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
right-wing
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
Now Is the Time to Protect Progressive Organizations
Defending progressive nonprofits as Trump takes power again will help ensure the protection of civil liberties and democratic institutions over the coming months and years.
Dec 18, 2024
The coming year promises to be a dangerous time for progressive groups. Last month the House passed resolution 9495, which would grant the executive branch extraordinary powers to designate nonprofit organizations as terrorist supporting and thereby to revoke these organizations’ 501(c)3 status unilaterally and without due process.
The significance of this development is chillingly clear now that we have evidence of a right-wing plan to use the pretext of fighting terrorism to shut down more than 100 progressive organizations, including Jewish Voice for Peace, Black Lives Matter, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Democratic Socialists of America.
As reported on the progressive news site Truthout, in November a right-wing think tank with ties to the Heritage Foundation published a glossy report that purports to show how these and other progressive organizations are “pro-terrorism.” The report outlines a series of steps that the think tank, the Capital Research Center, believes should be taken to shut these 159 groups down, ranging from the revocation of their 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 statuses to the prosecution and deportation of their leaders. Such moves, if made by the Trump administration, could effectively shutter progressive civil society.
History tells us that right-wing authoritarian movements and governments begin by attacking leftist and progressive parties and organizations, and then proceed to target other opposition parties and civil society organizations.
The “evidence” provided for progressive groups’ supposed support for terrorism is highly suspect. In many cases, the Capital Research Center simply highlights statements made by these groups that are taken to be insufficiently condemnatory of Hamas. Groups’ use of language like “armed resistance” to describe Hamas’ actions is taken, in and of itself, to constitute active support for this Palestinian militia. We are in the realm here of “thought crimes.”
As a historian of modern Europe, I am alarmed by this call to shut down progressive organizations and parties en masse: The current push to do so resonates with the history of 20th-century fascism.
In April 1919, just weeks after the official formation of the Italian fascist movement, Benito Mussolini’s supporters violently attacked the offices of Avanti, a socialist newspaper. The Italian Blackshirts then carried out a campaign of violence against trade unionists and socialists.
More than a decade later, when Adolf Hitler was granted dictatorial powers through the March 1933 Enabling Act, among his government’s first actions was the outlawing of opposition parties, including the Social Democratic Party. Leaders of the Social Democratic Party were targeted for arrest, faced torture, and were detained in prisons. As had already happened to the Communist Party and would subsequently happen to other opposition parties, the German Social Democratic Party in May and June of 1933 was rendered inoperative. The Party was shut down by the new regime.
Today in the United States, the Capital Research Center is promoting a plan to shut down progressive opposition parties like the Democratic Socialists of America and to bring down a wide range of progressive organizations including the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Council on Islamic American Relations, the Movement for Black Lives, the National Lawyers Guild, Black Lives Matter, Students for Justice in Palestine, and Jewish Voice for Peace. These and other progressive organizations, while not nearly as powerful as the left in early 1930s Germany, nevertheless have the capacity to lead mass movements and to effectively resist regressive political transformations. This is why they are being targeted.
In the closing weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris indicated that she believes that now President-elect Donald Trump is a fascist and that he wants to rule as a dictator. To say that Trump is a fascist is to put forward a hypothesis, informed by historical comparison, about how he intends to govern. But would-be strongmen can only carry out their plans with the acquiescence of wider layers of the state and of civil society.
Donald Trump may want to forcibly repress progressive dissent—he has effectively said as much—but how much support will his efforts receive? Will the incoming Republican-led Senate follow the House in granting the executive branch extraordinary powers both to designate nonprofit organizations as “terrorist-supporting” and to revoke their 501(c)3 statuses without due process?
Will conservative commentators who have kept their distance from the MAGA movement nevertheless amplify and endorse the Capital Research Center’s report calling for the aggressive dismantling of Black Lives Matter, Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the Democratic Socialists of America, among more than 100 other organizations?
Will centrist politicians, media outlets, and commentators stay silent about attacks on the left, or will they speak out in defense of the right of progressive parties and organizations to exist?
When considering possible executive branch moves to shut down progressive organizations, those from different parts of the political spectrum might feel conflicted. Perhaps there have been statements made or actions taken over the last year by progressive organizations—including organizations that have protested in favor of a cease-fire in Israel and Palestine—that you have found objectionable. Perhaps you believe that the progressive movement has in some way taken the wrong tack.
Nevertheless, now is the time to think carefully about political principles concerning assembly, expression, and protest. Now is the time to consider the precedent that widespread attacks on progressive organizations would establish, and about the powers that should or should not be invested in a would-be authoritarian president.
History tells us that right-wing authoritarian movements and governments begin by attacking leftist and progressive parties and organizations, and then proceed to target other opposition parties and civil society organizations.
Defending progressive organizations in this moment will help ensure the protection of civil liberties and democratic institutions over the coming months and years. We are living through a historically dangerous moment. It is also a moment for clarity and courage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Project 2025, the State of Future Elections Hangs in the Balance
Given the results of this election, future political contests in our country face heightened threat levels that demand our vigilance and action.
Nov 18, 2024
While votes are still being counted in some states, turnout for the 2024 general election continues to near (although not quite yet reach) 2020 records, despite our country’s incredibly polarized voting landscape. In our current environment, these levels of participation are a testament to the tenacity of organizers to overcome voter suppression and ensure all voters can fully participate in our democracy.
However, this success cannot lull us into a false sense of security in our push to make voting more accessible. The fight to protect unrestricted access to the ballot box is a year-round effort and responsibility. And now, given the results of this election, future political contests in our country face heightened threat levels that demand our vigilance and action.
The fight for voting rights is one of the greatest litmus tests for the health of U.S. democracy.
Over the last four years, anti-voting rights extremists have made their mission clear: to turn back the hands of time and further disenfranchise Black and brown communities and other historically targeted groups to ensure their continued grip on power. In nearly half of the country, it is now harder for people in Black and brown communities to vote compared with the most recent midterm elections. Yet, Black and brown voters persist. However, as the new administration prepares to reenter the White House for a second term, anti-democratic forces are, once more, being given an opportunity to radically dismantle and change election administration in our country.
And Project 2025 is their blueprint to do just that.
Project 2025 is the extremist playbook laying out the tactics to dismantle critical democratic infrastructures and rights, including the right to vote. Among its multi-pronged approach to accomplish this, Project 2025 would criminalize the voting process, shifting the responsibility for prosecuting election-related offenses from the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division. This move would allow for ill-intentioned individuals and leaders to intimidate state and local election workers, and cobble up sham investigations that could lead to the prosecution of voters and election officials.
Policing voters to this magnitude would transform our elections into a system of fear and oppression, severely weakening our country’s electoral integrity.
Yet, that’s not all.
Speaking of lowered electoral integrity, another key provision of Project 2025 would end all federal-level measures to combat misinformation and disinformation campaigns online. These toxic narratives, meant to discourage voter participation, are already widespread and known to target Black and Latino communities disproportionately. By choosing to abandon any federal responsibility to protect these groups from falsehoods, extremists are choosing to make the truth an option rather than a right in election cycles so the outcomes can favor their camp.
Lastly, and perhaps most insidiously, Project 2025 would allow the federal government to access voter rolls by creating stipulations of eligibility that would force state and local recipients of Department of Homeland Security funding to turn over DMV and voter registration databases. This tactic would open the door to justifying aggressive voter roll purges that would further target Black and brown communities. Furthermore, based on the Supreme Court’s increasingly conservative and extreme ideology, we cannot rely on the court to hold the line and protect voters from such an egregious move.
In addition to federal rollbacks, we can also anticipate a flood of anti-voter bills to be introduced as soon as legislative cycles commence. Fueled by misinformation and this recent electoral win, these bills will more than likely work to chip away at voter access among the youth, people of color, those in rural areas, and those living with disabilities. These bills, like Project 2025 itself, aim to limit who can cast a ballot to dictate who has a say in the future of this country.
Both State Voices and Common Cause are proud members of the Election Protection Coalition, a national coalition working year-round to ensure that all voters, regardless of their race, sex, and location, have an equal opportunity to vote and their ballots are counted. Our coalition is made up of more than 300 local, state, and national groups united under one profound belief: Democracy requires constant, committed protection. We understand that our democratic systems do not come under attack every four years, but every day there’s an opportunity to weaken them.
Now, with Project 2025, we have an opportunity to not only identify the threats but begin to mobilize against them. It is imperative that we remain vigilant in our fight against anti-voter legislation and work together to combat any proposed administrative changes designed to undermine how elections are conducted and how votes are certified.
The fight for voting rights is one of the greatest litmus tests for the health of U.S. democracy. We are only as strong as our willingness to protect the rights of all people and not just a few. This moment calls us to action—we cannot afford paralysis in any shape or form. We are called to stand on the shoulders of the activists who came before us so that the elections of the future remain fair and free. We know that Black and brown communities will, once again, lead the charge to protect this precious right, but the moment will call for all of us to do our part to push back against anti-democratic extremism. The future and everything we hold dear depends on it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular