Op-Ed: The Silent Majority: Reimagining the American Coalition | Tommy Abel
By: Tommy Abel
A Democracy in Motion
Every four years, Americans show up—some enthusiastically, some reluctantly—to vote for
president. While the rhythm of elections is familiar, what’s changing is who participates
and what that might signify. Since 2000, U.S. presidential elections have steadily increased
voter turnout, peaking in 2020 with the highest participation in over a century. That year,
roughly 160 million Americans voted—nearly two-thirds of eligible voters. However, in 2024,
participation ticked down slightly. Some of this decline may be due to fatigue. Some may be
disillusioned. Some may be strategic—voter suppression efforts in key states have once
again limited access to the ballot. That story deserves a deeper investigation, and we’ll
return to that in a future essay.
Yet even with this modest dip, participation is historically strong. That matters because in a
system that feels increasingly unstable, the people’s will is still present, but it is not being
fully heard.
The Numbers Tell a Story
Let’s examine the math. In 2020, Joe Biden received over 81 million votes, while Donald
Trump received 74 million. In 2024, Trump’s numbers remained fairly consistent, whereas
the Democratic candidate lost a few million votes—potentially due to the previously
mentioned challenges.
Here’s the crucial part: even in these high-turnout elections, approximately 80 million
eligible Americans did not vote at all.
So, if we categorize Americans by their political alignment based on their voting behavior,
we arrive at the following breakdowns
That’s more than a 2:1 ratio of non-MAGA to MAGA Americans. Yet we’re living in a
political and media climate where the MAGA voice dominates headlines, drives policy
agendas in many states, and often sets the terms of national debate.
Why? Because when a loud, organized, and committed minority captures the levers of
power—especially in a structurally skewed system—they can dominate. This has happened
before, and history tells us what usually follows.
The Minority Rules: Lessons from History
History is filled with cautionary tales about what happens when a well-organized minority
gains control of a nation’s political system. It doesn’t require a majority to seize power—
just an advantage in institutions, resources, and resolve. In these scenarios, democratic
norms erode not in dramatic coups but through steady, deliberate limitations on rights and
speech, often justified by appeals to order or tradition.
In apartheid South Africa, a white minority representing less than 20% of the population
imposed a brutally segregated system on the Black majority. The regime justified its control
through legal codes, propaganda, and a relentless campaign of censorship and
suppression. Dissenters were imprisoned, and speech was tightly controlled.
In Ba’athist Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a Sunni minority governed a largely Shi’a
population through violence and fear, propping up its power through the militarization of
public life and total domination of public discourse.
Nazi Germany reminds us how quickly a minority political movement can escalate into
authoritarian rule. The Nazi Party never won a majority of the popular vote, yet through
parliamentary manipulation and intimidation, it seized control and systematically
dismantled democratic institutions. What followed was the rapid erosion of civil liberties,
the silencing of the press, the banning of rival parties, the criminalization of political
dissent, and the systematic extermination of religious, ethnic, and political minorities.
America itself is not immune. After Reconstruction, white political leaders in the South
instituted Jim Crow laws to prevent Black Americans from voting. Though they were the
numerical majority in some regions, Black citizens were excluded from power through
violence, literacy tests, poll taxes, and other mechanisms of control.
In every case, minority rule was sustained by more than just political might—it required the
strategic suppression of speech, the marginalization of opposition, and the erosion of
rights. When a minority governs without broad consent, it tends to rule with fear, not
freedom. These patterns of behavior—controlling the media, discrediting elections,
demonizing dissent—are the early warnings of institutional imbalance. We’re seeing
echoes of them today. That parallel deserves deeper exploration, which we’ll return to in a
future essay.
Understanding MAGA: Goals, Grievances, and Appeal
To build a more inclusive civic majority, it’s essential to understand what motivates those
who support the MAGA movement. Many are animated by economic anxiety, cultural
displacement, distrust in traditional institutions, and political marginalization. They
perceive government institutions, media, and academia as dismissive of their concerns.
They often feel that globalization, technological change, and demographic shifts have left
them behind, with little say in the country’s direction. Their support for stronger borders,
deregulation, and ‘America First’ trade policy reflects a desire for national sovereignty and
economic revitalization. While their rhetoric can be polarizing, it often masks deeper
frustrations with how power is distributed and how change has unfolded over recent
decades.
The demographic base of MAGA support skews disproportionately toward white, rural, and
older Americans, though it also includes working-class voters of all backgrounds who feel
alienated by the political and media establishment. Many live in regions where
manufacturing jobs have disappeared, small towns have declined, and opioid addiction
has ravaged communities. These voters often perceive that elites in Washington, Silicon
Valley, and urban centers neither understand nor care about their struggles.
Culturally, MAGA appeals to those who feel that traditional values, religious identity, and
national pride are under threat. This includes opposition to perceived liberal overreach in
education, gender politics, and immigration. Trump’s messaging—delivered in simple,
direct language—often resonated more as emotional validation than as policy prescription.
The slogan ‘Make America Great Again’ served as both a nostalgic call and a symbolic
protest against rapid change.
The media ecosystem surrounding MAGA plays a central role in reinforcing its worldview.
Right-leaning outlets and social media influencers amplify messages of grievance,
government mistrust, and cultural conflict. This dynamic creates a sense of community and
shared identity among followers, often immune to outside criticism. In some circles, this
has contributed to belief in conspiracy theories such as QAnon or widespread election
fraud.
It is important to distinguish between the movement’s most extreme elements and the
broader population drawn to its themes. While fringe actors have promoted violence or
authoritarian ideas, many everyday MAGA supporters simply seek to be heard. They are
skeptical of the status quo and demand a political alternative that addresses their
economic precarity, cultural unease, and distrust of elites. Recognizing these underlying
concerns is critical for engaging MAGA-aligned Americans in constructive civic dialogue.
Who Are the Non-MAGA Americans?
If MAGA represents a disciplined minority, then the rest of America—diverse, sprawling,
and often disorganized—constitutes a kind of latent majority. This majority encompasses a
broad spectrum of ideological and cultural identities: traditional Democrats advocating for
labor rights and civil liberties, independents and centrists disillusioned by both parties,
young voters passionate about climate justice and social equity, and suburban parents
concerned about education and safety. It also includes conservatives who oppose
Trumpism—those who remain committed to the rule of law, constitutional norms, and the
dignity of political office. However, perhaps the largest group in this unspoken coalition is
the disengaged—those who didn’t vote. They are not necessarily apathetic. Many are
skeptical about whether the system works for them. They may feel disempowered or
overwhelmed by polarization. Nevertheless, their absence from the process does not imply
they lack values. On the contrary, many yearn for competence, compassion, and decency
in governance.
The challenge is that these groups have not yet united into a single movement. They lack
the unifying message, infrastructure, and sense of shared outcomes that characterize more
organized political factions. Yet they exist, and their combined numbers far exceed those of
the MAGA base.
What Could Unite Them?
While the non-MAGA electorate is ideologically diverse, shared values weave through its
various strands. Regardless of party, most Americans want their voices heard and their
rights respected. They seek leaders who tell the truth and institutions that function
effectively. They believe in elections, even if they are skeptical about the choices
presented. They uphold the Constitution, even when disagreeing with its interpretation.
They desire a government that works—not just for the wealthy but for everyday people.
This collective yearning for stability, decency, and democracy could serve as the
connective tissue of a new coalition. It’s not about demanding uniformity on every issue;
it’s about fostering trust around foundational principles. The specifics of tax policy or
foreign affairs can be debated in good faith, but the premise of the debate must be based
on a shared respect for the rules of democratic engagement.
There is also a significant current of economic concern across these groups. From
suburban moderates to urban progressives to rural independents, Americans confront
healthcare costs, housing affordability, economic opportunity, and stagnant wages. These
issues transcend ideological lines, presenting a pathway for a values-driven but policyflexible coalition.
How Realistic Is This Coalition?
The idea of a pro-democracy coalition is not naïve—it’s necessary. However, building and
sustaining it requires a sober understanding of the forces working against it. Political
identities in the U.S. are increasingly tribal, shaped by policy and perceived cultural
allegiances. In this context, even voters who share values may not see themselves as
natural allies.
Consider the structural asymmetries inherent in the U.S. system. The Senate, Electoral
College, and gerrymandered state legislatures all disproportionately amplify rural,
conservative voices. A party or movement can lose the national popular vote by millions yet
still control the presidency or state governments. This breeds cynicism and fosters the false
narrative that democracy is broken—when, in fact, it’s often being gamed legally and
strategically.
The media ecosystem worsens this issue. Millions of Americans live in isolated narrative
worlds where facts are selectively curated, and a shared reality remains fragmented. As a
result, it becomes difficult to agree on the problem, let alone the solution.
But this fragmentation also presents an opportunity. Most Americans are exhausted—not
by political engagement, but by the partisan spectacle, deception, and dysfunction that
dominate headlines. We’ve seen voters push back in swing states like Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The defeat of prominent election deniers wasn’t a fluke, but a
signal. Americans may not all agree on taxes or immigration, but many still recognize the
stench of extremism and are willing to reject it.
This coalition is not hypothetical. It’s already in motion. It now needs a more explicit
purpose, better coordination, and a narrative to share—not only about what it opposes but
also about what it represents.
To succeed, a coalition must resist the temptation to homogenize. The goal isn’t to force
consensus on every issue but to build alignment around core democratic values. The
coalition may be uncomfortable and, at times, chaotic—but that’s the nature of democracy
itself. A key strategic insight: a durable coalition may be built not on identical beliefs but
on mutual commitments to resolving disagreements.
What Must the Resistance Do?
To build this coalition, the pro-democracy coalition must evolve from a reactive force into a
proactive and strategic movement. This involves more than better messaging or voter
registration—it requires institutional entrepreneurship: building civic capacity, local
networks, and narrative power. To turn this loose alliance into a governing majority, the
pro-democracy coalition—those who still believe in democratic norms and pluralistic
society—must do more than oppose. They must propose. They must lead. And they must
reconnect with the millions of Americans who have tuned out.
Scenario A: The Fractured Majority
If the various factions of the non-MAGA majority remain siloed—Democrats speaking only
to Democrats, independents opting out, and Never Trumpers retreating into elite circles—
the MAGA movement could maintain outsized influence. Structural advantages (like
redistricting and court-packing) will deepen, leading to a minority-rule dynamic that
normalizes authoritarian impulses. In this scenario, voter suppression accelerates, judicial
independence declines, and federal agencies are politicized.
Scenario B: The Emergent Majority
If the pro-democracy coalition embraces a flexible, values-first identity, it can transcend
traditional ideological barriers. Imagine an alliance that supports voting rights, factual
integrity, reproductive freedom, and responsible gun safety—while making space for goodfaith debate on fiscal or energy policy. In this world, independents and moderates feel
seen, while progressives lead with empathy and pragmatism. The movement becomes less
about labels and more about shared civic purpose.
To reach Scenario B, the coalition must do the following:
1. Reframe power: Stop conceding that MAGA is dominant. Pro-democracy
Americans are the majority. Repeating this truth shifts public psychology and can
embolden civic engagement.
2. Create civic on-ramps: Not everyone wants to march or canvass. But everyone can
do something—host a conversation, write a letter to the editor, volunteer to observe
elections. Making participation accessible and affirming can build momentum.
3. Tell a better story: The opposition has a narrative—apocalyptic decline, grievance,
revenge. The pro-democracy coalition needs a compelling alternative: a future that
is inclusive, functional, and fundamentally decent. A future where facts matter,
where children are safe, where power is earned, not stolen.
4. Embrace “big tent” organizing: Accept that some coalition members will disagree
on immigration, taxes, or energy. The focus must remain on defending the
democratic architecture that makes disagreement possible.
5. Build civic muscle: This includes nonpartisan civic education, year-round voter
engagement, and public resilience training against disinformation. The goal is not
just to win elections, but to make the next attack on democracy harder to pull off.
What Comes Next?
The pro-democracy coalition is in a race against time. Authoritarian movements don’t
simply fade—they entrench. The next few years will determine whether American pluralism
will renew itself or fracture under the weight of cynicism, disinformation, and institutional
decay.
Scenario A: Democratic Backslide
In this scenario, a MAGA-aligned presidency takes power with a mandate—real or
perceived—to punish political enemies, undermine civil service protections, and reshape
government in the image of personal loyalty rather than public duty. Legal norms decline.
Voting rights are diminished. Dissent becomes perilous. The groundwork for this is already
visible in policy blueprints like Project 2025, which proposes a more ideologically aligned
vision of federal governance across federal institutions.
If this trajectory holds, we could see a generation of Americans grow up believing that truth
is flexible, cruelty is strength, and democracy is disposable.
Scenario B: Democratic Renewal
Here, the coalition holds—and begins to grow. Institutional norms are defended and
updated. Voter engagement continues beyond election cycles. Civil society regains
strength. A rising generation of leaders—many of them women, people of color, veterans,
and civic entrepreneurs—emerge with a commitment to rebuild from the center out.
Electoral reform gains traction. Citizens begin to believe again—not in perfection, but in
possibility.
This scenario is not automatic. It requires moral courage, civic investment, and a
movement that is not merely reactive but deeply rooted in hope.
The Seed of Something Greater: Radical Inclusion
What could unify all of this—what might create a connection between these fragmented
groups—is a philosophy and practice I’ll refer to as Radical Inclusion.
It is more than a slogan; it’s a design principle for rebuilding democracy. Radical Inclusion
doesn’t mean we must agree on everything, but it insists that we start from the shared
dignity of everyone who believes in democracy, liberty, and human rights. It calls on us to
widen the table, soften the rhetoric, and stop acting as gatekeepers to a house that belongs
to all of us.
This means welcoming disillusioned independents, persuadable conservatives, and young
people who’ve never seen government work for them. It means turning civic engagement
into something joyful, not dutiful. It also means that political opponents are not treated as
enemies but as neighbors in a shared national project.
In a future essay, we’ll explore the concept of Radical Inclusion in full—what it is, how we
develop it, how we scale it, and how it can anchor a new kind of coalition—not one bound
by uniform ideology but by a shared commitment to the rules of the game and the humanity
of all its players.
Ultimately, this coalition will not prevail by outshouting its opponents. It will succeed by
building stronger civic institutions—constructing a civic culture where everyone has a
place, and no one has the power to deny that place to others.
Conclusion: This Is Our Majority Moment
Let’s not forget the premise: MAGA is not the majority. Despite the noise, the flags, the
headlines, and the fever-pitched rhetoric, the numbers tell a different story. The MAGA
movement remains a minority faction—loud, organized, and increasingly extreme—but still
a minority. In every recent presidential election, more Americans have voted against it than
for it. When you factor in the tens of millions who don’t vote but still desire dignity, safety,
and justice, the divide becomes nearly 2 to 1.
But here’s the danger—minorities have ruled majorities before. History warns us of the
consequences. Whether it was apartheid South Africa, Jim Crow America, or authoritarian
regimes elsewhere, the recipe remains consistent: restrict voting, rewrite laws, challenge
mainstream narratives, and govern through fear. That pattern is not merely theoretical; it is
unfolding right now—in laws passed, books banned, and rights rolled back. If we wait for a
clearer signal, it may be too late.
So the question isn’t just about who has the numbers. The question is about who shows up,
who organizes, and who leads with purpose.
That brings us to the possibility- the real, reachable possibility- of a new American
majority. This coalition won’t agree on every policy, and it won’t resemble any party that
came before it. However, it can be united by what matters most: the rule of law, the dignity
of difference, the right to vote, the power of facts, and the idea that our kids deserve better
than chaos.
And the key to building it? Radical Inclusion.
Not tolerance. Not grudging coexistence. Inclusion as strategy. Inclusion as narrative.
Inclusion as the way we save the republic.
We’ll explore that idea fully in a future essay. But here’s the truth in plain language: the only
way to beat ideologically focused movements is with organized decency. The majority
already exists. What it needs now is courage, connection, and a cause.
The era of silence is over. The majority is ready. Let’s show up—and lead like it.
Note to the Reader: On Bias, Transparency, and Trust
In a time of deep polarization, clarity and intellectual honesty are vital for rebuilding public
trust and fostering effective debate. This essay, “The Silent Majority: Reimagining the
American Coalition,“ is intended as a good-faith contribution to that effort—but it does not
pretend to be free of bias. Instead, it embraces transparency about its perspective.
To that end, the essay has undergone independent evaluation using a 10-point bias scale,
where:
• 0 represents left-wing propaganda and falsehoods (disconnected from fact)
• 10 represents right-wing propaganda and falsehoods (disconnected from fact)
• 5 is the most balanced midpoint, reflecting neutral, fact-based analysis with
minimal emotional or ideological framing
This essay scored a 4.3 / 10 on that scale. It leans progressive, advocates for a prodemocracy coalition, and expresses concerns about the rising authoritarian tendencies in
U.S. politics. However, it also includes a substantive and respectful exploration of the
MAGA movement, encompassing the social, cultural, and economic forces that have
shaped it. The tone is assertive, yet the analysis aims to be fair.
Several steps were taken to improve balance:
• Emotive language was moderated
• Historical comparisons were contextualized, not weaponized
• MAGA supporters were treated as citizens with legitimate grievances, not
caricatures
• A call for “Radical Inclusion” is rooted in a desire to engage—not erase—opposing
views
The goal is not to feign objectivity, but to demonstrate awareness of reflective bias—and to
invite the same from readers. When we name our lens, we lower the temperature. When we
acknowledge our perspective, we open the door to real dialogue.
Productive political discourse does not require perfect neutrality; it demands honesty,
respect, and a shared commitment to truth. This essay was written with that spirit in mind.
Let’s disagree in a more constructive manner. Let’s engage in debates based on facts. Let’s
create something stronger—together.
— Tommy Abel
