#FAFO: A Mirror to the MAGA Movement
Maybe the answer lies in shifting the focus from "finding out" to "figuring out."
"Love does not begin and end the way we seem to think it does. Love is a battle; love is a war; love is a growing up."
- James Baldwin
In the sprawling digital landscape of platforms like YouTube and TikTok, the hashtag #FAFO—short for "Fuck Around and Find Out"—has emerged as a cultural phenomenon.
Days after the US elections, one of the most searched questions on Google was, "Can I change my vote?" Voters ask this question because they haven't been fully informed and voted for MAGA.
They were surprised that the Affordable Care Act, which they liked, was the same as Obamacare. Many thought that tariffs were taxes paid by the country exporting goods, but they didn't realise that tariffs increased prices for the country importing those goods.
Additionally, a lot of farmers and businesses that rely on workers who are undocumented voted Republican to stop new immigrants from coming into the country, believing that those already here would be safe.
Others found out that instead of peace in the Middle East, Trump is suggesting moving the Gazans to other countries and turning Gaza into a ghost town. He has also banned protests for Palestinians, and in the meantime, the genocide continues.
Interestingly, Trump's campaign focused on three promises he often repeated during rallies. He pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, tax goods from the country's major trading partners, and deport immigrants already living in the United States.
So, millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump cannot claim ignorance of Trump's racism, misogyny and his endorsement of white supremacy and white supremacist terrorism. He repeated the ideas of the "white replacement" theory, which claims that "legacy [white] Americans" are being replaced.
Trump also made no secret of his views about women and LGBTQ+ people. Indeed, it was clear that Project 2025 would seriously erode the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ people, women and immigrants.
The act of voting communicates a voter's values. These include the policies and beliefs they support, the policies and beliefs they are willing to tolerate, and how they view the welfare of those likely to be affected by a candidate's policies.
To be charitable, it's possible that many Trump voters didn't endorse his views on immigration, women's rights, or Trans people. It is even likely that some Trump voters don't explicitly endorse his racist and misogynist views. For example, we can even assume some were motivated primarily by economic concerns.
Yet, by voting for Trump, such voters communicated their willingness to allow racist and misogynist policies to be enacted to protect their economic interests.
Therefore, for the potential victims of these policies, there is no absolute moral difference between voters who wanted those policies enacted and voters who were "only" willing to enact them.
The #FAFO videos confront viewers with the raw, unfiltered realities of political or social consequences.
But while these moments can feel cathartic, they also reveal the limits of our understanding. For example, the deeper structural issues, like economic inequality or erosion of democratic norms, often remain unresolved and resist easy articulation. It reminds us that these videos, while entertaining, don't fully capture the complexity of the political landscape.
Essentially, #FAFO videos temporarily escape political anxiety by appealing to the illusion of justice and shared norms. But they also risk oversimplifying or distracting from our political reality's more profound, messier truths. They're like a sugar rush, satisfying at the moment, but not a substitute for addressing the root causes of our collective unease.
On the surface, it's a playground for schadenfreude. Viewers revel in the poetic justice of others facing the consequences of their actions. But beneath the viral clips and biting commentary lies a deeper narrative that reflects the MAGA movement's complexities and contradictions.
As the #FAFO trend continues to evolve, it invites us to reflect on the power of digital storytelling. It challenges us to move beyond the fleeting satisfaction of schadenfreude and toward a more profound engagement with the issues at hand. Because in the end, the real question is not who will "find out," but what we will do with the lessons we learn along the way.
From the beginning, the MAGA ethos has demonstrated an uncanny ability to deflect blame and deny accountability. This dynamic, almost cult-like in its intensity, has fuelled a movement that thrives on authoritarianism, Christian nationalism, and cultural division.
The #FAFO trend mirrors this phenomenon in its way. It captures the ironies and hypocrisies of a political ideology that often refuses to acknowledge its missteps, even when the consequences are evident.
For critics of Trump and his movement, #FAFO offers a fleeting sense of vindication. It's a momentary triumph, a digital high-five among those who see the cracks in the MAGA facade. Yet, as satisfying as these moments may be, they also underscore the challenges of confronting a movement as resilient as it is divisive.
The divide between diehard MAGA supporters and groups like the "tech brothers" or academics like Niall Ferguson is fascinating and layered. At its core, it reflects the diversity of motivations and ideologies that have coalesced under the MAGA umbrella despite their apparent contradictions.
Diehard MAGA supporters actively form a populist base that globalisation and cultural shifts often leave behind. They embrace Trump's rhetoric of economic nationalism, reject elitism, and strive to preserve their cultural identity. While many stereotype this group as less educated, such a view oversimplifies their motivations. They channel a profound disenfranchisement into a drive to reclaim what they perceive as a lost identity.
On the other hand, figures like the "tech brothers"—Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and innovators—are often motivated by pragmatic interests. Their initial support for Trump may have stemmed from policies like tax cuts, deregulation, or immigration reforms that align with their business goals.
However, some suggest their relationship with the MAGA movement is more transactional and less ideological. When they express regret, it's often about the optics or consequences of their support rather than a fundamental disagreement with the policies that benefited them.
If you prefer having no boundaries or restrictions, then it's understandable that you might not be a fan of democracy.
Indeed, Peter Thiel has expressed scepticism about the compatibility of democracy and capitalism, famously stating, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible". His vision aligns with a techno-libertarian ideology that seeks to minimise government intervention and maximise individual autonomy, often at the expense of collective governance.
To break free from the influence of democratic governments, they are looking to create independent communities. It involves building colonies in space, similar to the visions of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. In addition, they are also exploring the idea of creating "startup cities" or "network states" right here on Earth. These would be small, self-governing areas designed by corporations where tech billionaires and their followers could live by their own rules, separate from traditional government regulations. It is an approach that favours figures like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen.
Academics like Niall Ferguson, who double down on their support, often approach the movement from an "intellectual" or "historical" perspective. They see Trumpism as a necessary disruption to what they perceive as a complacent or overly liberal establishment. Their support is less about Trump as an individual and more about the broader ideological battle they believe he represents.
Some have described Ferguson as Trump's most famous academic supporter. He described the tariffs as the most catastrophic economic self-sabotage of his lifetime. He warned that they heralded "the end of American empire". Interestingly, he has not regretted his support for Trump:
"The available information pre Nov 5th was that Trump was the better of the two candidates."
Ignoring economic policy for the moment, in what universe is a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, confessed sex pest, serial bankrupt and persistent liar the better candidate.
Ferguson chose the candidate who lies, cheats, and demonstrates his ignorance on almost every subject whenever he opens his mouth. He showed an extraordinary lack of principles and morality.
It is the same man who thought boisterous students waving flags on college campuses were the gravest threat to "freedom" and 'Western Civilisation'. But people being kidnapped off the street and deported for free speech without charge or due process is fine.
The tension between these groups highlights the internal contradictions within the MAGA coalition. The populist base and the elite supporters have fundamentally different priorities. For example, the tech sector's push for high-skilled immigration clashes with the nationalist base's anti-immigration stance. These contradictions become more visible as the movement evolves, raising questions about its long-term cohesion.
For Thiel and others in the tech elite, MAGA represents a strategic vehicle to dismantle regulatory frameworks and centralise power in the hands of technocrats and oligarchs. This approach focuses less on chaos and more on establishing a system where rules benefit the few who wield economic and technological power.
It's a chilling prospect, especially considering the implications for social equity and democratic principles.
Schadenfreude can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it provides a sense of camaraderie and emotional relief, especially in moments of collective frustration or injustice. But when it becomes habitual, it risks eroding empathy and deepening divisions. Social media amplifies this effect, turning fleeting moments of satisfaction into a constant judgment and ridicule culture.
The challenge is finding a balance. How do we hold people accountable without losing our capacity for compassion? It's a tricky question, but maybe the answer lies in shifting the focus from "finding out" to "figuring out"—not just exposing flaws but working toward understanding and solutions.
Rather than just calling out, figuring out requires intentional effort, curiosity, and a willingness to see nuance.
Instead of reacting to schadenfreude moments, we must ask, "How did they get here?" or "What belief system led them to make this choice?" It doesn't mean excusing harmful behaviour, but understanding its mechanisms.
Why must non-MAGA supporters accept the MAGA movement "with love"? A more appropriate response, it seems, would be anger—righteous anger. #FAFO expresses their frustration with those who ignored its warnings. They tried to tell them, but they didn't listen, so now they'll see the consequences of their choices. Unfortunately, non-MAGA will also face the fallout from the choices made by MAGA.
At this frightening moment in American history, with a racist in the White House and amid rising levels of racial hatred, and his promise to deport "home grown" citizens, there is no more critical writer than Baldwin.
In the face of division and despair, James Baldwin's unwavering belief in love and hope offers a guiding light.
His wisdom reminds us that hope is not a passive sentiment but an act of defiance, a radical commitment to truth and justice.
Baldwin's call to confront the past honestly and hold one another accountable is not just a moral imperative but a blueprint for survival.
As he wrote in "For Nothing is Fixed," the only way forward is through solidarity: "The moment we cease to hold each other,/ the moment we break faith with one another,/ the sea engulfs us and the light goes out."
Let us honour Baldwin's legacy by embracing the transformative power of love and hope. Together, we can break the cycles of hatred and build a future rooted in empathy, accountability, and an unyielding commitment to justice.
The work is hard, but as Baldwin showed us, it is the only way to keep the light burning.