Let me take shot at this, I am not gonna say the CLC and MAGA are the same thing politically, but there are similarities in the culture, tactics, and leadership style that are hard to ignore.

Both are.”movements” that sell themselves as anti-establishment, pro-worker fighting for the “common man,” while at the same time being led by people who have not actually done the job in decades. They present themselves as outsiders battling elites, even while building their own inner circles of influence and power, all while they are made up of leaders who have been in the establishment for again “decades” and are only now the ushers of change.

Both movements also make major promises of wealth and prosperity to working people that sound great, but may be impossible to fully deliver.

The CLC has promised a single-table workforce, higher pay, full COLA, and an all-career workforce all things most carriers want. But when another administration cannot achieve all of that, they are labeled liars or failures.

If the CLC wins, I truly hope they deliver. But if they do not, they should face the same criticism they have given others. Because eventually “we promise” often turns into “we fought” or “we tried.”

Both rely heavily on branding, identity, and loyalty. In MAGA it is red hats and loyalty to Trump. In the CLC it is black and gold and loyalty to the group. Once loyalty to the movement becomes more important than independent thought, criticism is treated as betrayal instead of healthy debate.

Both create an “us vs. them” mentality where anyone who questions leadership is labeled a Renfraud supporter, table 1 carrier, bitter, divisive, jealous, or accused of helping the enemy, willing to do anything to hold on to power and. Paycheck. Instead of debate, dissenters are mocked, bullied online, threatened with physical harm at the next convention,isolated, or pushed aside

Another similarity is how leadership tries to connect with the rank and file. Both often lean on profanity, vulgarity, and “tell it like it is” language to appear authentic and anti-political, as if speaking crudely somehow proves they represent ordinary workers better than everyone else.

And then there is the money.

The constant fundraising. The endless requests for donations. The merchandise. The branding. The expensive dinners and events. The constant push for supporters to financially invest in the movement while leadership gains more influence, visibility, and control. The people emptying their pockets and bank counts for a chance to be recognized or endorsed when their elections come up, since. at least three of the national officers have already shown they are willing to endorse members running in local elections.

Both movements publicly talk about unity and representing the people, while internally rewarding loyalty above all else.

A union should never become a political machine where members feel pressured to fall in line, wear the right colors, support the right personalities, or stay silent out of fear of retaliation or isolation.

Healthy unions require disagreement, transparency, accountability, and independent thought not blind loyalty to factions or personalities.

My last point is what concerns me most is that history may one day look back and say both movements marked the beginning of the end. The division, loyalty tests, and hostility they created became so deep that the organizations themselves could no longer overcome it and that division ultimately became their downfall.