAGA remains distinct from historical Third Position movements, its hybridization of nationalism, economic populism, and anti-elite rhetoric demonstrates how these ideologies evolve within contemporary populist frameworks.
The authoritarian undertones of populist movements are increasingly evident. Trump's actions on the first day of his second term, such as the swift pardoning of January 6 insurrectionists, including Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders, signal solidarity with violent actors. This move not only rehabilitates these groups but also reinforces their alignment with MAGA.
Globally, similar ties between populist movements and extremist groups are evident. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has connections with far-right groups like the Identitarian Movement and neo-Nazi networks, using nationalist rhetoric to intimidate opponents. Hungary's Fidesz party, under Viktor Orbán, benefits from the support of groups like the Hungarian Guard, known for targeting Roma communities and promoting anti-immigrant sentiment. Italy's Lega, led by Matteo Salvini, is linked to far-right factions such as CasaPound, which employ neo-fascist rhetoric and violence to advance nationalist themes.
Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro has relied on paramilitary militias to target leftist politicians and activists, while India's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under Narendra Modi, maintains close ties with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary group accused of inciting violence against minorities. These movements use nationalist and anti-globalist rhetoric to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and perpetuate divisions.
The global populist movement is further bolstered by influential figures like Elon Musk, who recently expressed support for the AfD via X. Musk's involvement in Trump's administration underscores the deepening connections between global populist leaders.
Modern populism has created a volatile political landscape, not only undermining liberal democratic norms but also fostering syncretic alliances that blur traditional ideological boundaries. These movements often build connections with extremist groups, activist organizations, and unconventional political networks, drawing strength from shared grievances and interconnected strategies. This convergence amplifies their influence and extends their reach beyond government institutions into civil society. Addressing the global nature of populism, and its ability to co-opt diverse political and activist frameworks, is essential to countering its divisive and authoritarian tendencies while safeguarding democratic principles and inclusive social movements.
MAGA is not a uniquely American movement but part of a global populist strategy that exploits cultural anxieties, nationalism, and anti-globalist rhetoric to consolidate power. By understanding its connections to international populism, it becomes clear that MAGA is a calculated political construct rather than a genuine grassroots movement. Recognizing these global parallels and shared tactics is essential to countering its corrosive impact on democracy and fostering a more inclusive political dialogue. Exposing MAGA as part of a broader authoritarian trend is not just a defense of American values but a necessary step in protecting democracy worldwide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Primed to Lead the American Counter-Revolution
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.”
Nov 26, 2024
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?
Defining Terms
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:
You Say You Want A Revolution, Well, You Know
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:
- Nationalist
- Glorification of tradition
- Authority
- Hierarchy
- Counter-elite elite
- A need to purge “agents” who have corrupted the nation
- Mobilizing “unhinged and inert” groups of people
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.
Is “Counter-Revolution” Right?
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.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular