The Legitimacy War

How Rightful Power is Being Redefined in America, & What It Means for Our Future

Last Updated: February 20, 2025

The Legitimacy War

Introduction

Why some people see fairness as a threat, why “woke” became the ultimate insult, and why democracy itself is at risk in the new battle over legitimacy.

"[...] our country will be woke no longer.

[..] our message to every child in America is that you are perfect exactly the way God made you.

Because we are getting wokeness out of our schools and out of our military and it’s already out. And it’s out of our society. We don’t want it. Wokeness is trouble. Wokeness is bad. It’s gone. It’s gone.

And we feel so much better for it, don’t we? Don’t we feel better?"

The words were met with applause. The press barely pushed back. Few Democratic voices dared oppose it publically. But buried within Trump’s speech to Congress was the most important and polarizing issue of our time - a battle over legitimacy itself.

The word “woke” has been turned into an insult so toxic that even its defenders hesitate to say it. But strip away the branding, and this is not about curriculum disputes or military policy - it is about who has the right to be seen, to be protected, to be acknowledged as fully legitimate members of society. It is about who is allowed to hold power - and who must be erased.

Power is never neutral. Every government, institution, and social order must justify itself - must prove that it has the right to rule, to make laws, to define morality, to decide who belongs and who does not. This is the foundation of legitimacy. It is the difference between authority that is respected and authority that is merely feared.

But legitimacy is not a fixed or universal concept. Throughout history, societies have justified power in different ways. Some have ruled through divine right, claiming legitimacy from gods or kings. Others have asserted legitimacy through force, believing that strength alone is proof of authority. Democracies, at least in theory, have built their legitimacy on consent and fairness - the idea that governments and institutions must serve the people rather than the other way around.

Today, the United States is experiencing a full-scale legitimacy crisis. This crisis is not just about politics, elections, or individual leaders. It is a battle over two competing visions of legitimacy itself - one that justifies power through hierarchy and dominance, and one that justifies it through fairness and accountability. This is the legitimacy war.

The Two Legitimacy Systems: Hierarchy vs. Fairness

At its core, every legitimacy struggle comes down to two competing frameworks:

Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy: Power belongs to those who have tradition, religion, status, or force on their side. Hierarchy is seen as natural or god-ordained. Fairness is a threat to that order.
Fairness-Based Legitimacy: Power is only legitimate when it is earned through accountability, consent, and justice. Hierarchy is suspect, and fairness is the standard.

These two models have always been in conflict. Every major social movement - abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, labor protections - has been a battle between those trying to expand fairness-based legitimacy and those trying to restore hierarchy-based legitimacy.

For much of the 20th and early 21st centuries, fairness-based legitimacy made undeniable gains. Segregation was struck down. Women entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers. LGBTQ+ people won legal recognition. Racial, gender, and economic justice movements reshaped institutions, from universities to corporations to government policies.

But those who believe in hierarchy-based legitimacy never accepted these shifts as legitimate. They saw them as betrayals, as unnatural disruptions to an older, better order. And when Donald Trump rose to power, it was clear that the legitimacy war had reached a turning point. This is what we are going back to "Again."

Trumpism as a Legitimacy Counter-Revolution

Donald Trump did not create the legitimacy war - but he weaponized it for his own ends in ways no modern American leader had. Unlike past Republican presidents, who at least paid lip service to fairness-based legitimacy while quietly reinforcing hierarchy (often unknowingly), Trump is an instinctual and reactionary force who fully embraces hierarchy as the sole justification for power.

He does not just argue against his political opponents - he denies their legitimacy entirely.

He claims the 2020 election was stolen - not because of evidence, but because he simply refused to accept that he could lose legitimately.
He attacks the press, the courts, the intelligence agencies - not as institutions that could be improved, but as inherently illegitimate unless they served him.
He does not just oppose racial justice, feminism, or LGBTQ+ rights - he seeks to erase their legitimacy as social movements altogether.

Trump’s appeal was never just about policy. It was about restoring hierarchy-based legitimacy - reasserting the idea that power should belong to those who had always had it, and that fairness-based legitimacy was not just wrong, but dangerous - a uniting concept for people who believe in hierarchy-based legitimacy.

What Happens When Legitimacy Collapses?

Legitimacy is not just about laws or constitutions. It is about whether people believe in the systems that govern them. When that belief breaks down, societies do not simply “debate” their way out of crisis. They fracture. They turn toward authoritarianism, violence, or chaos.

We are already seeing the effects:

The judiciary, once seen as neutral, is now openly partisan.
Voting rights are being systematically dismantled.
Fair elections are no longer accepted as final by a growing number of Americans.
Basic truths - about science, history, and governance - are being rewritten by those who refuse to accept fairness as a valid principle.

The assumption that American democracy will self-correct is dangerously naive. Once hierarchy-based legitimacy has embedded itself in institutions, it does not leave voluntarily.

The Legitimacy War Must Be Fought

This is not just a battle between left and right, between Democrats and Republicans. It is a battle over whether fairness itself will remain a valid foundation for legitimacy in America.

Those who believe in fairness-based legitimacy cannot afford to be passive. Defending fairness is not “radical.” It is necessary for democracy to function.
Those who believe in accountability, human rights, and justice must not simply react to hierarchy-based legitimacy attacks - they must assert their own vision of legitimacy and fight for it.
Fairness-based legitimacy will not win because it is morally superior. It will win if enough people recognize the war that is being waged against it - and choose to fight back.

The legitimacy war is already here. The only question is who will win.

The Foundations of Legitimacy - Power, Authority, and the Right to Rule

Legitimacy is the invisible force that holds societies together. It determines who has the right to govern, who is trusted with power, and what systems are seen as just. Without legitimacy, power is fragile - it can be challenged, resisted, or overthrown. With it, even the most controversial policies and leaders can endure.

But legitimacy is not a neutral or universal concept. Different societies - and different people - justify power in different ways. Some believe that legitimacy comes from tradition, hierarchy, and foundational authority. Others believe it must be earned through consent, fairness, and evolving ethical responsibility.

These competing views of legitimacy are at the heart of the legitimacy war we see today. And to understand this war, we must first examine how legitimacy has been defined, challenged, and reshaped throughout history.

The Evolution of Legitimacy: From Divine Right to Democracy

Throughout history, those in power have always sought to justify their rule. The dominant frameworks for legitimacy have shifted over time, but the underlying battle - who gets to rule, and why? - has never changed.

Divine Right & Traditional Legitimacy
- For centuries, rulers claimed legitimacy through divine right - the belief that kings and emperors were chosen by gods.
- Monarchies maintained power not because they were elected or accountable, but because their rule was seen as ordained and unquestionable.
- To challenge a king was not just political rebellion - it was heresy.
The Rise of Social Contract Theory
- Thinkers like John Locke¹ and Jean-Jacques Rousseau² challenged divine right, arguing that legitimacy should come from the people, not the gods.
- They introduced the idea of the social contract - the belief that governments must be based on the consent of the governed.
- This idea helped fuel the American and French Revolutions, reshaping the modern world’s understanding of legitimate authority.
The Persistence of Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy
- Even as democratic systems spread, hierarchical legitimacy remained deeply embedded in racial, gender, and economic structures.
- Slavery was justified by claiming that some people were naturally inferior and unfit for self-rule.
- Women were denied voting rights on the grounds that their role was to be ruled by men.
- The wealthy justified their power by portraying economic success as proof of moral superiority.
The Expansion of Fairness-Based Legitimacy
- Over time, legitimacy expanded beyond race, gender, and class barriers.
- The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the civil rights movement were not just policy victories - they were legitimacy battles.
- Each of these movements challenged the idea that only certain people were “qualified” to hold power and be full members of society.

Hierarchy-Based vs. Fairness-Based Legitimacy: The Core Divide

Today, the battle between hierarchy-based and fairness-based legitimacy is playing out in real time.

Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy	Fairness-Based Legitimacy
Power belongs to those with status, tradition, or dominance.	Power must be earned through consent, fairness, and accountability.
Change is seen as dangerous - tradition and order must be preserved.	Change is necessary - justice must evolve with society.
Legitimacy is exclusive - not everyone is equally deserving of power or rights.	Legitimacy is inclusive - everyone has an inherent right to dignity and participation.
Used to justify monarchy, colonialism, segregation, patriarchy, authoritarianism.	Used to justify democracy, human rights, civil rights, social justice.

Most modern democratic societies claim to be based on fairness-based legitimacy, but in reality, hierarchy-based legitimacy remains deeply embedded in their institutions. This is why Trumpism, anti-wokeness, and authoritarian politics have gained so much traction - they are not new ideas, but old legitimacy structures fighting to reassert themselves.

Legitimacy Battles Are Never Settled - They Are Contested, Won, and Recontested

The legitimacy war is not a new phenomenon - it is a recurring cycle in history. Every time fairness-based legitimacy expands, those invested in hierarchy fight back.

The end of slavery led to Jim Crow laws.
Women’s suffrage led to decades of political and economic exclusion.
The Civil Rights Movement led to mass incarceration and voter suppression.
The election of Barack Obama led to the rise of Trumpism.

This is the pattern of legitimacy battles:

A marginalized group gains new legitimacy.
Those invested in the old legitimacy structure react with fear, backlash, and attempts to restore hierarchy.
The battle repeats itself - because legitimacy is never given, only taken and defended.

We are now in another phase of this war. The question is not whether fairness-based legitimacy is right - the question is whether it will survive.

The Legitimacy War Is Now Openly Political

For much of the 20th century, the legitimacy war was disguised as political disagreement.

Segregationists claimed they were just supporting “states’ rights.”
Anti-feminists claimed they were just defending “family values.”
Anti-LGBTQ+ activists claimed they were just protecting “religious freedom.”

But today, the legitimacy war is no longer hidden behind coded language. It is being waged openly.

Trump has declared that “wokeness” must be eradicated - not debated, not disagreed with, but eliminated.
The Supreme Court is actively rolling back fairness-based legitimacy protections.
Conservative leaders are banning books, censoring history, and criminalizing LGBTQ+ existence - not to “protect” children, but to strip entire groups of legitimacy.

This is not just a battle of ideas. It is a battle over who gets to define legitimacy itself.

What Comes Next

Understanding the legitimacy war is the first step in fighting back. Those who believe in fairness-based legitimacy must recognize what they are fighting for - and what they are fighting against.

This is not just a political battle. It is a struggle for the future of power, authority, and justice itself.

And as history has shown, legitimacy does not remain static. It is either defended or dismantled. The only question left is: who will win?

Racial Legitimacy and the Battle Over Who Belongs

In every society, racial legitimacy determines who belongs, who has power, and who is seen as fully human. For much of American history, whiteness was the primary marker of legitimate personhood and citizenship. Those outside this racial hierarchy - Black Americans, Indigenous peoples, immigrants - were either excluded from legitimacy entirely or assigned a lower status that justified their oppression.

While laws and policies have changed, the struggle over racial legitimacy has never ended. Every gain in racial equality has been met with backlash, as those invested in hierarchy-based legitimacy fight to maintain white dominance. Today, Trumpism has reinvigorated this backlash, not just through policy but through a fundamental rejection of fairness-based legitimacy in matters of race.

The Racial Legitimacy Hierarchy: Who Gets to Be Fully American?

From the founding of the U.S., legitimacy was explicitly racialized.

The Constitution protected slavery and counted enslaved Black people as three-fifths of a person - not to acknowledge their humanity, but to give white slaveowners more political power.
Citizenship was restricted to “free white persons” for much of early U.S. history.
Jim Crow laws codified a racial legitimacy hierarchy, ensuring that Black Americans remained second-class citizens.
Redlining, mass incarceration, and voter suppression served the same purpose in the 20th and 21st centuries - denying Black people full legitimacy in American life.

Despite legal victories - emancipation, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act - racial legitimacy remains contested.

The Civil Rights Movement: A Battle for Legitimacy, Not Just Rights

The Civil Rights Movement was not just about ending segregation - it was a direct attack on hierarchy-based legitimacy. Black Americans were not just demanding legal rights; they were asserting full legitimacy as equals in a society that had built itself on their exclusion.

Martin Luther King Jr. understood this when he framed the movement as a fulfillment of America’s founding ideals. He forced the nation to confront the gap between its stated values and its actual legitimacy structures.
White backlash to the movement was not just about policy disagreements - it was about the perceived illegitimacy of Black political participation.
The movement’s victories did not destroy racial hierarchy-based legitimacy - they only forced it to evolve into more subtle forms.

The “Post-Racial” Myth and the Backlash to Obama

The election of Barack Obama was hailed as proof that America had finally embraced fairness-based racial legitimacy. In reality, his presidency triggered a renewed legitimacy crisis.

Obama’s legitimacy was constantly questioned. He was accused of being a secret Muslim, an illegitimate president, and an outsider - all coded ways of saying he did not belong.
The rise of the Tea Party was fueled by the idea that a Black president was not just bad policy, but a fundamental violation of the racial legitimacy order.
Donald Trump built his political brand on birtherism, claiming that Obama was not a legitimate American - a direct assault on fairness-based legitimacy in favor of racial hierarchy.

Obama’s presidency did not prove that racial legitimacy was settled. It proved that the battle was far from over.

Trumpism and the Return of Open Racial Legitimacy Politics

Trump’s political appeal is often framed as economic anxiety, cultural resentment, or nationalism. But at its core, his movement is a reaction to the perceived loss of white racial legitimacy.

His campaign launched with an attack on Mexican immigrants, painting them as criminals and invaders - a classic legitimacy-denial tactic.
His administration tried to ban Muslim immigration, reinforcing the idea that non-white outsiders were not truly American.
His presidency saw an explosion of white nationalist rhetoric, including his infamous response to Charlottesville: “very fine people on both sides.”
His 2024 campaign has leaned even further into racial hierarchy-based legitimacy, openly promoting the idea that the country must be taken back from “woke” forces who have illegitimately seized power.

The racial legitimacy war is not just about policy. It is about who is allowed to belong, who is allowed to govern, and whose power is seen as natural.

The War on Racial Legitimacy Today

Even as explicit racism has become socially unacceptable in many circles, hierarchy-based legitimacy still manifests in structural ways:

Voter suppression disproportionately affects Black and Brown communities, ensuring that political legitimacy remains tilted toward whiteness.
“Anti-woke” legislation targets discussions of race in schools, erasing historical truths that challenge hierarchy-based legitimacy.
Economic exclusion keeps racial wealth gaps intact, reinforcing the idea that success and power belong to certain groups.

Why This Matters: Racial Legitimacy and the Future of American Democracy

If racial legitimacy remains contested, American democracy itself remains unstable.

A country that cannot agree on who belongs cannot function democratically.
A political system that allows racial legitimacy to be manipulated for political gain will continue to produce authoritarian leaders.
The legitimacy war is not just a battle over laws - it is a battle over the fundamental structure of American power.

Fairness-based legitimacy in matters of race is not just about justice for marginalized communities. It is about whether democracy itself can survive.

Gender & LGBTQ+ Legitimacy - The Battle Over Identity, Authority, and Existence

Legitimacy wars are not just about governance or economic power - they are also about who has the right to exist as they are, without having to conform to a predefined social order. Gender and sexuality have long been central to this struggle, with patriarchy serving as one of the oldest and most deeply entrenched hierarchy-based legitimacy systems.

For centuries, power has been explicitly gendered. Men were positioned as rulers, providers, and protectors, while women were expected to be subordinate, dependent, and obedient. The legitimacy of an individual was tied to how well they conformed to these roles.

The feminist movement, and later the LGBTQ+ rights movement, did not just seek inclusion or tolerance within existing systems. They challenged the very foundation of patriarchal legitimacy - the idea that power should be inherently tied to gender and that deviation from prescribed gender roles was inherently illegitimate or must be overcome.

This is why, today, anti-feminism, anti-LGBTQ+ policies, and the resurgence of patriarchal norms are not separate issues but part of the same legitimacy war.

Patriarchy as a System of Legitimacy

Patriarchy is not just a cultural preference or a social tradition - it is a legitimacy system designed to enforce hierarchy.

Men’s authority is positioned as natural, inevitable, and necessary.
Women’s legitimacy is contingent on their subordination, compliance, and relationship to men.
Queer and trans identities are inherently illegitimate because they challenge the very structure of gender as a fixed, binary system.

For most of history, legitimacy was explicitly tied to gender roles.

Women were denied political and economic power because they were considered physically, intellectually, or emotionally unfit for leadership.
Marriage was a transfer of legitimacy - a woman’s social standing moved from her father to her husband.
Reproduction was a source of legitimacy enforcement - women were expected to bear children, particularly male heirs, to maintain societal order.
Nonconforming gender and sexual identities were punished - queer relationships were criminalized, gender nonconformity was suppressed, and anything that deviated from heteronormativity was seen as a threat.

These structures ensured that legitimacy remained tied to male dominance and gender hierarchy.

The Feminist Challenge to Gender Legitimacy

Feminism was not just a call for equal rights - it was a direct challenge to the legitimacy of patriarchy itself.

First-wave feminism (suffrage movement) attacked the idea that politics and governance were inherently male domains.
Second-wave feminism (1960s-1980s) fought for reproductive rights, workplace equality, and the dismantling of legal structures that enforced male authority.
Third-wave feminism & intersectional feminism (1990s-present) expanded the fight to include racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, and the deconstruction of rigid gender roles.

Each of these movements struck at the core of who was allowed to hold power, who had authority over their own body, and whether women could be full participants in public life.

The Backlash: Restoring Patriarchal Legitimacy

Every expansion of fairness-based gender legitimacy has been met with backlash from those who view legitimacy through a patriarchal lens.

The fight against birth control and abortion access is about who controls reproductive legitimacy - women themselves, or male-dominated institutions.
The demonization of working women and single mothers is about reinforcing the legitimacy of male-headed households.
The “tradwife” movement and Christian nationalism’s resurgence are about re-establishing a legitimacy structure where women’s power is derived from their submission to men.

This backlash is not just cultural - it has been aggressively legislated:

The overturning of Roe v. Wade reinstated state control over women’s bodies, reinforcing patriarchal legitimacy.
The rise of anti-feminist rhetoric in conservative politics seeks to reframe equality as an attack on “traditional values.”
The push to limit women’s participation in leadership, from corporate boards to government, is an effort to restore male-dominated legitimacy structures.

Much like racial legitimacy struggles, gender legitimacy is not just a matter of individual rights - it is a battle over the foundational structure of society.

LGBTQ+ Rights as a Direct Threat to Patriarchal Legitimacy

The LGBTQ+ rights movement posed an even greater challenge to patriarchal legitimacy than feminism alone. While feminism sought to expand women’s role in public life, LGBTQ+ activism attacked the very notion of fixed gender roles and heterosexual dominance.

Same-sex marriage was not just about legal rights - it was about dismantling marriage as a tool of patriarchal legitimacy. If marriage could exist outside of male-female hierarchy, it lost its role as an enforcer of gender norms.
Trans visibility is an existential threat to patriarchal legitimacy because it challenges the idea that gender is a fixed, biological reality rather than a social construct.
Nonbinary and gender-nonconforming identities disrupt the very concept of gender-based legitimacy, removing the assumption that authority is tied to being male and submission is tied to being female.

This is why anti-trans policies have become the new frontline of the legitimacy war.

Bathroom bans, sports bans, and attacks on gender-affirming care are not just about individual trans people - they are about reinforcing the idea that gender legitimacy is fixed, unchangeable, and enforced by the state.
Book bans and curriculum restrictions targeting LGBTQ+ topics are designed to prevent new generations from recognizing gender legitimacy as fluid.
Trans people are framed as a societal threat, much like gay people were during the Lavender Scare, because their existence undermines patriarchal authority structures.

The backlash against trans rights is not just about discomfort with gender nonconformity - it is about reasserting a world where legitimacy is biologically assigned and cannot be challenged.

If the feminist and LGBTQ+ movements challenged patriarchal legitimacy at its foundation, Trumpism and right-wing nationalism have mounted an aggressive counterattack. The modern legitimacy war is not just about preserving traditional gender roles - it is about actively erasing fairness-based legitimacy from institutions, law, and public discourse.

Trumpism’s Explicit Attack on Gender & LGBTQ+ Legitimacy

Donald Trump’s rise was, in many ways, a response to the perceived collapse of patriarchal legitimacy.

His campaign thrived on overt misogyny, from “grab them by the pussy” to personal attacks on female politicians.
His Supreme Court picks helped overturn Roe v. Wade, rolling back reproductive autonomy.
His movement has embraced anti-LGBTQ+ policies, from trans military bans to attacks on gender-affirming care.
His supporters, particularly within Christian nationalist circles, see him as a tool for restoring male authority and dismantling fairness-based gender legitimacy.

Trump’s appeal to hierarchy-based legitimacy was not accidental - it was strategic. By positioning himself as a warrior against feminism and LGBTQ+ rights, he created a powerful cultural battleground that extended far beyond policy debates.

His administration systematically rolled back protections for women and LGBTQ+ people:

Rescinded Title IX protections for sexual assault survivors, reinforcing the idea that men should not be held accountable.
Banned trans people from the military, rejecting their legitimacy as public servants.
Attempted to redefine gender as strictly biological, seeking to erase legal recognition for trans and nonbinary people.
Appointed anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ+ judges, ensuring that hierarchy-based legitimacy remained legally reinforced.

This was not just about policy - it was about reasserting patriarchal and heteronormative legitimacy by stripping fairness-based legitimacy from institutions.

The Rise of the “Anti-Woke” Movement as a Legitimacy Counterattack

When Trump left office, the attack on gender and LGBTQ+ legitimacy did not end - it escalated. The right-wing movement rebranded fairness-based legitimacy as “woke” and launched an all-out war against it.

Anti-woke rhetoric became a cover for attacking fairness-based legitimacy in gender, race, and LGBTQ+ rights.
DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) rollbacks stripped fairness-based legitimacy from institutions, workplaces, and universities.
State-sponsored erasure of LGBTQ+ identity surged through book bans, “Don’t Say Gay” laws, and restrictions on trans healthcare.

Trump’s recent address to Congress made this war explicit:

“Our country will be woke no longer.”

He framed fairness-based legitimacy as an existential threat to American identity.

The anti-woke movement is not just a rejection of progressive policies - it is an effort to restore hierarchy-based legitimacy by eliminating fairness-based alternatives.

The Role of Christian Nationalism in Legitimacy Wars

Much of the gender and LGBTQ+ legitimacy war is driven by Christian nationalist ideology, which sees fairness-based legitimacy as a direct attack on God’s ordained order.

Christian conservatives frame legitimacy as divinely granted, not socially constructed.
Patriarchal hierarchy is seen as God-ordained, making feminism and LGBTQ+ rights inherently illegitimate.
Religious justifications are used to roll back rights, from abortion bans to attacks on same-sex marriage.

Christian nationalism does not just oppose fairness-based legitimacy - it seeks to erase it entirely by making hierarchy-based legitimacy the only legally recognized structure.

Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy’s Need for Rigid Gender Roles

The legitimacy war is not just about policy or religion - it is about the fundamental need for rigid gender roles in authoritarian systems.

Authoritarian movements require strict gender binaries because they reinforce hierarchy and obedience.
Fascist regimes throughout history have framed feminism and LGBTQ+ rights as threats, from Nazi Germany’s persecution of queer people to modern autocrats’ suppression of gender equality.
Trans panic and “groomer” accusations are used to justify repression, portraying fairness-based legitimacy as dangerous to children and society.

This is why trans people have become the central target of modern legitimacy battles - because their existence challenges the very foundation of hierarchy-based legitimacy.

The Stakes of the Gender & LGBTQ+ Legitimacy Battle

The legitimacy war over gender and LGBTQ+ rights is now at a turning point.

If fairness-based legitimacy prevails, gender and LGBTQ+ identities will continue to gain recognition, legal protection, and social acceptance.
If hierarchy-based legitimacy prevails, we will see increased repression, state control over gender identity, and forced adherence to traditional roles.

This is not just a cultural war - it is a battle over the right to self-determination, bodily autonomy, and existence itself.

Economic Legitimacy and the Myth of Wealth as Merit

Legitimacy battles do not just determine who has political power or social recognition - they also determine who deserves wealth, stability, and economic success. Just as race, gender, and sexuality have been used to justify hierarchy-based legitimacy, economic status has long been weaponized as a marker of who is “deserving” and who is not.

The belief that wealth is a reflection of personal merit is one of the most enduring hierarchy-based legitimacy myths. It is the foundation of capitalism’s moral framework, shaping how people view poverty, success, and social mobility. But in reality, economic legitimacy is not just about personal effort - it is about who is allowed to succeed and who is structurally excluded.

The Historical Roots of Economic Legitimacy

Throughout history, economic legitimacy has been tightly controlled to preserve existing power structures.

Feudalism justified aristocratic wealth through divine right, portraying nobles as inherently deserving of land and resources.
Colonialism and slavery positioned wealth extraction as a sign of superiority - those who conquered and profited were seen as naturally legitimate rulers.
The Industrial Revolution cemented the idea of wealth as personal merit, portraying industrialists and capitalists as self-made visionaries, despite their reliance on exploited labor.

These patterns persist today - the wealthy justify their power by framing economic success as a moral achievement, while the poor are blamed for their own struggles.

Neoliberalism and the Reinforcement of Economic Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy

In the late 20th century, neoliberalism emerged as the dominant economic ideology, reinforcing the legitimacy of extreme wealth concentration.

Deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy were justified as necessary for economic growth, even as inequality skyrocketed.
The decline of labor unions and worker protections shifted economic power further toward corporate elites.
The privatization of public services turned basic needs - healthcare, education, housing - into commodities, reinforcing the idea that economic success was a measure of personal virtue.

Under neoliberalism, poverty became a personal failing, while wealth became proof of superiority. This was not just an economic system - it was a legitimacy framework that dictated who deserved a stable life and who did not.

Trumpism and the Myth of Wealth as Merit

Donald Trump’s appeal was built on the legitimacy myth of wealth.

His supporters did not just see him as a politician - they saw him as a successful businessman who “earned” his power.
His self-branding as a billionaire reinforced the idea that economic success was a marker of legitimacy, despite his history of failed ventures, bankruptcies, and fraud.
His policies - tax cuts for the rich, corporate deregulation, and attacks on social welfare programs - were designed to further entrench hierarchy-based economic legitimacy.

Trumpism weaponized economic resentment against fairness-based legitimacy, blaming social programs, marginalized communities, and “woke” policies for economic struggles while protecting wealthy elites from scrutiny.

Economic legitimacy is not just about wealth - it is about who is allowed access to a stable and dignified life.

Redlining and housing discrimination denied Black communities access to generational wealth.
Gender pay gaps and workplace discrimination ensured that women remained economically dependent.
Attacks on social safety nets framed poverty as a moral failing rather than a systemic issue.

The belief that some people are inherently more deserving of wealth and security is a core pillar of hierarchy-based legitimacy. It is why:

Minimum wage increases are framed as handouts rather than fair compensation.
Student debt forgiveness is attacked as undeserved rather than a corrective measure.
Universal healthcare is dismissed as socialism rather than a basic right.

These are not just policy disagreements - they are legitimacy battles over who deserves economic security and who does not.

The Future of Economic Legitimacy

The legitimacy war over economic power is intensifying.

If fairness-based legitimacy prevails, wealth will be seen as a shared resource rather than a marker of superiority, leading to stronger labor protections, progressive taxation, and universal public services.
If hierarchy-based legitimacy prevails, economic power will continue to concentrate in the hands of the elite, reinforcing structural barriers that keep marginalized groups in poverty.

Like all legitimacy battles, this is not just about economics - it is about power, morality, and the future of justice itself.

The Psychology of Legitimacy - Why Some People Accept Hierarchy and Others Resist It

Legitimacy is not just a political or economic construct - it is deeply psychological. The way people perceive power, authority, and fairness is shaped by cognitive biases, moral intuitions, and social conditioning. Some people instinctively accept hierarchy-based legitimacy as natural and necessary, while others are drawn to fairness-based legitimacy as a moral imperative.

Understanding the psychology behind these differences helps explain why legitimacy battles are so intractable - and why persuasion alone is often ineffective at shifting people’s deeply held beliefs.

Moral Foundations Theory: Why Liberals and Conservatives See Legitimacy Differently

Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory¹ suggests that people’s political and legitimacy beliefs are rooted in different moral intuitions.

Liberals prioritize fairness and harm avoidance: They believe legitimacy should be earned through justice, accountability, and consent.
Conservatives prioritize loyalty, authority, and purity: They believe legitimacy should be based on tradition, hierarchy, and stability.

This explains why:

Progressives see wealth inequality as illegitimate, while conservatives see wealth as a reward for hard work.
Progressives see gender as socially constructed, while conservatives see gender roles as a moral order.
Progressives see government as a tool for fairness, while conservatives see government as a potential threat to natural hierarchies.

People’s moral foundations shape their legitimacy preferences, often in ways that are deeply emotional and resistant to logic-based persuasion.

Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto’s Social Dominance Theory² explains why some people naturally gravitate toward hierarchy-based legitimacy.

People with high Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) believe that society should have strong hierarchies, with dominant groups controlling power.
People with low SDO believe in egalitarianism, fairness, and shared power.

Studies show that people with high SDO tend to:

Support authoritarian leaders who enforce hierarchies.
Oppose progressive movements that threaten traditional power structures.
Believe that inequality is natural, inevitable, and even desirable.

This explains why Trump’s rhetoric about “strong leaders,” “law and order,” and “making America great again” resonates with those who see legitimacy as hierarchical.

System Justification Theory: Why People Defend Unjust Systems

John Jost’s System Justification Theory³ shows that people do not just accept hierarchy-based legitimacy - they actively defend it, even when it harms them.

People prefer stability over change → Even those harmed by an unjust system may defend it because change feels risky and uncertain.
People rationalize inequality → If fairness-based legitimacy challenges the existing system, people will distort reality to justify the status quo.
People conform to dominant narratives → When power structures define what is legitimate, many people internalize those beliefs without question.

This is why:

Low-income conservatives vote against social programs that could help them - because they have been conditioned to see those programs as illegitimate.
Women sometimes defend patriarchal structures - because they have been socialized to believe in gender hierarchy-based legitimacy.
Marginalized groups may oppose fairness-based policies - because they have been taught that those policies are “special treatment” rather than justice.

The psychological need for stability can make fairness-based legitimacy feel threatening, even to those who would benefit from it.

How These Psychological Forces Shape the Legitimacy War

These psychological tendencies help explain why the legitimacy war is so deeply entrenched:

Hierarchy-based legitimacy is psychologically appealing: It provides a sense of order, stability, and meaning.
Fairness-based legitimacy requires people to challenge the status quo: This is cognitively and emotionally difficult for many people.
Legitimacy is reinforced through socialization: People raised in hierarchy-based legitimacy cultures will often defend those hierarchies instinctively.

This is why rational arguments alone rarely shift legitimacy beliefs - because people’s attachment to legitimacy frameworks is emotional, not just logical.

Breaking the Legitimacy Cycle: How Fairness-Based Legitimacy Can Win

Reframe Fairness as Strength, Not Weakness
- Many people associate hierarchy with strength and fairness with fragility.
- Fairness-based legitimacy must be framed as a powerful, necessary force for stability and justice.
Make Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy’s Failures Visible
- People justify hierarchies because they seem natural and effective.
- Showing how hierarchical systems breed corruption, exploitation, and instability can weaken their appeal.
Use Identity & Community to Shift Legitimacy Perceptions
- People do not change their legitimacy beliefs through facts alone.
- Social belonging - being part of a fairness-based legitimacy movement - is often the most powerful force for change.

The Future of the Legitimacy War

The psychology of legitimacy explains why:

Trumpism and authoritarianism thrive on hierarchy-based legitimacy.
Progressive movements struggle to persuade those who instinctively reject fairness-based legitimacy.
Legitimacy battles are deeply emotional and identity-based, not just political.

Winning the legitimacy war will require more than facts - it will require shifting how people emotionally and psychologically perceive power, fairness, and justice.

Language as a Weapon - How Words Shape Legitimacy Battles

Legitimacy is not just enforced through laws, institutions, or psychological conditioning - it is shaped by language itself. The words people use to describe power, identity, and fairness determine who is seen as legitimate and who is not.

Throughout history, dominant groups have controlled legitimacy through language, defining who belongs, whose perspectives matter, and what ideas are even allowed to be expressed. Today, Trumpism and the broader hierarchy-based legitimacy movement have weaponized language to undermine fairness-based legitimacy and reinforce traditional power structures.

The Historical Weaponization of Language in Legitimacy Battles

Words have always been used to justify power and delegitimize challenges to it.

Divine Right Monarchies: Framed rulers as “ordained by God,” making rebellion not just illegal but heretical.
Slavery & Colonialism: Used dehumanizing language to justify the oppression of entire races as “savages” or “lesser peoples.”
Patriarchy & Gender Hierarchies: Labeled women as “hysterical” or “irrational” to justify denying them political power.
McCarthyism & The Red Scare: Used the label of “communist” to delegitimize political dissent.

This pattern continues today - language is still a battleground for legitimacy.

Trumpism and the Rebranding of Fairness as “Woke”

One of the most effective modern legitimacy weapons has been the rebranding of fairness-based legitimacy as “wokeness.”

The term “woke” originated in Black activist circles, meaning awareness of systemic injustice.
Far-right movements co-opted and distorted it, turning “woke” into a catch-all insult for any challenge to hierarchy-based legitimacy.
Trump and conservative media have used “woke” to frame fairness-based legitimacy as irrational, elitist, and dangerous.

Trump’s recent address to Congress made this strategy explicit.

"Wokeness is trouble. Wokeness is bad. It’s gone."

This rhetoric is not just about policy - it is about delegitimizing fairness itself.

How Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy Uses Language to Attack Fairness

Hierarchy-based legitimacy movements consistently use linguistic framing to:

Reinforce Traditional Power Structures
- “Law and order”: Frames state violence as necessary and just.
- “Family values”: Code for patriarchal and heteronormative legitimacy.
- “Religious freedom”: Used to justify legal discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
Delegitimize Social Justice Movements
- “Political correctness”: Framed as oppressive rather than protective of marginalized voices.
- “Cancel culture”: Used to dismiss accountability as unfair persecution.
- “Groomers”: A revived moral panic to delegitimize LGBTQ+ rights.
Obscure Economic Power and Injustice
- “Job creators”: Frames billionaires as benevolent, legitimizing wealth inequality.
- “Welfare queens”: Used to delegitimize public assistance programs.
- “Free markets”: Framed as neutral, despite serving the wealthy elite.

These linguistic tools are not neutral - they are weapons in the legitimacy war.

Why Fairness-Based Legitimacy Struggles to Control Language

One reason hierarchy-based legitimacy has been so resilient is its ability to control the dominant narrative.

Hierarchy-based legitimacy simplifies language → It uses clear, emotionally charged phrases that tap into deep-seated biases.
Fairness-based legitimacy often relies on complex arguments → Terms like “intersectionality,” “structural inequality,” and “social justice” require context and explanation.
Right-wing media has centralized messaging → Fox News, talk radio, and social media repeat legitimacy-framing messages relentlessly, reinforcing their power.
Progressive messaging is often fragmented → Without a centralized fairness-based legitimacy framework, the left struggles to control linguistic battles.

This is why conservatives can turn “woke” into an insult overnight, while fairness-based movements struggle to reframe the debate.

Reclaiming Language in the Legitimacy War

If fairness-based legitimacy is to survive, it must win the linguistic battle.

Reclaim & Redefine Words
- “Woke” should be framed as awareness, not extremism.
- “Equity” should be framed as fairness, not favoritism.
- “Freedom” should not be ceded to conservatives - it must be reclaimed as collective liberation.
Expose Linguistic Manipulation
- When conservatives weaponize language, it must be called out directly.
- Example: Instead of debating “cancel culture,” expose it as a distraction from real power abuses.
Control the Narrative Early
- Words shape legitimacy before policies are even debated.
- The left must learn to define terms first, not react after the fact.

The legitimacy war is being fought with words as much as with laws and institutions. Winning the linguistic battle is not optional - it is essential.

The Legitimacy War in America Today - How Trumpism Has Permanently Reshaped Power

Legitimacy battles are not abstract debates - they shape laws, institutions, and daily life. In the U.S., the rise of Trumpism has not just influenced politics - it has fundamentally altered how legitimacy is understood and contested.

Trumpism is not just a political movement but a full-scale legitimacy war against fairness-based legitimacy. It has:

Redefined who is considered a legitimate American.
Reshaped how political, racial, gender, and economic legitimacy are framed.
Permanently shifted institutions toward hierarchy-based legitimacy.

Even if Trump himself fades, Trumpism’s legitimacy war will continue.

How Trumpism Has Attacked Fairness-Based Legitimacy

Trumpism is defined by the rejection of fairness as a basis for power. It has systematically:

1. Delegitimized Elections and Democratic Processes

2016: Claimed the election was rigged before winning.
2020: Refused to accept his loss, fueling the “Big Lie.”
2024: Continues pushing election fraud conspiracies to undermine democratic legitimacy.

By rejecting electoral fairness, Trumpism has shifted legitimacy from democratic consent to raw power.

2. Attacked Racial, Gender, and LGBTQ+ Legitimacy

Openly embraced white nationalist rhetoric.
Pushed trans erasure laws and banned DEI programs.
Positioned women’s rights as an attack on “traditional” legitimacy.

Trumpism seeks to restore racial, gender, and sexual hierarchies by stripping fairness-based legitimacy from marginalized groups.

3. Redefined Economic Legitimacy as Loyalty to Trumpism

Rewarded wealthy allies with tax cuts.
Framed billionaires as “job creators” while attacking social programs.
Portrayed economic fairness as “socialism.”

Trumpism has reinforced wealth-based legitimacy while attacking policies that promote economic justice.

4. Weaponized “Anti-Woke” Rhetoric to Cement Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy

Labeled any fairness-based legitimacy movement as “woke extremism.”
Banned books, erased LGBTQ+ education, and rewrote history curriculums.
Turned “anti-wokeness” into a unifying legitimacy test for the right.

Trumpism frames fairness as a threat, reinforcing the idea that hierarchical legitimacy must be restored.

Trumpism’s Institutional Damage - Legitimacy That Cannot Be Undone

The most dangerous aspect of Trumpism is that many of its legitimacy shifts are permanent.

Judiciary → Trump stacked courts with hierarchy-based legitimacy judges who will rule for decades.
State governments → Anti-democratic laws, voting restrictions, and gerrymandering will outlast Trump’s presidency.
Media & Information → Right-wing propaganda networks have permanently reshaped public discourse.
International Standing → U.S. legitimacy abroad has been eroded, with authoritarian leaders emboldened.

Trump’s legitimacy war has fundamentally altered institutions in ways that cannot simply be reversed by another election.

The Legitimacy War Will Continue, Even Without Trump

Even if Trump were to disappear, Trumpism’s legitimacy framework will persist.

Future leaders will build on Trump’s attacks on fairness-based legitimacy.
Right-wing movements globally have adopted Trumpist rhetoric.
The legitimacy war is now a central feature of American politics, not a temporary phenomenon.

The key question is: Will fairness-based legitimacy survive, or will Trumpism’s legitimacy framework define the future?

The Future of Legitimacy - Defending Fairness in an Age of Reaction

The legitimacy war is not theoretical - it is an active battle over who holds power, who is protected, and who is erased. The outcomes of this war will define the next century.

Hierarchy-based legitimacy forces are on the offensive, working to roll back democracy, racial and gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and economic fairness. Fairness-based legitimacy is under siege, dismissed as “woke” extremism and cultural decay.

The question is no longer whether this battle exists - it is whether those who believe in fairness-based legitimacy are willing to fight for it.

The Stakes: What Happens If Fairness-Based Legitimacy Loses?

If hierarchy-based legitimacy prevails, we will see:

The erosion of democracy as elections lose legitimacy and power becomes consolidated in authoritarian structures.
The return of rigid racial and gender hierarchies, with legal and institutional backing.
The continued criminalization of LGBTQ+ existence, using “protect the children” rhetoric to justify repression.
The destruction of economic fairness, ensuring that wealth and power remain concentrated in the hands of the few.

This is not just a hypothetical future - it is already happening.

How to Defend Fairness-Based Legitimacy

The legitimacy war cannot be won with passivity, moral appeals, or reliance on institutions that are already compromised. Fairness-based legitimacy must be actively defended, reframed, and strengthened.

1. Reclaim the Language of Legitimacy

Stop letting the right define fairness as “wokeness” or weakness.
Reframe fairness as strength, stability, and justice.
Call out legitimacy manipulation - whether it’s in courts, elections, or media narratives.

2. Build Institutions That Can Withstand Legitimacy Attacks

Progress cannot rely on temporary policy wins.
Democratic institutions must be actively protected from capture.
Alternative power structures (labor movements, independent media, social networks) must be built and defended.

3. Shift How People Emotionally Perceive Legitimacy

Facts alone will not shift deeply held legitimacy beliefs.
Appeal to identity, security, and moral purpose.
Make fairness-based legitimacy a source of belonging and pride, not just an abstract concept.

The Future of the Legitimacy War

This war will not end in a single election or policy battle. It is a long-term, generational fight. The outcome is not predetermined - it depends on whether fairness-based legitimacy can be defended before it is fully dismantled.

The forces of hierarchy-based legitimacy are not waiting. Those who believe in fairness cannot afford to wait either.

The question is not whether legitimacy is being redefined. The question is: who will define it?

About the Author

Raised by his deeply conservative Evangelical Christian mother, Steve’s personal journey as a bisexual man navigating rejection, authenticity, and healing informs his book; Unconditional Love: A Guide To Reclaiming Your Authenticity In A World That Fears Difference. Drawing on his own experiences, years of therapy, and extensive global travels - including time spent learning Arabic and immersing himself in Middle Eastern cultures - Steve explores the universal struggle for self-expression in the face of societal and familial expectations.

Passionate about bridging divides, Steve’s writing blends personal reflection with sociological critique, empowering readers to reclaim their voices, celebrate their truths, and build relationships rooted in empathy and respect. He lists amongst his favorite authors; bell hooks, James Baldwin, and Brené Brown for their candid explorations of love, identity, and the systems that shape us.

Steve can usually be found programming, adventuring across continents, climbing mountains, diving coral reefs, reflecting on the intersection of culture and individuality, or sharing thoughts on love with those closest to him.

Follow Steve’s journey and connect:

StevenEWrites.com

Copyright Notice

This work is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

You are free to:

Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices:

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.