logo
With MAGA capturing the working class, can the American left regain its footing?

With MAGA capturing the working class, can the American left regain its footing?

Washington Post19-03-2025
In 1970s Mexico City, membership in the cafe culture of the left required an uncomplicated understanding of right and wrong. Cuba, the local proxy for the Soviet Union, was inevitably right. The United States, which underwrote Latin America's murderous right-wing military dictatorships that sent people flocking into exile in my hometown, was evil.
The existential struggle was straightforward. It was the Proletariat against Capital. Profit, investment, trade — all these described modalities of exploitation. Environmental concerns were rarely mentioned. Sexual inequity were not central to the movement, and issues of gender were bourgeois distractions. You could be a member of the left of perfect standing and still casually refer to gay men with a slur. Trans meant cross-dressing and was funny.
Oddly for such an urbane milieu, the consensus seemed to be that a new world could be brought about only by the force of arms. I remember a teacher in high school advising against dropping a few pesos into the outstretched hand of an old woman at a bus stop. Charity could only delay the Revolution, she said, by tricking the dispossessed into believing they could survive in the capitalist order, ultimately obstructing their only reasonable choice: armed struggle.
Many things have happened since. Globalization reorganized the world economy, while computers and the internet reconfigured the very notion of reality. Critically, the Soviet model of governance failed. And people changed. Former stalwarts of the uncompromising left built prosperous lives from Mexico's capitalism, often struggling to fit these lives into the simpler, ideologically pure moral enclosure of their youth. I joined the gringo press.
What draws me to these thoughts is not just the incongruities of the left of my youth. What I find astonishing is how much of the standard bouquet of Brezhnev-era beliefs in much of what is now known as the Global South has become current again.
This time around, however, the mix of working-class solidarity and casual homophobia is not showing up in conversations at some university cafe in Mexico City. It is a staple of MAGA America.
The United States has always been different. (Americans like to say 'exceptional.') The material comforts brought about by its unparalleled prosperity deflated the urgency of the class struggle, while New Deal policies broadened access to prosperity. Then the 1960s spawned a bunch of competing causes — desegregation, environmentalism, pacifism, feminism — that complicated the moral analysis. Finally, the fall of the Soviet Union made Americans think their world order had won.
It hadn't. Today, American politics finds itself precariously perched on a disjointed tangle of propositions and beliefs. A coalition has emerged on the right that rejects globalization on the old left-coded grounds — that trade benefits global capital and keeps the working man down — while at the same time championing lopsided tax cuts skewed to benefit corporations and the wealthy, tax cuts financed by cutting programs for the poor like Medicaid.
While America's improbable alignment of priorities may not have been replicated anywhere else yet, it is likely to reverberate around the world.
The United States' unusual policy stance is not just about trade and taxes. Much of its political class has turned against the institutions underpinning the liberal democracy it long claimed to champion and coalesced around a rejection of the infrastructure underpinning the globalized order that followed the end of the Cold War. There is now a bipartisan plan to emasculate the World Trade Organization, built by the United States to organize trade and help anchor peace. But other institutions — NATO, the United Nations — are vulnerable too.
These realignments are not, by the way, simply the MAGA movement's doing. As the demand for equal rights and other causes impelled the left to embrace new struggles, it alienated a proletarian base that might like the pro-labor stuff but couldn't tolerate people of unorthodox sexual proclivities or gender identities. An environmental left that pushed for less beef, fewer children in poor countries, abandoning fossil fuels, and and living on organic vegetables grown on community farms would never be their home.
I remember how costly it was for the AFL-CIO to embrace the idea of granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants 25 years ago. The popularity of Trump's anti-immigrant screed among unionized workers confirms how the pro-immigrant coalition and organized labor were never happy bedfellows. This is forcing the left to reconsider. Denmark's example, we're told, suggests that the only way to sustain the social democratic welfare state is to keep immigrants out.
The Mexican left has changed, too, becoming perhaps a bit more American. Revolution has lost its place as the preferred path to justice. I celebrate that the people of the left no longer use slurs so casually to describe gay men and have given women's rights a more prominent place in Mexico's politics. Still, the struggles of the poor remain central to its cause.
The American left is in a more complicated spot. Having ceded much of its working-class agenda to the MAGA movement, it lost an important glue provided by its historical core. It is now ideologically adrift, herding a collection of disparate causes that often do not see eye to eye.
To counter the authoritarian populism taking hold of Trump's America, the left will have to find its way back to representing the oppressed, dispossessed and marginalized struggling to live in dignity. If it doesn't, both America and the world are in for a rough ride.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The White House now has a TikTok account
The White House now has a TikTok account

Engadget

time2 hours ago

  • Engadget

The White House now has a TikTok account

The White House has joined TikTok, the social media app that President Trump wanted to ban during his first term. Its first post shows clips of Trump in various events with Kendrick Lamar's track playing in the background. The New York Times notes that it references a popular video edit of Creed, a boxing movie starring Michael B. Jordan, on the app. In the TikTok post, Trump could be heard saying "I am your voice," while the caption reads "America we are BACK! What's up TikTok?" Trump's administration believes TikTok helped him win over young voters in the 2024 Presidential election, with the account he used to campaign having over 15 million followers. "President Trump's message dominated TikTok during his presidential campaign, and we're excited to build upon those successes and communicate in a way no other administration has before," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. The president wasn't always fond of the platform. He once vowed to ban the app in the US and signed an executive order to outlaw any transaction between the app and its China-based parent company ByteDance for national security reasons. TikTok's "data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans' personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage," the executive order read. After taking office earlier this year, however, Trump quickly put a pause on the law that was supposed to ban TikTok in the US. He even delayed the ban a couple more times to give ByteDance more time to sell its US business. Trump previously claimed that a "very wealthy" group is poised to buy TikTok, but the administration has yet to reveal the identities of the people in it.

Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 current and former government officials
Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 current and former government officials

Boston Globe

time4 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 current and former government officials

Many of the officials who were targeted left the government years ago after serving in both senior national security positions and lower-profile roles far from the public eye. Some worked on matters that have long infuriated Trump, like the intelligence community assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election on his behalf. And several signaled their concerns about Trump by signing a critical letter in 2019 that was highlighted on social media last month by right-wing provocateur and close Trump ally Laura Loomer. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The action is part of a broader Trump administration campaign to wield the levers of government against perceived adversaries, and it reflects the president's continued distrust of career intelligence officials he has long seen as working against his interests. Advertisement The revocation of clearances has emerged as a go-to tactic for the administration, a strategy that critics say risks chilling dissenting voices from a national security community accustomed to drawing on a range of viewpoints before formulating an assessment. 'These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,' Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer whose own clearance was revoked by the Trump administration, said in a statement. Advertisement He called it hypocritical for the administration to 'claim these individuals politicized or weaponized intelligence.' Gabbard on Tuesday defended the move, which she said had been directed by Trump. 'Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,' she wrote on X. 'Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.' The security clearance suspension comes amid a broader effort by Gabbard and other Trump administration officials to revisit the intelligence community's assessment on Russian election interference, including by declassifying a series of years-old documents meant to cast doubt on the legitimacy of its findings. Multiple government investigations have reached the same conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping fashion, including through a hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails and a social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and swaying public opinion. But Trump has long resisted the assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in his favor, and his Justice Department has authorized a grand jury investigation that could bring fresh scrutiny to Obama-era officials. Security clearances are important not only for current government workers but also former ones whose private-sector jobs require them to retain access to sensitive information. Stripping clearances from such employees could make it hard for them to do their jobs. On his first day of office, Trump said he would revoke the security clearances of the more than four dozen former intelligence officials who signed a 2020 letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop saga bore the hallmarks of a 'Russian information operation.' Advertisement He's also revoked the clearances of former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, and he attempted to do the same for lawyers at a spate of prominent law firms but was rebuffed by federal judges. Some of those who were targeted in the latest action were part of Biden's national security team. Many only learned of the Gabbard action from news reports Tuesday, said two former government officials who were on the list. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity as they ponder whether to take legal action.

Explainer-Does Trump have the power to ban mail-in ballots in U.S. elections?
Explainer-Does Trump have the power to ban mail-in ballots in U.S. elections?

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Explainer-Does Trump have the power to ban mail-in ballots in U.S. elections?

By Jack Queen (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump wants to ban mail-in ballots in federal elections, a form of voting popular with many Americans. About three in 10 ballots were cast through the mail in the 2024 general election, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Trump, a Republican, does not have clear legal authority to do this, though his allies in Congress and state governments could enact policies barring the practice. Here is a look at Trump's authority and how the law could be changed. CAN TRUMP UNILATERALLY BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? Only states and the U.S. Congress can pass laws regulating elections. A unilateral ban by the president on mail-in ballots would likely exceed Trump's limited authority to enforce existing law. In a Monday social media post, Trump said mail-in ballots are susceptible to fraud and that he would lead a movement to ban them, beginning with an executive order bringing "honesty" to the November 2026 midterm elections. Republicans have filed scores of lawsuits seeking to end mail-in voting in recent years, citing possible fraud. Democrats generally support mail-in ballots as a way to expand access to voting. Voter fraud in the U.S. is extremely rare, multiple studies have shown. White House representatives provided a general statement about Trump's election policies but did not answer questions about his legal authority to ban mail-in ballots or what an executive order would say. COULD TRUMP'S ALLIES BAN MAIL-IN BALLOTS? States are responsible for administering their votes under the U.S. Constitution, and Republican-controlled legislatures could pass laws banning mail-in ballots so long as they do not conflict with federal law. Congress could ban the use of mail-in ballots in federal elections and override state laws protecting their use, but Trump's Republican Party has slim majorities in Congress and would face difficulty getting past opposition by Democrats. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats. To pass a mail-in ballot ban they would need to end the filibuster, a longstanding tradition requiring 60 of the chamber's 100 members to approve most legislation. State and federal laws banning mail-in voting could be challenged in court as unconstitutional impediments to voting. WHAT OTHER POWERS DO PRESIDENTS HAVE OVER ELECTIONS? Presidents in the U.S. have some discretion in enforcing election laws, and Trump could try to use those powers to end or restrict mail-in voting, though it is unclear how. In June, a federal judge blocked parts of an executive order by Trump requiring voters to prove they are U.S. citizens and attempting to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. The Trump administration is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," said U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store