Political Realignment in the Trump Era: What Are the New Right Elites Thinking?
December 8, 2024
I. Intro
In the 2024 election, Americans elected a treasonous, low-intelligence, low-integrity election denier, who is disliked by nearly his entire first cabinet, to the highest office in the world—by substantial margins—over an incumbent administration that delivered a strong economy and stabilized a wide range of key economic metrics. By a 20:1 margin, the president-elect, Donald Trump, was thought of favorably by those who elected him, with the vast majority specifically voting for him, rather than against the other candidate, with record turnout in terms of percent of eligible voters in 5 of 7 swing states. Despite Harris vastly outspending him, Trump became the first Republican to win the electoral and popular vote since George Bush Sr. in 1992 (which is, sadly, now 32 years ago) and ran ahead of several Republican senators in purple states.
Elections in America are often decided by narrow margins. The diverse mindsets of 340 million Americans lead to various narratives, each reflecting a complex web of causes. This article aims to explore one significant aspect of this story.
While many are analyzing the political logistics of Trump's election, this article will focus on why some tech accelerationists and Trump elites, best personified by Peter Thiel (collectively, the “MAGA Elites”), supported him. It will explore how the MAGA Elites' worldview is more coherent and intriguing than initially perceived, providing important context for evaluating Trump's decisions over the next four years.
Initially, I viewed the MAGA Elites as successful individuals with sound political philosophies, yet with a blind spot regarding Trump. My views included the following:
Many in the MAGA Elite believed in bizarre top-down conspiracies regarding the "deep state."
Trump's policies, and those of his elite supporters, are incoherent and random.
Trump's aggressiveness to democratic norms and key institutions is a major issue that his supporters are overlooking.
Some of the MAGA Elite are blindly trying to tear down the status quo, without realizing that the status quo is better than the vast majority of outcomes.
After recent discussions and listening to some very convincing podcasts, I realized that the MAGA Elite strategy is more cohesive, reasonable, and interesting than I had previously thought. And I want to share what I learned with you.
I want to clarify that, despite my increased understanding, I still believe selecting Trump was a poor decision. This article aims to explain a perspective, not to advocate for it.
II. Voting Sects (skip to section 4 if you're skimming for the interesting part)
There has been some realignment in the parties, in substantial part because of the platform shift that we'll cover later. In the latest election, here is what we saw:
Source: Washington Post
Democrats: Key groups (focusing on % Delta X population).
Women
Urban
The non- or minimally-working poor
Single/unmarried
The northeast and West Coast
Higher Educated (but equal in income)
U.S. Blacks
LGBT
Republicans:
Men
Whites
Americans without college degrees
Rural
Married
Christians
The South and Midwest
Military veterans
Recent shifts (relative to pre-Trump):
All income levels have converged to be split roughly equally between the parties (previously, higher earners leaned Republican and lower earners leaned Democrat significantly).
Note: The working class (those with jobs but who are middle/working class) have shifted toward Trump, specifically including Union voters, while the Democrats are generally the wealthiest and the non-working poor reliant on government funding.
Hispanics shifted more heavily to Republicans.
Suburban votes shifted significantly toward Democrats since pre-Trump (although in this election, Harris underperformed with this group relative to Biden and Clinton).
Young men have shifted toward the Republican party.
Today's world: The two sets of elites
Democratic elites:
Ivy league and highly educated.
Typical careers
Humanities PhDs and governmental agency career leaders.
Journalists and government insiders.
Fortune 500 CEOs and DROs.
More stability focused and more focused on rhetoric.
Republican elites:
Wall Street (finance) and Silicon Valley (VC and startup) leaders (although both were significantly split between the parties).
Tech accelerationists.
Crypto enthusiasts.
Expected value maximizers comfortable with some risk.
Operators and founders.
Agents of change.
On The Edge, by Nate Silver, provides an excellent comparison of "The Village" and "The River" elites. Nate Silver significantly contributed to my understanding of this topic (along with several other conversations).
III. Platform Realignment
NeoCons & NeoLibs
Offshoring of jobs (more NeoCon)
Minimal immigration restrictions
Significant military (more NeoCon) & political involvement (more NeoLib) throughout the world
USD as global reserve currency
Low inflation for dollar stability
Powerful government agencies
Substantial wealth redistribution (more NeoLib)
Trump Republicans
Reshoring of jobs
Lower interest rates
Less military and political involvement in international affairs
Substantially less bureaucracy & government spending (although this was not reflected in prior term)
Lower taxes
Focus on helping lower-class workers
Heavy immigration restrictions
Free Speech
(Traditional social values)
Recent Democrats
Significant reshoring effort under Biden (a deviation from Obama policy)
Significant shift from center-left to far-left on social issues
Regulated speech (avoiding hate and disinformation)
IV. Cohesiveness of NeoCon policies
The NeoCon platform was cohesive. As you consider each of the pillars, you realize they're synergistic with one another, and they generally involve the U.S. playing a huge role on the global stage to support U.S.-based MNCs in a very rational way.
Competitive Advantage benefits all participants. Competitive advantage (which is the driving force behind trade) is the #1 driving force of human prosperity.
Knowledge Economy. Americans should leverage their knowledge and tech advantages to create world class companies. Those companies should offshore cheap labor for repetitive tasks. That will drive the efficient creation of goods and knowledge-based services, which can be sold worldwide.
Immigration. Similarly, our borders will stay open, in effect, so that cheap laborers can help us build in a cost-efficient way.
World Police. Given significant worldwide involvement, the United States must ensure stability, protect trade routes, support infrastructure/prosperity, and limit threats to democratic countries and trade partners. This requires significant U.S. military involvement and presence across the world, along with a significant presence in global organizations.
Reserve Currency. The U.S. Dollar will be the reserve currency for the world (through the U.S.-Petro system), giving the U.S. outsized influence over world affairs.
Low Inflation. To ensure the U.S. Dollar can maintain its reserve currency status, keeping inflation at low baseline levels is critical. While interest rates stayed near-zero for extended periods, inflation relative to a basket of other currencies never hit a point where the USD's reserve status was in flux.
Useful Agencies. The ability of the United States to significantly influence events throughout the world requires large and powerful agencies. These groups ought to ensure the interests of the people of the United States are protected at home and abroad.
Redistribution of Benefits. As a result of these changes, some workers may be left behind. We will support them through the welfare state, which aims to uplift many.
V. Problems with Our Current System
As a general point, I am not suggesting that Trump has a superior plan for the issues highlighted below, nor am I claiming that the globalist approach is entirely flawed. Instead, I am pointing out significant challenges Americans face, focusing on those central to political realignment. In some cases, the Biden administration has exacerbated a problem, while in others, it has attempted solutions without full success. Additionally, some issues have not been severe under Biden, possibly due to luck. In some of those instances, Americans still remember the severity of the problem during eight years of Obama’s administration and still blame Democrats.
Economic & Security
Soaring Government Debt.
Government debt has soared to $36 trillion as of this writing, equating to approximately $275,000 per American household. Even when adjusted for inflation, this debt-per-household figure is at an all-time high.
For instance, the $3.2 trillion debt in 1990, following significant deficit increases during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, would equate to $7.7 trillion in 2024 inflation-adjusted dollars, or $34,000 per household.
Economists often focus on debt as a percentage of GDP. By this measure, government debt has risen from 41% to 119% of GDP in the same period. Beyond a certain threshold, economies may face long-term stagnation.
Recent years have been particularly concerning. As we combat inflation with high interest rates, the interest on the debt has become a significant portion of the federal budget, amounting to $879 billion or 20% of total tax revenues, creating a cycle of increasing debt.
While economists note that countries like Japan have remained solvent despite higher debt levels (255% debt to GDP), the U.S. currently has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios among developed nations, with Greece at 162% debt, having faced solvency challenges. And Japan has seen poor growth for decades.
The debt issue stems from spending exceeding tax revenue. This is largely driven by wealth redistribution and inefficient government spending.
After a brief period of peace following the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has been pulled into wars in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and other countries. Some of these wars have lasted decades, and often involve America playing more of a police role to help rebuild the country that attacked us, to ensure stability.
More recently, conflicts with Russia and China have escalated, and we face a serious issue of China invading Taiwan, which could enable a major lead in chip manufacturing at a critical time (future wars will likely be driven by AI, with a major advantage going to the country with the better supply of chips).
Manufacturing Security Holes.
COVID was a wake-up call to the dire state of manufacturing in the United States. We are heavily dependent on the Chinese (and the rest of the world) for essential products.
This is particularly concerning given the recent trend of violent escalations by the Chinese (especially in the South China Sea).
Because of the poor state of our manufacturing industry, the United States cannot competitively produce ships, chips, or aircraft that are critical in a war with a powerful adversary.
Bureaucratic Red Tape is perhaps best illustrated with SpaceX. It takes Elon Musk more time to comply with governmental mandates (like testing to see if his rockets could hurt a shark, which is obviously extremely unlikely) than it does to build and launch the rockets themselves.
This permeates nearly every industry, and the impact is amplified because:
The bureaucracy is very expensive to maintain.
The bureaucracy is often weaponized for quasi-political goals.
Welfare State.
Across federal and state governments, after including benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Americans redistribute approximately $3 trillion across all branches of government.
While U-3, at ~4% and even U-6, at ~8% unemployment are relatively strong compared to historical rates, 21% of working age adults in the United States are not part of the labor force at all, with an additional ~3% substantially underemployed. By comparison, in Sweden, only 11% of working age adults fail to participate in their labor force.
Roughly 45 million U.S. households (one-third of the total) paid $0 or less in income taxes, with many, on net, receiving money from the government. The bottom 40% of Americans net to roughly $0 in total income taxes paid, as Mitt Romney infamously noted.
Underemployment, especially in areas heavily dependent on manufacturing or in non-green industries, has caused working Americans to lose realistic means of maintaining the quality of life to which their families were accustomed. Negative feedback cycles have drained many small towns, and many Americans have, as a result, become depressed and turned to drugs, specifically driving the opioid epidemic.
Imports Exceed Exports. U.S. companies export roughly $3T of goods per year, significantly less than (and only 75% of) the $4B of goods that we import. This is substantially driven by the strong dollar and the limited U.S. manufacturing base. Restrictions in the oil & gas and similar industries worsen this problem. While I don’t personally have an inherent issue with this ratio, it does highlight the weak U.S. manufacturing sector, which has failed to grow at anywhere near the rate of many other sectors, as well as an opportunity for American wage growth with a weaker dollar.
Tech Stagnation.
The internet, circa the late 1990s and early 2000s, was the new frontier, with minimal government regulation and involvement.
Every other industry, being more physical, is substantially regulated. The nuclear and space industries are excellent examples, but the same is true for construction, insurance, healthcare, travel, and many others.
Industries that have been unable to digitize have seen consistent price increases with minimal improvement in services offered, whereas industries with less government regulation have advanced substantially.
Building a large bridge is many times more expensive and slower than it was 100 years ago, despite the potential for advances in capabilities. For example, the Golden Gate Bridge cost $35M to build in 1937 and took four years. The Bay Bridge in San Francisco recently cost $6.5B and took 18 years. Simply adding anti-suicide safety nets to the Golden Gate Bridge cost $224M and took 12-18 years. Even adjusting for inflation, there is a price increase of roughly 400%.
This troubling trend is driven by the bureaucratic red tape governments create and the innovations that they limit, partially due to the patent system and partially through union support.
Technology need not be limited to bits. The world of atoms (the physical world, generally) has improved rapidly since the Industrial Revolution, and some countries still indeed see progress in the physical world (the efficient creation of high-speed rails in Asian countries is a good example).
In the chart below, the industries with negative inflation are technical or primarily offshored sectors, whereas the industries with the greatest inflation are the ones with the heaviest government involvement (and the delta in the quality of service does not justify the price increases, in these cases).
Ineffective Organizations.
Our private sector isn't amazingly efficient, but the cost for the private sector to produce practically anything is dwarfed by the cost of the public sector. Nearly every governmental organization is substantially inefficient per dollar spent.
While the U.S. spends enormous sums of money on its military, American enlisted troops are paid roughly the same as Chinese generals, and we've spent tens of billions on military equipment that we scrap as useless. As a concerning side note, from a purchasing power parity perspective, China military spend is on par with U.S. military spend. It is critical for the United States to become more efficient in this domain.
The CIA and FBI don't have the same level of competence as the departments of the 1980s.
The military and intelligence agencies are the departments that Americans think highly of. Start talking about the FDA, the Department of Energy, the DMV, USPS, etc. and you have huge problems.
We see great examples of the difference in cost to build anything between Californian cities and Texas cities (and I'm talking about the CPSF of building the same type of structure, not the cost to acquire land), driven by different mindsets on the role of government.
The administrative burden on private companies due to regulations slows down entire industries. Companies face substantial paperwork from various agencies, often needing expert help to submit properly. They rely on inefficient systems and bureaucrats, leading to arbitrary application denials and costly audits. While regulation is necessary for issues like greenhouse gas reduction and financial fraud prevention, the high costs due to public sector inefficiency stifle progress.
In nearly every government-involved category, the cost versus outcome is poor. For instance, the U.S. spends roughly $17,500 per K-12 student but ranks 36th in the world on international math tests. Similarly, the U.S. spends more on healthcare per person than any other country but substantially lags in average lifespan. And other countries aren’t running anywhere near maximum potential efficiency.
Corruption. Large governments often lead to corruption, unfairness, and misaligned incentives. In the United States, examples include the following:
Corporations and special interest groups regularly lobby for lock-in regulations, such as those seen in Dodd-Frank, which has prevented new national banks from emerging (regulatory capture). This is rampant across industries, from AI to telecom.
U.S. agencies have 'de-banked' and 'de-insured' individuals not breaking any laws by suggesting to private banks and insurers that these individuals be blacklisted. Banks, wary of federal repercussions, comply. This often affects high-profile crypto enthusiasts, legal marijuana companies, and others.
Pork spending often disproportionately favors Americans in specific districts and special interest groups without being net-utility-maximizing for all Americans.
The rotating door between NPOs, government, and government contractors causes perverse incentives and creates substantial conflicts of interest. Government officials that favor a contractor will often become highly paid leaders within those contractor companies. This is often because of merit (who is more capable of running a company and influencing new leaders than the prior leader?), but there are certainly biases in favor of modestly corrupt officials, too.
Government officials weaponize lawfare. In effect, our laws have become so complicated and numerous that technically everyone is breaking a law. Then, government officials selectively apply the law to their enemies (ironically, this is arguably what happened with Hunter Biden).
Synthesizing the above issues, the scale of corruption and administrative burden is simply vaster with a large government and powerful regulatory state relative to a small government with lower levels of bureaucracy.
Effectively, the new right is open in its corruption, whereas the current elites are technically (arguably) not breaking too many of the critical rules, but instead exploiting insidious loopholes that they've created to use their raw power to elicit the same results as outright corruption.
Incompetent Leaders. Many leaders in the government are over-educated critics/commentators rather than successful operators. And many others are outright incompetent and unqualified for their positions. Sadly, Americans seem to not even understand the basics of what is appealing in terms of qualifications.
Social
Speech Policing. To reduce misinformation, the government has restricted speech, often through undue influence on social media companies. In some cases, this has stopped accurate information from spreading, usually favoring the party in power.
Failing Schools. Despite by far the highest spending per student, the United States ranked 34th in the world on its math PISA scores in 2022. Our K-12 education is plainly pathetic. We're allowing our schools to be run by the worst and most violent students, and we're not fostering alternatives, like school choice or, more generally, overhauling our education system.
Side note: In an early policy preview, Trump has said that he plans to dismantle the Department of Education.
Control of Social Issues. As the government gains more centralized control, the party in power often finds ways to control Americans on social issues. For example, many companies must report diversity figures, with favoritism for federal subcontracts being doled out to companies with high diversity figures. Speaking out in favor of purely color-blind merit has been seen as racist and a career limiting offense.
Wokism Replacing Merit. There are countless examples of corporate, educational, and government institutions pushing anti-merit, anti-science, and anti-fact-based agendas that embrace “woke' virtue signaling.
At the highest level, by becoming globalist, America vastly expanded the size of government, leading to a powerful centralized force that has been co-opted to also exert control over social issues. The U.S. government has created an unfair system of winners and losers while failing to create the proper ecosystem for technical innovation in the physical world.
VI. MAGA Elite Realignment Cohesiveness
Just as the NeoCons and NeoLibs had a cohesive governmental framework, so too do the MAGA Elites.
First is the focus on reshoring, building back up American manufacturing, which presents favorable security implications, along with the prospect of higher wages for working Americans.
With less emphasis on overseas involvement, the United States can drastically decrease its role as world police, bringing many troops home, reduce our military budget, and focusing strictly on direct national defense.
Given lower overseas involvement, the U.S. can deprioritize keeping the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency. Allowing interest rates to drop and more money to be printed could support U.S. exports and is generally positive for U.S. workers.
As a side note, Trump may nevertheless attempt to keep reserve currency status of the dollar and keep those benefits by negotiating aggressively with other countries looking to subvert the Petro-Dollar system.
To further support U.S. workers, the Trump administration aims to drastically limit illegal immigration, decreasing competition for jobs.
These updates allow for a smaller bureaucracy, with drastically lower spending.
And, with workers now having plenty of opportunities, we can reduce the redistribution of wealth.
This should effectively decentralize the economy and empower private companies. With bureaucracy limited, we will enable technological advances and acceleration, with groups able to sell to a worldwide market.
We'll be less reliant on China and Taiwan as we increase domestic manufacturing, which will augment our relative military power, and we'll deliver peace through strength (and from simply not needing to be so involved worldwide).
With a more decentralized government, there will be less corruption and less governmental control over our speech and social decisions.
And, decentralization is the key pillar of cryptocurrency.
Note that I think Trump tends to be less cohesive in his vision and is more of a practical issue-by-issue executive. So he may stray from this playbook considerably.
VII. Importance of a Strong Leader
The above plan outlines a path for significant realignment of institutions and approaches in our country, aiming to bring us closer to the foundational principles of America.
There are not (m)any top-down conspiracies, but entrenched interests make substantial change challenging. For instance, federal agencies will resist defunding and cuts, citing incompetence of those suggesting change and severe risks from reductions. The mainstream media will run with these stories.
To gain sufficient power, any leader must secure the loyalty of a large number of Americans.
Significant change is unlikely to come through adhering to conventional norms, as institutions strongly resist change. Additionally, no Republican Senate in the past century has surpassed the filibuster threshold, severely limiting the ability to repeal and replacement of current laws.
For the MAGA Elites, Trump's aggressiveness, lack of integrity, and rule-bending are seen as necessary features rather than bugs. Hiring yes-men in his cabinet and dismissing career experts is essential for restructuring from a NeoCon/NeoLib government to a decentralized one.
Trump generally focuses on the right areas (based on the MAGA Elite perspective of proper policies), potentially by chance, and connects with enough people to form a coalition that might not be possible with a more educated and intelligent leader who avoids making some of Trump's claims that are false but that resonate with working class Americans.
The MAGA Elite have been dissatisfied with America's current operations and sought an exit path. With Trump, they found one. His viewpoints align with their direction, and he is willing to aggressively challenge the current system.
I do not believe the MAGA Elite orchestrated Trump's rise in a top-down or well-planned manner. Instead, they observed Trump's momentum and sought to accelerate his progress once he became the clear front-runner and aligned with their goals.
My favorite short explanation is that Trump is like the mentally handicapped person on the midwit meme. While generally stupid, Trump happens to be correct on the key issues (at least, according to the policy views of the new right elite). And he was ahead of many in the MAGA Elite camp on many of these issues.
VIII. Mix of Narratives
In light of this understanding, it's interesting to consider how MAGA Elites (and Trump supporters generally) see the president-elect relative to how—on the same issue—those opposed to Trump view him.
Change Agents v. Cronyism & Personal Enrichment
Necessity of Aggressive Change v. Tearing Down Democratic Institutions Without Integrity
Reigning in Wokism v. Racism
Supporting Free Speech v. Misinformation & Propaganda
Substance over Style v. Lies
Persuasion of New World View v. Political Openings for Grifters
Anti-Globalist Outsiders v. Ignorant Yes-Men
NeoCon Traitors That Want Global Government v. Republicans with Integrity (e.g., Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney)
Necessary Outsiders Willing to be Aggressive v. Corrupt, Unqualified Cabinet Selections
Pursuing Opportunities for Peace v. Platforming Dictators
Overall, the real answer is almost always somewhere in the middle on these. Trump is more corrupt than any president we’ve had, but he also does appear to want to be viewed as a successful president who was able to push through his policy agenda (at any cost).
As we see commentary on new decisions, watch for the above frames and be careful to ignore the spin.
IX. The MAGA Elite Views v. Mainstream MAGA Views
Many MAGA voters, including many of Trump's diehard fans, are objectively low intelligence, poorly educated, and unable to articulate an internally cohesive set of policy positions. Many joined what is basically a social movement. On the other hand, the MAGA Elites are extremely intelligent, successful, and generally fairly informed. The typical Trump voter and the MAGA Elites, nevertheless, frequently hit the same key themes, but with a very different understanding of the underlying mechanics.
Aggressiveness to Institutions & Liberals - Trump's defining characteristic among his ardent supporters is that he will never stop fighting the liberals and will never back down. The MAGA Elites see this as essential for any change to take place. The mainstream supporters are tired of liberals always having their way and want someone to stand up for them, especially after years of being denigrated.
Deep State - The mainstream Trumpers often think of top-down conspiracies. The MAGA Elite know it's more of a complex system-driven Deep State, without top-down conspiracies, with many individuals incentivized to push for the status quo, and with institutions hardened to resist change.
Elite Frustration - The MAGA Elite are intelligent risk-takers who understand how to optimize expected value. Many are operators or founders. They see the Democratic and NeoCon elite as fat and happy with the status quo, driving minimal change, and with only the ability to comment/criticize rather than to effectively execute. The mainstream supporters hate that the elites judge them as deplorables while lacking common sense.
Cronyism / Drain the Swamp - The MAGA Elite understands that large government inherently creates various inequities and cronyism. The mainstream Republicans want to DRAIN THE SWAMP and get rid of the crazy elites who have weird sex parties and molest children in pizza parlors.
Political realignment (populism) - The MAGA Elite want a realignment toward decentralized and smaller government, while the typical supporters are drawn to Trump's populist message.
Integrity - The MAGA Elite know Trump has low integrity and will do whatever it takes to "win" and break the system, whereas the mainstream supporters think he's highly authentic.
This basically suggests Trump is a useful idiot whom the MAGA Elite dislike but are using opportunistically. I don't want to quite convey that frame, for two reasons:
Trump is a very strong and difficult-to-control leader, not a puppet that is easy to persuade. He is the one with the mic.
While many in the MAGA Elite have at times expressed feelings about Trump being dumb or similar, I think many of them do like him on some levels. People like others in their tribe.
X. What Actually Mattered in this election?
Like I said before, this isn't the point of this article. But I think Noah Smith’s analysis nailed it. I’ll slightly adjust below:
Inflation.
Anti-Wokeness.
Democratic elites being out of touch with typical Americans.
Running a far-left Democrat whom the Democratic political machine presented as center-left.
Successful manipulation (painting the economy and other party much different from reality).
There are many other takes.
Some think Kamala should have campaigned further left to energize the base and increase turnout.
Others think if we allowed the Democratic people to nominate Harris, it would have improved her chances.
Some suggest Harris should have tried harder to win than to "not lose" and should have given clear policy positions.
And many think Americans simply prefer male rapists to women in positions of power.
I don't know, but I don't think these other takes have amazing explanatory ability that is supported by data.
First, I want to reiterate that I think most groups have reasonable points of view and are basically trying their best. There is a small percent of low integrity cronyism on all sides (more on some sides), but generally I think folks are wanting what they think is best for the country as a whole. They are voting for who/what they think is right. Below is a breakdown of my perspective on the strategy and platform of the MAGA Elites.
Trump is a Bad Pick - Trump is simply not a good selection for president. There are others, who could aggressively fight for change, that are intelligent, capable, and high integrity. We instead have Trump, who (ignoring ideology) is one of the worst possible leaders we could have selected. I am sympathetic, however, to the fact that most reasonable selections might not be sufficiently able to form a connection with low intellectual capital voters like Trump does.
Inflation Misunderstanding - Trump has influenced many low-information voters by manipulating their understanding of inflation. Many voters attributed pay increases to personal merit, while blaming cost increases on government policy set by the Biden administration. However, both Trump and Biden contributed to inflation by printing and distributing large sums of money during COVID. Despite this, Biden managed to control inflation by the later portion of his term, resulting in a stronger U.S. economy compared to other countries post-COVID. This was primarily due to effective Federal Reserve policies, some luck, and the U.S. Dollar's status as the reserve currency. Trump's policies, which are generally pro-inflation, can benefit U.S. exporters and real wages. However, Trump voters have been misled on various economic facts and ultimately see their inflation problems being caused by Biden.
Slim Margins - Over the past 35 years, U.S. elections have been decided by narrow margins. This lack of consensus results in coalitions necessary for victory, but without perfect consensus from either party on many key issues. Between the narrow margins and internal disagreements, there is rarely a clear mandate, hindering significant progress.
Inability to Deliver - Trump's first term demonstrated his ineffectiveness in enacting significant change. He failed to build much of the wall that he promised Mexico he would expense to Mexico, he minimally impacted bureaucracy, and he substantially increased the deficit and debt. While tax cut stimulation of the economy exceeded expectations, the changes desired by MAGA Elites were far greater than what Trump achieved. Despite recognizing the country's issues, Trump's actions often exacerbated the problems he campaigned to fix.
Increased Political Polarization - Selecting a divisive candidate like Trump has significantly heightened political polarization, exacerbating inefficiencies and corruption across all levels of government.
Unions - Both parties sought union support in this election. Historically, Democrats align with unions, while Republicans favor businesses. However, Republicans now appeal more to the working poor. Unions contribute to many national problems, such as inefficiencies in ports and in industries like aerospace and automobile manufacturing. As a leader at AT&T, I've observed the disparity in output-per-dollar between union and vendor labor repeatedly firsthand. Restricting immigration, including legal immigration, to support American workers will further reduce competitiveness and harm everyone.
The Size of Government –
Trump's first term was far from decentralized. He sought maximum power, making decisions personally rather than establishing broad, fair laws. Electing Trump to promote decentralization is illogical. It's concerning that few MAGA Elites publicly acknowledge Trump's flaws, focusing instead on progress relative to the Biden administration.
Some left-leaning thinkers note a constant reduction in the percentage of Americans employed by the government. While accurate, government spending in inflation-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of GDP remains high, and bureaucratic/regulatory power significantly restricts American business.
Abandoning Free Trade - Competitive advantage drives American prosperity, and abandoning the greatest all-time driver of economic prosperity is a grave mistake. Security issues can be addressed through multi-sourcing. Americans risk losing global competitiveness, worsening our ability to export. Free trade has lifted billions from poverty and enriched Americans, offering lower consumer prices and is essential in a complex world where 1/25th of the population lacks the expertise to produce everything it needs and desires.
Risk of Fascism - The hope from the MAGA Elite is that Trump will drive a restructuring away from globalism toward decentralized and smaller government. He needs to aggressively fight outside of the rules of our institutions so that he can restructure them. We all know, however, that Trump is power-hungry with fascist tendencies. The expected value calculation on Trump shows that he is far too high risk for the benefit he might produce (JD Vance on the other hand is much different).
The Fight with China - Like the Cold War with Russia in the 20th century, the U.S. will likely be in some form of a conflict with China throughout the remaining decades. China's totalitarian system is performing very well in some areas (like manufacturing), while struggling in others. We will need to decide whether the best path to outperforming our adversary is by copying what makes China great or doubling down on what makes America great. I think it is the latter. I also think there is an international component that requires us to have multilateral support without being taken advantage of, but Trump is probably not the right person to accomplish this goal.
Decentralization Sympathy –
The new right thinkers highlight legitimate issues. Our government is plagued by corruption, inefficiencies, and problems, exacerbated by partisan divides. Capitalism, which I support, has inherent market failures and externalities. The public sector should address these shortcomings.
But the U.S. government intervenes excessively, with high administrative costs, corruption, and incompetence. Even foundational government roles are questionable, such as fundamental research, which I strongly support.
To improve our system, we can reform the public sector for efficiency or pursue decentralization. The latter seems more feasible and practical, except of course for essential functions like national defense.
Libertarian Alternative -
On a personal level, I am not a huge fan of Trump's policies. I support a decentralized small government that distances itself from policing speech and promoting a woke social agenda. I advocate for reducing bureaucracies and cutting red tape. The Republican stances on anti-IVF, anti-abortion choice, anti-legal immigration, and pro-tariff protectionism are, nevertheless, severely misguided. Many in the MAGA Elite disagree with mainstream Trump supporters on these issues, except when they personally benefit from trade insulation. But they fail to realize that mainstream Trump populism will likely prevail over decentralization.
And we can have a perfectly cohesive system by way of the libertarian alternative. We can have free trade without our military being involved in policing the world and let businesses find equilibrium levels of trade and work around pockets of violence. We can push multi-sourcing of critical products. We can support the strengths of Americans and let the weak industries die.
Not Democrats - While I'm criticizing the poor option that the MAGA Elite selected, many of them were choosing the less-bad of two alternatives. And the Democrats have never been further from what we need in this country. So I’m sympathetic to the decision.
Bias - Each political party portrays the intentions of the counterparty as self-serving and focused on personal power and wealth, while presenting their own motives as ideological and beneficial to Americans. In reality, most everyday Americans fall somewhere in between, with individual interests often leading to biases that shape ideology. People act in self-interest to some extent, even when they believe they are acting for the greater good. Politicians are generally a bit worse in motivation than most Americans. Trump and some of his cabinet selections likely fall even further down the less favorable end of this spectrum, while high-integrity leaders, though rare, lean the other way.
To summarize, the MAGA Elite offer a valid critique of the issues created by globalist NeoCons/NeoLibs. They propose a cohesive set of policies aimed at decentralization and efficiency. Trump's aggressive and low-integrity traits are seen as assets for dismantling globalist institutions. However, aligning with a fascist-leaning, power-hungry leader like Trump, who has attempted to undermine democracy for personal gain, is problematic. A more suitable choice would have been a reasonable, intelligent, and higher-integrity leader who is still willing to be aggressive. Nonetheless, the MAGA Elite ultimately supported who they believe was the better candidate to drive the change they need in the general election.
By: Justin McCallon
Justin is a tech startup executive who majored in political science and is interested in interesting interdisciplinary topics.
