Curious, what does MAGA really mean?

1. 79

   Credence2posted 7 months ago

   When we talk about "Again" are we speaking of an earlier bypassed era?
   
   What do MAGA want to consider the time that America was great?
   
   How far back do we have to go to find an era in the American past that meets the definition of "Great"?
   
   In what way do MAGA people consider greatness?

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

      This is my view
      
      To begin, it's important to clarify that the term "MAGA" does not signify a desire to return to a specific point in the past. Instead, the MAGA movement seeks to break away from the existing status quo and forge a new America that places the interests of the nation and its people at the forefront. We aim to preserve the aspects of our past such as our heritage that have been cherished and valued in our past.
      
      Supporters of the America First movement emphasize the paramount importance of prioritizing American interests across various policy domains, spanning economics, national security, and more.
      
      One of the primary objectives of America First proponents is to advance economic priorities. We believe that policies should be crafted to benefit American workers, businesses, and industries. This entails advocating for equitable trade practices, with a core belief that the government should give precedence to American businesses and workers in international trade negotiations.
      
      This movement typically favors reduced taxes and diminished government regulations as a means to stimulate economic growth and job creation. The rationale behind this stance is that it enables businesses to flourish and invest in the American workforce.
      
      Many proponents of America First advocate for achieving energy independence to reduce reliance on foreign sources of energy. They argue that this not only bolsters the economy but also enhances national security.
      
      Immigration policy is another critical area of concern for America First adherents. They contend that immigration should be controlled and structured to safeguard American citizens and workers. Robust border security measures are prioritized to curb illegal immigration and protect national sovereignty. Support exists for constructing physical barriers along the border.
      
      America First advocates often favor a merit-based immigration system, admitting individuals based on skills, education, and contributions to the U.S. economy. They assert that such a system attracts high-skilled workers and safeguards American workers from unfair competition posed by undocumented immigrants.
      
      National security constitutes a paramount aspect of the America First philosophy. Advocates prioritize the safety and well-being of American citizens by advocating for a strong military and defense budget. They assert that a robust military is essential for maintaining peace and deterring potential threats. Some proponents also advocate for a more cautious approach to foreign military interventions, emphasizing the need to address domestic issues before engaging in overseas conflicts.
      
      America First supporters seek policies and leadership that place the interests of the United States above all else. While this ideology has garnered both support and criticism, it reflects a desire to place American interests at the forefront of policy decisions in an increasingly interconnected world. As evident, none of these principles seeks a return to a bygone era but instead aims to instigate positive change, discard ineffective approaches, and explore new avenues for the betterment of America and its citizens. A greater America, one that evolves by mingling what has worked, and having the fortitude to try new avenues, and shed what has not worked.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

         As usual, you have done your homework, great answer.
         
         So, it is not about a return an imagined past greatness, but looking forward to a unique America not defined by anything from the past.
         
         You would think that based on your explanation, I wouldn't have a problem with this as you described it,  but I remain uneasy as to its execution.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I believe this is how Trump managed to amass such a substantial following. Many Americans had grown exceedingly frustrated with the perceived direction our country was heading in. Personally, I think this concept is necessary at this stage of our nation's development. It's not to suggest that this concept should be set in stone, but rather, it might be exactly what we require at this moment.
            
            I can empathize with your concerns about the implementation of this idea and who should be the driving force behind it. As I've mentioned before, I believe we need two candidates to break free from the current cycle in which we find ourselves trapped.
            
            In my view, we need to see some changes, and those changes should revolve around "we The People". I feel we have lost our voices in Washington.
            
            .

            replyreport
      2. 84

         tsmogposted 7 months agoin reply to this

         Wow! Impressive! Is it achievable?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I believe this is entirely attainable, and, in fact, it's a rather straightforward undertaking. It's imperative for "We The People" to have our voices acknowledged. Fortunately, this appears to be unfolding in relation to numerous contemporary concerns. It's heartening to witness a growing number of citizens asserting themselves and refusing to yield to unilateral directives. This trend is manifesting across a spectrum of issues. At any given moment, one can tune into C-SPAN and observe a multitude of congressional hearings, addressing matters that often receive limited coverage in the mainstream media. However, citizens are making their way to Washington, and are being heard in Congress.
            
            People are passionately advocating for change, and their voices are resonating.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               tsmogposted 7 months agoin reply to this

               Thanks! I was sent on a journey to discover more on unilateral directives.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  Sharlee01posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  Indeed, I took note of and appreciated the sources you provided. They shed light on intriguing correlations. It seems reasonable that politicians would prioritize an "America first" approach during times when our country was significantly dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs.
                  
                  I believe Trump recognized this discontent when he decided to run for office in 2015, as many were eager to emphasize America's interests at that point. Consequently, a significant portion of the population still holds onto this concept, reluctant to revert to the old status quo.
                  
                  On the flip side, there are those who have grown fond of a more globally inclusive ideology. Personally, considering the issues I observe in present-day America, I lean towards an "America first" stance for a while. After all, is anything set in stone? The status quo can always be revisited once we've addressed some of the pressing problems that Americans are currently grappling with. Nothing should remain static; we must encourage change and take action to ensure progress.

                  replyreport
   2. 84

      tsmogposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      "Curious, What Does MAGA really Mean?"
      
      Firstly, It is not anything unique to Trump. It was poached from Regan where he used it in his 1980 campaign. I bet it aroused memories in the boomer crowd, though they may have been buried in the subconscious mind. Interestingly, it was used by Clinton too. Cruz tried to use it during his 2015 campaign, yet was rebuked for doing so to some extent. I learned that from the following article:
      
      'Make America Great Again'—Who Said It First? by NBC News (Sept 9, 2016)
      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-e … st-n645716
      
      Having studied marketing I see it as a marketing ploy seeking brand recognition whereupon Trump is the brand. It worked, too! It packed emotion, didn't it? Still does, right?  Not only a rallying cry for unity but something to be despised.
      
      Same with the hats used pretty much universally by organizations worldwide. It is a symbolic gesture representing a person's identity. Nothing wrong with that. I have two shelves with hats I select from. I know my first reaction to people who wear Ford hats is a little contempt. Yup, a Chevy fan.
      
      What period does that refer to I would fathom a guess is completely subjective with a good reliance on when an individual felt most secure, successful, and perceived a bright future in their life. For me, as I ponder it that would be say, maybe, during 70's when I was in my twenties. Seems those were Republican days. hmmm . . .
      
      Today I think it is a pejorative pretty much identifying thought to be or are heavily leaning right conservative types.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Willowarborposted 7 months agoin reply to this

         I think we've seen quite a shift in tenor  from Reagan's iteration of MAGA and that of Trump.  Under Reagan we saw, an underlying faith in the goodness of America and the promise of a brighter future was buoyed.   Actually, through history, positive emotions have prevailed.
         Trump's take of MAGA is filled with name-calling, division, promises of retribution, grievance, rage and fear.  Negative emotions are at the core as are continued messages of anxiety and doom about the future.  Negative partisanship, where voters are more motivated by fear of the opposing party than love of their own has replaced appeals to common values and goals.
         Reagan must be turning in his grave.. no "Morning in America" here.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Are you a MAGA member or believer, qualified to give a definition of what MAGA is for you?  Or are you an outsider, defining MAGA based on a huge dislike or hatred for the man that coined the phrase most recently?
            
            Because I would have a hard time taking your words at face value when they are run through a massive anti-Trump bias before ever thinking about what it is actually all about.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Willowarborposted 7 months agoin reply to this

               These are simply my opinions gleaned from listening and observing MAGA. Personally, It's holds no appeal.  At this point, it is virtually impossible to separate Trump and MAGA.  While I find him to be a morally a reprehensible person of little character, the  tenor of MAGA that he has created will most likely continue even if he is not at the helm.
               MAGA simply does not fit my personal vision of the world. I find it  unappealing.  I certainly don't need to be qualified in any way or a believer of MAGA to give my opinions of it. No more than you would have to be a liberal to give an opinion of its ideology.
               I see it as sort of a consumer situation. I've heard the MAGA pitch and I'm not interested in buying.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  "MAGA simply does not fit my personal vision of the world. I find it  unappealing."
                  
                  "At this point, it is virtually impossible to separate Trump and MAGA."
                  
                  "While I find him <Trump> to be a morally a reprehensible person of little character..."
                  
                  I do believe you answered the question, honestly and well.  To you, everything about MAGA is filtered through the anti-Trump lens, a person you find to be reprehensible.
                  
                  So I again say, there would be no reason to accept anything you have to say about MAGA, as it is very doubtful that your conclusions and thoughts would bear any connection to reality after the filtering is finished.

                  replyreport
            2. 84

               tsmogposted 7 months agoin reply to this

               Off-topic, curious too, how does Idaho feel about the conservative east Oregonians who want to become part of that state? In my email box is an article about it from the Washington Post alas hidden by a paywall.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  What I hear from the East Oregonians I know is that the demand is growing and gaining power.  Idahoans are also generally supportive and would be acceptive of the change.
                  
                  I don't see it ever happening, though.  Any such move would have to be approved by Oregon, Idaho and Congress.  It would also include Oregon losing representatives in Congress, while Idaho gains them; something neither Congress nor Oregon will permit.  Some Oregon Democrat House members would be exchanged for Idaho Republicans.  The Democrat party would lose, with Republicans gaining - something Democrats would never agree to regardless of any desire of the people they have control over.
                  
                  So...no change in state lines, at least as I see it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     tsmogposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                     Thanks! I had not thought of political consequences with respect to representatives. Makes solid sense. I guess it goes along with the talk of Calif. breaking into three separate states some time back. Wishful thinking on both accounts. I suppose that may be why Puerto Rico remains a territory and DC a district - changing the makeup of both houses of Congress.

                     replyreport
         2. 68

            abwilliamsposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Whoa...a lot of Reagan-love shown here and I seriously doubt you were a fan of nor a voter for, Reagan!?
            He was my favorite President and you and I never, ever, see things the same....

            replyreport
      2. 79

         Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

         Having studied marketing I see it as a marketing ploy seeking brand recognition whereupon Trump is the brand. It worked, too! It packed emotion, didn't it? Still does, right?  Not only a rallying cry for unity but something to be despised.
         --------
         No doubt, TSmog, it has always been a good slogan. But a slogan never really tells you what is in the box.
         
         Wow, you have a political hat collection?
         
         I won't say that the 1970s were the good old days, I can remember Nixon with WIN (Whip Inflation Now) as early as 1971. That stretches right to 1979, Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis, raging inflation and interest rates setting the stage for Ronald Reagan and the 1980s. Since you and I are exactly contemporaries of one another, you might appreciate this brief trip down memory lane. It wasn't the times that were so extraordinary, but it was us, in the prime of youth with everything in the world looking bright and new. The Seventies was sort of a reprieve from the turbulent 1960s, but in the Seventies, we had our own fads...
         
         https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Baby … s-BBC-1971

         replyreport
         1. 84

            tsmogposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Nah, my hat collection is made up of performance car stuff mainly with the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) - car manufacturers, NHRA classes for racing, product manufacturers, team hats, and drivers. I do have one hat for Wired magazine and of course my gardening hat. Oh yeah . . . my niece graduated from Auburn and she gave me a hat for the football team that I use for thinking in my office such as now. Makes me smarter
            
            Really enjoyed your article!! While reading it I was taken back in history by trying to remember what my life was for 1971 my junior year. Most definitely a contrast to yours.
            
            Firstly, I didn't pay much attention to politics other than protesting the Vietnam War and at my girlfriend's high school protesting that girls could only wear pantsuits and not cords. I got in big trouble for that.
            
            When they rounded up everyone sitting on the flag pole lawn after walking out of their classes I had to confess I went to a different school. The end result was I had to run two miles after track practice for the remaining year. However, her school did change their dress policy so that they could wear cords and FFA members could wear jeans in their compound.
            
            I didn't work at all during high school other than odd jobs here and there unlike your experience, which I am sure gave you a head start at becoming a responsible adult. Plus, it expanded your perception of the world, people, and notably business gaining insight into the hows and whys of finance and the value of money, which you shared in your article.
            
            I was heavily involved in scouting, church youth group, sports, and of course studying. It wasn't until '73 I began to sprout my wings, yet it was about '75 that I began to soar discovering the car performance world. But, a life-altering event occurred that year too introducing me to the ways and means of law. Busted for pot ha-ha Came out of that okay in the long run with no scars.
            
            I am inspired to write an article as you did, yet in a different year. I'll have to ponder that though. So, thanks for the inspiration.

            replyreport
2. 68

   abwilliamsposted 7 months ago

   America was pretty "great" on 9/12/2001>(this is not to suggest that there haven't been other great Eras and I am not suggesting that an attack on us is in order!)
   A lot of eyes were opened to just how fragile life is and how short our time here on earth really is!
   People turned back to God & returned to church, which is a "great" thing!
   More American flags were being flown, even on cars/trucks/big rigs. I hadn't seen such patriotism in a long time - the American flag was everywhere! It reminded me of the story behind the penning of the poem which would go on to become our National Anthem!!
   
   We were chatting with our neighbors and people in line at the grocery store.
   We weren't strangers to one another, as we had been the day before; we had all gone through this together, as Americans! Doing for one another, reaching out and checking in on folks, consoling, reconnecting with estranged family members and old friends we had lost touch with.
   
   It was the beginning of a renewal for us, after a day of rage and hate was waged against ALL of US, all Americans!
   We could have crawled into a hole or a bunker, flown a white flag of surrender, given up...but we didn't!
   We showed the enemy, that we are stronger than that and that we are stronger, together!!
   We re-learned it ourselves!
   We got better, we did better and we did it, as One Nation Under God.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      tsmogposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I can agree to this to the extent of my 'lifetime' at least as an adult.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your comment.
      
      If I wanted to say something to both You and Sharlee and that would be that her description and much of yours could be considered inspiration, something to aspire to, while not appealing to me for more than a few reasons. It could well be something regarding ideals that I would hear from a Sunday sermon. In line with  much of what Republican Party has always said, but when we come down to Earth it does not translate that way.  In my previous work much of what you are saying would have been called boiler plate.
      
      Trump is claiming to represent all of this and is for all intents and purposes leader of the Republican Party. He is a demigod for the MAGA and I don't trust demigods, particularly this one. The man has been consistently associated with dishonesty and sordid behavior, whether there has been a formal conviction or not.
      
      It is one thing to announce intent but the delivery system requires respect for the Democratic process and following the rules of engagement in place for almost 250 years.
      
      Like I said, it all sounds awe inspiring but when we bring it all down to Earth, not beginning to mention my problems with it, it falls short.

      replyreport