The key difference between partisan Democrats and everyday Democrats

What precisely did candidate Donald Trump mean with his campaign pledge to “Make America Great Again”? From the first week of this presidency to today, it is clear MAGA was more than a campaign slogan. It was a substantive campaign promise. And a defining part of that promise is to “Make American Self-sufficient Again.”

Partisan Democrats hate the idea. Registered Democrats not so much. Finding work in a semiconductor chip factory is not so bad. In fact, while the partisans try to enforce their opposition by defacing or burning property, or staging protests to inconvenience as many working Americans as possible, they have no answer for Trump’s push to create more domestic jobs. Their fallback position is to claim jobs require energy and energy use is a threat to earth. This week we were told dogs are a threat to the planet too.

Elon Musk is the Trump administration face of a parallel campaign to reduce the cost and the scope of the federal government at home and abroad. Those same partisan Democrats are violently opposed to any welfare-state reduction. Characterizing the reduction of government as a threat to democracy is nonsense, and the general public knows it.

For decades those bitter partisans have galloped into office astride social issues, but their overall campaign seeks a total destruction of what American has been, and still is. The partisans want to burn it down, replaced by government as the provider of all things necessary. The Trump administration labors to discard the bureaucratic model and build upon the successes of this nation.

The partisans have gone so far some state legislators and governments are attempting to withdraw from the union by defying federal law. This week Maine said it would not obey federal rules excluding men from women’s sports. Also this week, Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit to block President Trump’s authority to establish tariffs. California will go it alone, Newsom argued. This is not new to the United States of America. Americans killed each other in record numbers over the issue of a federal ban on slavery. Will the next civil war be waged to settle immigration policy?

While partisan Democrats would deny the federal authority to regulate immigration to this country, non-partisan Democrats who suffered a job loss to an illegal alien, or worry about that prospect, are not so enthusiastic about defying the federal government.

To complicate matters, the United States Supreme Court has obfuscated over the plain language of the Constitution for decades, and soon it will have to decide. Do we hang in there with the founders, or plunge into fragmented chaos? That issue is knocking on the courthouse door. Will we have 50 separate sets of immigration rules? Will the federal government be relegated to a roll of welfare provider? Will the fiction of sanctuary California serve as a backdoor to an eastern migration?

Meanwhile, working Americans watch and listen. Working Americans already have made sacrifices to the cost of the welfare state. Family size has been declining as the cost of government rises.

Suburban parents do not allow their children to walk to school today. They are driven, and the traffic jam around the neighborhood school is a twice-daily headache. The children all have smartphones to protect them. Tree forts and secret hideaways are no more. In fact, outdoor playtime is not heard in the neighborhood.

In a broad sense, insecurity has replaced freedom as a feature of American family life.

Donald Trump confronted all this and more with “Make American Great Again.” His critics screamed “hate” and rapidly morphed into violent behavior. More and more partisan Democrats call for violence against the president. The non-partisan Democrats, not so much.

What would our world be like today if the internet did not host websites independent of some sprawling corporate entity, websites offering debate instead of directional commands? Those Democrat partisans did recognize the threat of the internet, but their campaign of “disinformation” and “misinformation” failed under the weight of freedom of speech.

At least now we can begin to debate tariffs and world trade, gas-powered cars versus EVs, and perhaps participate, as is our right, as the decisions are made.