GAVIN WAX: How The Democrats Lost Their Way And How Republicans Can Capitalize

The modern Democrat Party began to take shape in 2008 after presidential nominee Barack Obama won the presidency, which seems like an eternity ago considering the massive shift in the political zeitgeist. Obama ran against the policies of the Bush Administration, particularly the policies of endless war and restrictions on civil liberties, and swept into office on a mandate of peace and prosperity. It was the failure of Obama to live up to his mandates that would enable the political shift that was to come, as he initiated disastrous regime overthrows in Libya and Syria, funded the rise of new terror groups such as ISIS, doubled down on the Patriot Act with NDAA indefinite detention, refused to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and did little if anything to curb the excesses of the corporate elite.

The Democrats’ betrayal of their voters’ concerns set their party on course to become the unabashed promoters of death and destruction the world over. Despite selling their principles down the river in the self-gratifying frenzy of supporting the first black president in American history, Democrats nominally paid lip service to the cause of peace until President Trump’s arrival on the political scene. They stressed President Trump’s lack of temperament, suggesting his caustic nature could result in global calamity such as World War 3. However, after Trump took a relatively dovish approach to foreign policy as President, the reflexive pivot of the Democrats was to demand more war and intervention, opening the door to neoconservative infiltration and severe derangement bordering on lunacy regarding foreign affairs. With massive multinational defense contractors heavily incentivized to foster this collective descent into insanity, the confluence of events places the world in a perilous state.

With the advent of the Russia/Ukraine conflict, Democrats have become as belligerent and xenophobic as any bloodthirsty Bush-era conservative following the Sept. 11 attacks. With their bloodlust, fed by baseless and absurd conspiracy theories about Russian collusion and a wish for vengeance against Russian President Vladimir Putin for damaging their “democracy,” they risk literal total war by escalating an ever-increasing number of provocations. A prime example was the economic terrorism of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline sabotage, hurting the U.S.’s strategic ally Germany in the process. All official globalist apparatchiks were then instructed to ignore the apparent motives behind the attacks and blame the Russians, showing the regime’s willingness to insult the intelligence of the masses for which they harbor complete and utter disdain.

The Biden Administration is also pumping billions into Asia as they look to bring the war industry into a new continent. A regional conflict between China and Taiwan is the next proxy battle on the horizon. Due in part to their strengthening alliance with Russia, China has drawn the ire of the U.S. and Western partners over their unwillingness to acquiesce to the insanity happening in the Ukraine. As it becomes more evident that the US intervention failed in the Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else, Taiwan may be the next great “humanitarian” cause as the hopelessly propagandized masses are already primed to support the next operation.

In contrast, President Trump is not a pacifist or even a consistent non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. At times, Trump showed a willingness to use military force in carefully limited ways, but he made it abundantly clear that it was not his goal to start a war. Trump may have often dealt with global turmoil with bellicose rhetoric, but his lack of bloodlust differentiates him from his predecessors.

Trump would use the threat of sanctions or his most preferred weapon of choice – the tariff – not to create or perpetuate a conflict but to gain leverage to bring it to an end. For example, Trump might increase military activity in a given area, but only to prove the point that he possessed the resolve to escalate if necessary and that foreign adversaries must take him seriously. Trump practiced a form of Realpolitik that no other politician is willing to exercise in the age of lobbyist and special-interest domination, where the monied agenda comes first and all else comes second. Trump never received the memo that he was supposed to submit mindlessly to the whims of the elites, and it showed in his policies and in the response he received from the entrenched permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.

Trump's willingness to break orthodoxy with the intelligence community is what makes him such a remarkable leader on the issue of foreign policy. Trump was able to look Pentagon officials in the face, dispute their supposed facts and figures, and fly in the face of their supposed consensus. Even though the implementation of President Trump’s foreign policies was often neutered by deep-seated establishment operatives within the bureaucracy of the State and Defense Departments, his inability to sit idly by, respect their commands, and defer to them was an unthinkable sin. Trump’s brazenness to call out agencies like the FBI for their malignant behavior made him one in a million.

The most stunning example of Trump’s success came with North Korea. For generations, the public had been told that North Korea was entirely off limits, a nation that could not be engaged under any circumstances. North Korea was uniquely despotic, with leadership void of any merit, and would remain an enemy, a convenient and reliable scapegoat. Trump demonstrated that these barriers were artificial and could be easily brought down. His diplomatic breakthrough in North Korea, finding common ground with leader Kim Jong Un, alleged to be a murderous dictator who could never be met with anything but rage and scorn, was a monumental achievement. With this success, Trump proved decisively that the defense and intelligence communities had been purposefully deceiving the public for decades. And if the public realized that the Deep State and media had been lying about North Korea, they might soon figure out they were lying about other things too.

This is why the indictments are coming rapidly, and the full-court press is on to stop Trump from reclaiming the presidency. A second-term Trump would be able to avoid the pitfalls and landmines that he suffered during his first foray into the White House. Trump was undermined substantially by the defense and intelligence communities that he demonstrated, at the very least, were ineffective at their mandate of protecting national security and were more concerned with their own power, prestige, and profit. Another term, combined with the Democrats’ aforementioned credibility problem, could derail this system of organized corruption operating out of Washington, D.C., and put to bed its grandiose ambitions. This is why Trump is the clear choice for 2024, despite the institutional roadblocks, because the reward far outweighs the risk, and no leader has demonstrated the willingness to attack the problems head-on and bear the burdens that leadership demands in a post-constitutional America.