Trump Is Not MAGA

The Soviet Union never truly embodied Marxism. Mussolini never realized Fascism. Hitler never delivered revolutionary Nazism. And Trump? Never MAGA.

Was the Soviet Union a true example of Marxist communism? That question sparks debates even today. I agree with those who claim it wasn’t. How could it be, especially given that Lenin himself was neither a Marxist Communist nor a Bolshevik—and neither was Stalin.

The same would have held if Trotsky had won the post-Lenin struggle for power. Trotsky was neither a Marxist Communist nor a Bolshevik.

Though they were all nominally both, in practice none were.

Similarly, Mussolini’s Italy was not a Fascist state. And, as controversial as this truth is, Hitler was not a true Nazi.

And, what should be obvious now, Trump is not MAGA. Never was, never will be.

The truth is Lenin was a Leninist, Stalin a Stalinist, Trotsky a Trotskist, Mussolini a Mussolinist, Hitler a Hitlerist, and Trump a Trumpist.

The tenets of an ideology should never be confused with the men and women who rise to power in its name. Politics is driven by opportunism, not fanaticism. In all the cases above, the ideology was progressively abandoned as power was gained. Who needs (say) continuous revolution while holding the reins?

For the rising or seated leader, whatever it takes to increase power and remain in office is the ideology. Everything else is theoretical. Nothing else.

Even today, the confused disciples of Trotsky continue to blame the failures of the Soviet Union on Stalin. The claim is Stalin aligned with the bureaucracy instead of fostering the next phase of the endless revolution.

Stalin adeptly rode the oscillating waves of factional groups and allied with the bureaucracy to secure power. Once in full control, through a series of purges and show trials, he literally deleted all the remaining leaders of the October Revolution, along with links to its original ideals.

That Trotsky failed in the struggle for power should never be read as he would have taken a substantially different route once in power. Once in the Kremlin, Trotsky would have fully implemented Trotskyism, with the results being just a different version of Stalinism.

Now, Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were adept at justifying their actions as conforming to Marxism. But that was always a justification after the fact. In other words, in my readings, I was never confronted with tales of any of those men first filtering their plans through the tenets of Marxism. Instead, they did what they could get away with, justifying their actions later. Witness how the initial turn to Communism under Lenin—War Communism—was abandoned as soon as it became a liability.

This is not to say Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky did not couch their writing and statements in Marxist language—they had the masses to contend with. It’s just that Marxism was not a filter to decide which policies to pursue. The policies were those desired by the leader, though justified through tortured Marxist arguments.

Trotsky, the most prolific one, wrote volumes of these justifications, rewriting the actions of the Bolshevik movement to conform to core Marxism. He, in essence, molded the past to Marxism instead of recasting Marxism to fit reality. But the result was the same.

Turning to Mussolini. The Fascist Manifesto became a list of quaint ideals once Mussolini sat comfortably in power. He had no need to fully implement them if he controlled the balcony and loudspeaker overlooking the square. That many of his backing Fascist theoreticians questioned his policies was not seen by Mussolini as a call to reconsider. It was just an annoyance to overcome. Why risk losing control by continuing to champion an ideal that may lead to you being overthrown.

Hitler is the controversial one. But he had his Night of Long Knives where he eliminated those (such as Röhm) who were pushing for the next revolutionary phase of Nazism. Instead, Hitler did what those above did; he dust-binned the central tenets of the ideology he no longer needed and rewrote Nazism to conform to his ever-changing views and need for power and control.

Just as with Trotsky, this should not be taken to be a claim that revolutionary Nazism would have been better than existential Hitlerism. Both had vile cores that were bound to unleash hell.

In all cases, appeals to the nominal ideology remained. Even when the underlying ideology was altered or mostly annulled, its name was referenced as if nothing had changed.

Switching from a historical review of authoritarian and totalitarian states to survey of our failed democracy today shows the essence of politics and power remains.

Trump is of a similar character—the political character. He sold MAGA to the public and walked ahead of its grassroots vanguard. His supporters could, pre-election anyway, articulate the main tenets of MAGA. Yet, now ensconced in the White House, Trump, like those above, acts as he chooses, attempting to rebrand MAGA along the way.¹

In the Oval Office, the ideals of original MAGA became a hindrance to his evolving agenda. So, just like those before him, he purged or threatened his internal opposition and evolved MAGA to suit his aims.

Trumpism—the Trumpist MAGA—is amorphous, losing meaning as Trump alters and annuls its platform. Under Trumpism, a policy of peace was replaced by wars and threats of war, America First was morphed from an ideal that puts Americans first to that which puts Trump’s sycophants first, plans to eliminate federal departments were reversed, with funding increased instead, etc.

His supporters have split into three camps: those who need to believe and remain steadfastly with Trump. Maybe they were never MAGA, being simply Trumpist from the start. Then there are those who see the changing MAGA platform but feel that most of their personal ideals are still represented in its core. Still others, including me, accept we were duped – or we let ourselves be duped.

In the end, we are always duped. Is Trump MAGA? No. He is simply a Trumpist. Power always converts ideology into personal doctrine.

Notes:

1. In all cases, the voice of the masses must be considered because it is the masses that can initiate a Ceaușescu-like ending.

The Best of Jim Fedako