Reaching back into a college course way before MAGA even existed, this political science major has always been confused about how political movements are tagged by the media. Here is my case for calling MAGA radical reactionaries, but they are definitely not conservatives.
Political scientists did and will write books and more books with the rise of Trump and MAGA, and tag this as a conservative movement. Recently, its more radical nature was branded "right-wing" by some liberal journalists. Radical and reactionary are brands that are not in current usage, but join them together, and they are quite descriptive of the movement. My observation is that MAGA is an extremely revolutionary and dramatic change from the way the majority governed in the past. It uproots the very nature of the purpose of the Constitution which was to protect us from dictators and tyrannical kings, setting up a balance between three equal power centers with a degree of control over each other, while keeping an all-powerful federal government from trampling on the rights of individuals who might dissent.
That is not the nature of MAGA, which is a radical change from the kind of governance my father and those like him supported. Back in my olden days growing up in Oklahoma, I considered someone conservative to be someone who did not want change without serious thought and debate. They usually opposed change that was any more than tweaks, keeping to the past very cautiously and reluctantly dealing with and updating present needs and conditions. That was my father. Liberals, even liberals plus called "progressives", were not terms often used, but are now in common usage. They have become more or less "whatever is ok" if it is needed and works, with less conformity to the past and a willingness to make more fundamental changes using government to suit the times. The radicals, if we called them that in political science jargon, were those who wanted to upend the old order in favor of some different political or religious beliefs and install entirely new methods and systems.
My father hated "extremists", the term he used to describe radicals, who were going off on tangents, such as the Christian evangelicals rising in power in Tulsa on the one issue of "choice" while feathering their pastoral nests. My parents were pro-choice, and viewed with disgust hate mongers like the Klan, and, socialists and communists. Some who wanted to turn back the clock to days in the past and reject moderate change or the status quo were called "reactionaries" by political scientists in the spectrum of political ideologies. Dad was a district telephone company executive with a major corporation. They would never have considered themselves intellectuals, but they were, and well-educated ones, too. My parents may have voted for FDR and the New Deal through two terms, but then, when they thought FDR had gone too far, they reverted to traditional Republican voters in the next two elections, even in the midst of World War II. My parents passed away in the mid-1980s, but if my father were alive today, I am pretty sure he would never have voted for Donald Trump whom he would have called an extremist. My guess, they would have become independents who quietly voted for Biden. Trump was everything my conservative father disdained.
The MAGA movement itself contains those who want their own agenda to be implemented, whether it is to roll back the gains of the civil and women's rights movement that began in the 1960s and/or to boost the priorities of the white nationalist evangelical Christianity with their anti-DEI edicts. This form of evangelical Christianity is dominating old-time mainstream protestant Christianity, and Pope Leo, who still keeps the Beatitudes and the Golden Rule in the forefront. This support of the evangelical branch of Christianity is a movement in itself, a reaction to modern social norms and a desire to return to the days of the 1950s.
Compromising with anything to the governmental and ideological left of MAGA's radical vision is a dirty word for MAGA, and they are bent on shoving their priorities and beliefs down the throats of those who do not agree and using government power to execute a plan to do so in Project 2025, which is playing out in domestic politics and governance before our very eyes. This is about as radical as we have seen, at least in my memory.
Use of violence and force, militarization, federalization in defiance of state's rights, de facto destruction of the checks against a strong man leader, will get their MAGA agenda done, this Trump regime thinks. This is not conservatism: it is a radical change in the way we have been governed, and one with the support of an estimated 30 to 40 percent of the voters who remain personally loyal to Donald Trump and his actions and goals, no matter how he behaves. It is not a gradual, carefully considered change, a tweaking of values and methods, but rather rapid and fundamental changes that create a future of conflicts, as this very large minority butts heads with a slowly awakening majority. The MAGA takeover is not a gradual work in progress, but a nine-month blitzkrieg so far. It is carrying out the agenda of some powerfully placed ideologues. It is a reversion to the 1950s pre-civil rights days and some would say to the pre-depression days of the early 1930s, no social security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government provision of social services to those struggling in a modern society and economy. Government must be pared back to the size and objectives of the 1920's say the most radical of the radicals.
Stephen Mlller and Russell Vought are the most powerful influencers surrounding Trump. Neither is elected, but Miller is a deputy chief of staff, and Vought is the controller of personnel as Director of Management and Budget. In my lexicon, they are radical reactionaries, and they are calling the tune of their willing and accommodating president, who is absorbed in becoming all-powerful, using governmental tools to get revenge on his detractors and suppress opposition with fear of his unbridled and unconstrained abuse of power.
This relationship with the ideologues works for Trump's power-grabbing goals just as it works for both Miller and Vought's visions. Those visions include a strong-man executive's rule and the submission of the legislative and judicial branches to the executive's will by appointing and supporting only loyalists to Trump to carry out their duties. They are making a mockery of the original intent of the founders' Constitution and the rule of law that once democracy was crafted to be for, by, and of the people expressed through the ballot box, and not for, by, and of a Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court, composed of fellow ideologues approved by idologically compatible think tanks, is the only one of the three divisions of government that stands in the way of certain policies. It is possible that if enough dissent and take to the streets, Congress could flip from red to blue and get a backbone. We still have free and fair elections, for now. Trump et al may have other plans for 2028, I suspect, but enthusiasm and math of voter turnout still count in 2026. Over the past ten years, the GOP has been able to execute a strategy to replace the Supreme Court's retiring members and those who lost the battle for life with those approved by those think tanks, such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. So far, most decisions granting the executive superpowers have been upheld by a 6-3 majority.. The floodgates for abuse were open when the Supreme Court exempted the president from criminal prosecution while performing his executive duties. Trump took the gift and made the most of it.
Trump sees his kinship in the world as modern-day dictators like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, and Erdogan of Turkey. Even now, Trump wants to send billions of aid to a president he sees as like him, in Argentina, and punishes Brazil with extreme tariffs for persecuting another Trumpist wannabe past president. History and the fate of the dictators of the 1930s seem to hold no meaning for him as he strives to repeat what he never learned. His is a reaction to who and what stood in his way in the past to achieve power and scare off those who would dissent from acting in the future.
We in the USA have not had a model of an executive like Trump govern us since 1776. Even Nixon fades in comparison, and even he ultimately abided by the rule of law and the intent of the Constitution.
So, media, what do you call MAGA? Please do not call them "conservatives". They are more than just "right wing" on the political spectrum. They are radical reactionaries.
For more about the ideology of Russell Vought and Stephen Miller, go to MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: What if it is true: Trump's got dementia as some claim
MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Chainsaw 1 and Chainsaw 2 : Fulfilling Russell Vought's Project 2025 dreams
John Fugelsang - “Separation of Church and Hate” | The Daily Show - YouTube
MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Racists and white Christian nationalists are laying the groundwork for a future of conflict
So is it fascism? Here is one take on it well stated by another blogger: If it walks like a fascist, talks like a fascist and jokes like a fascist, it's likely a… - Raw Story
. A district court judge just called out Trump's attempt to end all temporary protective visas for migrant refugees fleeing violence, persecution, or natural disasters, racist and discriminatory, and put a temporary hold on the execution of the removal of those holding such visas . The purpose of the special visas was to give refugee status until the conditions in their home from which they fled had improved. The judge found that the condition of their home countries of the plaintiffs had not improved. The evidence of racial discrimination was the words of the Trump regime's administrators themselves. No doubt this will go through the appeal process to end up in the lap of "his" Supreme Court, but the damning language from the judge needs to be cited. For those who protest this ruling, first look in your own mirror.
"By stereotyping the TPS program and immigrants as invaders that are criminal, and by highlighting the need for migration management, Secretary Noem's statements perpetuate the discriminatory belief that certain immigrant populations will replace the white population."
Thompson also mentioned comments from Trump and other White House officials about migrants that show racial animus."
