During the last two and one-half years, I have maintained in this column that a non-violent revolution in the USA is possible.  I define revolution as the taking of political power—the taking of control of the principal governing institutions of the nation—by an underdog, non-elite class, taking political power from the hands of the power elite.  And I have maintained that in order to take political power, a movement for change must reconceptualize American ideology, drawing from strains of both the Left and Right, attaining supporters from both ideological bands and attaining power through established electoral procedures, imperfect though they are; seizing the opportunity provided by the decadence of the American power elite, which has betrayed the nation and the people through Cold War ideologies, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and globalism, rendering itself incapable of constructively addressing national problems. 

     In reflecting upon recent political developments in the USA, I have tentatively concluded that the MAGA movement, led by Donald Trump, has accomplished a non-violent revolution, taking control of the three branches of government, in the name of certain sectors of the people, and against the determined opposition of the political establishment and the major media of communication.  I say tentatively, because we cannot know at this point what the electoral victory of Trump and the Republican Party truly means; much depends on how things unfold in the new administration’s first year.

     There will be some who say that the Republican victory was aided by the mediocrity and lack of political substance of the Democratic presidential candidate.  Indeed so.  But the selection of Kamala Harris to head the Democratic ticket was itself a consequence of the decadence of the political establishment. 

     There are some who claim that Donald Trump and the MAGA movement are fascist.  But this charge is politically motivated, not rooted in careful observation and consideration of the proposals being put forth.  And it is belied by the fact that Trump has been gaining ground with women, Latinos, and blacks.  Indeed, it today can reasonably be said the Trump is forging a multi-ethnic coalition against the political establishment, urban liberals, and the woke Left. 

     Donald Trump refers to MAGA as a political movement, and it is.  But we can now say more.  With the electoral triumph of 2024, the MAGA movement possibly establishes itself as a triumphant people’s revolution, inasmuch as it is a movement formed by middle America and the lower middle and working classes, which has taken political power on the basis of a declared agenda in opposition to the policies of the past forty-five years implemented by the power elite and its upper-middle-class allies. 

     As a result of the gains in the 2024 elections, and the judicial appointments of the first Trump administration, the MAGA movement now has control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government.  It does not, however, control the agencies of the federal government bureaucracy, nor does it control the major media of communication and the universities.  If the second Trump administration and the evolving MAGA movement are true to their mission, the control of these institutions will be the next terrain of struggle, concerning which I will comment further below. 

     When a revolution takes power, it enters a new stage.  It now must struggle to maintain itself in power against powerful enemies, by increasing its support among the people through the implementation of its promises and through successful results.  This would be possible for the MAGA movement, if it acts with political intelligence. 

                                                                             §

What should the Trump administration do?

     First, the Trump administration should implement its promises.  The Republican Party Platform promises to restore border security and adopt a sensible immigration policy; to develop domestic manufacturing and revive the nation’s industrial base; to cut costly regulations on the automobile industry; to unleash sources of American energy, making the nation the dominant energy producer in the world, thus reducing inflation; to maintain a strong military; to restore peace in Europe and the Middle East; to follow a policy of equal application of the law for all, regardless of political affiliation or personal beliefs; to reduce taxes for workers; to protect social security and Medicare; to reduce crime; to secure elections through same-day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship; and to unite our country by bringing it to new levels of success.  These proposals are reiterated in the discourses of Trump and Vance. 

     Secondly, the Trump administration and the MAGA movement should adhere to the American constitutional principle of federalism.  They should recognize the authority of the states with respect to such issues as abortion, gay rights, transgenderism, and the content of primary and secondary school education.  They should permit the blue states to follow their road on these questions, without interference from the MAGA-controlled federal government.  If this leads to regional differences in laws and customs with respect to these issues, so be it.  Our unity as a nation can be forged on a common commitment to the founding constitutional principles of the nation, as revised through constitutional amendments; on unity of purpose with respect to the development of the productivity of the economy, drawing upon the nation’s immense human and natural resources; and on common support for a foreign policy that protects the economic interests of the nation, and respects at the same time the rights and interests of all nations.

     Thirdly, in accordance with its promise to avoid endless wars, prevent World War III, and restore the policy of peace through strength, the Trump administration ought to seek peace with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, if not on a basis of cooperation, at least peaceful coexistence.  This will not be hard to do, as Trump intuits, because these nations are committed to mutually beneficial trade with the nations of the West, including the United States.  A foreign policy of peace and cooperation would significantly increase the prospects for success for the Trump plan to develop the national economy, because it would make possible commercial agreements that would benefit the American economy.

     In the case of China, tariffs can be imposed on Chinese products, not as an economic war, but on the basis of sustained negotiations with China, seeking agreements that are beneficial to the economic development of both. 

     With respect to Israel, taking into consideration its historic special relation with the Jewish people and Israel, the United States ought to continue to provide military support and protection for Israel, but it should do so with commitment to the internationally recognized two-state solution, which recognizes Palestinian state control over its territory, defined by its pre-1967 borders, and including East Jerusalem as its capital.

     Fourthly, the United States must make peace with Cuba and Venezuela.  Up to now, Trump and the MAGA movement have not shown any disposition toward cooperation with the nations of Latin America that have declared for the construction of socialism.  But peace with these nations would be consistent with the MAGA orientation of not involving the USA in the political dynamics of the nations of the world, and focusing instead on the development of a strong military that is capable of defending the national territory of the United States, and on the development of a productive economy capable of ensuring the prosperity of the nation.  Cuba and Venezuela are not a threat to the national security of the USA.   A policy of economic sanctions against these nations damages the American economy and American prestige.  The USA should be confident in its ability to develop its productive capacities and to trade profitably with all the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, without the need for coercive measures.  Peace with Cuba and Venezuela would represent a logical evolution from the positions that the MAGA movement already has taken.  And it could be an important gesture in the consolidation of the MAGA revolution.

     The reported selection of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State is not a good sign with respect to the hope that the Trump administration will seek peace and cooperation with China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.  But we must wait and see.  The triumph of the MAGA revolution establishes a new political context.  Should the administration revitalize a neoconservative agenda, it would seriously jeopardize the prospects for the consolidation of the MAGA revolution.

                                                                             §

The battles on the horizon

     The Trump administration must seek to control the federal government bureaucracy.  I like what former independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now part of the Trump team and MAGA movement, has to say on the matter.  RFK Jr. maintains that the great majority of the employees of the federal government are patriotic Americans.  The problem is that the officials at the top levels of the regulatory agencies have permitted them to be captured by the industries that they are supposed to regulate.  Kennedy calls for executive appointments to the highest levels of the agencies of persons who are dedicated to the true mission of regulatory agencies, and who are morally and intellectually capable of holding back the corrupting influence of the corporations.  A battle on this front will likely be waged in the first year of the Trump administration, but in light of its control of the three branches of the federal government, the administration ought to be able to advance in this area, seeking to return the agencies to appropriate administrative control by the President and legislative supervision by the Congress.  It has been reported in recent days that Kennedy has prepared a list of more than 600 persons as possible appointments to the high levels of the government bureaucracy.

     In recent days, a Trump video appeared on X, in which the President-elect declares that the administration will transform the system of higher education through the redirection of the accreditation system, dismissing current accreditors and replacing them with new accreditors, selected through an application process.  The new system will impose real standards, including defending the American tradition and Western civilization, protecting free speech, and eliminating wasteful administrative positions, including diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats.  The new accreditors will be oriented to supporting programs of accelerated low-cost degrees and effective job placement and career services.  The new accrediting system will expect entrance and exit exams, so that colleges can show that students have learned.  In addition, Trump announced that he will direct the Department of Justice to pursue federal civil rights cases against schools that continue to practice racial discrimination under the guise of equity. 

     It has been reported in recent days that Trump plans to eliminate the Department of Education, turning the direction and support of education over to the states, where it constitutionally belongs.  If true, this would be consistent with the principle of federalism.  However, it seems to me that this could have chaotic consequences, and thus it would be an example of overreach, which is a common error in revolutionary processes.  Perhaps it would be better to reduce the Department of Education and redefine its mission.

     The bias of the “legacy media” is evident to the majority of the people.  At the same time, the development of an alternative media has been underway for some time, financed by wealthy individuals with a conservative perspective.  In addition, podcasts have gained influence, because they enable public figures and intellectuals to present in an unedited form their proposals and ideas, without being filtered by the establishment media.  Moreover, it would be possible for the administration to expand support for public television and radio, expecting news reporting that is balanced, objective, and based on standards of truth.  In the future, high quality public media could be a possible means for the conducting of low-cost election campaigns.

                                                                             §

Final considerations

     The evolution of the Left from the 1960s New Left to identity politics to post-modern dismissal of objective truth and to the incivility of the toxic woke Left has rendered it unable to effectively critique the political establishment’s abandonment of the development of the productivity of the American economy, and unable to critique the continued application of imperialist policies in an epoch in which imperialism could no longer promote American national interests.  The Left therefore conceded to right-wing populism the political space for the taking of power, attaining the support of the people through a broad-based critique of the political establishment and through calls for increasing the economic productivity of the nation, managing better the national borders, and opposing imperialist overreach in world affairs.  If the MAGA movement can consolidate its power through politically intelligent policies and economic success, the woke Left might begin irreversible decline, giving rise to a renewal of reasonable leftist currents that recently have been ignored, such as Catholic social thought and other religion-based defenses of social justice.

ABOUT CHARLES McKELVEY
I am a retired professor from the United States, now living mostly in socialist Cuba.  I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist revolutionary.  I believe that the project of Marx has evolved in theory and practice through various stages: the Russian Revolution, led by Lenin; the Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel; and the project of “socialism for the twenty-first century,” declared by Chávez.  The phrase Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist is a shorthand expression: Marx was accompanied by Engels; Lenin, by Trotsky; in addition to Fidel, there was Ho Chi Minh and a host of leaders of movements of national liberation in Asia, Africa and Latin America during the middle decades of the twentieth century; and with Chávez have been Evo Morales of Bolivia, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, and others.  As an intellectual and revolutionary, I am committed to seeking to make a contribution to the development of the subjective conditions that would make possible a popular revolution in my own country, the United States.