Ep 320 Trump, MAGA, and Fundamental Change

Task two do so in a way that persists to fight for further gains after Trump is gone and MAGA is defanged . How do we stop Trump and MAGA ? The way you impact , the way we impact government policies , government agendas and , for that matter , all elite agendas , is by raising social costs that they don't want to bear . What does that mean ?

It means they confront a situation in which they have an agenda they want to pursue , they have a policy they want to implement , but there's a cost to doing so , and the cost is something that they care about enough to decide . Well , on balance , we shouldn't do this . So what raises social cost in that kind of way ?

It isn't a movement or an opposition that isn't growing . A movement or opposition that isn't growing just doesn't have a threat . It's not going somewhere , it is not increasing . What raises costs is threats , the threat of an ongoing escalation , an ongoing development of opposition , if the policy or agenda is pursued .

So to raise the social costs for somebody like Trump , as compared to , say , the rest of the government , is sort of difficult , because he doesn't give a shit about anything except his own well-being .

And therefore the way you raise the social costs for Trump is by creating a situation in which he believes pursuing his policy or his agenda item , or whatever it may be , is going to cost him personally more than he gains , than he benefits by implementing it .

What affects that most of all , I think , is the unity , size and commitment of the opposition and its trajectory .

If we , for example , could unleash a demonstration of 100,000 people simultaneously in New York , washington and San Francisco on the third Tuesday of February , and then on the third Tuesday of March the same thing , and on the third Tuesday of April , the same thing , trump would look at that and say to himself well , this is no big deal , all we have to do is

clean up the area after the demonstration is over . It's not going anyplace , it's not getting bigger , it's not a threat . On the other hand , if you started with 10,000 and then went to 25,000 and then went to 40,000 , now there's a threat . Now there's a threat .

Now it looks like to Trump , because it is a process that is continuing and its future might be too costly for Trump . So he pays attention . Maga is a little different story . I think MAGA , as an entity which is vague , already doesn't have its hands on policy levers , and I'm not sure at all how they would measure costs , so to speak .

So I think stopping MAGA involves reducing their commitment , it involves taking away their members , it involves creating a context in which to be MAGA-like is embarrassing . It conveys and connotes a degree of delusion or hate that people start to not want to be associated with . So how do we do those things ?

Well , it seems to me that fighting Trump is like fighting a war , it's like fighting for affirmative action , it's like fighting against , you know , a horrible policy , and so on . It's all like that , with the slight wrinkle that what you're trying to do is convince this maniac that he himself will suffer . He doesn't care about the country .

I don't think he cares about ideology either . I could be wrong , but I don't think he does . It seems like he cares about being the boss and getting outcomes he wants , precisely because he wants them . And how do we reach MAGA ?

Well , I think that's going to require that we communicate , that we actually reduce their support by communicating with those who support them , support by communicating with those who support them . How do we continue on ?

How do we do those things in such a way that we continue on once the first step is more or less achieved , once Trump is slowed down to a crawl , one hopes , and perhaps even removed , and once MAGA is no longer the tribe that its members want to be in and allegiance is failing , do we just go home ? Is that it ? We've won ?

Well , there's a way of pursuing those ends which has exactly that result . It's a reformist way of pursuing those ends a , whatever it might be , win a higher income level in some union , institute a wealth tax , whatever it might be . We can pursue it in a manner which says , basically , this is our goal , this is what we want . Winning this is great .

Let's win it and celebrate and go home because that's the end . It doesn't have to be said explicitly that way , but that can be the tone , that can be the mindset that develops . And so , upon reaching the end of the campaign , people feel like , well , okay , I did that . Now I'm onto something else of my own .

The other possibility is that our way of fighting against Trump and fighting to weaken MAGA generates desires to win more .

We talk , we conduct ourselves in a fashion which raises consciousness , not just about how bad Trump is or how dangerous MAGA is , but about things we want that go beyond the present , that go beyond getting back to say , for example , business as usual .

Another way that what we do now can enhance the likelihood that we continue on after Trump is stopped and MAGA weakened is that in the process of resisting them , we arrive at shared vision which we are motivated then to continue to seek . We've also fight for those gains in a manner which is non-reformist . What does that mean ?

That means , let's say , we're fighting against deportations , or we're fighting against tariffs , or we're fighting against whatever it is or , for that matter , anything else . We fight in a manner which is designed to create lasting organization , lasting ties . We're trying to create terrain on which we can continue on .

We're trying to increase our desires for more by talking about more . If we're fighting for a higher wage , if we're fighting against tariffs , if we're fighting against repression , whatever it may be , we conduct ourselves and we use language and we talk about what we're doing in a way that means to inspire desires for more . That means to inspire desires for more .

If we're battling for income , say , or a wealth tax , we don't just talk about how bad things are and how the limited inevitably now the limited goal that we have for a higher minimum wage , say , or a wealth tax , makes things better . We do that .

We talk about how bad things are and we talk about how the thing that we're demanding would improve things , but we also talk about what we really want . We also talk about the longer-term desire . We don't really think that a wealth tax that takes a smidgen away from trillionaires is the goal of a good society .

We think it's a step and we talk about what it's a step to . And the same thing for raising , say , the minimum wage or for , in a particular struggle , raising wages per se . Or take up battling for divesting from arms manufacturers .

Okay , we talk about the particular situation at hand , the particular use to which arms are being put , the particular reasons and the horrors that we're opposing when we demand , let's say , that our university or our , whatever it may be , divest from dealing with arms manufacturers . But then we can also talk about ending war .

We can talk about changing international relations . We can talk about broader goals . Same thing for battles to protect immigrants . We're not just talking about , for example , not deporting immigrants . We're talking about changing the way society operates so that being an immigrant doesn't mean getting lower wages , being oppressed even more than everybody else .

It doesn't mean that . It doesn't mean that one is weaker by virtue of having come from elsewhere . So we have additional attributes that we talk about , even as what we're demanding is Trump , stop it . You can't do that , and we're going to block that , and we're going to create sanctuaries and so on . Who does all of this ?

Well , I think the answer to that is obviously people . But which people ? Well , on the one hand , current activists . There are lots and lots and lots of people in the US or we could be talking about any other country really confronting similar dynamics , confronting similar dynamics .

There are lots of people who already are engaged in various sorts of let's call it social activism .

It might be electoral , it might be non-electoral , it might be in a community , it might be for a national organization , it could be all sorts of things , but there's a whole set of people who have a degree of experience with anything from strikes to occupations , to letter writing , to door knocking , to whatever it may be , where they are giving of themselves to

partake of a campaign . The current activists . What are the obstacles to current activists becoming involved in stopping Trump and weakening MAGA in the manner that I'm trying to suggest would be optimal ?

I think the biggest one may be and here I'm largely guessing the biggest one may be a feeling of weakness , a feeling of fear , a feeling that this monster in the White House is going to crack down and it's going to hit me and I have to sort of defend myself .

It's going to hit my organization and we have to defend ourselves and our focus starts to become entirely defensive . What we need is the opposite . What we need is movement , activism , resistance which is taking it to trump , not protecting us from trump . So that's one obstacle .

I'm not saying that it's wrong to be concerned about repression it's not wrong but one has to confront it , not defensively but aggressively , along with aggressively confronting , say , deportations . What about new activists ? That is , I think , a much larger set of people .

Again , I'm largely guessing , but it's my impression that , as January ends , february unfolds , march unfolds , Trump's activities are going to cause a great many people to feel like I want to do something . I want to try and help stop this .

Activists get maybe even less prone to feel that way , because they already have felt that way and they've felt that way in many cases for years and years . And now what they're confronting is a situation that feels daunting , but others are going to be confronting a situation which is calling forth their activist inclinations , arguably for the first time .

That would be , say , voters , people who voted Democrat and people who voted Republican . It would be non-voters or independents . What are the obstacles ? Well , one sort of unusual obstacle in this case and I'm not talking about obstacles , ie they like Trump so much that they're not aroused to a feeling of anger and desire to do something .

Of course , that's an obstacle , but that's not what we're talking about . We're talking about people who are aroused , who are upset , who are angry , who are fearful and who want to do something . So what's the obstacle in that case ? Well , ironically , one obstacle might be they don't know what to do , they don't have experience of this .

They don't know who to contact , how to get in touch with anybody and they may anybody and they may feel like they're not wanted . They may feel like you know the world of activism and their world never the twain shall meet . They may feel that way .

So our task , then , regarding current activists , is to generate a degree of desire , but also confidence , a willingness to stand up and fight With new activists .

It may well be that the task is to facilitate , or a task is to facilitate their becoming involved , which is not so easy if you haven't been involved before , and to facilitate their being welcomed when they do move to become involved , instead of feeling like , you know , not really wanted . How does all that happen ?

Well , I suspect that it involves activists existing activists , leftists , existing activists , leftists thinking carefully about our language , our tactics , our outreach , our ways of onboarding new people , with the priority , with the thought in mind that what we're doing , the way we're talking , the way we're acting , the way we're explicitly outreaching , the way we're taking

people into our organizations , has to be geared to growing . It has to be geared to reaching those who we haven't reached , even those who disagree with us but are inclined to act . In light of all this , suppose we make a demand , we undertake an action or a campaign in pursuit of a demand .

The demand might be Trump stop doing this or that or it might be we want X or Y . How do we evaluate our work ? Maybe we're doing an occupation , maybe we're doing an encampment . Maybe we're doing marches and rallies , maybe we are doing an electoral campaign . How do we evaluate whether or not we're doing a good job ?

It seems to me that the issue is what is our effect ? What is the effect of our campaign or our action on the people involved , on the people who see it and on the people who are neither involved in planning and acting it out or see it ? They also don't see it , but they hear about it . What's our effect on all of those constituencies ? Let's call it ?

Why is that the issue ? Because , again , the issue is are we being born or are we dying ? Are we growing or are we static or even declining ? That's the issue that's going to govern not just our momentum , but whether we appear to be and are a threat . So suppose we schedule to block some event .

There's a talk happening , I don't know , trump's going to Chicago to give a talk or there's a meeting of a government committee and we plan to block something . Or we plan to take over a building , or do an encampment , or have a boycott , or do a march , do an encampment , or have a boycott or do a march , whatever it might be .

It seems to me that there's a tendency to evaluate our efforts on the wrong grounds . If we're trying to block an event , the extent to which we did or did not block the event , that's not the criteria of success . If we're trying to take over a building , the extent to which we did or did not block the event , that's not the criteria of success .

If we're trying to take over a building , the extent to which we did or did not get into the building and hold it is not the criteria of success . To do an encampment , holding the area , conducting ourselves in the area , is not the criteria of success . Same for a boycott , same for a march , whatever it is . Whether we actually did the thing isn't the issue .

It's what was the impact of the thing , what was the effect of the thing on ourselves carrying it out , on those who see it and on those who hear about it ? And are we conducting ourselves in such a way as to maximize those effects ? Enlarging the movement ?

One concept I think that bears upon this whole thing is the idea of organizing as compared to mobilizing . I mean , there's nothing wrong with mobilizing . So , for example , you know if we're going to have a rally at such and such a time and such and such a place and we put out a call .

We're mobilizing people who know , who agree with us to come to the event . We're mobilizing our let's call it current constituency . Organizing is growing the constituency .

Both are important , because you do have to have people at events and you do have to evidence your size , your growing size , or else there's no threat , but organizing is what is essential to growing .

The underlying idea of all this is that it's the trajectory of the movement , not its current immediate situation , that , day after day , at the level of government and also of media and culture and everything else , in the United States and we could be talking about some other countries too I think we are also or I suspect we are also a bit blown away by it .

I suspect that , starting in a few days when Trump is actually in office , starting in a few days when Trump is actually in office , he's going to try and unleash a kind of shock and awe barrage of insanity , of crazy things , which are part , however , of a broad agenda , and the agenda isn't just to institute his policies but it's to reconstruct government so that

he can do whatever he wants . And there's going to be a tendency to put our arms over our heads to ward off the blows . And I'm not saying that that's the wrong thing to do , but I'm saying that unless we start to hit back , it's not going to get us anywhere . And he doesn't give a damn about it , and neither does MAGA .

The only thing that's going to communicate is if we develop a resistance which takes an aggressive stance , which constantly grows , and so , as rambly as this has been , and so as rambly as this has been , I guess that's my message for this episode . And that said , this is Mike Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z .