The report of MAGA’s fracture may be greatly exaggerated …
… and although the cracks are not imaginary, we don’t know if they’re deep fissures or only surface flaws.
In this Tablet article, Michael Doran seems to think they’re deep and probably fatal to MAGA. The piece is very long and I confess I gave up reading it long before the end. I already know a great deal about the Fuentes/Carlson wing that takes up a large portion of its analysis, but the piece seemed to be short on figures that would tell us how much influence these groups really have.
As I said, the article is very long, but all I could find on that topic was a throwaway couple of lines:
Since the October 27 Carlson–Fuentes interview exploded across Rumble and flooded onto X, posts branding Trump a “Zionist puppet” or recasting Ukraine aid as “globalist war funding” have racked up millions of impressions, often outpacing sober defenses of Trump’s big-tent project. Holocaust-denying memes outrun statements by government officials. Musk’s new location-tagging features have already exposed a swath of “America First” accounts as foreign operators—Pakistanis, Indians, Nigerians—posing as domestic populists. It was a brief reminder that a trend line on X is not the voice of the American electorate.
And yet it seems the assumption of Doran’s article is that X is the voice of the American electorate.
I’ve written several times on the subject, and I certainly don’t know the answer as to how big the MAGA splinter group is. But I see no indication that Doran is making a serious effort to tackle the question.
Ah, but you see, THIS is how it’s done…
“The Lie Beneath the Tree: From Wikipedia Fiction To Witch Hunt”—
https://david-collier.com/the-lie-beneath-the-tree-from-wikipedia-fiction-to-witch-hunt/
H/T Powerline blog.
…and there are a lot of disaffected, impressionable, suggestible people out there for whom the “Truth” is exactly the opposite of the Truth.
How many, though? One wonders and cannot know for sure…but they’re out there.
But one CAN be sure that a lot of bad actors have been throwing a whole ton of money at sabotaging the truth.
The only question then is whether they’ll be as successful at sabotaging Trump (and America) as they were at sabotaging Israel and her supporters…
OTOH, one might conclude that it’s precisely BECAUSE all these bad guys want to sabotage Trump that even-keeled, eyes-wide-open folks ought to solidly support him…
On the third hand, maybe all these bad guys—the Carlson / Owens / Mullahs / Hamas / Hezbullah / CPC / Russia / EU / UN / NK / Left-Wing-Anglosphere / etc. crowd—JUST want to somehow persuade DJT to conclude that the prudent thing to do would be to create “some daylight” between him and the State of Israel….
(Now where have we heard that before?)
“I certainly don’t know the answer as to how big the MAGA splinter group is.”
It seems likely that at this point no one knows. Which may explain Vance’s reluctance to rebuke that faction’s claims. As, if Vance does strongly rebuke them, the mindset of these unreasoning extremists would be likely, out of pure spite, to vote for the democrat in 2028.
I recall your piece here, Neo, on how much of Fuentes’s following is bots. Owens doesn’t appeal to likely Republican voters so much any more, in my opinion. And it’s hard to tell about Carlson’s influence. I wouldn’t call him “Republican-leaning” any more. He seems to be off in his own direction, and how many actual voters are with him is an open question.
MAGA is yesterday’s news anyway.
John Lucas at his substack Bravo Blue coined a more up to date
meme.
TMAGA
Trump Made America Great Again.
I noted with pleasure today that the stock market thoroughly approved of the Maduro operation.
Neo, I’m not sure that quantifying the makeup of the factions is the point he was trying to make.
Mike Doran’s article rewards careful reading and consideration, and he identifies three major factions that have sometimes collaborated in Trump’s rise. Now they jostle for future influence, and he is pointing out that all three have somewhat incompatible goals and objectives. Trump has been able to bridge that divide with his personal will and transactional style, while the factions are driven by ideology, not personal loyalty.
The future success of MAGA requires a Trump successor to deftly build an inclusive coalition rather than allow either the Musk or Carlson factions to predominate, because neither are capable of moving an electoral plurality. J D Vance doesn’t seem to grasp that or to let go of some of his convictions that aren’t a big winner in the political marketplace.
It almost doesn’t matter what the size of the Carlson/Fuentes faction in isolation, but catering to them or abandoning the China containment by leaning toward the Musk faction results in a party incapable of winning an electoral majority or plurality.
No one else following will be just like Trump, dodging and weaving to keep MAGA together. They will have to be able to build a wider, religiously and politically tolerant coalition, much as Eisenhower and Reagan did. Doran’s warning is that it is becoming harder to do so on present party dynamics.
I thought the essay was very good. I see it as a warning from a friendly voice – Doran is no leftist. I don’t think it’s particularly fair to criticize him for lack of figures. It is after all an opinion piece. Yes, the opinion seems to assume the splinter group is reasonably large and meaningful, but if one says it isn’t, then you are now engaging in opinion without figures.
For anyone who found the piece too long I’ll do my best to sum it up quickly. It’s not so much about the MAGA moment, but the future of it. Trump is a lame duck and an old one. The seemingly indispensable man here is JD Vance. Doran has concerns.
For what it’s worth I thank that’s fair even if I don’t agree with every word. I like JD Vance a lot. I think he’s a good man with a good heart. But whether that translates into the political instincts of a Reagan or a Trump remains to be seen. I hate long posts so I’ll stop now. Something tells me I’ll be posting more on it later.
Damn it Ed you said almost the same thing I did – but maybe better.
The piece is very long
I got through a couple of sentences and quit. It looked like a waste of time.
I wonder if the fractures aren’t a testament to MAGA’s success.
The pie is big enough and juicy enough that it’s worth the effort to cut off a slice for oneself.
Speaking for myself, I’m not too worried.
Oh, and breaking news from 2004:
https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2004/7/rumble-on-the-right
I just saw a video of Musk & Trump having dinner together. Melania was the only other person there. Just a guess but this “split” might be a mile wide and an inch deep. Maybe the NY Time’s & other’s fond wishes but far from reality.
Doran made a case that Musk’s decision to make X a free speech absolute created a dynamic where the same people trying to bring Trump down post alongside supporters. I’m not sure what he expects Trump to do about that.
Also, he creates a tension between Trump and Musk over tariffs because somehow that damages Musk’s Chinese factory. The only tariffs that potentially damaged Musk was China’s restrictions on the purchase of rare earth minerals. This did highlight how important that we find friendly trading partners or start mining these minerals here.
Tesla doesn’t import any of its production into the US. Tesla has two manufacturing plants for the US market. The China factory is for the Chinese and the far east markets and imports into Europe.
There are many areas where Musk and Trump are aligned. By the way, it was Biden that put 100% tariffs on EV’s produced in China in 2024.
Doran is a professional in foreign policy (he served in the George W Bush administration), not a professional analyst of US domestic politics, so it’s not surprising he doesn’t support his conclusions with numbers. Also, in my view, he sees more coherence in Trump and the MAGA movement than is really there. Trump is on both sides of every issue, including China (he just revoked an EO preventing sale to China of chips used in AI). And it doesn’t seem to occur to Doran that the education and culture that have shaped today’s younger people is so different from what those of us 50 or older grew up with that the sort of midcentury patriotism represented by Eisenhower or Reagan would be a nonstarter with under-40 voters today. Trump really did not offer the old-fashioned midcentury patriotism (other than in ghost-written speeches he delivered with little conviction), even though his administrations have generally (but not always) operated like that of an establishment Republican.
Doran also overrates religion as a factor in putting together Trump’s coalition (and it is laughable to consider “Orthodox Jews” electorally significant; there are no more than a million of them, and probably less than that, in the entire country). What produced Trump was a sense by middle and working class Americans that the elite of both parties were indifferent and even hostile to their interests and concerns — but this accurate feeling did not give rise to a coherent agenda, and Trump, in spite of the positive things he has done, has not provided one, in either of his administrations.
I truly don’t understand how, at this late date, anyone can imagine that Vance, who owes his present position to Carlson and has declared his loyalty to that vile demagogue, is somehow going to face down the Jew-haters and obsessive anti-Zionists and save the GOP from them. It’s quite clear he’s on their side, as are Heritage and ISI. I don’t think Vance can win in 2028, but the split in the GOP he is facilitating will ensure no other GOP nominee can win, either.
In the end, my view is that “MAGA” has no future as a political force after Trump. With Trump’s acquiescence, it is already degenerating into a full-time anti-semitic/anti-Israel grift carnival, the main political effect of which will be to split the opposition to the Left and keep the Democrats in power. Which I am sure is fine with the “new” Carlson, Dave Smith, Owens, et al. They are in it for the money and for the hate and spite; they are not going to save us from the lunatic Democrats.
…it is laughable to consider “Groypers” electorally significant; there are no more than a million of them, and probably less than that, in the entire country).
Ami Kozak, Jewish comedian, was at the recent AMFEST and reported there were Groypers at the convention. He described them as baby faced kids (as I remember it) walking around to different booths, being led by an older “handler”. His sense was these are more like lost sheep.
Recently was it Rod Dreher who described a large infiltration of bureaucrats in DC by Groypers. Others think that was greatly exaggerated. Fuentes had 500,000 followers on Rumble before Carlson interviewed him, so it’s unknown whether it made an impact on Fuentes popularity.
If you want a trend line of MAGA just read the comments on the political posts on X. My impression is that MAGA wants more. Whoever follows Trump will have to answer to that.
I don’t think Fuentes, Owens and the full-fledged groypers are the problem. More ostensibly respectable “America First” types like Carlson and Megyn Kelly and Posobiec are the problem. I don’t know exactly how many followers they have, but Vance, Heritage and ISI — who certainly have better information on this than any of us — seem to think they have a significant following and are welcoming them.
I’ll be thrilled if all this garbage turns out to have been a mirage constructed with lights, mirrors and foreign cash, but it certainly doesn’t look like that now.
@djf: that Vance, who owes his present position to Carlson
People who forgot what happened more than six months ago could be excused for thinking this. Vance owes his present position to tech billionaires and the connections he made through them and the personal connections he made at Harvard.
Niketas Choniates, are you denying that Trump chose Vance as his running mate at the behest of Don Jr. and Tucker, Don Jr.’s Rasputin?
Doran’s piece is long, yes, but does merit careful consideration.
Parts of it were summarized well by Ed and Mike and Brian and djf; interestingly, they all chose different sections to focus on.
I haven’t read much of Doran’s work lately, but my recollection is that he looks at every topic with an eye to how it affects Israel and Jews, and his analyses are generally sound given that caveat.
https://www.tabletmag.com/contributors/michael-doran
I also get the feeling that he wishes the MAGA movement were led by someone other than Trump (looking at his opening paragraphs, and other statements through the article and at the end), but doesn’t really see any of the alternatives as being as effective as the President currently is in supporting Israel and Jews.
He might be trying to nudge some other people in the MAGA regime, particularly those orbiting closely around Trump, into moving into a position to out-primary Vance and whoever Carlson might decide to support in 2028.
I’m not sure why he thinks insulting Trump is the best way to do that.
However, I don’t think he is a Never Trumper either. In this other very long article, from April 2025, he is appreciative of Trump’s work in his first & second terms to that date.
Interestingly, there are mentions of several things that our own commenters have brought up in recent threads, such as the prevalence of Koch-supported advisers in policy positions.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/kings-foils-donald-trump-foreign-policy
If the Islamic Republic falls, a future Vance presidency would be much less dangerous to Israel.
Recently was it Rod Dreher who described a large infiltration of bureaucrats in DC by Groypers.
==
Did he begin with ‘a friend writes to me’?