Why DOGE and MAGA Aren’t Matter and Antimatter

Briefing Room—March 24, 2025

IN THESE STILL-EARLY DAYS OF THE NEW ADMINISTRATION, one major narrative line is now promoted by nearly every voice in the mainstream media: the irreconcilable division between DOGE and MAGA. Nearly every interview to which I’m invited seeks to play up these supposed divisions, represented by the figures of Elon Musk and Steve Bannon. On this past Tuesday, March 18, Vice President J. D. Vance batted down continued efforts to push this narrative in remarks delivered before the American Dynamism Summit. Vance once again displayed remarkable analytic acumen and knowledge of the deeper dynamics of modern economics and social forces in contemporary America, in particular laying out how DOGE and MAGA are not merely a coalition of convenience or shared opposition to Woke Inc. Rather, he underscored how open border immigration has undermined good jobs and innovation, damaging both the prospects for the working class workforce and new technological breakthroughs.

Fully aware of the narrative of internal division in the Trump coalition that is now popular among among journalists, Vance began his remarks by denying the claim head on:

One journalist suggested the speech highlighted the tension between the “techno optimists” and the populist right of President Trump’s coalition. And today, I’d like to speak to these tensions as a proud member of both tribes.

Vance pointed to two reasons why there is no real division between the two “tribes.” First, the on-shoring of manufacturing will reverse the baleful effects of deindustrialization—not only bringing a benefit for the working class who will gain better jobs, but improving the prospects for innovation. He pointed to the benefits of “network effects” when people in related industries can share best practices and improve productivity as a result.

Second, Vance spoke of the importation of cheap labor as a “crutch” that ended up stifling innovation even as it depressed the wages of ordinary workers. Essentially, cheap imported labor allowed companies to experience a brief sugar rush of increased profits due to decreased labor costs, short-circuiting the harder work of innovating their industries to increase productivity and infuse their businesses with greater creativity (or, inspire dissatisfied workers to do so, whether within their existing business or creating a new one).

Several times in the speech Vance speaks of a basic faith that innovation—especially in the area of AI—will not prove catastrophic for workers. This is, of course, a leap of faith, and he acknowledges that there are likely to be disruptions. But he speaks of confidence not merely as a matter of blind faith, but in light of the long-standing American experience in which innovation leads to improved material circumstances and more satisfying work over the long term. We will watch closely whether this confidence bears fruit, but what is most remarkable in these early days of the administration is to encounter such depth of thoughtful reflection about the future from a political figure, after decades of politicians who too often simply recite bromides and avoid confronting the most challenging dilemmas of our age. —PJD

---

IF WE TURN BACK TO THE 2020 ELECTION, THE TECH ELITE WERE SEEN AS CONSISTENTLY LEFT-LIBERAL. Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google were even popularizing a lifestyle image of the Silicon Valley worker—socially progressive and smart, yet rewarded with a very high starting wage. In retrospect, that moment also represented the apex of their power from this perspective. The major social media networks “deplatformed” Trump in the wake of the contested 2020 election—during which Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg had funded left-oriented civil society organizations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Over the last twenty years, America’s postindustrial economy has produced many ultrahigh-value companies that projected a new image of American power. Wealth creation would be possible for the tech class, while the platforms created would spread the latest versions of the American lifestyle throughout the world.

Yet a certain discontent had been brewing among some members of the tech community—especially young men. The “war on men” had been going on in American culture for at least a decade, and Silicon Valley—with its preferred pronouns and lavish DEI offices—was pioneering that, as well. To many people it became clear that American innovation had somehow taken a wrong turn. NASA was no longer producing moon shots, and in spite of America’s creation of high-value companies, shared public space in America was steadily degrading.

But the deplatforming of Trump proved to be the high-water mark for tech industry liberalism. With Elon Musk’s decision to buy the Twitter platform, alongside his ever-increasing level of technological accomplishment, the conservative tech bros had a new opportunity. At the same time, the first Trump administration had also provided plenty of opportunity for desiring a new industrial greatness. Musk’s hard technology advances provided something to latch on to—and the concept of American dynamism was born.

For now, this coalition appears to be the “class compromise” that America needs. Trump-voting, blue-collar MAGA voters know, or intuit, that only when America seeks greatness can its economy be strong for ordinary folks, too. And the new, Trump-aligned tech elite know that their legitimacy also depends on delivering jobs for the American worker. —GJP

---

LAST WEEK SAW THE PUBLICATION OF A REMARKABLE CHART, showing significant gains in non-white voters for Donald Trump between 2016 and 2024.

Over the course of three elections from 2016 to 2024, there was virtually no change in partisan support among white voters. Rather, Democrats saw consistent losses of black, Hispanic and Asian voters, most dramatically among self-identified “moderate” Hispanic voters. Loss of support in these key constituencies contributed significantly to Trump’s margin of victory in 2024.

According to the analysis of this data that emerged during a discussion between Ezra Klein and David Shor, the Democratic Party still operates under of a worldview defined by the Civil Rights era (hence, race-based), while the data suggests that U.S. politics today more closely tracks the global divide based more upon differences in education. But another way of parsing that divide is that differences in education are more likely ultimately to reflect class differentiation, specifically, those who belong to a managerial class who operate in a borderless workforce as “symbolic analysts,” and those who are more likely to work in traditional blue-collar or service jobs that are based in specific places. One shorthand: the “Laptop Class” votes Democrat; “Essential Workers” are more likely to vote Republican. The latter are increasingly comprised of all racial groups, for the first time forging a multiracial working class political group.

Remarkably, it took the reconfiguration of American party politics, driven by the disruptiveness of Donald Trump, to achieve the goal to which the Left once aspired, but has since abandoned: a multiracial, multiethnic working-class party. The Left is increasingly a party of wealthy, professional whites, today losing support of non-white constituencies it once took for granted. But as the Republican Party moved toward economic nationalism, foreign policy realism, and socially traditional, anti-woke sanity, people are not voting based on race—they are voting based on class. The Right is building the party to which the Left once claimed it aspired, but failed, to achieve. —PJD

---

LAST MONTH, PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER on “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.” We are all aware of Christian persecution abroad, but it has accelerated in the U.S. at an alarming rate. The president noted that attacks on Christians are up eightfold since 2018, and he noted that much of this anti-Christian animus came from the government itself, investigating traditional Catholics, and using Easter Sunday as an occasion to celebrate “Trans Visibility.” He also noted that Catholic churches in particular have been the target of violence. President Trump especially promised that his “Administration will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government or unlawful conduct targeting Christians.”

This Executive Order has been put to the test this past week in Wichita, Kansas by none other than . . . Satanists. Yes, they exist. Normally the demons follow Screwtape’s counsel to Wormwood: “Our policy for the moment is to conceal ourselves.” But since the “Church of Satan” was founded in 1966 by people determined not to conceal their alignment with literal evil, they’ve become a kind of public test of religious liberty.

These Satanists normally require a “consecrated host”—the bread which has substantially become the body and blood of Jesus Christ—for their anti-Christian parody of the Catholic Mass. It’s for this reason that Archbishop Joseph Naumann accused the Wichita group—who call themselves “the Satanic Grotto”—of stealing a consecrated host, and so he filed a civil lawsuit against them. The archbishop subsequently dropped the suit when the president of the Satanic Grotto, Michael Stewart, testified that he had lawfully obtained wafers which were not consecrated, since he does that himself as part of their anti-Christian “tradition.”

It’s dark stuff. It’s shocking that it’s been tolerated so long in this country—but I’ve even seen “conservatives” defend the Black Mass in the past as something which should enjoy the protections of “religious liberty.” Once upon a time, the liberal-minded Christian conservative was confident that “the free marketplace of ideas” would win all things for Christ. Apparently, if you are very committed to “state neutrality in religion,” you also have to support Satanists—the original anti-Christian religionists. But this was always an absurd claim. You can’t let a thousand anti-Christian weeds “flower.” It reminds me that we cannot simply defend “religious liberty”—we must defend a positive, pro-Christian understanding of it.

Thankfully, President Trump has said he is very concerned about the Black Mass which is scheduled for this Friday—and vowed to “investigate” the plan to perform an anti-Christian counter-liturgy in Wichita. Of course, President Trump is not himself Catholic (yet). But it’s refreshing to see the ruler of the free world dispense with the myth of religious neutrality, and defend Christianity for once, and without apologies. You know America is coming back to “common sense” when the President defends Christ, and opposes Satan. That’s usually a good public test of sanity. —CP

---

SPEAKING OF WHICH, POLITICAL LIBERALISM HAS ACTUALLY ALWAYS BEEN ANTI-CHRISTIAN. As Ed Feser observed this past week, liberalism literally began as an alternative to Christendom. After Kant, the rise of “Liberal Christianity” brought with it a strange new paradoxical mentality which a friend once aptly summed up in a single sentence: “It’s not Christian to be Christian.” We have already heard this over immigration. The whole debate over Ordo Amoris was a kind of “ackshually” version of the claim—Vice President Vance advances a very Christian idea which according to liberals “isn’t very Christian.” The spiritual mentality of liberalism is thus anti-Christian even when it attempts to claim the moral authority of Christianity. Writ into the origin story of the liberalism is the Christian flight from Christianity! In this sense, one might even think the liberal Christian cannot do otherwise.

But now we are facing a new dynamic in which Christians are regaining confidence in the civilizational power of the ancient Faith, and liberalism is dying. A great deal of decoupling of liberalism and Christianity is currently underway. Our government is doubling down not on the secular desire for negative religious liberty—“we must be free of those meddling Christians”—but on a positive religious liberty which not only protects Christians, but promotes a mentality which allows Christian Faith to flourish in this country on its own terms.

When President Trump says he’s not going to tolerate anti-Christian bias in the government he’s not playing at “state neutrality.” He’s defending Christians, and he’s defending Christianity. The Catholic Church once conferred a very vaulted title upon rulers who held such a policy in their governance—Defensor Fidei. Perhaps the Church will one day be able to do so again. —CP