James, I can't tell you how grateful I feel for this piece. Progressives have not done the necessary part of self-reflection to see where they/we have failed, but you in this essay have. I wonder what we (collectively) can do to spread this knowledge far and wide? Many, many thanks. What you are doing is absolutely essential for this historical moment.
Yes, the power of active listening aids the overall reflection. I taught high school for 35+ years and still consider teaching my favorite career. Active listening was big on my list for critical thinking skills. Every indigenous group I taught about had a similar story that said they were bypassed as stakeholders in the decisions made. And now where do we start, not too late to begin again!
There are many inconvenient truths in this post, such as... "Democracy is not sustained by procedures. It lives or dies by whether people believe the system sees them, values them, listens to them. If they don’t believe that, they will turn elsewhere. And they have." For the past 20 years my work in education has been focused on helping build effective cultures, from the classroom to the district and state office. I believe effective cultures are built on 3 things: Trust, Collaboration, and Empowerment. But trust is absolutely foundational. Relationships can't be sustained without it. And, as Linda Hart Green has already pointed out... Listening is essential. I've long been amazed at how much time we spend teaching how to deliver a message compared to how little is spent learning "Active Listening" skills.
As a nation, we have moved structurally away from broad generalists toward narrow specialists across all disciplines. This change generally devalues institutional knowledge in favor of experts or specialists. Specialization by its very nature narrows the band of knowledge and practical experience. One of the unfortunate byproducts of narrow approach is that much of it is academically isolated from reality. It also tends to approach any solution proposed as a “one size fits all” with little regard for the conditions locally. Farming is an example of that approach, farming in Nebraska or Kansas is materially different than the central valley of California, or Alabama. Historically the Department of Agriculture has used a broad brush with its approach to pressing for changes in farming practices, without regard to the local soil or weather conditions. The resistance to change is driven by generations of experience, when that is ignored or demeaned there is fertile ground for mistrust.
When a valid answer to “why” is presented, it translates into effective changes and action. Today’s substack is such a cogent article that gives answers to why the MAGA movement activated it’s base. Great observations and conclusions.
This is my first time reading your work and it is compelling to say the least. Those who determine and implement policy must listen and respond especially to those who are directly affected by those policy decisions.
Here's the question that I keep coming back to. When the science is clear and a new policy proposal is based on that science yet those directly affected don't accept the change, what are we as a society supposed to do?
Sometimes personal interests don't align with broader societal needs. Sometimes personal interests are based on greed, on bad science or the belief that "this is how we've always done it, why change?"
You’ve put your finger on the heart of the dilemma: what do we do when sound policy rooted in science meets resistance from those it directly affects?
There’s no easy answer, but I’d argue the solution isn’t to retreat from science or cave to every demand—it’s to deepen the process. People are more likely to accept difficult change when they’ve had a meaningful role in shaping it. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees, but it shifts the dynamic from “this is being done to us” to “this is something we’re part of.”
Unfamiliar as I am with the processes by which many communities are formally invited to weigh in on policy decisions, but knowing that my own community offers many opportunities to discuss and provide input on new measures, I wonder if some of the problem isn't how little residents actually participate.
OMG where has this been all of my life. This is it. This describes my life as a Family Physician, my struggles in structured medicine, my entire family's story. A working class family full of geniuses, engineers, only the last three generations formally educated. Now split across the political spectrum, all wanting the same things. None of us appearing like we should anything about nothin'.
I tend the old family place in rural north Georgia and I have observed a community of really good people who feel more and more left-behind. These are salt-of-the-earth good folks. They don't want the city ways to change their community. They believe deeply in their church and their neighbors to provide and protect each other. They aren't attuned to how public policy is affecting their lives, but are more tuned in to politics and personality. If a politician fits their narrative he is good, if not, then not good. I'm overcome by their individual kindness. I don't think they see the things those of us who are focused on public policy see.
Yes there are also the aggressive militants in their silos building up their wrath for others. I hear them practice shooting every night after work as their shots echo through the woods. It's an enigma for me to be there feeling both safe and on edge.
I was saddened by the narrative sold on Fox et Al against Biden. There was no need to poison the well when we had a chance to experience compassion and a caring policy leader again. The competence of his admin was the best we've seen and he truly was about unity after division. We can't even begin to discuss what was good about his term with eqch other.
So I want to implicate the greed of media in all this as well. I have my parents textbooks from their journalism school days at the University of Georgia after the war. From my life with them and my reading of these books, I know what the ideal was. My grandparents (and their sons) ran a south Georgia newspaper before that and my dad and uncles were thusly inclined and worked in allied trades. My cousins and I wince daily at the atrocious acts of a media who seeks eyes and ears for riches instead of the truth.
Your writings reveal big picture patterns beyond our innate tribalness that bring lightened space into the ways to see our culture now. This gives us choices beyond our knee-jerk reactive selves. Our culture has a collective soul as strong as our individual souls. Together these conversations may help us save it.
James, your essay offers an important and refreshing perspective on the MAGA movement. Instead of blaming people for being ignorant or misled, he shows how many communities have been ignored and excluded from decisions that affect them. Over time, that creates deep distrust—not just of experts, but of the whole system.
The examples he gives—like wolf reintroduction, farming policies, and urban projects—show a common problem: people weren’t asked, listened to, or respected. When that happens again and again, anger builds, and someone like Trump can tap into it.
What stood out most was the idea that local knowledge matters. A farmer, a mechanic, a parent—they all have valuable insights that often get overlooked just because they don’t have the “right” credentials.
If we want to rebuild trust, we need to start by listening and sharing power—not just offering better messaging or new programs. This article is a strong reminder that real respect and relationships matter more than facts alone.
That said, for many in the MAGA movement, the message doesn't matter if it’s coming from "the left." The source alone can trigger automatic rejection, even if what’s being said is reasonable or factually true. It's not just disagreement—it’s identity-based opposition. In that context, being “liberal” isn’t a political stance; it’s seen as an existential threat. This isn’t about facts, it’s about identity. That’s why real change takes trust, not just truth.
This reflects a tribal dynamic, where political affiliation becomes deeply personal; almost like sports loyalty or family heritage. Once politics gets tied to identity in that way, facts don’t persuade. the Instead, people double down to defend their “side.” Where have we heard, and will undoubtedly, continue to hear the phrase "double down?" Rational arguments alone won’t work. The Trump movement has tapped into these deep grievances and continues to exploit them while systematically weakening federal institutions; something that draws loud support from MAGA loyalists. Unfortunately, many fail to see that this isn’t about reducing government power; it’s about reshaping it into the foundation of authoritarian rule.
Exactly. It’s a shift from delivering solutions to building relationships. When people are asked—genuinely, not performatively—they’re more likely to engage, and the outcomes tend to be stronger, more sustainable, and more just. It’s not about giving up expertise, but about genuinely empowering people from the beginning in shaping how these programs are applied.
James-- Can you also address the issue of concreteness (black and white thinking-- those immigrants got here illegally so they must go). Despite anything I say "illegal" is still the excuse for inhumane treatment . Underlying racism/mistrust there? I would love your thoughts.
The appeal to “illegality” often masks something deeper: a need for moral clarity in a world that feels unstable, and a way to draw hard boundaries between “us” and “them.” Black-and-white thinking provides psychological comfort—it flattens complexity into certainty.
But “illegal” is rarely about law alone. It becomes a stand-in for fear, mistrust, and often racism—especially when the same logic isn’t applied equally across groups. When someone clings to legality as the sole moral test, it’s usually not about the law—it’s about reinforcing who belongs and who doesn’t.
Challenging that requires more than facts. It means confronting the emotional and cultural work that labels like “illegal” are doing—and offering a different framework rooted in humanity, responsibility, and historical truth.
this is an excellent article-- very informative about the whys of the MAGA movement beyond low education (which is still believe is an issue but there are other kinds of knowledge admittedly). Listening to white people whine is very hard when their tendency is not just to blame the government but too buy into the idea that immigrants/brown/black people are the problem. But i will try a strategy i have often used--find something you can agree with-- and start the conversation there.
Your piece reminds me of the Jacoby book from 2018, and Tom Nichols more recent book. All of you agree on the origins of the problem and the damage it has and is doing to society.
James, I can't tell you how grateful I feel for this piece. Progressives have not done the necessary part of self-reflection to see where they/we have failed, but you in this essay have. I wonder what we (collectively) can do to spread this knowledge far and wide? Many, many thanks. What you are doing is absolutely essential for this historical moment.
Yes, the power of active listening aids the overall reflection. I taught high school for 35+ years and still consider teaching my favorite career. Active listening was big on my list for critical thinking skills. Every indigenous group I taught about had a similar story that said they were bypassed as stakeholders in the decisions made. And now where do we start, not too late to begin again!
There are many inconvenient truths in this post, such as... "Democracy is not sustained by procedures. It lives or dies by whether people believe the system sees them, values them, listens to them. If they don’t believe that, they will turn elsewhere. And they have." For the past 20 years my work in education has been focused on helping build effective cultures, from the classroom to the district and state office. I believe effective cultures are built on 3 things: Trust, Collaboration, and Empowerment. But trust is absolutely foundational. Relationships can't be sustained without it. And, as Linda Hart Green has already pointed out... Listening is essential. I've long been amazed at how much time we spend teaching how to deliver a message compared to how little is spent learning "Active Listening" skills.
As a nation, we have moved structurally away from broad generalists toward narrow specialists across all disciplines. This change generally devalues institutional knowledge in favor of experts or specialists. Specialization by its very nature narrows the band of knowledge and practical experience. One of the unfortunate byproducts of narrow approach is that much of it is academically isolated from reality. It also tends to approach any solution proposed as a “one size fits all” with little regard for the conditions locally. Farming is an example of that approach, farming in Nebraska or Kansas is materially different than the central valley of California, or Alabama. Historically the Department of Agriculture has used a broad brush with its approach to pressing for changes in farming practices, without regard to the local soil or weather conditions. The resistance to change is driven by generations of experience, when that is ignored or demeaned there is fertile ground for mistrust.
When a valid answer to “why” is presented, it translates into effective changes and action. Today’s substack is such a cogent article that gives answers to why the MAGA movement activated it’s base. Great observations and conclusions.
This is my first time reading your work and it is compelling to say the least. Those who determine and implement policy must listen and respond especially to those who are directly affected by those policy decisions.
Here's the question that I keep coming back to. When the science is clear and a new policy proposal is based on that science yet those directly affected don't accept the change, what are we as a society supposed to do?
Sometimes personal interests don't align with broader societal needs. Sometimes personal interests are based on greed, on bad science or the belief that "this is how we've always done it, why change?"
You’ve put your finger on the heart of the dilemma: what do we do when sound policy rooted in science meets resistance from those it directly affects?
There’s no easy answer, but I’d argue the solution isn’t to retreat from science or cave to every demand—it’s to deepen the process. People are more likely to accept difficult change when they’ve had a meaningful role in shaping it. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees, but it shifts the dynamic from “this is being done to us” to “this is something we’re part of.”
Unfamiliar as I am with the processes by which many communities are formally invited to weigh in on policy decisions, but knowing that my own community offers many opportunities to discuss and provide input on new measures, I wonder if some of the problem isn't how little residents actually participate.
OMG where has this been all of my life. This is it. This describes my life as a Family Physician, my struggles in structured medicine, my entire family's story. A working class family full of geniuses, engineers, only the last three generations formally educated. Now split across the political spectrum, all wanting the same things. None of us appearing like we should anything about nothin'.
Listening is foundational! I love that.
I regret that I did not know of your project when I was in my leadership coaching class.
Absolutely correct, and still mostly overlooked!
I tend the old family place in rural north Georgia and I have observed a community of really good people who feel more and more left-behind. These are salt-of-the-earth good folks. They don't want the city ways to change their community. They believe deeply in their church and their neighbors to provide and protect each other. They aren't attuned to how public policy is affecting their lives, but are more tuned in to politics and personality. If a politician fits their narrative he is good, if not, then not good. I'm overcome by their individual kindness. I don't think they see the things those of us who are focused on public policy see.
Yes there are also the aggressive militants in their silos building up their wrath for others. I hear them practice shooting every night after work as their shots echo through the woods. It's an enigma for me to be there feeling both safe and on edge.
I was saddened by the narrative sold on Fox et Al against Biden. There was no need to poison the well when we had a chance to experience compassion and a caring policy leader again. The competence of his admin was the best we've seen and he truly was about unity after division. We can't even begin to discuss what was good about his term with eqch other.
So I want to implicate the greed of media in all this as well. I have my parents textbooks from their journalism school days at the University of Georgia after the war. From my life with them and my reading of these books, I know what the ideal was. My grandparents (and their sons) ran a south Georgia newspaper before that and my dad and uncles were thusly inclined and worked in allied trades. My cousins and I wince daily at the atrocious acts of a media who seeks eyes and ears for riches instead of the truth.
Your writings reveal big picture patterns beyond our innate tribalness that bring lightened space into the ways to see our culture now. This gives us choices beyond our knee-jerk reactive selves. Our culture has a collective soul as strong as our individual souls. Together these conversations may help us save it.
James, your essay offers an important and refreshing perspective on the MAGA movement. Instead of blaming people for being ignorant or misled, he shows how many communities have been ignored and excluded from decisions that affect them. Over time, that creates deep distrust—not just of experts, but of the whole system.
The examples he gives—like wolf reintroduction, farming policies, and urban projects—show a common problem: people weren’t asked, listened to, or respected. When that happens again and again, anger builds, and someone like Trump can tap into it.
What stood out most was the idea that local knowledge matters. A farmer, a mechanic, a parent—they all have valuable insights that often get overlooked just because they don’t have the “right” credentials.
If we want to rebuild trust, we need to start by listening and sharing power—not just offering better messaging or new programs. This article is a strong reminder that real respect and relationships matter more than facts alone.
That said, for many in the MAGA movement, the message doesn't matter if it’s coming from "the left." The source alone can trigger automatic rejection, even if what’s being said is reasonable or factually true. It's not just disagreement—it’s identity-based opposition. In that context, being “liberal” isn’t a political stance; it’s seen as an existential threat. This isn’t about facts, it’s about identity. That’s why real change takes trust, not just truth.
This reflects a tribal dynamic, where political affiliation becomes deeply personal; almost like sports loyalty or family heritage. Once politics gets tied to identity in that way, facts don’t persuade. the Instead, people double down to defend their “side.” Where have we heard, and will undoubtedly, continue to hear the phrase "double down?" Rational arguments alone won’t work. The Trump movement has tapped into these deep grievances and continues to exploit them while systematically weakening federal institutions; something that draws loud support from MAGA loyalists. Unfortunately, many fail to see that this isn’t about reducing government power; it’s about reshaping it into the foundation of authoritarian rule.
In other words, stop telling people what they need and ask them what they need and want…right?
Exactly. It’s a shift from delivering solutions to building relationships. When people are asked—genuinely, not performatively—they’re more likely to engage, and the outcomes tend to be stronger, more sustainable, and more just. It’s not about giving up expertise, but about genuinely empowering people from the beginning in shaping how these programs are applied.
James-- Can you also address the issue of concreteness (black and white thinking-- those immigrants got here illegally so they must go). Despite anything I say "illegal" is still the excuse for inhumane treatment . Underlying racism/mistrust there? I would love your thoughts.
The appeal to “illegality” often masks something deeper: a need for moral clarity in a world that feels unstable, and a way to draw hard boundaries between “us” and “them.” Black-and-white thinking provides psychological comfort—it flattens complexity into certainty.
But “illegal” is rarely about law alone. It becomes a stand-in for fear, mistrust, and often racism—especially when the same logic isn’t applied equally across groups. When someone clings to legality as the sole moral test, it’s usually not about the law—it’s about reinforcing who belongs and who doesn’t.
Challenging that requires more than facts. It means confronting the emotional and cultural work that labels like “illegal” are doing—and offering a different framework rooted in humanity, responsibility, and historical truth.
Thanks!!! As a psychologist I find your application to our challenges fascinating!
this is an excellent article-- very informative about the whys of the MAGA movement beyond low education (which is still believe is an issue but there are other kinds of knowledge admittedly). Listening to white people whine is very hard when their tendency is not just to blame the government but too buy into the idea that immigrants/brown/black people are the problem. But i will try a strategy i have often used--find something you can agree with-- and start the conversation there.
Your piece reminds me of the Jacoby book from 2018, and Tom Nichols more recent book. All of you agree on the origins of the problem and the damage it has and is doing to society.