I hope everyone had a lovely holiday. And now, back to work.
The Trump Administration certainly had a busy holiday. First we had a big Christmas Eve Epstein files document announcement. More than one million files they previously didn’t know about have somehow turned up! Somebody must have stacked them in a back hall under the old pizza boxes. My goodness, what a surprise. And after Trump’s girl Pam kept saying the DoJ had done an “exhaustive review” of everything Epstein and there was nothing in the files worth releasing. It’s going to take them a while to review all that, of course.
And then on Christmas Day Trump bombed Nigeria. Why did Trump bomb Nigeria? To please his White evangelical supporters, basically. White evangelicals in the U.S. have been yammering that Nigerian Christians were being “targeted” for death. There was talk of a Nigerian Christian genocide. So Trump dropped a bunch of bombs on Nigeria, I take it. And the evangelicals were pleased.
I’ve been watching this for a while. There has been a lot of terrorist violence in Nigeria. Some of the people killed by terrorists are Christians. Some of them are not. According to Pew, Nigeria is 56 percent Muslim and 43 percent Christian. Maybe. I’ve seen different figures elsewhere. Terrorist groups in Nigeria include West African ISIS, Boko Haram, and Ansaru, These are all Muslim organizations. But there are also a whole lot of criminal gangs in operation, and I take it the authorities aren’t always sure if particular incidents of violence are terrorist-related or gang-related. Nigeria is the world’s sixth-most populous country. It has more than 250 ethnic groups, with varying languages and customs. Who knows who is targeting whom?
Ironically, the strike was fully supported by the Muslim president of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and coordinated with the federal military. Nigeria’s Daily Post is more positive about the operation than most US newspapers. It says that US naval vessels in the Gulf of Guinea launched 16 guided MQ-9 Reaper missiles at “two major Islamic State ISIS terrorist enclaves located within the Bauni Forest axis of Tangaza Local Government Area, Sokoto State.”
So Trump’s attempt to configure the action as a Christian strike in defense of Christians (for his Evangelical base) is a stretch. He seems actually to have worked hand in glove with Tinibu and the Nigerian Muslim elite to hit a mutual problem. Although parts of Nigeria, especially the northeast, are poor and conflict-ridden, there is no evidence that Christians suffer worse from this violence than Muslims — people from both communities have been kidnapped, brutalized, and killed by forces such as Boko Haram.
That’s what I’m seeing from other sources. Whatever is going on in Nigeria is not a simple Muslims-versus-Christians dichotomy. It’s more complicated. Never mind that Trump had no authorization whatsoever to bomb Nigeria. Nothing happening there threatens the United States. He just did this to score points with the White evangelicals. Who are less than 15 percent of the U.S. population, btw. See also Breaking down U.S. strikes on ISIS in Nigeria and the complicated conflict there at PBS.
Also, Trump has decided that since “affordability” is a fake word, or something, the midterms will be about “pricing.” I don’t think that’s going to help him much.
You’ve probably also heard that the MAGA movement is fracturing. There was a particularly good analysis of the current state of MAGA at the New York Times — The Strange Death of Make America Great Again by Matthew Walther. It’s good enough that I’m burning my last gift link for the month. Walther proposes that “Coalitions organized around symbolic enmities and ideological absolutes rather than shared material interests are prone to sudden collapse.”
… MAGA’s internal contradictions can no longer be ignored. The movement that had promised an end to foreign adventurism has found itself torn between an alliance of ideological noninterventionists and realists and a hawkish national security establishment. Trumpism promised a revival of domestic manufacturing, yet neither the president nor his advisers have decided whether this means tariffs, industrial policy, reviving organized labor, environmental deregulation or mere nostalgia. MAGA also promised immigration reform but has oscillated between showboating deportations and a deference to pro-visa allies in Big Tech and corporate agriculture. At the same time, American support for Israel has become a contested issue on the right for the first time in decades. Some opponents have been accused of antisemitism; others simply announce it. …
… This problem extends to Mr. Trump himself. No postwar political movement has been more closely bound up in the fortunes of its founder than MAGA is. Yet during the recent controversies, Mr. Trump’s own views have been neither heeded nor even earnestly solicited. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, he has begun to recede from the movement he created.
Is MAGA sustainable without Trump? MAGA was never a serious political movement. It is more of social/cultural phenomenon, a movement of people estranged from multiculturalism, liberal values, and the 21st century in general. .
MAGA’s internal culture has always rewarded theatrical confrontation over achievement. Boorishness commands attention, and boors mistake attention for leverage. Pseudo-martyrdom becomes an end in itself. Loyalty tests proliferate. Those who counsel de-escalation find themselves subject to denunciation; prudential disagreement is allowed to provide cover for rank bigotry. Partisans celebrate one another for exacerbating tensions even when exacerbation forecloses coalition building.
There is also a related problem: The Trumpist movement has generated a lunatic array of semiautonomous online subcultures that are largely indifferent to strategic considerations and immune from political consequences while still exercising influence over actors whose decisions are not so immune.
Without a strong personality to rally around, to tell them who to hate this week, they have no direction. And Trump is fading. Had he lived, maybe Charlie Kirk could have been the new MAGA Daddy for at least part of the movement. But I don’t see J.D. Vance or Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro or Nick Fuentes or any other semi-leaders of MAGA turning into The One. More likely MAGA, whatever it is, will just fracture. Even Jim Geraghty, a long-time Trump apologist who writes for the Washington Post, called the recent Turning Point conference A conference of clowns; “Wrestlemania with podcasters.”
See also Cracks have emerged in the Maga coalition by Moira Donegan at The Guardian.


