The title of this article expresses the hope that MAGA will disappear as the Trump era is coming to an end.

Watching the debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz, when he fudged Trump’s flip-flop position on the Iranian nuclear issue. a viewer could not help comparing Vance with the other also young, quick with words, and sophistic: Vivek Ramaswamy. But while Mr. Ramaswamy is a natural who eagerly and passionately practices the art of being a MAGA Trumpist, Senator Vance seems to be trying to be a MAGA Trumpist. That means he is not a MAGA Trumpist but only a loyal soldier who is for now following the line of the Party’s leadership, which has been dominated by MAGA Republicans.

There lies the real hope of a future Republican Party, which will not embrace the ugly Trumpist MO or MAGA’s policies. There are ways to be socially conservative, carrying out reasonable and compassionate immigration reform without being nasty, focusing on the American economy to protect Americans’ jobs, strengthen American competitiveness, preserve American technological edges without appearing to shoot from the hip.

JOHN P. LE PHONG

Katrina Cooke Brownlee and her children were living with her fiancé, a New York City Correction officer.

“I don’t remember not having a black eye. … Whether it’d been the right one or the left one. … it was a busted lip (sighs). It was always something. … that’s why shades became a signature for me,” she told 48 Hours. Each time she called 911 after he beat her, he would flash his badge to the police. “And every time he flashed that badge, they would walk away,” she said.

As she was powerless to fight back her sadistic fiancé, she made up her mind and was about to leave him.

When she came home, “He opened the door and he just had, like, a weird look on his face. It was strange. … And … he pointed a gun to me and said, “this is the day you die, bitch,” and he shot me in my stomach. And then he shot me again. And —”

As she was crying unable to recount further what happened next, the assistant district attorney, Keri Herzog had to do it for her, “He emptied the gun after the first five … reloaded and proceeded to shoot her again five more times…Each time he would say to Katrina, ‘are you ready to die, Katrina?’ Bang. ‘Is this the day you’re going to die, Katrina?’ … Bang. ‘You know you deserve this, Katrina.’ Bang.”

Was it an isolated incident? Hardly. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1 in 4 women in the U.S. will experience severe intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Millions of women reported being physically assaulted or stalked by an intimate partner in a single year.

Worldwide? – 1 in 3.

Why has such horrendous crime gone unstoppable for ages?

Men are taller, heavier, and physically stronger. The disparity in power and reach has given them an advantage. They have known it, appreciated it, sickly treasured it, and refused to let it go even such “privilege” put their mothers, wives, and daughters at risk and in horrific harm. Even learned men such as politicians did not lift a finger to help. They did not care to certify the Equal Right Amendment to elevate the status of women and therefore provide them with more protection.

But do not just blame men. Women have never put up a real and effective fight against such injustice. Blame it on the Stockholm Syndrome. But the reality was that without the help from their fathers, brothers, husbands, and male children, they were helpless. They continued to fetch beer for “their men” who sat in their La-Z-Boy drinking beer and watching a football game while their women washed the dishes, cleaned the house, and put the children to bed. When the men left his La-Z-Boy to go to bed, their women had better be ready.

For good, or at least justifiable reason: men had to handle hard and dangerous tasks such as tilling the land, running cattle, killing wild animals, and fighting enemies. Women did not have physical strength to do all that and men over time assumed that they did not have brain either. And over time, they came to believe that they were the master, not an equal partner, and started to treat their wives like a possession doing to them whatever way they wanted – like a slave.

Such a master-slave relationship should not have existed between a man and a woman – or between any two human beings for that matter. It was against nature because, men and women came together to pursue common goals like security, safety, comfort, and chiefly to reproduce. But the moment men realized that they were physical stronger and could force women to comply with their wish, they did everything including using deadly weapons, to maintain such social orders.

Circumstances have allowed them to stay being the master and they were determined to maintain their status as the relationship afforded them more opportunities for comfort and the freedom to do crazy things.

It is worth noting that dictators and kings were the archetype of this kind of men: they had so low an appreciation of a woman’s worth that they never appointed a woman to any cabinet level position. During his long reign as the dictator of Germany, Hitler appointed NOT a single woman to his government. The women known to play certain important roles during his time in power were his consort who he married only a short time before their death, and a cinematographer. Kings were no difference.

But things have changed. The disparity of power is no longer significant. Women can work in the farm by using mechanical tools such as tractors, heavy jobs previously reserved for men. They fly jet fighters and space crafts. They head governments. They run mega conglomerates. The usefulness between men and women has been equalized. The reason for men to feel superior and behave bossily should disappear, considering that women are the only sex which solely carry, for nine months, the burden of guaranteeing the existence of men including those horrible men who heartlessly and brainlessly demand total control over women.

But women have had to overcome another hurdle very similar to hand-to-hand combat. In close quarter, in the house for example, the reach of men’s arms is longer that could still produce a punch with more force than women’s. That puts women at a real disadvantage. Their fight against bad and non-thinking men might be heroic but futile – unless and until they found strong enough allies. Happily, they have found one, quite unexpectedly.

The National Rifle Association, the terrific, fierce, and effective defender of the right to bear arms, especially concealed weapons.

The bully type would stop making demands when they know their women mean it when they say no. They would think twice before rashly acting out knowing that their partners practice shooting three times a week and they don’t know where their Smith and Wesson M&P 2.0 are.

It is about time for men to acknowledge and respect women’s power and rights. Heavy handed actions by men such as the Dodds v. Jackson decision (one might suspect that Justice Barrett joined the decision probably to show her loyalty rather than her inclination or reasoning. She was quite aware that her vote, one way or another, would not change the outcome, which had already been decided by the five male Justices), could transform a considered and peaceful evolution into a cantankerous and chaotic revolution – a shouting match between the sexes.

JOHN P. LE PHONG.

Through horrendous experiences, history has conclusively proved that Democracy is for the common men (a generic term indicating both men and women). No other political system can claim that status.

Democracy is a political defensive mechanism to protect the common men and their rights. Strong men are by nature aggressive and therefore hate democracy. There are strong men in any society. If society is unable to check them, they will let go of their follies. It is clear by now that there is no check and balance in any regime other than Democracy, which IS the best political achievement ever by and for the common men, arrived at by the hard work, sweat, tear, blood, and deep-rooted goodness of men. As Professor Francis Fukuyama says in “The End of History and the Last Man”, liberal democracy is the most viable political system in which men are satisfied with society as no fundamental changes will happen.

Did any common man ever feel free and independent in an autocratic or dictatorial regime? No. He felt that he had no choice but to do as he was told by stronger men and step on weaker men to survive. Did he ever feel the outrage and dare to stand up to point a finger at a strong man and say, “Have you no sense of decency, sir… have you left no sense of decency?” in response to a strong man’s tyranny?

Henry VIII just chopped off the heads of his wives simply because he wanted to chop off their heads. Napoleon woke up one day and decided to conquer Russia, riding his horse and taking thousands of his Frenchmen, who WALKED, traveling thousands of miles to a hellish corner of the earth, and for what? For nothing if not death and destruction to satisfy his crazy urge to conquer. He could do it because in the France they lived in, the common men did not know anything about Democracy (although, many Frenchmen such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu indeed wrote essays on democratic ideas). They followed their strongmen like lemmings follow their leader over a cliff in a Disney movie. Not long ago, a German strongman, whom his fellow countrymen blindly worshipped as their prophet and savior, and willingly and ferociously did his biddings, led them on an insane murderous crusade to dominate other people causing the death of between 6,6 to 8.8 millions of their fellow countrymen – and over 38 millions of others around the world. It is safe to say all of them but a few were common men.

In the U.S.A., Democracy supported, solidified, and strengthened by the Constitution and an elaborate system of law, has turned the country into the most humane society, the most prosperous economy, and the strongest country on earth in terms of fighting ability. It is a place where the common men’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are recognized as unalienable.

The U.S. has become what it is today because Democracy allows the common men to effectively fight the strong men’s inclination to try to get their way and, in the process, oppress, exploit, and even enslave ordinary people.

To be clear, there have been objections to Democracy. Thomas Hobbes did not like Democracy. Edmund Burke was skeptical of Democracy or at least “radical” Democracy. They preferred small and limited government. They believed that an affluent middle class would present a danger to political and social stability and therefore should be limited in their ability to acquire wealth or possess political rights. American Republicans have bought into their theories and made them their policy for quite some time without any evidence showing that non-democratic regimes serve the common men’s security and interest.

The late President Ronald Reagan imposed tax on the meager social security benefits mostly received by the middle- and low-income classes and cut the tax rate of the ultra-rich from 70% to 28%. The Bush tax cuts benefited the top 1% most, which had received a tax cut of more than $570,000 between 2004 and 2012 according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The tax cuts increased their after-tax income by more than 5% each year. The Center pointed out that the cuts did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.

The Reagan and Bush administrations, or at least the presidents, acted in accordance with their sincere belief that their policies protected the country and Democracy by maintaining political stability. Nevertheless, the policies underline the fact that they were in favor of strong men, nowadays mostly billionaires, who are allowed to grow to their full potential – even sometimes do crazy things without consequences – but the common men’s ability to accumulate enough wealth (getting their full social security benefits, for example), to do some small things close to their heart such as send their children to colleges and still have some money left for a good vacation in the Caribbean islands, was limited.

The new crop of MAGA Republicans want to go further. They don’t just want to limit Democracy. They want to get rid of it altogether. And they have done it gradually, methodically, and discreetly at first. Now they do it publicly.

Upon assuming his presidency, former President Donald Trump privately demanded FBI Director James Comey pledge his loyalty to him. Then he unceremoniously sacked Comey when he refused. Only a few days later, the public watched an incredible display of fawning cabinet members, one by one from Vice President Mike Pence (“The greatest privilege of my life is to serve as vice president to a president who is keeping his word to the American people”, he said) on down, lavishly praising him then pledging allegiance to him.

A first sign of MAGA’s plan to erode Democracy from within.

The next four years saw them try to bend the Department of Justice into a concierge for the president, attempting to involve the military to quelch demonstrators. They disregarded the foundational principle of Democracy by denying the result of the 2020 presidential election. They resorted to violence to subvert the election process by attacking the Capitol.

But why do the Republicans (or any American), want to support such a plan considering that most of them are common men? Without Democracy, who or what they would become?

In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump declared “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I would not lose any voters, OK?” That was a low IQ boasting that turned out to be wrong in 2020 when without having shot anybody, he still lost the majority of the voters after four years of his meandering administration.

But he may be right because he still got more than 74 million votes after he had done a lot to erode Democracy during his four years in the White House. It was an amazing statement in hindsight.

How did he know about that absolute loyalty in a Democracy? He was not just right about MAGA’s loyalty in 2016 but has continued to be right since then.

He has denied his election loss since 2020 and MAGA supports him.

He exhorted extremist groups, the Proud Boys and the Oak Keepers, to go to the Capitol to protest President Biden’s win. They broke into the building and chanted “Hang Mike Pence”. They vandalized the building, chased the people’s representatives running like ducks, robbed them of all their dignity, and got a security officer killed. Mr. Trump called them “patriots” and, according to Politico, he expressed support for hanging his VP as testimony before the House’s January 6 Select Committee indicates. MAGA supports him.

He was found guilty on 34 felony counts by a jury of his peers chosen not just by the prosecution but also with vigorous participation and selection by his legal team, a revered constitutional institution of the democratic American legal system. MAGA denounces the verdict as rigged and that he is persecuted. His supporters, including lawmakers in both chambers and lawyers, loudly and shamelessly smear judges and juries.

The big questions are: who are MAGA Republicans and what are they seeking?

Are they the followers of the Seasteading Movement wanting to live in autonomous, mobile communities on seaborne platforms? Are they soon going to move to the Red Planet and form a Kingdom there, away from this earth that has disappointed them profoundly because they are unable to dictate to the other earthlings? Do they disdain the rest of the world and get annoyed because the common men have too humble aspirations? Or because the common men are sympathetic and supportive of others who are also weak and disadvantaged?

Could the former president’s behavior, characteristic of an autocrat, be the reason why MAGA Republicans stick to him because they disdain Democracy? In a talk with an audience of Christians in West Palm Beach, whether carelessly or in a moment of intimate conversation, he confided to them, “You gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you are not going to have to vote.”

Did he perhaps speak cryptically and act like a pied piper to lead his followers toward a world that could be totally separate and different from the world we live in?

The former president did not seem confused or inarticulate. He meant it. There will not be any more voting after 2024 if Mr. Trump wins in November.

In any society, including a democratic society, citizens have grievances and complaints about the current state of national affairs. But we must not let ourselves be fooled by the dictatorship salesmen’s charismatic marketing skills with the illusion that billionaires are pursuing the same goals as ours, and a dictatorship would solve our grievances and be good for the common men.

Should we, out of blind anger, let MAGA destroy Democracy? The common men’s investment in Democracy is historic and huge. We fought hard and tenaciously and made horrendous sacrifices from the Magna Carta to the American Revolution, Civil War, the French 1789 Revolution, WWI, WWII, and then the Cold War to protect, build, and preserve Democracy. From every corner of the earth, people strain their necks, perk their ears to watch America, and get inspiration and wisdom to establish their own democratic society from Taiwan to South Africa. We have done extraordinarily well for ourselves and for the world. We should not and must not abandon it or expect something better just because MAGA says so.

We listen to the politicians exhort this and that, we must discern what they say and match it with what they will do to our wellbeing. All political rallies and conventions are sale events, and the candidates and speakers charismatic as they are, are just salesmen. We don’t buy their charisma. We buy the product, which is their plan. And we must choose before we buy (or vote).

To understand MAGA’s plan for the country if the Republicans win in November 2024, just read Project 2025. It is officially called “The 2025 Presidential Transition Project”. With more than 900 pages, it is a gigantic political guide that tries not to leave anything to chance. It is an Autocrat’s Handbook, which conveys the ideology and intention of the authors, The Heritage Foundation, and its collaborators.

The following is a short list of the changes, among many other changes that Project 2025 recommends to the next Trump Administration if he wins in 2024:

1. Putting the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission under the direct control of the president.
2. Dismantling the Departments of Homeland Security and Education. Doing away with or restricting public education.
3. Reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable Trump’s policies.
4. Sharply reducing environmental and climate change to favor fossil fuel production. Fund for climate research would be cut.
5. Cutting funding for Medicare and Medicaid.
6. Explicitly rejecting abortion as health care.
7. Eliminating coverage of emergency contraception under the Affordable Care Act and prosecuting those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills nationwide.
8. Removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
9. Terminating DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) programs and Affirmative Action by having the DOJ prosecute “anti-white racism”.
10. Deploying the military for domestic law enforcement.

The former president has denied that he is connected to Project 2025. The director of Project 2025, Paul Dans who used to work for Mr. Trump has just resigned. You may think that these are proposals by a conservative think tank, not by Trump and his team.

But keep in mind that in November 2016, the Heritage Foundation published the “Mandate for Leadership VII” and the first Trump administration adopted 64% of its recommendations. And Paul Dans was responsible for staffing the 2016-2020 Trump Administration with about 4000 presidential appointees and rooting out public servants deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump. Mr. Dans and people who worked for Mr. Trump during his previous administration and his close allies are the authors of Project 2025.

If implemented, these proposals, and more from Project 2025, would guarantee a Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, or any other form of dictatorship, to replace Democracy. Regardless of our political affiliation, we should not and cannot let that happen.

This American presidential election in November 2024 is pivotal because the country is at a fork and Democracy is at stake. With MAGA on the rise, Democracy is facing serious challenges. We may lose it. And once we lose it, it may be gone forever.

We all, Democrats and Republicans, must save and protect Democracy by voting against MAGA. Then, we can sit down, sort out our differences and grievances, and find the best solutions, if not this time, we try another time, if not this day, another day. But if our society were no longer democratic, we the common men would lose our freedom to think for ourselves. We will lose our power to provide security, safety, prosperity, and happiness for our families and ourselves. We will lose our society in which our dignity is preserved and respected.

JOHN P. LE PHONG

For months, the former president, Donald Trump, repeatedly exhibited his age issue with so many gibberish and incoherent speeches at rallies. The Democrats were lured into thinking that his cognitive ability was deteriorating and would be no match for the president’s debating skill and experience.

It is hard to think that the president’s people did not see his cognitive problem before the debate. But they were probably confident that he would look old and feeble at the debate but a “normal” 81 years old and feeble statesman. They forgot the former president was once a show host and had appeared on TV probably more than any politician in history. He had learned the skill of pretending. In fact, he was a great pretender. He even prepared for the contingency by leaking to the press that he had decided on a running mate, no doubt to be announced at the debate if things would not go smoothly for him.

Republicans set a trap for the self-confident Dems.

At the debate, a different Donald Trump appeared, focused, energetic, and controlled, to the surprise of the Dems. But it was too late for them. When the viewers of the debate saw the president at the podium, they would ask the obvious question why did his handlers allow him to appear? Could there be traitors or saboteurs lurking inside the Democratic campaign? An excuse for the president to back out of the debate such as a flu or sore throat would be bad but not as damaging as his performance at the debate. What is going on?

Well, the MAGA Republicans have done a fine job of setting their goal, devising a plan and implementing it perfectly even when they run into unexpected problems.

The Republicans are disciplined and well organized. They know their mathematics. And with the help of genius minds in mathematics, science, technology, and engineering such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel who come out passionately and publicly to help the Republican Party, hands on.

A guy who has just arrived in America from South Africa, takes a look at the cars made by legacy companies for a century and SEES that he can make better cars and KNOWS what to do to build them and in no time, creates a company worth more than all the legacy car companies combined. That guy is now LOOKING at the Republican Party and if the Democrats still think that the ideas he gives to the Republicans as to how to re-organize and win political races are that of a political novice, then they must stop and think again. Everything of importance now is computerized, using algorithms, or AI, political battles being no exception.

The Republicans know how to fight and has fought effectively, from the Bush v. Gore victory to McConnel’s successful blocking of the appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to the 2020 presidential victory even though they lost the popular votes, hugely.

The Democrats on the other hand seem to be confused and rudderless. They are not sufficiently politically nimble. The Republicans accepted the debates because they were not sure they could persuade the undecided to vote for them. But they had a contingency plan, the vice president nominee announcement, that would soften any blow the former president would have received during the debate. The Democrats suggested the debates. So, they seemed to think they were obligated to go forward, or a cancellation or delay would show weakness. They had known the pitfall of a Biden appearance at the debate (to suggest otherwise, that they did not know, is to suggest something more sinister than what is known) but seemed paralyzed, unable to make a proper decision.

After the Democrats’ debate debacle, the former president, Donald Trump, issued a statement denying that he was not connected to the Project 2025. Then, the Republican Party announced that it has dropped the federal abortion limits from its platform, strategic announcements to woo moderate voters. They have plans, precision plans.

The Democrats has visions where the country should go, decades from now. But tactically, they are underhanded. They need to focus on November 5, only a few more months away, as the Republicans have been. What the Democrats need now is for a few computer or AI geniuses to take a leave of absence from making money to engage themselves full time in helping the Democrats. They can’t just send money to them, then turn around and proudly talk about climate change as if American election politics is beneath them to take a public stance.

Then, the voters will get back to watching debates and political discourse because they will be more factual, reasonable, rational, and more sophisticated worth watching with their children. The voters, even hardcore rightists, want to be enlightened.

(You can read this article on X, “cothuxanh”, or on my Facebook).

John P. Le Phong (7/10/24).

Jake Tapper and Dana Bash of CNN will moderate the presidential debate today, Thursday 6/27/24 at 6PM Pacific time.

No less a figure than the MAGA Extraordinaire, Marjorie Taylor Greene who wrote on X, “Dana Bash’s husband is one of the 51 spies who in 2020 lied by signing his name to the intel community letter claiming Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation,” and “Jake Tapper hates Trump so much and has called him Hitler.”

So, why the Republicans agreed to the debate and the choice of Tapper and Bash of CNN, a bastion of “woke” according to MAGA, as the moderators?

A brand-new star of MAGA politics opined on Fox News that “Biden’s debate-prep artifice is as fake as his presidency: projecting an artificial projection of a leader who is nothing more than a puppet for the managerial class that controls him”. So true if you replace “Biden” with “Trump”.

The same also said that “Donald Trump has already won the debate” by just showing up.

Setting aside this wisdom for now, there could be a chance, despite being aided by AI, that the former president would repeat his erratic meandering speech as he did in recent rallies. And if that happened during the debate, the independent or undecided voters would realize that the former president’s antics, name calling, etc. were no longer amusing or entertaining but unserious, and would vote for the Democratic ticket.

So, why do the Republicans take the risk?

One of the possible answers is that they WANT him to lose.

JOHN P. LE PHONG, ESQ.

A lot of talk in the media and in the Biden campaign circle that the former president is incoherent in delivering his speeches. It sounds bizarre but it may be, albeit unusual, a possibly effective campaign strategy.

According to The Nation, the 45th president delivered a speech in a 105-degree outdoor in Las Vegas meandering from sharks to boats to batteries that his audience did not know what he was talking about. His detractors conclude that he was incoherent and thus incompetent to govern. They hope the voters can see that and not vote for him coming November 2024.

A case can be made that it has been the Republican strategy all along.

The former president has always conducted himself in a haughty manner. Whether it is his nature or acting, he has treated everybody with disdain as if he were a Kaiser or a Windsor (unlikely, as it would be unimaginable for Mr. Trump to walk with his hands behind his back). That is the image the MAGA Republicans want the public to see: a King moving along in his carriage, smiling and waving to the onlookers without uttering a word let alone meaningful sentences. That was enough to command respect and loyalty of his subjects.

MAGA wants Mr. Trump to do the same in a modern-day American version of royalty, appearing in public often so that his people can SEE him. They are not worried about his “incoherence” but seem to encourage him to talk about anything, even incoherent things. After all, true Kings and Emperors hardly made sense. Even the formidable King of France, Louis XIV, could be incoherent who famously said “L’etat c’est moi (the nation that’s me)”. That of course is nonsensical.

The strategy requires that he can say things like “Somebody didn’t pick up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cocaine (in the White House). I wonder who that could’ve been. I don’t know. Actually, I think it was Joe.”

Perfect. Just don’t try to make sense.

The former president has persistently denied against all evidence that he lost the 2020 election. The Republicans have openly and steadfastly sided with him.

Then, he was convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers. He has defiantly accused the judge presiding over the trial of being biased against him, the jury rigged, and the trial a disgrace. With no evidence to support his accusations, the Republicans have fiercely defended him and emotionally and approvingly repeated his unfounded accusation.

We all were flummoxed, asking the question in bewilderment what was going on with the Republican Party?

After four years of witnessing Mr. Trump performing as president of the United States, it became obvious that the presidency was not in his natural portfolio. A president of one country, let alone the most powerful country in the world, does not fawn, even in private, over a leader of another country. Just doing so would have disqualified him for the job. But seventy-six million assumably Republicans voted for him in the 2020 presidential election.

What did that signify? -Mr. Trump was not the leader. He was not the commander in chief. But like the soldier in Iwo Jima, he was holding the MAGA flag rushing up the hill of American politics and planted the flag there for the glory of MAGA. He has done it well and deserves to be protected.

But why do they publicly and vehemently chorus his obviously unfounded and poisonous complaints? -The Republican Party has transformed.

It was a party, which elected a leader who thundered “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” and is now demanding a wall to be built on the border with a friendly neighboring country.

It was a party, which fiercely fought dictatorship of any form, is now courting Russia and North Korea, fawning over its leaders and wannabe dictators such as Viktor Orban of Bulgaria. It has taken a confused attitude on the Russia-Ukraine war even though politically and morally there is nothing confusing about it.

It was the Party, which voted to allow the Vietnamese to emigrate to the U.S. after the Viet Nam war despite strong voice opposing such legislation. Now it wants to ban immigrants.

It was the Party, which steadfastly advocated a strong NATO with deep commitment by the U.S. It is now hinting at withdrawing from NATO.

The transformation is now complete. By supporting his lies about rigged election that was allegedly engineered by the deep state, the Party is openly rejecting a fundamental principle of Democracy by refusing to accept the result of free election. By vocally and irrationally supporting Mr. Trump’s emotional denouncing of the jury verdict of his guilt, not just one, not just two, but 34 counts, the Party is openly rejecting our legal system, which is the nervous system of the American democratic society.

There is no longer a MAGA faction in the Republican Party. MAGA has infected the Party and is now in complete control of and is one with the Party. Mainstream Republicans from Mitch McConnell to Nikki Haley, have receded or surrendered to MAGA.

In 2020, MAGA was in a sense caught off guard. The chaos and violence were limited to the Capitol and a few raucous but sporadic denouncements in Congress. They have had four years to regroup and organize. If the election result has not been accepted to this day by MAGA, and only a few “patriots” marched up the Capitol steps, what would be the scale of the revolt after the 2024 election and Joe Biden won? MAGA has signaled what would happen: It would not respect the democratic institutions and it would not respect the legal system.

So, what is its intention? If it wins in 2024, with a stroke of the pen, it will revolutionize the political system. If it loses, it will create chaos to seize power. Clearly, Democracy and the current legal system don’t serve its purposes.

The question every Republican must ask is, what are the Republican Party’s purposes?