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.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.