Steve Bannon Talks Justice, Revenge and Trump 2.0

BY GB NEWS / WATCH AND SUBSCRIBE TO GB NEWS ON YOUTUBE

AMERICA’S DEMOCRAT PARTY (AND THEIR DEI POISON) IMPLODE

The Democrats return to the same scowls and furor of the past as if we are forever in 2018, when in fact the world is a far different place in 2025. The voters’ problem with the new Democratic Party is not just that they are old and unhinged, but that they are so wearily and predictably boring. The current self-destructive obsessions with DEI/woke racialism, bi-coastal talk-down elitism, boutique transgenderism, and nonstop America Lastism all came to fruition during the Biden years. A shameless conspiracy to use an enfeebled John Biden as a prop to masque an otherwise unpalatable radical, neo-socialist agenda ensured the MAGA counterrevolution. The power of the administrative state, the legacy network news, print media, and Silicon Valley’s social media and search engines, the billions that poured into the Biden and Harris campaign all went for naught. Indeed, four years of anti-Trump lawfare and more—raiding his home, 91 indictments, five criminal and civil courtroom indictments and suits, 20 some states seeking to de-ballot him, and two assassination attempts not only failed to harm Trump but likely ensured his reelection.

BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON / READ AND SUBSCRIBE TO VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

PART 1: How To Commit Democratic Party Suicide

The Democratic Party is polling about 31 percent approval, a near-historic low.

Despite enjoying a huge lead in fundraising, legacy media favoritism, and incumbency, in the 2024 election, Democrats lost the White House to Donald Trump. Ever since, they have offered nothing new, no novel agenda, no innovative policies—nothing other than screaming that they are loudly against everything and anything that the president is for.

In the past, what did they accomplish by following their prior two impeachments with attempts to de-ballot Trump? Who thought sending an FBI swat team to raid Trump’s home or waging five lawfare civil and criminal suits and issuing 91 felony indictments against him would win over the public?

Was conducting a media barrage of Hitler-Trump invectives, or lowering the bar of demonization that likely led to two assassination attempts of Trump a good way to win an election?

Apparently not, given the Democrats have now lost the presidency, the House, and the Senate. The Supreme Court is conservative. They have no power to subpoena anyone; they cannot block any nomination. Much of their old administrative state control is eroding. All the main issues—the economy, energy, border security, illegal immigration, crime, DEI/woke, and foreign policy—poll against the Democrats. The more they shouted that biological men must be able to compete as transgendered females in women’s sports, the more that 80% of the public disagreed, women were turned off, and the absurd idea was exploded by Trump.

The power of the administrative state, the legacy network news, print media, and Silicon Valley’s social media and search engines, the billions that poured into the Biden and Harris campaign all went for naught.

The efforts of moderators to warp debates, of network news to edit out unfavorable Harris or Biden comments, of leftists to cancel, deplatform, ostracize, censor, and shadow ban their enemies have failed. More likely to succeed now are numerous lawsuits against leftwing media for chronic defamation and censorship.

Given that collective meltdown, what would a sane Democratic Party do?

If they were stable, then they might renounce political suicide and perhaps return to something akin to the Clinton efforts of 1992 and 1996. Then the once self-destructive Democrats finally gave up on disastrous out-of-touch McGovernism, Carterism, an Dukakism. Instead, they began to embrace legal-only immigration, secure borders, balanced budgets, support for law enforcement, and meritocracy.

The result?

After twelve years in the wilderness (1980-1992), the Democrats regained power for the next 16 of 24 years—only in the second term of Barack Obama to go full radical Jacobin and soon lose it.

The current self-destructive obsessions with DEI/woke racialism, bi-coastal talk-down elitism, boutique transgenderism, and nonstop America Lastism all came to fruition during the Biden years. A shameless conspiracy to use an enfeebled John Biden as a prop to masque an otherwise unpalatable radical, neo-socialist agenda ensured the MAGA counterrevolution.

But instead of postmortem autopsy and introspection, since Election Day, the Democrats have doubled down on their veritable collective self-destruction.

On immigration, after wiping out the border and allowing in 12 million illegal aliens, including more than 500,000 suspected felons, they seem deliberately to be alienating public opinion even further.

So, thousands of leftists swarm and block the freeways of Los Angeles to protest the deportations of criminals. And how exactly?

By enraging middle-class commuters, while burning the flag of the country that they demand must allow them to stay, while chauvinistically waving the flag of the country to which under no circumstances they wish to return?

New Jersey Democratic governor Patrick Murphy idiotically virtue-signaled that he would defy the law, as he bragged that he was harboring an illegal alien living above his garage.

Then, when apprised that such performance-art showboating was a felony, in theory entailing a long prison sentence, the now buffoonish governor changed his narrative that the occupant of his garage was not really illegally living above his garage.

Democratic governors and mayors vie, bragging that they will be foremost in breaking the law by impeding the efforts of the federal immigration services to find and deport illegal aliens—for now, half a million criminals. Other activists are tipping off criminal illegal-alien gang leaders to avoid US government efforts to apprehend such dangerous criminals.

Is that the way to win back the working classes? By ensuring that the felons of M-13, Norteños, Sureños, and Tren de Aragua can flee and put in danger fellow American police officers?

Elon Musk has been appointed by Donald Trump to create a new government agency, DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), to find waste, fraud, and abuse in the government spending of taxpayers money.

He and his young team of tech standouts have exposed shocking waste and fraud, but mostly insanity, in the USAID’s $50 billion of foreign aid grants.

Why are Americans paying for overseas drag shows or gay and trans advocacy in culturally imperialist fashion in traditional and conservative societies abroad? Why are we paying eight percent of the budget of the hardcore left-wing BBC? Is that a way back to the White House?

Do Politico, the New York Times, or the Wuhan gain-in-function virology lab and birthplace of COVID-19 really need millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars?

Do Democrats really think the middle class will hate Elon Musk for exposing that their government may well have handed the communist Chinese the necessary cash to birth a manufactured killer virus that took one million American lives?

Is that a winning strategy—to scream in Congress that Musk is a Nazi, a dictator for showing that Biden’s USAID under leftist Samantha Power was a clearing house to enrich and empower well-off leftist organizations that only weakened their own country abroad?

Do we really wish to spend $20 million to bequeath a woke Sesame Street to Middle East television?

Is it smart to gin up hatred of Elon Musk, who revolutionized space travel, the auto industry, and social media?

Is the Democrats’ message something like “We hate Elon Musk and will stop his free internet service to Americans ruined by fires and hurricanes and abandoned by their government?”

Or do Democrats despise Musk for providing free internet to Ukrainians battling for their lives against Russians?

Or is the key strategy to loathe Musk for crafting a risky rescue mission to save the lives of American astronauts virtually abandoned by the incompetent Biden government space program?

For Democratic officials to scream that Musk has no right to ferret out fraud is historically ignorant. He was selected by the president with the same powers that such appointees enjoy that are by statute not required to be approved by the Senate. The DOGE head is as legitimate as the National Security Advisor, who likewise needs no confirmation but also serves at the wishes of an elected president and likewise can do nothing without his approval.

Is Musk’s position in the Trump administration new?

Hardly.

Musk certainly has more legitimate legal authority via his DOGE position than that of FDR’s in-house informal advisors—such as Harry Hopkins—who from within the White House directed much of World War II foreign policy with the Soviets.

Financier Bernard Baruch held no major position for years under Woodrow Wilson and FDR and yet rebooted America’s wartime economy in two wars.

DOGE head Musk is more akin to FDR’s appointed war production board—similar to the likes of the unelected and unconfirmed Henery Ford, Henery Kaiser, and William Knudson, with the caveat that the latter three exercised far more power than does Musk.

During the confirmation hearings on Trump’s cabinet and agency nominations, Democratic senators did not question nominees like Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel so much as scream, interrupt, and insult them on live television.

Rather than ask the nominees questions about their policies and agendas, almost all the interrogatives were ad hominem.

All this came from a party that oversaw the greatest weaponization of our government in modern history while leaving us with two theater wars abroad, a scary and dangerous DEI/woke destruction of meritocracy, hyperinflation, $7 trillion more in debt, 12 million illegal aliens, the erasure of the border, and a vast shortfall in military recruitment.

During the recent Democrat Party convention elections, the voting turned into a virtual DEI tutorial on why the public is repulsed by Democrats.

The Party’s carnival-like elections were overseen by race/gender/orientation censors. In incomprehensible, jargon-filled lectures, they droned on about the correct quotas—trans, non-binary, female, black, Hispanic, Native American—that would override simple democratic voting.

When one looks for sanity among the Democrat Senate and House leaders, there is only madness to be found. Sen. Corey “Spartacus” Booker is back again, now screaming and playacting as if he were Winston Churchill willing to fight Trump-Hitler on the beaches, hills, fields, etc.

Rep. Al Green was wheeled out on spec to bellow and bluster that he was introducing articles of impeachment—is it for the fourth, fifth, or sixth time against Trump?

House Minority Leader Hakim Jefferies boasts he will fight Trump “in the streets”—alongside whom? The despised Antifa? The utterly corrupt and discredited BLM?

I doubt Rep. Jefferies himself will replay the 2020 summer of destruction. More likely he will parrot Kamala Harris’s 2020 bragging of the then ongoing four months of violent protests: “They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day, and they should not.”

Maxine Waters is back, trying to trump her earlier threats to birddog and harass Trump supporters in her usual racialist fashion.

AOC—the supposed future of the Jacobins—drones that Musk is “one of the most unintelligent billionaires” she has met. This putdown comes from the nincompoop who claimed Trump’s low unemployment rate was due only to people holding two jobs.

Does AOC think catching a rocket with a mechanical arm is proof of dumbness, and the rants of Mazie Hirono and Elizabeth Warren display wisdom?

What the Democrats don’t realize is that they staged a French-style cultural, political, and economic revolution and tried to destroy their enemies by weaponizing government and the media—and they have now lost.

This current counter-revolution is a return to centrist normalcy and just beginning. It is deemed wild only by feral Democrats, whose high crimes and misdemeanors, and various conspiracy theories over the years of their madcap rule are now being revealed every day.

PART 2: Ten Problems with DEI That Frighten the Public

The diversity, equity, and inclusion project, often seen as a major element of the so-called “woke” creed along with green fanaticism, keeps popping up as a possible subtext in a variety of recent tragedies.

In the case of the Los Angeles fires, Mayor Karen Bass, who cut the fire department budget, was warned of the mounting fire dangers of the Santa Anna winds and parched brush on surrounding hillsides. No matter—she junketed in Uganda. When furor followed, on cue, her defenders decried a racialist attack on “a black woman.”

Her possible stand-in deputy mayor for “security” was under suspension for allegations that he called in a bomb threat to the Los Angeles city council—a factor mysteriously forgotten.

The fire chief previously was on record mostly for highlighting her DEI agendas rather than emphasizing traditional fire department criteria like response time or keeping fire vehicles running and out of the shop.

One of her deputies had boasted that in emergencies, citizens appreciated most of all that arriving first responders looked like them. (But most people in need worry only whether the first responders seem to know what they are doing.) She further snarked that if women allegedly were not physically able to carry out a man in times of danger, then it was the man’s fault for being in the wrong place.

The Los Angeles water and power czar—culpable for a needlessly dry reservoir that could have provided 117 million gallons to help save Pacific Palisades—was once touted primarily as the first Latina to run such a vital agency. But did that fact matter much to the 18 million people whose very survival depended on deliverable water in the otherwise desert tinderbox of greater Los Angeles?

In all these cases, the point is not necessarily whether the key players who might have prevented the destruction of some 25,000 acres of Los Angeles were selected—or exempted—on the basis of their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Rather the worry is that in all these cases, those with responsibility for keeping Los Angeles viable, themselves eagerly self-identified first by their race, gender, or sexual orientation—as if this fact alone was synonymous with competence and deference.

In fact, racial or sex identity has nothing to do with whether a water and power director grasped the dangers of a bone-dry but vital reservoir; whether the fire department must know how many fire hydrants remain in working order; or whether a mayor understood that in times of existential danger she must stay on the job and not fly on an optional junket to Africa.

As of yet, we have no idea exactly all the mishaps that caused a horrific air crash at Reagan Airport in Washington. The only clear consensus that has emerged is that the horrific deaths could have been easily preventable—but were not because, in perfect storm fashion, there were multiple system failures. In that sense, both the Los Angeles and Washington, DC, disasters are alike.

When a military helicopter crashes into a passenger jet in Washington, DC, airspace—an area that has not seen such a disaster for 43 years—the likely cause is either wrongly altered protocols or clear human error, or both.

So, it is vital to discover what the causes of the disaster were to prevent such a recurrence. As in the Los Angeles cataclysm, the role of DEI—the method of hiring regulatory agency administrators, air traffic controllers, or pilots on bases other than meritocracy—becomes a legitimate inquiry.

To dispel such worries, authorities must disclose all the facts as they do when there are no controversies over DEI. Yet we never learned the name of the Capitol police officer who fatally shot unarmed Ashli Babbitt for months, nor received evidence of his spotty service record. The same initial hesitation in releasing information marked news about the ship that hit the Francis Scott Bridge near Baltimore and why traffic barriers were not up in the French Quarter before the recent terrorist attack in New Orleans.

In the Washington, DC, crash, two questions arise about the conduct of pilots, air traffic controllers, and the administrators responsible for hiring, staffing, and evaluating such employees.

The first issue is whether hiring, retention, and promotion in the airline industry or the military is not fully meritocratic. That is, were personnel hired on the basis of their exhibited superior education, practical experience, and superb scores on relevant examinations in matters relating to air travel? Or were they instead passed over because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation?

Was the shortage of controllers a direct result not of an unqualified pool of applicants but rather because of racial restrictions placed upon it to reduce its size?

Second, were the promoters of DEI confident that they could argue that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” were as important criteria for the operation of a complex aircraft system as the past traditional criteria that had qualified air traffic controllers, pilots, and administrators?

Not only did DEI considerations often supersede past traditional meritocratic requirements for employment, but DEI champions had also argued that “diversity” was either as important to, or more important than, traditional hiring and retention evaluations.

The answers to these first two questions make it incumbent to ask further whether DEI played a role in the Washington, D.C., crash, similar to how it may have in the Los Angeles wildfires.

It is not racist, sexist, or homophobic to ask such legitimate questions, especially because advocates themselves so often give more attention and emphasis to their race, gender, and sexual orientation than their assumed impressive expertise, proven experience, and superior education. In other words, had one’s race, sex, or orientation been incidental to employment rather than essential, such questions from the public might never have arisen.

Finally, what are the problems with DEI that have not just lost its support but put fear into the public that, like the Russian commissar system of old, it has the potential to undermine the very sinews of a sophisticated, complex society?

1. DEI is an ideology or a protocol that supersedes disinterested evaluation. In that regard, ironically, it is akin to the era of Jim Crow, when talented individuals were irrationally barred from consideration due to their mere skin color. Like any system that prioritizes identity over merit—whether Marist-Leninist credentials in the old Soviet Union or tribal bias in the contemporary Middle East—a complex society that embraces tribalism inevitably begins to become dysfunctional.
2. DEI does not end at hiring. Rather, once a candidate senses he is employed on the basis of his race, sex, or sexual orientation, then it is natural he must assume such preferences are tenured throughout his career. Thus, he will always be judged by the same criterion that led to his hiring. In other words, DEI is a lifetime contractual agreement, an insurance policy of sorts once DEI credentials are established as preeminent over all others.
3. The advocates of DEI rarely confess that meritocratic criteria have been superseded by considerations of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Instead, to the degree that they claim such criteria are not at odds with meritocracy, they argue that the methods of assessing talent and performance are themselves flawed. Tests then are unsound and systemically biased and therefore largely irrelevant. Few DEI advocates make the argument that diversity is so important that it justifies lowering the traditional standards of competence.
4. Once DEI tribal protocols are established, they are calcified and unchanged. That is when supposed DEI demographics are overrepresented in particular fields such as the postal service or professional sports, then such “disproportionality” is justified on “reparatory” grounds or ironically on merit. If other non-DEI groups, by DEI’s own standards, are deprived of “equity” and “inclusion” or “underrepresented,” it is irrelevant. DEI is, again, a lifetime concession, regardless of changes in status, income, or privilege. An Oprah Winfrey or a Barack Obama—two of the most privileged people on the planet—by virtue of their race, at least as it is defined in the Western world—are permanently deserving of deference.
5. DEI is also ossified in the sense that it makes no allowance for class. Asian Americans, when convenient, can be counted as DEI hires even though, in terms of per capita income, most Asian groups do better than so-called whites. Under DEI, the children of elites like Barack Obama or Hakim Jeffries will always be in need of reparatory consideration but not so the children of those in East Palestine, Ohio.
6. Because DEI is an ideology, a faith-based creed, it does not rely on logic and is thus exempt from charges of irrationality, inconsistency, and hypocrisy. The belief system feels no obligation to defend itself from rational arguments. For example, are not racially separate graduations or safe spaces contrary to the corpus of civil rights legislation of the 1960s? There is no such thing as DEI irony: the system contrived to supposedly remedy the de jure racism of some 60-70 years ago itself hinges on de jure racial fixations as the remedy—now, tomorrow, forever.
7. As in all monolithic dogmas such as Sovietism or Maoism, skeptics, critics, and apostates cannot be tolerated. So, in the case of DEI, logical criticism is preemptively aborted by boilerplate charges of racism, sexism, and homophobia. And the mere accusation is synonymous with conviction, thereby establishing DEI deterrence, under which no one dares to risk cancellation, de-platforming, ostracism, or career suicide by questioning the faith.
8. DEI is also incoherent. It is essentially a reversion to tribalism in which solidarity is predicated on shared race, sex, or sexual orientation, not through individual background, particular economic status, or one’s unique character. No DEI czar knows why in the pre-Obama era, East Asians did not qualify for DEI status, though they seem to now, or when and how the transgendered were suddenly not statistically still traditionally .01 percent of the population but, in some campus surveys, magically became 10-20 percent of polled undergraduates. No one understands what percentage of one’s DNA qualifies for DEI status, only that any system of the past that fixated on ascertaining racial essentialism, such as the one-drop rule of the old South or the multiplicity of racial categories in the former South Africa, or the yellow-star evil of the Third Reich, largely imploded, in part by the weight of its own absurd amorality.
9. DEI never explains the exact individual bereavement that justifies preferentiality. All claims are instead collective. And they are encased in the amber of slavery, Jim Crow, or homophobia or sexism of decades past. Social progress does not exist; the malady is eternal. The candidate for DEI consideration never must ascertain how, when, or where he was subject to serious discrimination or bias. And that may explain all the needed prefix adjectives that have sprouted up to prove these -isms and -ologies exist when they otherwise cannot be detected, such as “systemic,” “implicit,” “insidious,” or “structural” racism rather than just “racism.”
10. DEI never envisions its demise or what follows from it, much less whether there are superior ways to achieve equality of opportunity rather than mandated results. The beneficiaries of DEI seldom ponder its efficacy, much less whether resources would be better allotted to K-12 education during the critical years of development. And they certainly show little concern about those often poorer and more underprivileged who lack the prescribed race, gender, or orientation for special DEI considerations.

In sum, because of these inconsistencies, Donald Trump may well be able to end DEI with a wave of an executive order—simply because its foundations were always built of sand and thus any bold push would knock over the entire shaky edifice.

PART 3: Is There a Democrat Blueprint to Regain Power?

What is the long-term Democratic Party’s strategy to return to power?

Americans may ask that only because so far, the Democrat agenda seems to entail polarizing and alienating as many voters as possible.

They gleefully double down on their 2024 defeat. And they seem almost to grow ecstatic at ensuring that Donald Trump and his record poll at unprecedented highs.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) rants on national TV that Trump is a d—k and promises to go to “war” against him.

Democratic representatives chant “f—k Trump” on national television.

Senator “Spartacus” Booker (D-NJ) almost daily shouts to high heaven and barks out promises of massive resistance, proving he is far crazier than his allegedly crazy Trump.

During the recent cabinet confirmations, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Tim Kaine lost their minds in impotent rage at the nominees and played the fools—furious at a few timid Democrat suggestions to tone it down.

Democrats bark that Elon Musk is even more Satanic than Trump.

They swarm and try to break into the Department of Education. They shut down the LA freeways. And in the case of illegal aliens, they wave the flag of the nation they fled from, while burning the flag of the nation in which they demand to remain.

Do they think being pro-Hamas on campuses, inviting in ostentatious transgendered to scream at elected officials, or threatening to bring “weapons” as they go “to war” cements their supposed reputation as the party of “peace” or wins over the lost middle class?

Democrat activists tip off illegal alien criminals, endangering the safety of American law enforcement officers. Blue-city mayors and Democrat elected officials go full neo-Confederate in screaming they will resist federal laws.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the self-described future of the party, sends out pointers to illegal aliens on how to break federal law. Is the point how to best commit a felony?

When fraud, scandal, and waste are exposed at USAID, the Democrats ignore the billions of dollars misspent and instead shriek that children will die if the budget of 2025 returns to the size of its 2019 counterpart, adjusted for inflation and population growth.

And yet so far, the hysterical style is not working. Instead, it is achieving the very opposite of its intention.

Trump’s popularity in the most recent Rasmussen poll soared to 55 percent approval. For the first time in twenty years, the poll found Americans, now after just three weeks of Trump in office, felt that the U.S. is finally for the first time in 20 years moving in the right direction.

Most of Trump’s signature hot-button issues—banning biological males in women’s sports, deporting violent illegal aliens, finishing the border wall, or cutting government waste—poll between 65-80 percent approval. In response, Democrats scream that after a mere 21 days in office, Trump is responsible for not ending the four-year inflation of Joe Biden, which until November 5, they claimed was insignificant and transitory.

After losing the electoral and popular votes in November 2024, the Democrats have no official legislative or executive power.

Ultimately the Supreme Court will quash their efforts to cherry-pick left-wing lower court judges to obstruct Trump’s executive orders.

They have not stopped one Trump nominee who went up for a Senate vote.

Any who broke the law during the last four years, and many did, will not issue subpoenas but fear receiving them.

Their bastions of left-wing resistance—the media, the administrative state, and the universities—are hemorrhaging, losing power, and gaining ever more unpopularity.

The more that viewers are turned off by racial chauvinism, foul language, and screaming, the more left-wing cable networks showcase maddened DEI guests—issuing threats, employing profanity, and shouting as they lose their minds.

Are new Democrat demands for racial reparations wise for some to receive borrowed billions of dollars who were never slaves from many who never owned them when we are all $37 trillion in debt?

There is no Democratic youthful generation, other than the hysterical Squad.

The leaders of the youth party are instead ossified, septuagenarian and octogenarian relics of the last decades—Joe Biden, James Clyburn, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, and Elisabeth Warren.

The more the elite of the various left-wing black caucuses scream that Trump is a racist, traitor, dictator, and fascist, the more black males trend toward Trump. The more out-of-touch left-wing Hispanic leaders in Congress scream that Trump is a hater and xenophobic, the closer Trump comes to capturing a majority of Hispanic voters by promising to close the border and secure their communities.

The latest poll on Democrat favorability—conducted by liberal Quinnipiac—reveals historic dislike of Democrats, with only 31 percent of voters expressing a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.

Are Democrats then pivoting or self-correcting?

Do they support legal-only immigration? Do they wish to join in finding fraud in the federal government?

Do they perhaps at least wish to reform the Pentagon, or lower the price of energy?

Nope.

So, what then is their agenda?

It is a retread of 2017, mixed in with the anti-Trump hysteria of 2021-4. By now we all recognize the weary symptoms of their five-point blueprint:

1. Scream nonstop about Trump the monster (and now Elon Musk too) and his right-wing Nazi coup—without supplying any concrete details or analysis to support such ridiculous invective.
2. Cherry-pick left-wing lower echelon judges to delay, block and confound Trump’s executive orders and legislative agendas.
3. Raise huge amounts of money to galvanize street theater, massive sit-ins, and soon violent street demonstrations.
4. Use such fury to win back the House and then impeach Trump in 2026.
5. Investigate and subpoena Trump with lawfare to render him inert until 2028.

All that admittedly worked somewhat in Trump’s first term.

Remember, the left went from the Steele dossier’s “Russian collusion” lie during the 2016 campaign, to Robert Mueller’s 20-month derailing of the Trump agenda through his special counsel witch-hunt that ultimately found no “collusion.”

As designed, that legal circus side-tracked nearly two years of Trump’s governance.

When Robert Mueller shut down his “dream team” and “all- stars” in March 2019, the Democrats went right into full removal mode and so impeached Trump in the fall over one phone call.

In between, they sought to disrupt and distract by claiming Trump was crazy, and subject to 25th Amendment removal, while attacking his wife and children

Critical to the left’s strategy between 2017-21 was to outraise him with billionaire tech and Wall Street cash, enlist administrative leakers and Never Trumpers to disrupt from the inside Trump governance, organize government “experts” and retired generals to write that Trump was an existential danger, a fascist, a Nazi, a liar and a cheat, riot in the streets, burn, and loot during the summer of 2020, and change the ballot laws to ensure only 30 percent showed up on election day.

And all that worked in getting the waxen-effigy Joe Biden elected.

But will the repeat succeed again?

Probably not.

Trump is far wiser, and his team far more polished, loyal, and zealous.

He enters office not after the hopey-and changey therapeutic Barack Obama, but the disastrous term of an enfeebled Joe Biden.

Indeed, four years of anti-Trump lawfare and more—raiding his home, 91 indictments, five criminal and civil courtroom indictments and suits, 20 some states seeking to de-ballot him, and two assassination attempts not only failed to harm Trump but likely ensured his reelection.

This time all his cabinet and agency heads are determined to accelerate, not subvert his agenda. He is not reactive as sometimes in the past in the face of the left’s maelstrom of suits and character assassination that often overwhelmed his inexperienced team.

Now sadder, but wiser, Trump is proactive, preemptive, and on the offensive. It is the left, not Trump, that is overwhelmed, confused, and weakened by a tsunami of executive orders, defamation lawsuits, billionaire defections, and minority apostates.

Minority and youthful voters are trending, not bleeding, Trump. He may well outraise the midterm Democrats, both because of his popular wildfire changes and the once left-wing billionaires who defected from the unstable and unreliable Democrats.

There will likely be no more insider “anonymous” op-eds promising to subvert the administration. Retired generals are more worried about overdue enforcement of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice than finding more creative smears of Trump. The Republican House and Senate hold small margins, but they are more MAGA-oriented than the past Trump Congresses.

In sum, rejecting light for heat, the Democrats return to the same scowls and furor of the past as if we are forever in 2018, when in fact the world is a far different place in 2025.

The voters’ problem with the new Democratic Party is not just that they are old and unhinged, but that they are so wearily and predictably boring.