[enumerated]

I agree that saying “Trump is MAGA and MAGA is Trump” suggests an unhealthy dependency on the man.

But I think the intention was a completely different point, namely, that those four lunatics (Tucker Carlson, et. al) cannot claim MAGA 2.0, and that is a legitimate point.

Personally, I don’t feel the slightest bit let down or betrayed by President Trump, and as a proud MAGA patriot who also loves Trump, I resent these clowns trying to steal MAGA from Trump.

Because of that, when I read “Trump is MAGA and MAGA is Trump”, I agreed with the sentiment... but I did not take it as some kind if implication that MAGA was a cult of personality.

That make any sense?

[Dr. Sivana]

That make any sense?

Yes. Many political movements catalyze as the result of a written work or a gifted writer coming along at the right time, and others pick up the mantle to run for office: Uncle Tom's Cabin, Das Kapital, The Social Contract, Witness, The Conservative Mind, On the Origin of Species, etc.

Trump is not a Philospher King. He has amazing instincts, gumption, self-confidence, intelligence, love of country, lack of true malice, but he is not someone who maps out the deep underpinnings ofthe universe.

Outside of maybe Angelo Codevilla, who came to prominence at around the same time, you really don't have the "intellectual underpinnings" for MAGA/Trumpism. They had to be reverse engineered. I think Victor Davis Hanson comes close to succeeding on the whole spectrum.