What remains of the Maga after the mid-term elections

“The MAGA movement is essentially dead,” Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute tells Il Foglio: “All that will remain of it is Donald Trump.” For a decade, the U.S. president has bent the Republican Party to his will, and the Republicans have followed him because he knew how to reach an electorate that was otherwise out of reach for many of them: thus, fearing their leader’s disapproval, they swallowed their doubts and grievances. But now that loyalty has cost many of them their seats. Finding another politician willing to wear the red cap is not difficult, but Trump held together a jumble of often contradictory ideas thanks to his personal charisma. The defeat leaves the Republicans debating which parts of that mix might still prove successful. “When Donald Trump thinks a particular policy will work in his favour, he pursues it,” observes Christopher Preble of the Stimson Centre: “If he sees an opportunity to strengthen his brand and polish his legacy, he does so. Ultimately, everything revolves around him.”

Trumpism drew on long-standing rebellions against the party establishment, such as those led by Barry Goldwater and Pat Buchanan, who in 1992 challenged George H.W. Bush under the banner of ‘America first’, attacking free trade and immigration. In 2009 came the Tea Party, a libertarian backlash against government bailouts and Obamacare. Then came Trump’s moment, as working-class towns battered by globalisation rebelled against Washington and a broader electorate lost patience with leaders who had repeatedly failed to deliver on their promises. He tapped into that discontent, whilst American conservative intellectuals and ideologues sought to transform Trump’s instincts into a political philosophy. Steve Bannon imbued his attacks on Washington with the language of a national uprising, of a revolution. Others looked to Viktor Orbán’s Hungary as a model for the exercise of conservative power, or drew up plans such as the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. But every attempt to define what ‘Trumpism’ was came up against Trump’s fickleness and the expectation that his supporters would defend decisions that contradicted what had been said previously. “He nationalises companies. He hates immigrants and cuts taxes: he doesn’t fit into any ideological category,” says Nowrasteh: “It’s a real populist, nationalist and confused mess.”

His ‘America First’ programme marked a break with Ronald Reagan’s party, which supported free trade, strong alliances and a tough stance on Moscow, and this change of course split the right, giving rise to the ‘Never Trump’ movement. Trump won that battle, driving many of his critics out of the party, whilst his support base became even more devoted. For many evangelicals, having survived two assassination attempts imbued his cause with religious significance, a sign of divine providence at work. By the time of his return in 2024, his ideas had also shifted the country’s outlook. The backlash against ‘woke’ culture – from identity politics to transgender rights – had fuelled his campaign, and over time even some progressives had backtracked, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who echoed the view that ‘woke was madness’.

“The underlying idea behind the MAGA movement’s success was that the pendulum of our ideology had swung a little too far to the left and that some form of correction was needed,” explains Ernest McGowen, a political scientist at the University of Richmond: “Everything that happened during Trump’s first and second terms will be seen as a response to the reasons why the movement came into being.” As well as a victory over the ‘woke’ movement, that pact with the president gave the Republicans more than just tax cuts and three Supreme Court justices: Trump transformed the party of big business into the party of American workers, winning over working-class towns that had voted Democrat for decades and a growing share of Hispanic voters, often with that hardline stance on immigration that the party leadership once deemed electorally risky. Many of those voters turned out for Trump rather than for the party, which tied the Republicans’ fortunes to his own. And weariness gradually set in, as happens in any long marriage. The endless press conferences and late-night posts on Truth Social, in which Trump mingled presidential decisions with personal insults, have worn many Americans down. For some, the breaking point was the war against Iran and petrol prices; for others, it was his family’s growing wealth thanks to overseas business dealings. The outsider who promised to clean up Washington has come to be seen, by many, as its most old-school figure. The question now hanging over the Republican Party is whether it can retain those voters by reverting to the old Trumpian balance, or whether it must find new ideas to recover from this heavy defeat.

“It will no longer be politically tenable to associate one’s name with the Maga movement as it stands,” predicts McGowen: “The cap as a symbol might remain, but it must represent something more enduring.”

Trump still has two years left in the White House; he can govern by executive order and retains considerable room for manoeuvre in foreign policy. Republicans looking beyond him must therefore calculate how far they can afford to distance themselves from him. He has shown little interest in grooming a successor, and choosing one would further cement his irrelevance. But Vice-President J. D. Vance, who aspires to succeed him, has been quick to distance himself from the war in Iran. Will that be enough to save him? “Trumpism is a personality-driven movement, and Vance has no personality,” Nowrasteh quips: “He can pretend that the MAGA movement is about ideas, but it’s about Donald Trump, and Vance is not Donald Trump.” Trump’s dominance had masked divisions that are now out in the open. Advocates of disengagement and the hawks are divided over Iran and Israel, and many Republicans have broken with the president over his waiver of the new sanctions against Russia. At home, populists who want tariffs and fewer immigrants are at odds with business-friendly conservatives, who are concerned about prices and labour shortages. The mid-term elections have given each faction a reason to argue that their own advice could have saved the Republicans. “After a defeat of this sort, there are always voices amongst Republicans who think that Ronald Reagan’s approach was far better. There will be a lively debate within the Republican Party,” says William Galston of the Brookings Institution, who writes a weekly political column for the Wall Street Journal: “It is an understatement to say that a battle over the party’s future is beginning.”