This explains Trumpism and MAGA

[bird]

I found this on DemocraticUnderground. It is a bit of a long read but well worth it because it comes closest, imo, of explaining Trump, Trumpism and MAGA.

The Agonizing Work of Art That Helps Explain Trump’s America - WhoWhatWhy

What can “Adolescence” tell us about our country?

whowhatwhy.org

We are swimming in a sea of deliberate cruelty. Everything done by Trump and MAGA is based upon cruelty. It has been said that cruelty is the point. What the link does is, imo, critical. It points to the one question that must be answered. That question is WHY.

 

[Dragon]

Lately, I find myself musing over how we became so divided—and why strongmen have suddenly become not just tolerated, but celebrated by so many. Figures like Trump, Poilievre, and others on the far right seem to offer a kind of certainty, a strict set of rules that simplify the chaos, even if those rules end up harming the very people who follow them.


What’s strange is that I don’t think there’s one clear answer to how we got here. It feels like a convergence of many things. Humans are social creatures, and the isolation during COVID fractured something essential in our shared fabric. But even before that, something was already shifting. Traditional family structures were evolving, roles were becoming less defined, and for some, that felt deeply destabilizing—like the old rulebook had been tossed out and no one handed them a new one.


In that vacuum, authoritarian voices like Trump offer an appealing clarity: "Here are the rules. Follow them and you’ll be safe." It’s seductive, especially when people feel adrift. But the irony is that this kind of control often strips away personal freedom and stifles growth.


Still, despite the rise of these strongmen, I’m heartened by the growing opposition. More and more people are waking up, questioning the narratives, organizing, and pushing back. That gives me hope—that maybe we’re at the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, more compassionate and inclusive one.

 

[bird]

Lately, I find myself musing over how we became so divided—and why strongmen have suddenly become not just tolerated, but celebrated by so many. Figures like Trump, Poilievre, and others on the far right seem to offer a kind of certainty, a strict set of rules that simplify the chaos, even if those rules end up harming the very people who follow them.


What’s strange is that I don’t think there’s one clear answer to how we got here. It feels like a convergence of many things. Humans are social creatures, and the isolation during COVID fractured something essential in our shared fabric. But even before that, something was already shifting. Traditional family structures were evolving, roles were becoming less defined, and for some, that felt deeply destabilizing—like the old rulebook had been tossed out and no one handed them a new one.


In that vacuum, authoritarian voices like Trump offer an appealing clarity: "Here are the rules. Follow them and you’ll be safe." It’s seductive, especially when people feel adrift. But the irony is that this kind of control often strips away personal freedom and stifles growth.


Still, despite the rise of these strongmen, I’m heartened by the growing opposition. More and more people are waking up, questioning the narratives, organizing, and pushing back. That gives me hope—that maybe we’re at the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, more compassionate and inclusive one.

The opposition is growing but so is the extreme right.

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/25/nx-s1-5371718/pronatalist-birth-rate-musk-natal-conference

I have little faith which, perhaps, is my problem. Democracy is sliding because charlatans offer simplistic, emotionally centered agitprop. Racism as the link mentions is being used as a virtue. I fear that the U.S. is at a point that the 2026 elections and the 2028 elections, should they actually happen, will become a referendum on democracy.

I find it interesting that social issues have been disparaged by the right while the right focuses on them via radicalized religionist and misogynistic “influencers”.

All politics is identity. All politics is social issues. Political economy is social by its very nature and definition. Until the left actually understands this in their bones and develops responses that are directly, intellectually, and emotionally coordinated in such a way as to destroy the right I think things are likely to get worse.

And they may not get better. The U.S. is on the verge of becoming a backwater. The West is too. The rise of extremist eugenics which is basically what the right has become will destroy humanity.

 

[Dragon]

The opposition is growing but so is the extreme right.

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/25/nx-s1-5371718/pronatalist-birth-rate-musk-natal-conference

I have little faith which, perhaps, is my problem. Democracy is sliding because charlatans offer simplistic, emotionally centered agitprop. Racism as the link mentions is being used as a virtue. I fear that the U.S. is at a point that the 2026 elections and the 2028 elections, should they actually happen, will become a referendum on democracy.

I find it interesting that social issues have been disparaged by the right while the right focuses on them via radicalized religionist and misogynistic “influencers”.

All politics is identity. All politics is social issues. Political economy is social by its very nature and definition. Until the left actually understands this in their bones and develops responses that are directly, intellectually, and emotionally coordinated in such a way as to destroy the right I think things are likely to get worse.

And they may not get better. The U.S. is on the verge of becoming a backwater. The West is too. The rise of extremist eugenics which is basically what the right has become will destroy humanity.

Pro-natalism is often a hallmark of authoritarian regimes—just look at the rhetoric coming out of the U.S., Russia, or China. It’s rooted in control: of bodies, of family structures, of futures. In contrast, much of Europe has moved beyond rigid gender roles, and policies like paid paternity leave have played a huge part in that evolution.

I've seen it firsthand. Several of my male colleagues took paternity leave and came back fundamentally changed. Not just as parents, but as people. Once they've experienced that kind of deep involvement in their children’s early lives, they never want to miss it again. It shifts how they see parenting, partnership, and the outdated norms they may have grown up with.

One of the most striking examples was a male project manager I worked with. After his first paternity leave, he started posting pictures of himself baking rolls with his kids on our company’s internal social channel. And he wasn’t alone—suddenly, the image of fatherhood became more visible, more hands-on, more human. That’s the kind of quiet revolution policy can spark—one that authoritarian systems fear, because it empowers individuals to redefine what strength, care, and masculinity look like.

 

[Dragon]

A very good article on Rage and Rage Baiting. I've observed this behaviour more and more often during the last few years - even here at times with some now absent posters.

Usually the main arena where we see rage spill out and spill over is the online world. Poisonous figures in the so-called manosphere, like Andrew Tate, have made their own army, fuelled by misogyny, out of alienated and frustrated young men. Alongside the manosphere, “rage-baiting” has become a dominant feature of online life. A genre of content has emerged inspired by and defined by rage – videos and posts intended to rile up the reader or the viewer, to invoke outrage purely for traffic, engagement, revenue, and attention. Rage-baiting is increasingly a calling card of the online right, who use it to inject irony into statements that would otherwise be blatantly racist, homophobic, transphobic or classist. “You can’t get angry,” this mentality says. “I was only joking. If you get angry, you lose.” The result is that we’re all more guarded and more adversarial, online and off.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ragebait-anger-internet-b2738116.html

 

[bird]

A very good article on Rage and Rage Baiting. I've observed this behaviour more and more often during the last few years - even here at times with some now absent posters.




https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ragebait-anger-internet-b2738116.html

The comments were telling.

Re: the so-called manosphere and a related sort of fellow traveler womanosphere I think exposes something I have thought about and perhaps posted on this board. That is the idea of the evolution of the brain in general but the psyche in particular.

The brain/mind/psyche do not evolve at the same pace nor do they come close to evolving at the pace which technology has grown. Humans respond to external changes differently. The issue of immigration is an example. Homogeneous societies that are seeing immigration by those who look and act differently especially in social customs such as dress will break apart because of a large variance in responses. Some will respond with open acceptance, some with a shoulder shrug, some with discomfort and some with outright anger. The mind may know that immigrants do not pose a threat but the psyche will not. Otherness, imo, comes from the development of self-awareness meaning that once during evolution each human was part of a group, usually familial, and their actions, both good and bad, were seen as normal and a part of the group “animal”. The realization over time of being aware that each human is both unique and forever alone locked in by the fact that it is impossible to know anything about other humans beyond what our senses tell us caused responses to change and other groups to see threats around every corner. That was fine when humans were little more than apes. It is very dangerous now.

Now we have problems that are unsolvable by one person or one group. The need to cooperate has always been there but it was limited to in-group. That is no longer the case. The political economy that humans have created is one that is openly uncooperative. Thus it is unnatural to being human. The key there is complicated versus complex. Complicated is seeing a problem and understand that the problem can be solved by a series of steps, sometimes few, sometimes many, with the end result of the problem being resolved. Complex is entirely different. Complexity reveals results of steps taken may not move toward resolution of the problem. I have thought about a psychological sort of Newtonian law. For every action there is a reaction the direction and magnitude of which cannot be accurately predicted.

More to come later…

 

[Dragon]

The comments were telling.

Re: the so-called manosphere and a related sort of fellow traveler womanosphere I think exposes something I have thought about and perhaps posted on this board. That is the idea of the evolution of the brain in general but the psyche in particular.

The brain/mind/psyche do not evolve at the same pace nor do they come close to evolving at the pace which technology has grown. Humans respond to external changes differently. The issue of immigration is an example. Homogeneous societies that are seeing immigration by those who look and act differently especially in social customs such as dress will break apart because of a large variance in responses. Some will respond with open acceptance, some with a shoulder shrug, some with discomfort and some with outright anger. The mind may know that immigrants do not pose a threat but the psyche will not. Otherness, imo, comes from the development of self-awareness meaning that once during evolution each human was part of a group, usually familial, and their actions, both good and bad, were seen as normal and a part of the group “animal”. The realization over time of being aware that each human is both unique and forever alone locked in by the fact that it is impossible to know anything about other humans beyond what our senses tell us caused responses to change and other groups to see threats around every corner. That was fine when humans were little more than apes. It is very dangerous now.

Now we have problems that are unsolvable by one person or one group. The need to cooperate has always been there but it was limited to in-group. That is no longer the case. The political economy that humans have created is one that is openly uncooperative. Thus it is unnatural to being human. The key there is complicated versus complex. Complicated is seeing a problem and understand that the problem can be solved by a series of steps, sometimes few, sometimes many, with the end result of the problem being resolved. Complex is entirely different. Complexity reveals results of steps taken may not move toward resolution of the problem. I have thought about a psychological sort of Newtonian law. For every action there is a reaction the direction and magnitude of which cannot be accurately predicted.

More to come later…

Good points @bird

I've often wondered why the United States, despite having such a diverse population, seems so vulnerable to deep social fractures.
Perhaps part of the reason is that many Americans have never actually left the country. For many, the only exposure to other cultures comes through interactions with immigrants already living within U.S. borders — experiences that can be limited, fragmented, and shaped by stereotypes rather than genuine understanding.

In Denmark, we tend to be more open and accepting toward people from different backgrounds. But that openness isn’t accidental — it’s a result of constant exposure. Within a day's drive from our borders, you can encounter more than twenty different nations. Diversity isn't an abstract idea; it’s part of daily life.

One of the great rites of passage for young Europeans over the last fifty years has been Interrail travel — a simple, affordable train pass that lets you explore Europe for a month. Rail travel forces you into real interactions: you're often seated in groups of four or six, sharing a small space for ten hours or more. Conversations happen naturally. Meals are shared. Friendships are formed.

I’ve shared a box of Bosch chocolates with a group of Georgians (from the nation, not the U.S. state) on a slow train between Belgrade and Vienna. I learned the art of viniculture from a Hungarian farmer I met walking a dusty road to a lakeside campsite near Lake Balaton.
Those moments didn't just teach me facts about different places — they made the people real to me.

When you meet people face-to-face — when you hear their stories, laugh over bad coffee, share a meal, or sit quietly watching the countryside roll by — it becomes almost impossible to reduce them to an enemy or a stereotype.

Travel like that doesn’t just expand your world.
It roots a kind of empathy that fear and division can never easily erase.
And when that everyday connection to other human lives is missing, it’s not surprising that suspicion, fear, and division can take hold so easily.

 

[zztop]

How Texas Republicans Turned on George W. Bush

The man who delivered Texas to the GOP is now one of its chief targets.

www.texasmonthly.com

When it was reported on April 15 that Bush had donated $5,000 to Cornyn’s campaign, the signal fires went up through the right-wing movement. (Even though it was a minor sum from a private citizen in a very expensive race—pro-Cornyn organizations, along with his campaign, spent $17 million in the first quarter of 2026.) “[The] old guard is all over Texas trying to claw back control and push out America First candidates,” wrote Kambree Nelson, a pro-Paxton influencer. “Bring it.” Another MAGA influencer posted a picture of an aged Bush and wrote that “voting for this RINO twice and defending him for 10 years after he left office was the worst political decision I’ve ever made.”

 

[bird]

How Texas Republicans Turned on George W. Bush

The man who delivered Texas to the GOP is now one of its chief targets.

www.texasmonthly.com

When it was reported on April 15 that Bush had donated $5,000 to Cornyn’s campaign, the signal fires went up through the right-wing movement. (Even though it was a minor sum from a private citizen in a very expensive race—pro-Cornyn organizations, along with his campaign, spent $17 million in the first quarter of 2026.) “[The] old guard is all over Texas trying to claw back control and push out America First candidates,” wrote Kambree Nelson, a pro-Paxton influencer. “Bring it.” Another MAGA influencer posted a picture of an aged Bush and wrote that “voting for this RINO twice and defending him for 10 years after he left office was the worst political decision I’ve ever made.”

Note to Kambree Nelson

The worst political decision you ever made was voting for any Republican in general.

 

[Bayouboy]

I was a lifelong Republican until 2016. But, truth be told, George W Bush sent my pendulum swinging to the left. The road to war in Iraq was one of the biggest blunders of our 250 year history......and I'm not saying that for emphasis. It was as bad as Vietnam. Not in American lives, but overall dumb decisions. We still haven't recovered.

 

[bird]

I was a lifelong Republican until 2016. But, truth be told, George W Bush sent my pendulum swinging to the left. The road to war in Iraq was one of the biggest blunders of our 250 year history......and I'm not saying that for emphasis. It was as bad as Vietnam. Not in American lives, but overall dumb decisions. We still haven't recovered.

No argument. In point of opinion, the world hasn’t recovered from WW1.

 

[Taurus]

I was a lifelong Republican until 2016. But, truth be told, George W Bush sent my pendulum swinging to the left. The road to war in Iraq was one of the biggest blunders of our 250 year history......and I'm not saying that for emphasis. It was as bad as Vietnam. Not in American lives, but overall dumb decisions. We still haven't recovered.

A lot of people forget or gloss over the utter dumpster fire Chimpy's Presidency was prior to 9/11.

Enron, WorldCom, corruption, racism and rolling blackouts, anyone?

 

[Taurus]

What the DNC, the RNC and all the Powers That Be refused to reckon with and to this day refuse to fully admit is that they utterly failed the middle class for two straight decades.

They all decry the "shrinking middle class" even as they enact policies to crush us even further. As a result, by 2016 a huge proportion of people we completely fed up. Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party actually had very similar grievances. Nobody went to jail for the Great Recession, even though it was largely caused by bankers just completely abandoning all pretext at being fiscally responsible. Robo-signing was illegal, as far as I know, it still is. Thousands of underwriters used the tactic and yet none faced the consequences.
Trillions of dollars went up in smoke and the guys with the matches got off Scott-free. This infuriated people on both sides of the spectrum. It's why the harder the RNC railed against TACO, the better he did. They kept up their corporate-whoredom and now there is no RNC, they don't even have a platform. It's the TACO Party and anyone who says different is deluding themselves.
Dear "Moderate Republicans" who still call themselves Republicans: Come back to us when your alleged "party" has a platform. Until then, you're TACO's birches, all of you, because that's the only direction you have. There's no countercurrent, just obsequious bootlicking. The anger of the Tea Party became MAGA and defeated you. They erased you. The only way to redeem yourselves and build a sane GOP is to vote Democrat until MAGA is gone.
Lest one think I'm ignoring the logs in the eyes of Democrats, check out all those graphs showing the enshirttification of America. Those trends are the responsibility of both parties. They both have made it crystal clear they work for the rich.
TACO is the fruit of corporate lackeyism since Reagan.

 

[SystemShock]

I found this on DemocraticUnderground. It is a bit of a long read but well worth it because it comes closest, imo, of explaining Trump, Trumpism and MAGA.

The Agonizing Work of Art That Helps Explain Trump’s America - WhoWhatWhy

What can “Adolescence” tell us about our country?

whowhatwhy.org

We are swimming in a sea of deliberate cruelty. Everything done by Trump and MAGA is based upon cruelty. It has been said that cruelty is the point. What the link does is, imo, critical. It points to the one question that must be answered. That question is WHY.

I don't think it explains it, even shows a misunderstanding of many key issues, as evidenced by this claim:
They wanted a Trump to destroy the nation. They hoped he would destroy the nation both by sowing chaos and discord and by supervising a demolition of our institutions and values.

That's not what MAGA or the people who voted for Trump seek (and that people don't see that distinction should tell you something). In your ideology, they want to destroy, in theirs, they want to correct, rebuild, or simply "get theirs".

The "why" is all around you, and the answer is not a single "because"; it's just that many don't want to see these answers, or immediately dismissed them and label them as some phobia or some nefarious intent. That's not to say that there aren't bad actors that have nefarious intent, but right now most here are reading that as me claimingthere is nefarious intent in MAGA.

As for the manosphere, since the article references a tv series from the U.K., here's a piece from someone from the U.K., Stephen Woolford, that I think presents a good overview of what this manosphere is and what brought it about. It's got a 5 minute pitch for Ground News, but you can fast forward pass that.

 

[Dragon]

I don't think it explains it, even shows a misunderstanding of many key issues, as evidenced by this claim:
They wanted a Trump to destroy the nation. They hoped he would destroy the nation both by sowing chaos and discord and by supervising a demolition of our institutions and values.

That's not what MAGA or the people who voted for Trump seek (and that people don't see that distinction should tell you something). In your ideology, they want to destroy, in theirs, they want to correct, rebuild, or simply "get theirs".

The "why" is all around you, and the answer is not a single "because"; it's just that many don't want to see these answers, or immediately dismissed them and label them as some phobia or some nefarious intent. That's not to say that there aren't bad actors that have nefarious intent, but right now most here are reading that as me claimingthere is nefarious intent in MAGA.

As for the manosphere, since the article references a tv series from the U.K., here's a piece from someone from the U.K., Stephen Woolford, that I think presents a good overview of what this manosphere is and what brought it about. It's got a 5 minute pitch for Ground News, but you can fast forward pass that.

Simple question: where are the fathers? Fathers, older brothers, and uncles have traditionally been the primary role models for young men. They helped define what it meant to grow up, take responsibility, and find a place in society. That structure is much weaker today—and it matters.

I’ve spent 15 years working as a community manager in a large online game, interacting daily with young men. I’ve seen the loneliness firsthand. On two occasions, I had to intervene when young men threatened self-harm late at night and contact the police to help them. I’ve never had to do that for older men or for women.

That doesn’t mean men are “worse”—it means they’re often more isolated and less likely to seek help. Women, generally, are better at reaching out. Many young men instead turn inward or toward online spaces that try to define what a “real man” should be. What’s often labeled as “toxicity” is, in many cases, young men trying to fit into an outdated mold of masculinity in a world that has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. The problem is not just the behavior—it’s the lack of a clear, modern alternative.

So the real question isn’t just why they are drawn to these movements, but:
how do we redefine what a “real man” is in a way that actually works today?

There are some interesting attempts at structural solutions. For example, in parts of Denmark, schools have experimented with letting boys start a year later than girls, recognizing developmental differences. Early results suggest this can help create a more balanced learning environment and improve outcomes for boys.

I don't think that would work in the US however. The male rolemodel there is way more conservative and much more similar to what we had about 30 years ago. Letting boys start school later will clash with the male "superiority" idea prominent in many places in the US

 

[Bayouboy]

Scott Galloway has been on the "young men in crisis" theme for a while now. There are no easy answers......especially in today's society and our hyper dependance on our smartphones. I'm glad I grew up in the 80's!

 

[SystemShock]

Simple question: where are the fathers? Fathers, older brothers, and uncles have traditionally been the primary role models for young men. They helped define what it meant to grow up, take responsibility, and find a place in society. That structure is much weaker today—and it matters.

I’ve spent 15 years working as a community manager in a large online game, interacting daily with young men. I’ve seen the loneliness firsthand. On two occasions, I had to intervene when young men threatened self-harm late at night and contact the police to help them. I’ve never had to do that for older men or for women.

That doesn’t mean men are “worse”—it means they’re often more isolated and less likely to seek help. Women, generally, are better at reaching out. Many young men instead turn inward or toward online spaces that try to define what a “real man” should be. What’s often labeled as “toxicity” is, in many cases, young men trying to fit into an outdated mold of masculinity in a world that has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. The problem is not just the behavior—it’s the lack of a clear, modern alternative.

So the real question isn’t just why they are drawn to these movements, but:
how do we redefine what a “real man” is in a way that actually works today?

There are some interesting attempts at structural solutions. For example, in parts of Denmark, schools have experimented with letting boys start a year later than girls, recognizing developmental differences. Early results suggest this can help create a more balanced learning environment and improve outcomes for boys.

I don't think that would work in the US however. The male rolemodel there is way more conservative and much more similar to what we had about 30 years ago. Letting boys start school later will clash with the male "superiority" idea prominent in many places in the US

Out of curiosity, which game is that? You don't have to tell me the game's name, just the genre.

Now, if the real question is, how do we redefine what a "real man" is, it begs another question, who's "we"? Who gets to redefine it? Specially nowadays that there's disagreement of what a "man" is. And speaking of... out of curiosity again, in that experimentation in Denmark, what happens to transgender kids?

To me, it is not a question of redefining what a "real man" is. You can't define what a "real man" is anymore than you can define what a "real woman" is (who would you like to define what a "real woman" is?).

As for where the fathers are, to me, that's a cope out. There are plenty of men who grew up with absentee fathers, and they are doing just fine, like the guy who made the video I posted, or myself.

 

[Dragon]

Out of curiosity, which game is that? You don't have to tell me the game's name, just the genre.

Now, if the real question is, how do we redefine what a "real man" is, it begs another question, who's "we"? Who gets to redefine it? Specially nowadays that there's disagreement of what a "man" is. And speaking of... out of curiosity again, in that experimentation in Denmark, what happens to transgender kids?

To me, it is not a question of redefining what a "real man" is. You can't define what a "real man" is anymore than you can define what a "real woman" is (who would you like to define what a "real woman" is?).

As for where the fathers are, to me, that's a cope out. There are plenty of men who grew up with absentee fathers, and they are doing just fine, like the guy who made the video I posted, or myself.

No—absent father figures are anything but a cop-out. Of course, some men grow up without fathers and do just fine—but others do not! . But that doesn’t really address the broader pattern. When a consistent male role model is missing, a lot of boys still have to figure out what being a man means somewhere else.

Today, that “somewhere else” is often online—and the quality of those role models varies a lot. That’s also why I think the question about a “real man” matters. Not because someone gets to officially define it, but because in practice, it is being defined—by social media, peer groups, and online communities. If the loudest voices say that being a man means suppressing emotions or dominating others, then that’s what some boys will internalize. And that has real consequences in how they relate to others and to themselves.

On your point about “who is we”: I don’t mean some authority deciding it. I mean that as a society—parents, schools, communities—we either take part in providing healthier role models, or we leave that space to whoever fills it.

On the school example: that’s about developmental timing, not identity. The idea is simply that boys, on average, mature a bit later, and adjusting for that can improve how they experience school early on. It’s a practical approach, not a statement about what a boy or a man “is.”

And regarding the game: it was a large international city-building strategy game with strong social structures—guilds.

Those groups often became tight-knit communities over time. People would play together for years, support each other, and step in when someone was struggling. I’ve seen situations where someone showed clear signs of distress, and others reacted immediately and helped escalate it to real-world support.

That’s really where my perspective comes from—seeing both the positive side of those communities, and the cases where young men were clearly lacking support elsewhere.