Back in the day, a liberal Jewish cartoonist named Herbert Block (pen name “Herblock”) gave every new president a free shave. In the case of Richard Nixon, whom he usually portrayed with a very heavy late-in-the-day beard even at dawn, this was seen at the time as giving him – editorially speaking – a fresh start.
These days, I expect Herblock would at least give Donald Trump a free haircut, no matter how much he disliked his politics. For my part, I consider presidential elections to be orchestrated and I believe voting matter little in the grand scheme of things.
Nonetheless, Trump deserves a measure of respect for transcending what he and his family and friends endured in recent years. I’d be willing to clean Herblock’s clippers and sweep up after he was done. Nor will I soon forget Melania Trump’s smile – I’ll bet she has a list or three.
So What Did Happen?
Many people are using terms like “landside,” “steamroller” and “decisive win” to describe Trump’s and the GOP’s success in the November elections. It was none of these things. With Arizona alone still not called (!), Trump beat Harris by about 3% of the popular vote and approximately 80 – 90 electoral votes.
Now, any win beats a loss, hands down. But this is hardly a decisive win, much less a landslide, and the slim margins in both the House of Representatives and the Senate – despite Republicans holding the first and gaining control of the second – indicate just how close it was.
Anyone who wants to know just what a landslide looks like, has only to glance back to 1964 and 1984 (no, NOT Orwell’s book!). In 1964, Lyndon Johnson [D] beat Barry Goldwater [R] by 24percentage points in the popular vote, and 486 electoral votes to 52. In 1984. Ronald Reagan [R] beat Walter Mondale [D] with nearly 60% of the popular vote, and a record-making 525 electoral votes to Mondale’s 13. THOSE are decisive wins.
But it isn’t just the numbers. Sixty-odd years ago and even later, primaries did not pre-select a party’s nominee before the convention, and lobbies – while important – had very low ceilings on donations and other spending. This gave them correspondingly less influence than they have today, although only a novice would have discounted them altogether.
Nowadays there are no real limits on spending and conventions do little more than provide an opportunity for the preselected nominees to rally their supporters. Further, both processes are largely controlled by Jewish money and Jewish-dominated PACs. There are others, of course, but for all practical purposes, voters are given an illusory “choice” between two anointed Zionist contenders and some third-party hangers-on.
The two strains of “Zionism” are different, as I pointed out earlier. Both are committed primarily to the welfare of Israel and its interests.
But the “Blue” (Democrat) variant are cultural Marxists, aiming like the Chinese “Red Guards” during their Cultural Revolution at a remaking of American society in accordance with their “woke” precepts.
The “Red” variant resists that, preferring to see a stable U.S. pursuing an interventionist policy in the world, destroying Israel’s enemies (they are numerous. And deservedly so) at little or no cost to Israel itself. This is what the “regime change” wars of the past decades have been all about.
This is what the Neo-conservatives dominating the Republican party want Trump to continue. His recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and his moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in his first term was part of it.
His promise to a major donor to recognize Israeli sovereignty over Est Jerusalem and the West Bank if elected again would continue that process. It will further ignite the Middle East already smoldering with conflicts in Gaza, the Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere. I would also raise the stakes with Iran, which Israel would dearly love us to destroy for it.
Israel would have been content with Harris as president, no matter how weak and ineffectual she might be. No elected U.S. president dare cross it even she remembers, or would be reminded of, Kennedy in Dallas.
But Israeli prime minister Netanyahu certainly believes he has his man in the White House, and Trump’s base considers him their hero, so what could possibly go wrong?
Looking Deeper
There are some interesting demographic characteristics about the election that merit attention for future reference. I have felt for years that the Democrats could manipulate the voting systems in the large urban areas they controlled to generate whatever number of votes they needed to carry those states.
This is what they did in 2020, and less so in the mid-term elections in 2018 and 2022. There would be no repeat of the 2016 surprise upset.
Yet they didn’t do it this time. There were roughly 10 million fewer votes cast in 2024 than in 2020, despite major efforts to mobilize voters in both parties, and additional legal immigrants as well as illegal migrants being groomed by the Democrats.
But several “blue” states with large “blue” urban areas flipped to Trump: Wisconsin, M Michigan and Pennsylvania, among them – as well as Georgia, Nevada and (if the Democrats running it finally throw in the towel) Arizona.
Breakouts in exit polls are also suggestive, and do not augur well for Republicans in the future. They made notable inroads in Black males and did much better than anticipated with Hispanics.
Other exit polls support the findings of 2022 exit polls, which indicated that unmarried young women – especially white women – were far more supportive of Democrats than were older married women.
Established Hispanics were also more supportive of Republicans than newer Hispanic immigrants. As more migrants enter the country, and more vote under one pretext or another, the Democrat edge can only increase.
So why did the “rain-makers” overseeing these (s)elections let this happen? Where were the other votes? Why did not the Democrats roll them out? The media would have concealed it as they did in 2018, 2020 & 2022, and the misbegotten “Justice” Department would never even have glanced at it.
There are several possible considerations, and I suspect all may have entered the calculations of those who made the decision. First, the Democrats had a very weak hand with Harris and Walz, and had come to the table very late: neither good strategists nor good gamblers like to play weak hands.
I expect more than one wished they had moved Biden out immediately after the 2022 mid-terms and brought in someone like Gavin Newsom as Vice president., and if Harris did not perform well, move her out, newsom up, and get some governor like Gretchen Whitmer (MI) or Kathy Hochul (NY) as vice president. THAT team they could have run, and done what was necessary for them to win, with a full year or more to do the job persuasively.
Second, these people prefer the long view to hindsight, and have advanced their cause by doing so. The Jewish billionaires controlling both parties apparently reached a consensus that it was better to mollify Trump’s base now, especially because the Democrat nominees were so weak.
The Democrats can, and will, take the fight back to the streets as they did during Trump’s first term. They can, and will, throw sand into the wheels of government, file lawsuits in friendly Federal courts to halt or delay any of Trump’s initiatives, and harass Administration officials.
Third, whatever happens in Washington DC after Trump’s inauguration in January, the DEI bandwagon will still continue n many Democrat-friendly states, cities and institutions: (1) academe is woke; & activist (2) teachers unions are woke & activist; and (3) MSM, entertainment media & adverts conglomerates are woke & activist. All had been smug and certain of continued success. Now they have had a wake-up call, and they won’t forget it.
Finally, and likely most important, letting Trump win cuts their public losses now, puts a reliable goy in place to further their international agenda, has reliable GOP Congressional leadership (McConnell, Johnson) and mostly obedient GOP members in both Houses.
This sets the stage for 2028, when they can regain formal power and consolidate a one-party rule.
So What Lies Ahead?
It would be unfair and unreasonable to dismiss Trump’s electoral win completely. The oligarchs who actually run this country know he has to give some red meat to his base, which is still numerous, well-armed and includes most of the 18 million-plus military veterans.
Trump can only be pacifier-in-chief if that base sees something worth-while coming from his presidency.
Some good things will come out of Trump’s coming term in office, and we should appreciate it. I would expect people like NY AG Letitia James, and NYC DA Alvin Bragg and their counterparts elsewhere to be fast-tracked to prison, along with Congress-things like Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney – though they might have to be impeached and convicted first (not Cheney after the first of the year). And there are more than a few others.
And we might get a peek at Epstein’s client list. Nothing is certain, but Trump’s handlers hung him out to dry after 2021, and his friends as well. The Democrats made many of their lives miserable, and revenge is a dish well served hot or cold. That might well make some of those handlers a bit nervous.
Other things are more important to much of his base, and I would be very surprised if he did not devote whatever resources needed to realize some of them. Freeing the J6 prisoners by any means necessary would be near the top of the list.
So would trying to close the southern border, although the governors of three states (CA, AZ and NM) will give him no help whatsoever – and Texas may well flip blue in the next gubernatorial election.
And there are so many other things the Biden Administration did that need to be undone – even if Trump’s hands were completely free, it would be a gargantuan task.
Will he try? Foresight is imperfect at best. I do know that the 2024 election simply shifted the main focus of disruption from within the US to outside of it. Also, there isn’t much chance at all of stopping the FEI bandwagon or removing 2-30 million illegals without a fight for which Trump visibly does not have the stomach.
That is why he states goals but no details, because the devil is embedded in them with bloody claws.
In the long run, America would have done better if Harris had “won” – compounded insanity might have sparked some resistance however difficult that would be.
As it is, while Trump’s presence in the White House may yield some short-term benefits, by 2029 it may well be too late to save much of anything. Sometimes even choosing the lesser of two evils cloaks the reality that siding with any evil is a step on the road to one of Dante’s hells.
Alan Ned Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran. He served in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division and is a graduate of the US Army War College. Dr. Sabrosky can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net
Published by Unz.com
Republished by The 21st Century
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of 21cir.com