It goes without saying, or at least it should, that if you want to win an election you should espouse ideas that are in agreement with the majority of the electorate. In the last presidential election, the number one issue for voters was the porous southern border, and the vast number of illegals that were entering the nation. It would appear logical then that the Democrats would change their tune about those immigrants. Not so. In fact, several are advocating for the release of some of the captured gang members--the worst of the worst. They oppose deportations of evil people like Abrego Garcia.
There are several such issues that the left is clinging to in contrast to the general beliefs held by most of the electorate. Let me name some.
Many democrats are supporters of transsexual operations, and advocate for the participation of transgender males in women's sports. Many young women have spent years in training only to be deprived by the superior strength of a biological male. Additionally, they resent these males having access to their changing rooms.
Another issue is government waste. Who in their right mind could be opposed to the exposure and cure of waste and fraud? If a social security check is sent to a 150-year-old man who benefits? Only the person who cashes it. That fraud should be investigated and prosecuted. Why do many democrats oppose those DOGE efforts? I suppose it's because: if Trump wants it, we're against it.
Trump is attempting to put an end to the Russian-Ukrainian war. He is tormented by the killing of thousands of young men on both sides each and every week. He is doing his best to bring the parties together to negotiate a settlement. He has facilitated the increase of NATO member's expenditures for defense from 2% to 5% of GDP. He has brought a large coalition of European leaders to the White House in a show of unity for his efforts. Although--to be honest-- I am a little puzzled by his handling of Vladamir Putin, I am hopeful that his efforts will eventually lead to a resolution of this long war. Many on the left appear to think otherwise.
The Texas redistricting fiasco is another example. The local state democrats were opposed to the proposal and escaped to Illinois to prevent a quorum from allowing a vote to proceed. The choice of Illinois was unfortunate for the left because that state has the gerrymandering districts that compare to the shape of a distorted octopus. Those district voting lines have been drawn to the distinct advantage of democrats. This has also drawn attention to the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut that have no Republican congressional representatives although Trump secured a significant percentage of those states' electoral votes. (My suggestion is that if a state has a split of, say, 60/40 in a presidential election, then there should be a similar split in representation. The districts should be set by county lines rather than being gerrymandered.)
Trump has recently used the National Guard in Washington, DC to combat crime. He has been called "a dictator" and "it's a stunt" by his detractors. But after 11 days the murder rate has been reduced from an average of two per week to currently 11 days without a single murder.
One final example of the left doing the opposite of what most of the electorate desires is in the global warming debates. Each year the apostles of the GW cult gather in Davos, Switzerland to tell how they are saving the planet by reducing their use of petroleum products. The problem is that the local airport is filled with their private jets that have burned thousands of tons of fossil fuels to get there. Rules for thee, and not for me.
Peter Gilderson, Madison.
