 |
|  |
|
The fragmentation of MAGA and the crisis of Trumpism Next, we analyze the main tensions and disputes within MAGA from different perspectives: US foreign policy and the limits of interventionism, the different positions on Israel, the contradictions between anti-elitist discourse and the economic interests that run through the coalition, and the dispute over the leadership and future of the movement after Trump. America First? and the Iran War Trump built part of his political identity by denouncing Washington's military interventions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending, and the failure of previous administrations to translate American international superiority into improvements for the population were central elements of his criticism of the establishment. However, this isolationism never signified a renunciation of US imperialism. Trump questions certain forms of intervention, but not the right that Washington claims to define the order of its strategic environment, impose conditions on other states, and use its economic and military superiority to defend its interests. Trumpism has resulted in a reaffirmation of both the Monroe Doctrine, which defends the United States' "right" to take control of Latin America (now cynically renamed the " Donroe Doctrine "), and "American exceptionalism" and "manifest destiny," political and religious concepts that proclaim that this nation is divinely legitimized to exercise predominant power over other territories and peoples. These concepts have also contributed to constructing a claim of superiority and national mission that has justified its imperialist policies and the defense of US hegemony's declining global standing. However, this policy of aggressive imperialism (which coincides with the moment of its historical decline) has sought to maintain a rhetoric of "taking care of home first," and of withdrawing territorially to its neighboring region, thus attempting to confront the policy of the so-called "hawks" of both the Republican and Democratic parties, who led to endless wars far from home. The war against Iran brought this tension to the forefront. If the priority is American workers, what concrete benefits do they gain from a conflict that consumes resources, increases international uncertainty, and impacts energy prices? Why would an administration that promised to end endless wars once again engage in an intervention of uncertain duration? Furthermore, it must be considered that, unlike the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, which were preceded by the events of 9/11 and widespread campaigns seeking to legitimize intervention, the war against Iran (a much more powerful opponent, on the other hand) was not previously legitimized to that extent (although there was agitation about a supposed Iranian nuclear threat and criticism of the Ayatollahs' autocracy). This has led, from very early on, to majority public opinion in the United States, and even more so among its European allies, questioning the motives and legitimacy of this intervention. The limit Trump encounters is that he seeks to preserve the benefits of challenged and declining US hegemony without indefinitely bearing all its costs. This does not mean that the United States has ceased to be a dominant power, but rather that it faces increasing difficulties in translating its economic, military, and technological superiority into a stable international order, accepted by its allies and sustainable for its own society. Growing competition among powers, the structural economic problems of US imperialism such as its mounting debt burden, the limits of military interventions, and the domestic cost of maintaining US primacy fuel a debate that cuts across the right: how to sustain primacy and face growing competition from China (given that China has become the primary trading partner of its former allies) at a lower cost. Latin America occupies a central place in this strategic reorientation. Faced with challenges to its global hegemony and growing competition among powers, Washington seeks to reinforce its control over the Western Hemisphere and limit the autonomy of the region's governments. The Donroe Doctrine expresses this intention to reaffirm Latin America as an area of exclusive US intervention, where it seeks to prioritize its economic interests and access to strategic resources, as well as prevent its competitors from expanding their presence through electoral interference, threats from ambassadors against local politicians, journalists, and businesspeople, openly expressing neocolonial subjugation and dependency. The financial support for Javier Milei's Argentine government before the 2025 elections and the military operation in Venezuela on January 3, 2026, which culminated in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his forced transfer to the United States, demonstrate two forms of intervention in Latin America. The first involves interference in the region's electoral processes, as in Colombia and Brazil , which in some cases includes conditional economic support for allied governments, as happened in Argentina. The second is direct military intervention against governments considered adversaries, as in Venezuela. And while it has not made significant progress in this area, it has been planning a much larger offensive against Cuba. In this sense, America First does not mean abandoning interventionism, but rather concentrating efforts in its "backyard," which Washington considers essential to maintaining its power. The paradox is that, while Trump questions costly military commitments in other regions, he reaffirms the United States' right to intervene in Latin America and to condition the sovereign decisions of its countries. Discussions and differences regarding US foreign policy are one of the points of contention within MAGA, but not the only one. Christian Zionism and anti-Semitic Catholics: MAGA's different views on Israel One of the major fractures within MAGA was exposed by the US-Israeli war against Iran. The conflict reignited a dispute that runs through the American right: To what extent should Washington's foreign policy be subordinated to the defense of Israel? For some, the relationship with the Israeli state constitutes a fundamental strategic alliance; for others, the war contradicts the America First slogan by committing US resources to a conflict they consider extraneous to national priorities. The discussion does not simply pit supporters and detractors of Israel against each other: it expresses differences regarding the interests the United States should prioritize, the scope of its military intervention, and the role it should play in the Middle East. One of the most important political bases for support for Israel lies in what is known as Christian Zionism, a current with a strong presence in sectors of evangelical conservatism. Its support is not solely based on geopolitical considerations. It is also grounded in an interpretation of the Bible according to which the Jewish people maintain a special bond with God, and the State of Israel occupies a place in His promises. Christians United for Israel (CUFI), one of the main organizations within this movement, maintains that supporting Israel is an obligation derived from the Bible. For these groups, defending Israel is not only a foreign policy decision but also an expression of religious fidelity. This religious conviction is articulated with a conservative conception of the social order and with a defense of American international leadership. Israel appears as an ally of the West against enemies identified with political Islam, terrorism, and Washington's adversaries. This support is also organized through networks of political influence. One of the most influential organizations, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), is a US organization that promotes the strengthening of the alliance between the United States and Israel , lobbies for military and diplomatic assistance, and participates in the electoral contest by supporting candidates favorable to that relationship. The war against Iran transformed these differences surrounding Israel and Zionism into an open confrontation between right-wing figures. Thus, while renowned conservative journalist Tucker Carlson, who had strongly supported Trump during the campaign, criticized the military intervention and questioned the United States' willingness to bear the costs of a war closely tied to the objectives of the Israeli government, on the opposite side, Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin defended a much more belligerent policy and unwavering support for Israel. The dispute spilled over into conservative media and took on a personal tone, revealing that support for Trump does not guarantee agreement on how American power should be exercised abroad. This occurred against the backdrop of the stalled war in Iran, with no swift and successful intervention, which has driven up international oil prices and contributed to Trump's electoral decline. On the other hand, we find Nick Fuentes, an activist from the far-right white nationalist movement, who combines rejection of US support for Israel with explicit antisemitism. His position should not be confused with criticism of Israeli policy or questioning of a military alliance: Fuentes turns "the Jews" into a collective enemy and resorts to antisemitic prejudices to explain US policy. The distinction is important because within the right wing there coexist both unconditional defenders of Israel and currents that reject this alliance from nationalist and antisemitic positions. Both may share a rejection of progressivism and liberal elites, but they disagree on who represents the nation, what interests the United States should defend, and how to interpret its relationship with Israel. The dispute, therefore, is not simply a matter of a religious right versus a secular right. It pits different ways of defining American nationalism and its relationship to global power against each other. For Christian Zionists and conservatives most committed to Israel, maintaining that alliance is part of defending the West. For nationalists who question foreign interventions, military commitment to Israel can represent an abandonment of national priorities. For anti-Semites, including radical Catholics, on the other hand, the conflict is interpreted through conspiracy theories that attribute collective responsibility to Jews for the decisions of the state and Washington. These positions can coexist temporarily within an electoral coalition, but the war against Iran and the failure to impose their political will have made it more difficult to maintain them under a single political orientation. The culture war allows us to understand another aspect of this coexistence. Although profound differences exist regarding Israel and foreign policy, various sectors of MAGA find common ground in their opposition to feminism, LGBT+ rights, diversity policies, and what they present as a progressive (“ woke ”) imposition on society. These campaigns defend a hierarchical conception of family, religion, and national identity, and allow them to unite groups that do not necessarily share the same international strategy. The “culture war” against the left does not eliminate differences within the right; it offers a common cause around which to mobilize part of its base. In its most radical expressions, this defense of traditional hierarchies even extends to historically won political rights. For example, within sectors of the new American right, the proposal known as One Family, One Vote has begun to gain traction . This proposal aims to replace individual suffrage with a single family vote, generally cast by the male head of the household. The idea has circulated among influencers and Christian nationalist figures, although it does not yet constitute a legislative reform with any real chance of passing. Its political significance lies in the fact that it reopens the debate on women's electoral autonomy and presents the subordination of their decisions to male authority as a way to restore the family order. However, reducing the culture war to a mere maneuver to distract the population from its economic problems would be insufficient. The affordability crisis, the cost of housing and healthcare, wages, and working conditions constitute material problems that permeate American society and generate diverse political responses. The right attempts to channel some of this discontent into conflicts over identity, family, and customs; but this discontent can also give rise to forms of collective organization that challenge corporate power. Union campaigns and workers' struggles demonstrate that the response to economic insecurity is not limited to cultural confrontation. Against the elites or as part of them? The Jeffrey Epstein scandal opened another front in the credibility of a movement that had presented itself as a rebellion against corrupt elites. For years, a segment of the conspiracy theory surrounding Trump maintained that American political, economic, and cultural institutions protected power networks that operated above the law. The QAnon movement was one of its main expressions, a movement that claimed George Soros and other Democratic Party financiers were behind a vast child trafficking ring. The promise to expose this corruption became a key component of its political identity. The Epstein case, with its connections to powerful individuals, Trump's undeniable involvement in the scandal, and questions about the transparency of the investigation, acquired special significance within this narrative. The problem for Trump arose when the demand for transparency began to turn against his own administration. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of the figures most closely associated with Trumpism, clashed with the president over the release of documents linked to Epstein. The dispute escalated until Trump called her a traitor and withdrew his political support. Greene maintained that she had defended the victims against attempts to limit the disclosure of information. The clash over the Epstein documents shows that loyalty to Trump does not eliminate tensions within his own coalition. But the crisis also raises a longer-term political question: who will be able to hold that alliance together when Trump leaves the presidency? The succession dispute is not simply a competition between leaders; it also involves differing approaches to organizing American power and what foreign policy priorities should be. JD Vance and Marco Rubio: the dispute over the future of the movement The constitutional impossibility of Donald Trump being re-elected president in 2028 has opened a succession battle within the Republican Party and, especially, within the MAGA movement. In this contest, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio appear to be two of the figures with the best chances of inheriting Trump's leadership. Vance is a Republican politician who became Vice President after serving as a senator from Ohio. A former military officer and author of the book *Hillbilly Elegy* , in which he portrays his life experience through a meritocratic lens, he built his political profile by denouncing the consequences of deindustrialization and the neglect of sectors of the American working class. His discourse combines economic nationalism, social conservatism, and criticism of prolonged military interventions. Within MAGA, he particularly represents a current that believes the United States should concentrate its resources on economic competition, industrial reconstruction, and the defense of its strategic interests, avoiding involvement in wars that do not bring direct benefits to the country. For his part, Marco Rubio represents another tradition within the Republican Party. The son of Cuban immigrants, he was a senator from Florida and built his career advocating an aggressive foreign policy toward governments considered adversaries of Washington, with particular attention to Latin America. As Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to Trump, he expresses a more favorable orientation toward the use of the tools that U.S. imperialism can deploy: military power, the maintenance of strategic alliances, and a firm defense of Israel. He was a key member of the faction that sought direct intervention in Venezuela and maintains ties with right-wing leaders in Latin America; at the same time, he is part of the faction that has increased pressure on Cuba. The differences between Vance and Rubio show that the dispute over the future of MAGA involves distinct strategies for maintaining the United States' international standing. But this discussion also has an economic dimension: which sectors should benefit from state intervention, what role should domestic industry play, and what relationship should be established between political power and large corporations. The opposition between "globalists" and "anti-globalists" reveals another contradiction within the coalition. The contradictions within MAGA and how we defeated the far right Trump turned criticism of globalism into a political rallying cry. He attacked institutions like the UN and the WTO, but also free trade and multiculturalism. He denounced industrial relocation, trade deficits, and the loss of manufacturing jobs. His proposed tariffs aimed to strengthen certain productive sectors and use the US market as leverage against other countries. The alliance with major technology companies represents a stark contradiction. MAGA presented itself as a rebellion against the “globalist elites,” but it incorporated magnates and business leaders like Elon Musk (not without internal conflict), who seek to expand their influence over public policy. The dispute between Steve Bannon and Elon Musk, along with sectors of Silicon Valley, reveals two distinct orientations within the right wing. Bannon challenges the power of large technology corporations and denounces the influence of economic elites on the movement. "Technocapitalist" sectors, on the other hand, seek a state capable of fostering innovation, reducing regulatory obstacles, and strengthening American technological and military capabilities. The anti-globalist far right does not represent an alternative to neoliberalism ; rather, it seeks a reorganization based on new nationalist and hierarchical criteria between states and, within each state, between employers and workers. The war with Iran particularly exposed the limitations of Trump's project to renew US imperialism. However, this fact does not make MAGA any less dangerous, as we can see from its offensive in Latin America and the possibility of a new escalation in the Middle East. The contradictions within the far right demonstrate that it is not a homogeneous sector, and its disputes and crises can escalate if its plans become complicated, if the economic situation worsens, or if external pressures from actors such as Israel, but also Ukraine, Russia, China, or the European Union come into play. These contradictions also represent a growing inability of these reactionary positions to gain traction with the population, generating strong rejection of their warmongering, militaristic policies and their curtailment of democratic freedoms. Examples of these struggles include the uprisings against ICE in Minneapolis, the demonstrations by Latino migrants in New York, and the "No Kings" protests that have swept across the United States recently. The November midterm elections, where all indications point to a Republican loss, may express a rejection of Trumpism. However, to truly defeat MAGA and what it represents, a movement must be built that directly opposes it, from the working class and with no willingness to compromise with economic power. A socialist and revolutionary movement is needed both within the US and internationally to bury imperialism and its most reactionary facets, such as Trumpism, once and for all. https://www.laizquierdadiario.com/La-fragmentacion-del-MAGA-y-la-crisis-del-trumpismo? Back |
|
||||||
Thanks for visting the G20 From Below Website. If you want something published here or other enquiries mailto:Brics-from-below@protonmail.com
|
|||||||
