What the Democrats Can Learn from MAGA

Summary of What the Democrats Can Learn from MAGA

by The New Yorker

45m•January 28, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of What the Democrats Can Learn from MAGA

This episode of The Political Scene (The New Yorker) features Charles Duhigg discussing his piece on how conservative movements—what’s now called “MAGA”—built durable political power through long-term organizing, and what Democrats can learn from that. Duhigg contrasts successful vs. failed social movements, explains the difference between mobilizing and organizing, unpacks how conservative groups built distributed infrastructure, diagnoses key Democratic weaknesses (purity tests, over-reliance on spectacle), and offers practical recommendations for rebuilding a broader, sustainable coalition.

Key concepts and framing

  • Mobilizing vs. organizing

    • Mobilizing = short-term activation: rallies, marches, one-off mass turnout. Useful but often fleeting.
    • Organizing = building local leadership, sustained communities and infrastructure. More valuable and durable; enables repeated, effective mobilizations.
    • Duhigg: “Organizing is more important than mobilizing,” especially for movement longevity.

  • Mass mobilizations (e.g., Women’s March) can show energy but often fail to convert participants into lasting, local political infrastructure.

  • Coalitions vs. ideological purity

    • Conservatives (MAGA ecosystem) prioritized broad coalitions and tolerated internal dissent (so long as basic loyalty—e.g., “the red hat”—held).
    • Many left/progressive groups prioritize ideological coherence and litmus tests, which can exclude persuadable voters and weaken long-term coalition building.

Case contrasts and examples

  • DARE vs. MADD

    • DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education): highly centralized, great at mobilizing/awareness but ultimately ineffective and didn’t build local leadership—now largely defunct.
    • MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving): messy early leadership but grew strong local chapters and leaders; built durable organizing infrastructure and training grounds for leaders—long-term success.
    • Lesson: grassroots leadership and local ownership matter more than a slick, centralized mobilization campaign.

  • Obama 2008 playbook

    • Obama’s campaign encouraged local “franchise” organizing: volunteers ran local initiatives with guidance from the campaign, producing record volunteer engagement (2.1 million volunteers, tens of millions of contacts).
    • Conservatives studied and copied that model (e.g., Faith and Freedom Coalition).

  • Faith and Freedom Coalition (Ralph Reed)

    • Formed after 2008 to rebuild religious/conservative networks via localized chapters (10–12 people units meeting regularly).
    • Reported reach in a later election: ~3.1 million members made 86 million neighbor-to-neighbor contacts—demonstrates how small, sustained units scale.

  • Precinct strategy / TPUSA / conservative ecosystem

    • Tea Party and other conservative groups targeted precinct-level contests, local party infrastructure, poll worker recruitment—winning power at local scales.
    • TPUSA and others helped recruit younger activists and normalize internal dissent as part of a big tent.

  • Local organizing examples on the left

    • Down Home NC, Hoosier Action, ISAIAH (Minnesota coalition of faith and community groups) organize locally without heavy ideological branding—focus on community priorities (infrastructure, local services), then link those wins to politics.

Problems Duhigg identifies for Democrats

  • Overemphasis on spectacle and protest (mobilization) without sustained follow-up to convert attendees into organizers.
  • Ideological purity tests and exclusionary practices that push ambivalent or persuadable voters away.
  • Unclear, diffuse messaging about what Democrats actually stand for beyond being “anti-Trump.” “Anti-Donald Trump is not a sophisticated enough ... stance to build a party on,” Duhigg says.
  • Misallocation of funding and attention: big national ad buys and campaign spending dominate while smaller, local organizing groups receive relatively little sustained funding.
  • Risk of mirroring illiberal tactics: the tools Trump uses (strong executive power, punitive enforcement) could be used by any party if norms erode—Democrats must be cautious about adopting authoritarian methods.

Practical recommendations (what Democrats can do)

  • Rebalance investments toward local organizing

    • Fund community groups that build year-round local infrastructure (not just one-off national ads).
    • Support “franchise” style local empowerment—provide training, light resources, and autonomy.

  • Define a small set of core values, then allow diversity beyond them

    • Agree on 3–4 nonnegotiable principles (e.g., opposition to racism/bigotry; support for rule of law; protection of core democratic norms).
    • On other issues, create space for internal diversity to reduce purges and broaden the tent.

  • Focus messaging on economic and community-focused appeals

    • Frame party priorities in ways that resonate across demographics (economic security, services, infrastructure) to draw working-class and swing voters.
    • Make appeals that center on material, local improvements as well as protections for marginalized groups.

  • Convert mobilization into organizing

    • After protests/marches, intentionally connect participants into local groups: follow-up contacts, neighborhood meetups, issue-based working groups.
    • Build small units (10–12 people) who meet regularly and can be activated in campaigns.

  • Encourage local-level wins that build credibility

    • Help elect and cultivate local officials with sustainable infrastructure who can scale to higher office.
    • Back candidates who can be pragmatic, negotiate, and expand the party’s reach even if they are not ideologically pure.

Notes on MAGA vs. Trump and governance

  • Distinction: “Trump” (person) and “MAGA” (broader ecosystem) are not identical. Much of MAGA’s organizational infrastructure predates and outlasts Trump personally.
  • MAGA’s tolerance for internal disagreement reinforces a big tent that can persist after Trump; Trump’s personal leadership style is more monopolistic and less conducive to long-term institutional health.
  • Governing requires tradeoffs. A large, ideologically diverse coalition is harder to govern in pure policy terms but more durable politically. Centrist pragmatism—holding firm on core aims while compromising elsewhere—can be effective for coalition governance.

Quick action checklist for Democratic strategists

  • Audit funding allocation: shift material support toward local organizers and year-round civic infrastructure.
  • Identify 3–4 core party principles and publicly clarify them ahead of primaries.
  • Scale “franchise” organizing models: train local leaders, provide talking points, encourage autonomy.
  • Build pathways from protests to neighborhood-level groups (immediate follow-up and onboarding).
  • Reframe messaging to include economic/material concerns that reach working-class voters across racial lines.
  • Protect democratic norms: avoid adopting illiberal tools even when politically expedient.

Notable quotes from Charles Duhigg

  • “Organizing is more important than mobilizing.”
  • On MAGA cohesion: “If you put on the red hat, you are a member of the MAGA movement. It doesn’t matter what else you believe.”
  • On Democratic identity: “Anti-Donald Trump is not a sophisticated enough and nuanced enough stance to build a party on.”

This summary distills the episode’s main diagnoses, evidence, and pragmatic suggestions for how Democrats might rebuild lasting political power by learning the organizational lessons of conservative movements—while retaining a clear set of core principles.