Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ask Rich: Think MAGA members are unintelligent and uncouth? They’re not.

Ripped MAGA sign
Ask Rich: An ex-Trump supporter and MAGA activist answers your questions
Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

In this ongoing series, Logis, a former Donald Trump supporter and founder of Perfect Our Union, answers our readers' questions about leaving the MAGA movement. Send your questions to AskRich@thefulcrum.us.

I spent more than half a decade meeting or communicating daily with fellow MAGA Americans. Those myriad exchanges and conversations were often with highly intelligent, educated, successful and accomplished professionals.

Attorneys. Doctors. Financial executives. Small-business owners. Former public sector workers. Ivy League graduates.

I left MAGA in the summer of 2022. I’m working to build a new community for those who have also left MAGA, or are having doubts about support for Trump and Trump-endorsed elected officials and candidates. Given my activism, I got to know many members of the community well and I want to dispel the myth that most MAGA Americans are unintelligent, uneducated and uncouth.


I’m withholding the writer’s name, but here’s a comment (unedited) a recent “Ask Rich” column received:

I'm wondering if any MAGA CLAN members have an IQ above 20? I'm sure it's going to take awhile to find one. I'll be waiting for your answer. The over/under is 6 months.

Do I understand, to some extent, why MAGA Americans and those in opposition provoke “us versus them” reciprocal acrimony (even if most who believe such comments don’t publicly state it)? Yes, because all of us, whether we care to admit it or not, are capable of disdaining those with whom we disagree, those we deem as threats to ourselves and our democracy. Impugning anyone not on our side is opprobrium that, at times, is easy to succumb to.

Millions — perhaps, billions — of words have been written and spoken about Trump voters being uncouth and of low intelligence. To those who say such things, I guarantee that by doing so you continue pushing them away from you, and strengthening the already-strong bond between Trump and his supporters.

Though I was responsible for my actions and rhetoric, I can also acknowledge that I allowed myself to be influenced by those who were well-intended – but, as I came to determine, mistaken.

If those with impassioned pro-Trump and anti-Trump feelings converse long enough, they’ll discover (maybe uncomfortably, at first) that there are a number of issues where they concur. I know, I know — the horror!

And in those exchanges, I’ll venture to say, the antipathy derived from “educated vs. uneducated” preconceptions will dissipate. None of us have come to our political conclusions and outcomes wholly on our own; this is actually great news, for it confirms that we can change our minds, or at least try to understand each other’s sincerely held beliefs. Attempting to see another’s perspective does not mean accepting it as correct; each of us is an amalgam of experiences, upbringings and a variety of inculcations. One doesn’t have to change one’s mind to reasonably compromise.

Our political climate would be made less antagonistic and divisive by de-stigmatizing the supposed “weakness” of changing our minds about issues, policies, candidates, etc. Reconsidering our previously held beliefs, or even just admitting a mistake, doesn’t indicate a lack of intelligence or good character; it reflects maturation and evolution. In fact, it takes a lot of mature thinking to question statements we hear ad infinitum rather than just accepting them as fact.

Progress in our history — the continued perfection of our Union — would have been impossible without the majority of Americans realizing that a modernization of some of the laws and opinions of yesteryear was mandatory.

What a smart approach, don’t you think?

Read More

Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

As political violence threatens democracy, defending free speech, limiting government overreach, and embracing pluralism matters is critical right now.

Getty Images, Javier Zayas Photography

The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

The assassinations of conservative leader Charlie Kirk and Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota have triggered endorsements of violence and even calls for literal war on both the far right and far left. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans reject political violence, but all of us are in a fight to keep our diverse and boisterous brand of democracy alive. Doing so requires a renewed commitment to pluralism and a clear-headed recognition of the limits of government, especially when proposals entail using the criminal justice system to punish speech.

Pluralism has been called the lifeblood of a democracy like ours, in which being an American is not defined by race or religion. It requires learning about and accepting our differences, and embracing the principle that, regardless of them, every person is entitled to be protected by our Constitution and have a voice in how we’re governed. In contrast, many perpetrators of political violence rationalize their acts by denying the basic humanity of those with whom they disagree. They are willing to face the death penalty or life in prison in an attempt to force everyone to conform to their views.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman sitting down and speaking with a group of people.

The SVL (Stories, Values, Listen) framework—which aims to bridge political divides with simple, memorable steps for productive cross-partisan conversations—is an easy-to-use tool for making an impact at scale.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Make Talking Politics Easier and More Scalable: Be SVL (Stories, Values, Listen)

How can one have a productive conversation across the political spectrum?

We offer simple, memorable guidance: Be SVL (pronounced like “civil”). SVL stands for sharing Stories, relating to a conversation partner’s Values, and closely Listening.

Keep ReadingShow less