Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ask Rich: How do I welcome MAGA followers into talks about democracy?

Opinion

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.

A reader asks: How can I accept into the conversation about the future of our country those who support a candidate and movement that disavows our own Constitution, does not believe in the peaceful transfer of power and proposes ending elections?

Rich responds: I understand why you — and many others — regard MAGA as anti-democratic. But as someone who spent seven years interacting with MAGA voters on a daily basis, I can attest to the fact that many of them aspire to achieve the same goals as those who oppose Donald Trump: more economic opportunity, holding the corrupt accountable, upholding our constitutional rights and more.


Trump voters sincerely believe that he and the MAGA movement are the elixir to a variety of real and perceived economic, political, social and cultural ills.

I certainly understand the impulse to shun them. I fervently believe, however, that efforts to continue perfecting our union and democracy mandate that we reach out to those in MAGA, in a non-judgmental and empathetic way, to empower them to start questioning the movement’s myths.

I also want to acknowledge that there’s nothing easy about doing this. There are several different ways to start the conversation. Rather than debating policy, you could open up a respectful back-and-forth by asking something such as:

“I recognize some of the reasons why you want another Trump presidency. Do you recognize some of the reasons why others don’t want another Trump presidency?”

They are more than likely to have thoughts about that; once they respond, you’ve created an opening for a discussion that the Trump voter might never have had. Continue to gently probe their beliefs without being confrontational.

Remember, how we challenge is key; acknowledging another’s beliefs does not mean concurrence. The purpose isn’t to polemicize; it’s to dialogue. Inquire as to what the Trump voter’s values and beliefs were before 2016; ask — but don’t demand — what it might take to change their mind; if they might be overlooking pertinent facts; if their worldview might be a bit too black-and-white for a multi-colored world. Relatability can be found here, as all of us have our own blind spots.

Again, I know none of this is easy. But please consider the possibility that most MAGA and Trump voters are good and decent people. That’s what I believe after having spent years congregating, and breaking bread, with them.

If you have friends and/or relatives who remain MAGA supporters, try to separate your respect and love for the person from your opposition to Trump. Think about your relationship with this person before Trump arrived. As a MAGA activist, I severed ties with many of those closest to me because of how they voted. When I left MAGA and apologized to them, almost all of them accepted my apology.

The relationships I have lost, and then repaired, are more loving and enriching today than before I joined MAGA; those closest to me never gave up on me, and I implore those with friends and family who remain in the thrall of MAGA not to give up on them. Over time, I anticipate that more Trump supporters will have their own remorseful epiphany about MAGA; when they do, be there to help them work through the difficult process of renouncing their deeply-held beliefs. Welcoming them back — free of judgment and aspersions — will bring an inner peace to all.

A reader asks: What or who propelled you to diversify your news and opinion sources? I have widened mine to include more conservative sources to get a broader window on issues important to me. A conservative friend that I trust influenced me.

Rich responds: Your friend is very wise! My MAGA community was tight-knit, but insulated from any media and news that rebutted or refuted our sincerely held beliefs; we treated such information as Pravda-like enemy propaganda. In future columns I’ll go into more detail about why I left MAGA, but suffice to say It took me an entire year to leave, from the summer of 2021 to the summer of 2022. I refer to it as “my year of Heaven and Hell.” Leaving MAGA was a very individualized process for me — a personal reckoning.

When I began having doubts about my support for Trump and MAGA, I experienced a surge of curiosity that led me to discover views and opinions that challenged the false and/or distorted storylines and punditry I consumed. I rekindled the voracious inquisitiveness I'd developed years earlier as a newspaper reporter. In addition to diversifying my sources – which include centrist and moderate, left-leaning and right-leaning outlets – my interest in history (especially American) dramatically increased after leaving MAGA; I came to realize how inextricably linked the past and present are.

Knowledge is liberating, and ignorance is oppressive.

A reader asks: You said you left MAGA in 2022 when you became disillusioned. I imagine you still like some things about Trump. If you were able to pick the next president, what qualities in Trump would you like him or her to have and which ones would you not?

Rich responds: Two lasting achievements of the Trump administration were: the Veterans Choice Program Extension and Improvement Act, which expanded access to medical care for our heroic servicemen and women, and Operation Warp Speed, which accelerated production and distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine – a "medical miracle," as former Vice President Mike Pence aptly described it.

Though I don't believe there is a singular foundational characteristic of a successful, positively influential leader, if I had to pick one quality it would be: genuine care for others. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden come to mind. We entrust our elected officials with immense power; no one will ever get everything perfect and disappointments are inevitable. A leader worthy of studying and emulating is one who takes responsibility for failure (even if the leader wasn't the cause), and gives the credit to the team for wins.

I don't believe effective leaders surround themselves with unapologetic "yes” men and women, as Trump did. Important decisions that have potential ramifications for our nation, and perhaps the world, mandate a potpourri of ideas, so the leader can find a compromise that incorporates an amalgam of the best suggestions. Leaders with bold visions do not easily succumb to the temptation to scrap their entire blueprint after a temporary setback.

Read More

Varying speech bubbles.​ Dialogue. Conversations.

Examining the 2025 episodes that challenged democratic institutions and highlighted the stakes for truth, accountability, and responsible public leadership.

Getty Images, DrAfter123

Why I Was ‘Diagnosed’ With Trump Derangement Syndrome

After a year spent writing columns about President Donald Trump, a leader who seems intent on testing every norm, value, and standard of decency that supports our democracy, I finally did what any responsible citizen might do: I went to the doctor to see if I had "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

I told my doctor about my symptoms: constant worry about cruelty in public life, repeated anger at attacks on democratic institutions, and deep anxiety over leaders who treat Americans as props or enemies. After running tests, he gave me his diagnosis with a straight face: "You are, indeed, highly focused on abnormal behavior. But standing up for what is right is excellent for your health and essential for the health of the country."

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less