..... Opinion.
We have President Donald Trump on the run. He is desperately playing defense by lashing out in every direction, especially with his absurd demands to arrest Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama.
Make no mistake. Team Trump is still strong, with its MAGA core of some 38% of the electorate. Going by Census statistics of registered voters, that’s about 66 million out of 174 million. That’s considerable clout, considering its spread across key battleground states that can offer 270 Electoral College votes. Kamala Harris narrowly won the popular vote, roughly 51 percent to Trump’s 49 percent—but not by margins big enough in the key states.
Voter turnout is important, and the last election’s numbers indicate that a sizable, if not a majority, of latent antifascist voters are out there. We can note that the left-progressive bloc in Congress consists of the 100 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. While Bernie is the only Senator in the CPC, about three other Senators vote consistently with him and the CPC.
These numbers indicate that so far, the left progressive bloc has about 20% of the House and 5% of the Senate. This amounts to a good toehold, but it’s also something we can develop and deploy. All of this group, if not members of the left themselves, will listen to the left’s arguments as important to their futures. What requires further study is how this political grouping might be replicated at the state, county, and city levels.
We know, for example, that DSA holds several seats in the city councils of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. A Pittsburgh DSAer leads the Allegheny County government, and Pittsburgh’s Summer Lee is a vital part of ‘The Squad.’
However, progressive electoral seats and campaigns primarily gain influence when linked to grassroots organizations and their insurgencies. Considering that the 50501 protests so far have engaged some 10 million people, and thus they would also comprise about 7% of the overall electorate. More importantly, they are more than a statistic. They are the ‘Energizer bunnies’ that reach even wider circles in both electoral and non-electoral arenas of struggle.
This number of activists is also beyond the 3.5% rule formulated by political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, in their 2011 book, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. Once more than 3.5 percent of a population engages in sustained protests and civil disobedience, they influence far wider circles, awakening a majority that can compel ‘regime change.’
We are approaching that point today. However, we are not the only team of players on the field. MAGA has similar clout, and even with its weakening current battles with Trump over the Epstein scandals, it also still poses a darker form of regime change. The American political landscape is thus entering another turbulent era, the decline of Trump’s influence—once formidable and seemingly unassailable—demanding scrutiny far deeper than mere campaign drama. The unraveling of his political hegemony emerges not from a single cause but through a confluence of right-wing scandals, burgeoning left-wing protest movements—exemplified by the “50501” demonstrations—and the shifting sands of local elections.
To understand the underlying currents, Antonio Gramsci’s concepts of “war of position” and “war of movement” provide a profound framework for interpreting these phenomena.
Among many other ideas, Gramsci posited two general theories of political battle, drawn from his overview of WWI battlegrounds. One is the ‘War of Position,’ a protracted engagement between trenches, which in turn were supported by supply lines for recruits and ammunition stretching back to the war supply industries of the homeland. The other is the ‘War of Movement,’ when concentrated minorities at the front are ordered to go ‘over the top’ to make a seizure for a new breakthrough. We can see this being played out in the war in Ukraine today. In Gramsci’s time, it was seen positively in the case of the Bolsheviks ‘storming the Winter Palace’ and dispersing the old government with soldiers from the Soviets. It was even relatively nonviolent for the moment.
It is essential to view these two ‘Wars’ as interlinked, i.e., we engage with both simultaneously. But both are also different. Strategically, as the numbers above reveal, we are still in a defensive ‘war of position’ with the MAGA forces over strong points of political power, where we seemingly gain inch by inch. But at the same time, tactically, we can wage ‘wars of movement.’ These are our 50501 protests, especially those aimed at stopping the war in Gaza alongside the battles at home with ICE and its mass deportations.
But why is Trump in such deep trouble? We note that his political persona was constructed on a foundation of disruption, defiance, and dominance over traditional Republican elites. Yet, scandals—once brushed off as evidence of his authenticity or the cost of “fighting the system”—now gnaw at the core of his support. The right’s coalition, already fragile after years of transactional loyalty, faces a legitimacy crisis as legal cases, ethical controversies, and internal dissent mount. Each new revelation does not merely chip away at Trump’s armor but reverberates through the institutions, donors, and activists who once rode the Trumpist wave.
Gramsci’s “war of position” aptly describes this phase: the slow, cumulative erosion of Trump’s ideological stronghold. In contrast to a frontal assault (“war of movement”), the war of position is a drawn-out struggle within civil society, where culture, values, and legitimacy are contested. The right’s scandals have become battlegrounds, inviting not just legal scrutiny but a struggle over the meaning of conservatism itself. Figures once unwavering now hedge their bets; media outlets once sycophantic begin to ask difficult questions. The scaffolding that held up Trump’s dominance starts to creak under the weight of accumulated contradictions.
As noted above, the top scandal of the day is Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Here, the left must tread very carefully. For years, Trump fueled a conspiracy theory of a decadent ruling class cabal at the top, bipartisan but including the Clintons, that was kidnapping young children for sexual abuse and worse. The most absurd piece of it was ‘Pizzagate,’ where a DC pizza parlor supposedly contained an underground torture chamber for captured kids. Elite evildoers would get access to them by ordering certain kinds of ‘pizza.’ One right-wing ‘lone ranger’ who acted on the conspiracy theory, Edgar Maddison Welch, fired shots inside the restaurant in December 2016, but fortunately, no one was injured. It turned out the pizza place had no basement, and was not involved in ‘grooming’ kids or any other offense. It was a total hoax promoted by the Q-Anon web project. However, Welch himself was later killed in an encounter with police. In January 2025, during a traffic stop in North Carolina, Welch pulled out a handgun and refused commands to drop the weapon. He was then shot by two officers and died from his injuries two days later.
Despite the Q-Anon absurdities in this case, we must consider exactly why this conspiracy is of such concern among the far right. The answer is how it reflects the older anti-Semitic stories pushed by Henry Ford and others in the 1930s. There, the Elders of Zion, a secret global network of rich Jews, conspired with decadent elites to capture children for their blood, sexual abuse, and other tortures, killing them. The story was utterly false, concocted by a Tsarist police agent.
Now, fast-forward to the present day. Does the U.S. have decadent elites at the top? Certainly. Among other things, are they interested in access to underage girls for rape and sexual abuse? Undoubtedly. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s companion and procurer, was found guilty of these charges and sits in prison. Were individual Jews involved? Yes, Epstein was Jewish, as was Maxwell and her ultrarich father. Epstein met with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak multiple times, but so far, there is no proof he was a Mossad agent or a CIA operative. With Epstein’s suspicious death in prison, we will likely never know about certain matters with any degree of credibility.
But there’s one thing we can be certain about. Despite the slimy and sleazeball escapades of those flying the ‘Lolita Express’ to Epstein’s private island of underage girls and boys--all of which are bad and criminal enough-- we are not going to find a 21st-century ‘Elders of Zion’ cabal aiming to take over the world. The same crew promoting this concoction also uses the billionaire George Soros, a Hungarian Jew, on the progressive side of the spectrum. Soros utilizes philanthropy to promote worthy causes, including the ‘Better Boys Foundation,’ which aims to support and provide resources for inner-city youth. Whenever the far right uses his name, it’s a dog whistle for the Elders of Zion on the left. But currently, their whistles are tearing apart Trump’s MAGA base on the right, some of whom want no part of anti-Semitism, even if others do. In any case, it remains important that we address this deftly, without fanning the anti-Semitic flames.
What should focus our attention today is an upcoming third round of “50501” protests, with August 1 and 2 designated for ‘Rage Against The Machine’actions—an emblem for mass mobilization mainly aimed at the vast expansion of ICE facilities and groups of masked and black-clad unidentified operatives seizing people on the streets, at work, or at home.
If done well, these protests, so far marked by vast numbers, disciplined organization, and a savvy use of social media, represent more than mere outpourings of dissent. They are calculated offensives: they will represent critical flashpoints where the “war of movement” might break through the inertia of the status quo.
As noted, Gramsci distinguished the war of position—slow and strategic, waged within institutions and culture—from the war of movement—a rapid, direct challenge to state power and entrenched authorities. The 50501 protests, by their very scale and frequency, signify a growing confidence on the left that the time for merely accumulating small victories alone has passed. Instead, there is a sense that new alignments are possible, and that the ground itself might shift under the feet of the old order.
The movement’s demands vary—whether against ICE and deportations, against genocide in Gaza, for racial justice, climate action, or economic equity—have not only rattled the political center. They have also compelled local and national leaders to respond in real-time. These are not just symbolic clashes; they are moments when the fabric of civil society is rethreaded, and new hegemonies are forged.
The point is that while national spectacles dominate the headlines, the seismic shifts of American politics often occur in the quiet, granular precincts of local elections. Here, Gramsci’s war of position is perhaps most potent. City councils, school boards, district attorneys—these are battlegrounds where the left and right both wage protracted campaigns to secure footholds in public life.
The fallout from Trumpian scandals and the ascendancy of protest movements have filtered down into these contests. Candidates who embrace Trump’s style and rhetoric increasingly find their appeals less resonant, especially in suburban districts and among younger voters. Conversely, protest-inspired candidates—often propelled to prominence by grassroots mobilization—are finding unexpected success. The result is a reconfiguration of local coalitions, policies, and norms.
Local elections also serve as laboratories for new strategies. From voter mobilization to digital outreach, both sides experiment with methods that may later be scaled up to national contests. And as the old guard loses its grip, fresh faces—diverse, bold, and unapologetic—step into the political arena.
Crucially, Gramsci reminds us that these wars are not strictly sequential or exclusive. The war of position and war of movement intertwine, each preparing the ground for the other. The right’s scandals weaken its cultural and moral authority, making it vulnerable to direct challenge. The left’s movements, energized by their own successes, are increasingly adept at turning local victories into national momentum.
We know Trump’s decline does not guarantee the left’s triumph, nor do the scandals of the right inevitably lead to renewal. The American political system remains robustly pluralistic, resistant to easy capture by any single force. As Gramsci warned, the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.
If Gramsci’s analysis offers any prescription, it is this: political change is not just a contest of wills but a struggle for hearts, minds, and institutions. The war of position and war of movement must be carefully calibrated, neither neglected nor prematurely forced. For the left, the challenge is to sustain its momentum without burning out, to adjust to ebb and flow, to translate protest into policy, and to recognize that real victory depends not only on winning elections for governing power, but on reshaping the common sense of society.
This requires a new narrative. A good start is the one formulated by the Rev. Barber for a ‘fusion politics’ for a Third Reconstruction. The true war—over the meaning of abolition democracy, justice, a solidarity economy and the future—will be fought not just in the streets or the headlines, but in the patient, persistent work of building coalitions, telling new stories, and imagining what comes next Every one of us has a role, and the war—of position, of movement, of ideas—is far from over.
Carl Davidson
.png)
