Trump’s Democratic ‘Allies’

American Greatness ^ | 3/10/2025 | Victor Davis Hanson

[ma_che62]

We are witnessing the most radical counter-revolution in the last 100 years, as the Trump administration attempts to slash government spending and the federal bureaucracies. It insists on reciprocal tariffs with friendly, neutral, and hostile nations alike. It will vastly expand energy production, end once and for all illegal immigration, fire the DEI industry and its overt racism, reboot public health policies, redirect the Pentagon, and, in general, reexamine almost every entrenched left-wing government institution and policy of the last 50 years.

[ma_che62]

...the congressional Democratic opposition finds itself loudly and proudly standing with only 20-30 percent of the American people on matters from biological males competing in female sports to an open border. For years, Democrats claimed the lack of “comprehensive immigration reform” prevented them from securing the border and stopping a 10-12 million influx of illegal aliens. And then they went quiet when Trump, without any new legislation, simply enforced existing immigration statutes and nearly eliminated all illegal entries.

[Tell It Right]

VDH ping

[Sacajaweau]

We don’t have any allies....until they need us.

[enumerated]

For the umpteenth time; it’s the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party. There’s nothing Democratic about it.

Sure, language evolves, and there’s no right or wrong, but why not choose to emulate the likes of Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump? They all make(made) a point of using the adjective ‘Democrat’ when referring to the Party or its policies, bills, politicians, voters, etc..

These great leaders and many more shared the belief that the adjective ‘democratic’ should be reserved for the adjectival form of democracy - which has nothing at all in common with Democrats, or the Democrat Party.

It may seem like a petty concern, but it’s not. Every time we call these lying, government-loving tyrants ‘democratic’, we are doing them a huge favor - we are reinforcing the Big Lie: that the Democrat Party is the slightest bit ‘democratic’ - that they represent the people (which they most certainly do not).

[griswold3]

I don’t know why the Republican Party is unable to turn the tables on this motley crew of misfits. Tell the folks what will Happen if we don’t curb government excesses!
We need to cut spending. Slotkin said she(they) would help. Well what are we waiting on? It will be their fault if this fails.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d say they set DJT up for the big fall. Then proceed with the Big Get Even

[Olog-hai]

Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

— Goal #15 of the 45 communist goals for the USA

The New Deal, Dean Acheson wrote approvingly in a book called A Democrat Looks At His Party, “conceived of the federal government as the whole people organized to do what had to be done.” A year later, Mr. (Arthur) Larson wrote A Republican Looks At His Party, and made much the same claim in his book for modern Republicans. The “underlying philosophy” of the New Republicanism, said Mr. Larson, is that “if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government.”

Here we have, by prominent spokesmen of both political parties, an unqualified repudiation of the principle of limited government. There is no reference by either of them to the Constitution, or any attempt to define the legitimate functions of government. The government can do whatever needs to be done; note, too, the implicit but necessary assumption that it is the government itself that determines what needs to be done. We must not, I think, underrate the importance of these statements. They reflect the view of a majority of the leaders of one of our parties, and of a strong minority among the leaders of the other, and they propound the first principle of totalitarianism: that the State is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the State. …

— The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Chapter 2, page 15

That would be the answer, in a nutshell. The Uniparty.

[Olog-hai]

A democracy is a political system in which the people periodically, by majority vote at the polls, select their rulers. The rulers then have absolute power to make whatever laws they please, by majority vote among themselves.

In a constitutional Republic, the people also, by majority vote at the polls, select rulers, who make laws by majority vote among themselves; but the rulers cannot make any laws they please because the Constitution severely restricts their lawmaking power.

The ideal of a democracy is universal equality. The ideal of a constitutional Republic is individual liberty.

In this century, great strides have been made toward the goal of subverting our Republic and transforming it into a democracy. One tactic of the subverters is subversion of language. By calling the United States a democracy until people thoughtlessly accept and use the term, totalitarians have obscured the real meaning of our principles of government.

— Dan Smoot Report, 1966

Just in case anyone needs a refresher on the difference between “democracy” and “republic”. It’s a huge, glaring difference.

[Olog-hai]

There is also this.

… The thesis of the state socialist is that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the state may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.

Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable.

For it is very clear that in fundamental theory, socialism and democracy are almost, if not quite, one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. …

— Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy, 1887

Wilson’s view of there being no difference between democracy and socialism seems to be the correct one.

[griswold3]

The Constitution according to Obama is a charter of negative liberties. Meaning it says what the government can’t do to you, but there is no limit to what a government can do for you.
I think his idea has metastasized.

[T Ruth]

Good post. It’s the Democrat Party. Not democratic.

[MinorityRepublican]

the congressional Democratic opposition finds itself loudly and proudly standing with only 20-30 percent of the American people on matters from biological males competing in female sports to an open border.

This is Trump's superpower. Obviously, Trump does not have the personality of Ronald Reagan or even Dubya. But due to TDS, the Democratic Party is forced to double down on issues that are unpopular with 80% of the American population.

[Karoo]

It’s important to me.

When I hear democratic party, I cringe. I learned it from the Great Rush Limbaugh!!!