The Rational Case for Trump/Republicans in 2024

So, I finally became a naturalized US citizen in 2023. Yay! :) And now in 2024 I face literally the worst top 2 choices in generations, between two ailing and polarizing gerontocrats. Boo! X( I now get why so many Americans do not vote. A corrupt duopoly's stranglehold has been stifling ideological diversity, fanning political polarization, and feeding government dysfunction. Sigh.

Anyway, as part of my duty as an informed voter, I set about objectively analyzing the major issues I care about and the positions/projected futures of the country under both main contenders. Consider this a sequel to my previous in-depth analysis: "The Great American Identity Crisis". My headline takeaway is that there is a strong rational case to support Trump in 2024, despite all of his bagagge! I may or may not vote for Trump in the end, but it is increasingly clear Biden won't cut it. While this may sound shocking to some, I encourage you to read this with an open mind, not spew hatred. I always welcome differing opinions and other earnest worldviews. And I certainly do not shy away from "controversial" opinions rooted in full truths, e.g., see this or this for some of my prior analyses of America's sociopolitical life.

NB: I do not support any specific political party or ideology. I do not identify as a Trumpian, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, libertarian, woke progressive, nationalist, globalist, socialist, capitalist, fascist, Nazi, Marxist, Commie, or whatever other socio-politico-economic labels people use. I prefer the label freethinker. To me nothing is beyond the reach of critical inquiry. Based on such inquiry, I support the doctrine of universal human rights (e.g., see this ode I wrote) and democratic constitutional rule of law rooted in logic, reason, civility, and kindness. I also reject kraterocracy and Social Darwinism as ultimately inimical to humanity.

Reasons in Favor of Trump

I see several major reasons in favor of Trump, some as a "negative vote" against the policies of Biden/Democrats/liberals (used interchangeably). This is not an exhaustive list, of course. My major reasons are: "open borders" illegal migration mess; meritocratic reform of legal migration; "war on women" by radical gender ideologues; Biden's age and mental acuity; the useless war in Ukraine; and Anti-Asian discrimination, Indophobia, and Hinduphobia. Let us dive into each.


1. "Open Borders" Illegal Migration Mess

This is the biggest issue. Biden-Harris have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent at protecting the southern border and ending the mass influx of illegal migrants, which some have dubbed an "invasion." Most liberals fail to see the obscene violation of the rule of law this represents and continue to live in denial with euphemisms such as "undocumented" migrants. Even worse, many lump illegal and legal migrants into one "migrants" bin, clearly showing the law matters little to them. This is a form of racist votebank politics to appease their Hispanic/Latino votebanks, which is unfair to the millions of legal migrants who scrupulously respect the rule of law, including many Latinos/Hispanics themselves. No wonder then that this alleged votebank itself is fracturing, with Trump gaining support among Latino/Hispanic citizens who care about the rule of law too. Likewise, the imbalance caused in the blue-collar labor market is most likely to hurt poor citizens, many of whom are Black. So, I won't be surprised if Trump gains more support among Black voters too. Finally, the "open borders" mess is boosting cruel human trafficking gangs, not just in Latin America, but also in Asia and Africa.

I find it ludicruous that Democrats care so much about other nations' borders (e.g., Ukraine) but fail to protect our own! Even the recent so-called bipartisan bill is a sorry excuse for Biden to shore up his image rather than solving the mess properly. Next I will rebut some common rationalizations I see among Democrats.

• First, many lie to themselves that most illegal migrants are "refugees" or "asylum" cases. In reality, the vast majority are blue-collar and/or low-skilled economic migrants, not refugees. Common sense says that even refugees must be duly vetted in their source nation (or a transit nation) first, just like legal migrants. There should be no asylum processing at the border. In fact, this collapse of the legal vetting systems hurts most those who need genuine refuge, e.g., LGBTQ+ people fleeing genuine persection by Christian extremists in Central America.
• Second, many believe they are practicing "compassion" toward people fleeing poverty or violence. In reality, it is a form of White Savior Complex and a smokescreen for a power grab because the logical conclusion of such unhinged "compassionism" ideology is allowing 2+ billion poor people from Africa and Asia too! An old Tamil proverb comes to mind: "When consumed in excess, even the elixir becomes a poison." A variant of this misguided ideology imagines that Latin American illegal migrants deserve "special rights" as a form of "atonement" for the long history of anti-democratic and imperial/colonial interference by the USA in Latin America, a form of White Guilt Complex. Again, that too is the same smokescreen because the USA interfered in the same way in many parts of Asia and Africa too. And since such compassionism ideology is applied only to Latinos/Hispanics and not Africans and Asians, it is clear-cut racist/xenophobic discrimination on the basis of ethnicity/race and/or national origin, egregious violations of federal Civil Rights laws and/or the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
• Third, many liberals assert the USA is a "nation of immigrants" in which many past arrivals were also illegal (and some groups were indeed villified) and so it is okay to have "newcomers" who are illegal too. First off, that phrase is a racist half-truth. Native Americans--a founding group of the USA--are literally not immigrants by definition. And most Black Americans are not "immigrants" either but descendents of enslaved peoples shipped from Africa against their will. Even setting accuracy aside, that phrase is outdated and rooted in globalism and a false equivalence to the "open borders" policies within the EU. But since the creation of the UN, sovereign nations are at the heart of international law and order--it is the United "Nations" after all, not a one-world government. Open borders illegal migration is a grotesque violation of American national sovereignty.
• Fourth, some Democrats now openly admit their sinister reason that is the only one with logical coherence even if it is anti-national: a mass gerrymandering-style subversion of the federal census to gain on seat allocation and of the electorate itself via eventual legalization of, and/or new births by, illegal migrants to boost their votebanks. Some actually view this as a counter-attack to Republicans gerrymandering many state legislatures. In reality, Democrats too engage in gerrymandering, but this apparent Democrat "masterplan" to convert illegal migrants into voters is unconstitutional and even suicidal for the nation. No wonder the "Great Replacement Theory" has gained currency. While I reject its "replacement" claim, there is indeed a "Great Disempowerment" of all legitimate citizens, not just White ones. It is no longer a White nationalist conspiracy theory but an actual practice by liberals in violation of the civic nationalism that underpins America's rule of law.
  
  

Trump's policies are more likely to end and reverse this disaster. Military-backed border enforcement is an urgent need. To maximize deterrence and ensure rule of law, most illegal migrants must be deported to their home nations, at least those who entered this century, in line with how most other nations around the world, including in Europe and Asia, handle illegal migration. As for those who were here for over a quarter century, I think it is reasonable to consider a one-time pardon and lifetime permanent residency--but no path to citizenship--as long as they did not break any other law and they prove their economic independence. Citizenship should be revoked for those born in the US to illegal migrant parents--their citizenship is illegitimate--but it can be replaced with lifetime permanent residency. New temporary visa categories must be created for blue-collar workers given the high demand in the agriculture and hospitality industries. Such visas should be open to all nationalities equally without "special rights" for Latin Americans and all employers must offer proper wages, benefits, and prove they could not find citizens to fill those jobs. All those who got deported must be banned from such visas for a significant period, perhaps a decade. Such temporary renewable visas are the norm in most other developed economies that rely on cheaper foreign labor, e.g., South/Southeast Asian laborers in the rich Arab nations of the Persian Gulf or Filipino nurses in Japan.

Overall, it is clear to me that illegal migration and the current "open borders" disaster wrought by Democrat policies is an existential threat to the very integrity, sovereignty, and unity of the USA. I hope more independents, moderate Democrats, and other voters see the gravity of this existential threat. If we apply Sinclair's assessment, Democrats lack the incentives to solve this mess properly due to their racist votebank appeasement policies. In contrast, Trump and his new team seem to have the clear-eyed vision and the spine to course-correct. In fact, allowing Republicans to solve this mess over the next maybe 12 years may even help Democrats retain their coveted Latino/Hispanic identitarian votebanks. In this sense, a Trump win in 2024 could paradoxically benefit both parties in the long run, while also preserving national integrity.


2. Meritocratic Reform of Legal Migration

Legal migration has always been critical to the US economy and it remains so for many industries, especially software, engineering, and medicine. Alas, Democrats refuse to reform legal migration unless illegal migration is also bundled even though the two are disjoint issues. I have seen the negative consequences of their foolish policies firsthand: highly meritorious graduate students from India and China, burdened with long wait times for green cards, end up leaving the USA or face the high stress of uncertainty for years. The H-1B visa is an unmitigated disaster due to its lottery approach that puts high-skilled graduates and low-cost expatriate IT workers from abroad in the same bucket with no merit basis. I am flabbergasted at how much "intellectual wealth" the USA is squandering this way. Of course, as with any other nation, it is prudent to maintain a high bar and have caps on legal migration to avoid disadvantaging US-born legitimate citizens--and I say this as a legal migrant who became a naturalized citizen myself.

I do see some reasons for this intransigence by the Democrats though. They are dominated by bourgeois liberals who seek to keep competition lower for their preferred white-collar jobs even as they like to use cheap illegal migrants for blue-collar jobs they do not want, throwing low-income US citizens under the bus. Unsurprisingly, that is part of why so many blue-collar and/or rural Whites ditched the Democrats and turned to Trump, as Michael Moore predicted. In reaction, I have heard some urban elitist liberals use Anti-White racist epithets such as this and this to dismiss such rural and/or blue-collar Whites just because they voted for Trump! The above said, as an ex-citizen of India myself, I do see some benefits in some such meritorious students returning to their home nations as a form of reverse brain drain to boost their economies. It is not all bad to spread some intellectual wealth around the world, especially when many such US-trained graduates can help spread the American work ethic and "Brand America" abroad.

Overall, it is clear to me that the Republicans' push for points-based meritocratic legal migration reform is urgently needed for the benefit of the US economy. Most of our competitor nations for high-skilled white-collar workers in the democratic world (e.g., Canada and the UK) already have such a rational system. And in an era when competition with China is intensifying on technological innovation, e.g., in AI and clean energy tech, Democrats are holding US companies--and America's full economic potential--hostage due to their self-defeating racist votebank appeasement politics.


3. "War on Women" by Radical Gender Ideologues

As an out gay man myself, I have done a lot of work to help LGBTQ+ students and the wider community, including advocating for inclusivity for transgender people. Alas, the trans rights movement has been hijacked by radical gender ideologues who are waging a new "war on women" to erase sex-based rights. Both women's rights and trans rights matter but radical trans extremists keep peddling misogynistic erasure of cisgender women by duplicitously conflating sex and gender. Indeed, the term "woman" has multiple meanings, both sex-based and gender-based (and also "wife of man" etymologically!), but the near-universal English usage of "woman" hitherto meant cisgender woman, i.e., by both sex and gender. It is a half-truth and a lie by omission to say "transwomen are women"--the full truth is "transwomen are women by gender and men/male by sex." Forcing a blanket entry of transwomen into all women's spaces (even female prisons and rape crisis centers!) without carefully considering if they are gender-based, sex-based, or both is not a form of "inclusion" at all but outright bigotry against ciswomen. Lumping ciswomen and transwomen--different groups biologically and socially--into one group is unequivocally misogynistic just as lumping Blacks and Native Americans into one group because they are both "coloreds" (POC in liberal euphemism) is unequivocally racist.

Alas, many liberals--ironically in patriarchal style--keep bullying courageous women such as J. K. Rowling (a survivor of sexual assault by a man!) who sounded the alarm. Worse, UPenn actively muzzled and bullied Paula Scanlan, a whistleblower who spoke out on the unfairness of forcing Lia Thomas into women's swimming. It is ironical that Republicans are the ones standing up now for scientific truth, fairness, and safety of women's sports, while Democrats blithely double down on yet another form of votebank politics--to appease LGBTQ+ extremists. Apart from trampling on women's rights, these radical gender ideologues also peddle a mass medicalization of children, egged on by profiteering doctors/hospitals with weak checks, even though there is a dearth of scientific research on the long-term effects of irreversible chemical or surgical interventions at such ages. Thankfully, the medical community is now speaking out more on these risks. And more female sports bodies are starting to realize the need to prioritize fairness and safety, e.g., see this thoughtful decision on swimming, instead of an unhinged "inclusionism" ideology.

Analogous to how (regular) Muslims faced a backlash due to the nonsense peddled by some Islamist extremists, (regular) LGBTQ+ people, including (regular) trans people, now face a backlash due to the nonsense peddled by cultish "Transism" extremists. LGBTQ+ groups need to do a lot of introspection, e.g., see groups such as Gays Against Groomers starting to push back. I hope LGBTQ+ rights groups purge themselves of such misogynistic (and sometimes even homophobic!) Transist extremists lest they implode into oblivion. As a matter of fact, I have stopped donating to both Human Rights Campaign and ACLU due to their failure to navigate this issue prudently. I encourage others to do so too until such groups course-correct.

Overall, it is clear to me that Trump and his team will deliver a strong defense of women's sports and women's spaces in general, while pushing back against unhinged radical gender ideologues and the extremist cult of Transism (analogous to Islamism). In contrast, Democrats lazily keep beating a dead horse on the issue of abortion rights--now a state-level issue, not a federal issue--instead of stemming this rapid erasure of women's rights, again due to their votebank politics.


4. Biden's Age and Mental Acuity

It is clear from Biden's many recent speeches that his mental acuity is diminishing and sometimes, his physical ability too. So, I see it as a form of "elder abuse" to put an 81 year old man through the most stressful job in the world again. Moreover, the life expectancy of non-Hispanic White males in the US is only 74 years. I have not seen convincing evidence that Kamala Harris has the acumen or leadership heft to take up the mantle if Biden dies in office. On the contrary, her VP tenure is generally considered dysfunctional. When the world is in uncharted waters with the Russia-China-Iran-North Korea authoritarian axis (RCIN Axis, for short) ramping up their destabilizing violent actions in unexpected ways, it is yet another existential threat on national security and international peace grounds for the USA to re-elect a frail near-death leader. This tally of key movers and shakers on the world stage sorted by their age confirms how precarious the outlook is for the USA:

• Saudi Arabia's Salman: 38
• UK's Sunak: 43
• France's Macron: 46
• Canada's Trudeau: 52
• Australia's Albanese: 61
• Iran's Raisi: 63
• Germany's Scholz: 65
• Japans' Kishida: 66
• Turkey's Erdogan: 70
• China's Jinping: 70
• Russia's Putin: 71
• India's Modi: 73
• Israel's Netanyahu: 74
• USA's Biden: 81 (!!)

Of course, Trump is no spring chicken at 77 years old. But when both are near the far end of the spectrum, the ~4 years gap matters. The wild card is we do not yet know who Trump's VP will be. I hope he does not pick a Sarah Palin-style novice. Regardless, Trump did manage to instill cautious anxiety, if not outright fear, into America's adversaries in his first term. The incompetence of Biden/Democrats against the RCIN Axis is clear for all to see: Iran-proxy Islamist terrorist groups ramping up their violence in the Middle East, Russia expanding its puppet footprint in the African Sahel, and China amping up threats against Taiwan and some ASEAN nations. The world has objectively gotten more dangerous since Biden took office, in large part due to his administration's diplomatic failures. It is not entirely clear if Trump can (at least partly) reinstate Pax Americana but it is clear that more of Biden means even more international dangers.


5. The Useless War in Ukraine

After the collapse of the USSR, the newly independent Ukraine signed a major treaty in 1997 agreeing "not to use its territory to harm the security" of Russia and vice versa. Unfortunately, due to a misguided desire to emulate a few other ex-Commie Eastern European nations (which did not have such treaties AFAIK) that joined both the EU and NATO, Ukraine backstabbed Russia and started cozying up to NATO over the last two decades. If Ukraine joins NATO, it will come under our nuclear umbrella due to Article 5 and NATO could install nukes on Ukrainian soil, 550 miles from Moscow. There is a precedent for how reckless that is--the Cuban Missile Crisis. To get Cuba to stop housing Soviet nukes so close to mainland America, the USA imposed an illegal naval blockade of another sovereign nation and effectively threatened a global nuclear holocaust! Thus, it is natural that Putin reacted negatively to Ukraine's backstabbing and reversed his previously warming relationships with both the US and the EU. As such, it adds little to NATO because the Baltics (in NATO already) offer the same benefit, although the Russia-Ukraine border is far larger. All that is at the root of Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea, interference in the 2016 US elections to help defeat Clinton, and ultimately the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war.

Instead of a diplomatic resolution in which the interests of all parties--Ukraine, Russia, EU, and NATO--are prudently balanced, e.g., Ukraine joining the EU for economic prosperity but not NATO, they let it devolve into war. I am shocked by how many people in the US are blithe about sleepwalking into World War 3 with the triply nuclear-armed RCIN Axis over an irrelevant (for Americans) war in a random interior part of Eurasia that most cannot even locate on a map. I think this is largely due to the greed and stranglehold of the military-industrial-Congress complex in the USA, but also Ukraine's (and EU's) naivete and duplicity, as well as the calculatively murderous ethos of Putin. I find it sad that a delusional Zelensky is sacrificing so many innocent people of Ukraine to a useless doomed war for some (faux) "glory" sake.

In contrast, Putin has masterfully pivoted Russia's fossil fuel markets away from dependency on the EU and toward his main ally China and neutral nations in the developing world with fast-growing energy needs that cannot afford the now-costlier Middle Eastern fossil fuels due to the EU's purchasing pivot (e.g., India). Essentially, Russia is profiting from this war even as the EU and US are pouring money down the drain, i.e., Putin is killing two birds with one stone! And the hyperbolic claims of "Putin will invade Poland/Baltics if Ukraine falls!" are delusional because Putin knows that entails a global nuclear holocaust due to Article 5. He may be genocidal but he is not suicidal. If the USA really thought Putin would risk that, it'd already be going all out to prevent all Russian fossil fuel sales, including to India. The lack of that is proof enough that NATO is just using Ukraine as a proxy war pawn to weaken Russia militarily and likely also for war profiteering by the military-industrial-Congress complex, which happens again and again.

Ironically, Democrats are the warmongers now, while most Republicans want to end the war. Just like the 2003 Iraq War was rooted in lies (by commission), this war is also rooted in lies, albeit by omission. Many liberals also engage in disingenuous ad hominem smear campaigns to bully those who speak the full truths by branding them "Putin's puppets!", repeating the history of how the (eventually vindicated) Iraq War critics were also bullied! I can understand why some (Eastern) Europeans are being irrational due to their emotionally charged (fear, anger, etc.) history with Russian regimes--although I reject Putin's claims of "Russophobia"--but it is sad to see irrational war hysteria among so many Americans rooted in short-sighted double standards.

Overall, Trump is better placed than Democrats to broker a reasonable Russia-Ukraine-NATO detente to end the senseless violence. Ukraine must not join NATO but accept a neutral status, with NATO and Russia undergirding its security via a tripartite treaty. It can remain sovereign and join the EU eventually. There are precedents, e.g., see Germany's and Japan's pacifist setups imposed and undergirded by the USA after World War 2. Ukraine will likely pay a price for its backstabbing of Russia by ceding Crimea and Donbas, which Russia has annexed. There are precedents for that too, e.g., both USA and Europe ignored China's illegal invasion+annexation of Tibet in the 1950s. As for NATO itself, only Trump had the spine to call out the ungrateful rich European nations of NATO for bleeding America dry and not paying enough for their defense, a stance I too voiced before. Europeans must wake up and smell the coffee--they must raise their defense budget percentages to parity with the USA to strengthen NATO.


6. Anti-Asian Discrimination, Indophobia, and Hinduphobia

As an academic myself, I am a strong supporter of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies to help people from historically marginalized groups, e.g., see this or the DEI contributions list in my CV. Alas, after the full facts of the Harvard case were disclosed, I was dismayed to see the scale of Anti-Asian American (AsAm) discrimination, ostensibly in the name of DEI, and how many DEI advocates rationalized racist or sexist discrimination in part due to their political ideology. As I predicted in my previous post, the Supreme Court struck down such forms of "affirmative action" as unconstitutional. All that has made me more skeptical of the real intentions behind some of these "DEI" initiatives. Proposition 16 also failed among CA voters, ironically especially in Hispanic/Latino-dominated counties, mainly for the same reason despite heavy propaganda by the Democrats, the UC System, and many civil rights groups (ACLU, ADL, NAACP, etc.). In fact, in large part due to far left forces infiltrating campuses to hijack/abuse DEI goals, public trust in US academia has fallen rapidly, an existential threat for its future.

I have also heard firsthand from many Indian American parents about how their kids--with perfect academic records and stellar holistic resumes--were denied admissions to top-tier universities even though they admitted many seemingly weaker students. US academia's college admissions approach is totally broken and likely corrupt due to the sheer lack of transparency, lack of oversight by faculty self-governance processes, and likely partisan political interference. Instead of pursuing prudent and transparent reforms on how to achieve DEI goals without violating the Constitution or Civil Rights laws, some liberals engage in racist rhetoric against AsAms, e.g., see this and this! Of course, Trump and Republicans/conservatives have their own racist rhetoric issues against Asians and/or AsAms, e.g., over the COVID-19 pandemic or the Baltimore ship-bridge crash. But at least they consistently advocate for constitutional, fair, and transparent systems for admissions and combating partisan political bias in US academia.

Related to the above is the uptick in Indophobia and/or Hinduphobia I see in the liberal media (e.g., CNN, NYTimes, etc.). It takes many forms: lies by omission, half-truths, and smear campaigns against Hindus as a group and/or India's rule of law. A key recent example is over the historic Ram temple in Ayodhya, which they maliciously oversimplify as: "Hindooo mob razed mosque! Temple built! Islamophobia! Secularism dead!" The full truth includes: that area's deep indigenous religio-cultural significance, the facts uncovered by the ASI, the numerous anti-Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh crimes against humanity by the Mughal Empire and other Islamo-Supremacist imperial/colonial powers in India's past (including destroying many key Hindu/Jain/Buddhist temples) in partial analogy with what White-Christo-Supremacist imperial/colonial powers did in the Americas, the long-drawn out Supreme Court case on Ayodhya, and their surprisingly decisive unanimous verdict in favor of the Hindu clergy after carefully weighing all evidence. I do not expect lazy/biased liberal media in the US/Europe to be well-versed in the complex history of the Indian subcontinent, but they should at least desist from brazen Hinduphobic lies by omission and one-sided partisan bullshit. I suspect all this is due to a combination of the Muslim votebank appeasement politics of liberals, British Empire-style racist "divide-and-rule" tactics to destabilize India again, and/or liberal media firms being turned into "useful idiots" again by Marxist-Islamist elements, who are often both Antisemitic and Hinduphobic.

Such biased partisan agendas also became clearer in how they cover(ed) the CAA, the Election Commission's decisions, or ongoing corruption cases against opposition politicians--all dubbed "democratic backsliding," a liberal conspiracy theory devoid of hard evidence. To flip such specious claims, one could also assert that the Biden/Democrat regime is "politically persecuting" Trump with tenuous cases, while their liberal media chums are lying to the people on the scale of the southern border crisis, the illegal migration mess, or the full facts of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Not to the mention the lack of a federal Election Commission in the US to ensure ballot integrity! Due to such obscene partisan biases and gaslighting in US "news" media--liberal or conservative--I primarily rely on Reuters and BBC (both non-American!) for real news on US politics. I do also occasionally read CNN and Breitbart to get the partisan extremes' views.

Overall, it is clear to me that Republicans will ensure US academia stops discriminating against AsAms (or any other ethnoracial group), while Democrats live in denial due to their racist votebank appeasement policies. The US needs honest conversations on amending the Constitution and Civil Rights laws to recognize and institute prudent policies to uplift American descendents of slavery, indigeneous tribes, and poor people of all stripes, e.g., more programs to boost K-12 schools and perhaps also transparent, time-bound, and income-capped quotas in higher education, Congress, and the federal government akin to India's impactful quota system. As for AsAms, including Indian Americans, they lack a "home" in either party. So, I find it bizarrely self-defeating that many AsAm groups, especially Indian Americans, lean so heavily Democrat. I hope they learn from Vietnamese Americans to rebalance their ideological preferences instead of blindly offering their kids' futures as a sacrificial lamb to an ideological deity that is surreptitiously malevolent toward them. American followers of Indian/Hindu religions must also get more organized in combating Hinduphobia by learning from how the ADL combats Antisemitism by both the right and the left. The recent resolution against Hinduphobia in Georgia is a good start. It must be replicated in all states and awareness must be spread in general society.

As a note on India specifically, the US-India relationship is critical for both nations' futures, especially given the ascendancy of the RCIN Axis. I am not saying that just because I have family in India--even many astute geopolitical analysts agree with it. Post-Cold War history shows that Republicans have forged stronger relationships with India no matter who is in power there, e.g., the historic nuclear deal was inked by Bush Jr. with an INC-led government. If the BJP-led government wins power again in June 2024, which is likely as per my recent analysis, the "bad blood" between Democrats/liberals and BJP will damage the US-India relationship and its long-term potential to the detriment of both nations at this historic juncture.

Non-Issues and Bitter Pills to Swallow

Voters weigh all sorts of issues that matter to them. So, for completeness sake I will list some more issues that I thought through and concluded as being minor or non-issues for me, or intermediate issues (neither major nor minor) that are bitter pills to swallow. I am okay with swallowing these pills, some with tenable rationalizations, because the existential threats I outlined above matter more. These lists below are not general assertions--other voters may reweigh these factors differently based on their personal situation.

Non-Issues / Minor Issues For Me:

• Abortion rights. As I already noted, this is now a state-level issue, not a federal one, certainly not for the Presidency. Besides, Trump also opposes a federal ban. At the state level, I support protecting reasonable abortion rights, which CA already has. I do, however, also see the merits of the arguments of anti-abortion/pro-life activists. As I have noted before, we need more innovation in assistive reproductive technologies such as artificial wombs and fetal offloading to avoid "forced pregnancies."


• White Christian nationalism. This issue divides the conservative wing of Republicans from the libertarian one. Many of the former want to turn the USA into a White Christian ethnostate, or at least a Christian-supremacist state. They are free to advocate for it. They may get more limelight under Trump but their ideas do not have mass appeal to change the Constitution. America's separation of powers is robust.


• Inflation, taxation, economy. My personal economic status is unlikely to improve or fray dramatically under either party.


• Crime and homelessness in cities. San Diego seems to be doing okay, despite literally being on the southern border. I do not fully get why the situation seems so much worse in other big cities like SF, NYC, LA, and Chicago. In any case, this is a city/county level issue, not a federal one.


• Possible reduction in federal budget for higher education. Trump did try to drastically cut funding for storied federal research agencies like NSF and NIH before, although Congress prudently overruled it. I expect the bipartisan Congressional support for scientific, technological, and medical research to continue.



• Election denialism. Both the big parties have engaged in this from time to time, even at their leadership level. Nothing new here.


• Alleged "threat" to "democracy." This is much ado about little. Let me unpack it. The term "democracy" is not even in the US Constitution, unlike, say, India's Constitution. Instead, as I have noted before, the Founding Fathers set up the USA as a federal republic with quasi-democracy and decentralization of power via a highly non-linear system of checks and balances. It has never been a cut-and-dried "rule by majority will" at the federal level nor even at many states' levels. America's constitutional rule of law with such careful separation of powers is more robust than many liberals fear. As for democratic practice at the state level, both parties practice gerrymandering, abusing their corrupt duopolistic status.
  
  As for the "but the national numbers!" argument, it is duplicitous and self-serving because liberals started gaining more voters primarily only in "blue" states with growing populations and especially among urban young voters enamored by their pseudo-socialist policies. If they genuinely cared about the "rule by majority will" principle they'd have created a federal Election Commission long ago. Ironically, even when their political opponents win majorities fair and square, e.g, as in India, I see liberals crying (faux) "majoritarianism!" or (conspiratorial) "democratic backsliding!", and when they have majority but not power, e.g., as in some US states, they cry "minority rule!" Basically, it is pretty clear that liberals only care about having power, no matter majority or minority, just like almost every other ideological partisan group. Overall, Democrats must grasp federalism and the US Constitution better instead of peddling an imagined "democracism" ideology as another smokescreen.


• Vendetta politics. It is likely that under a second Trump administration, their Democrat opponents will face more cases. It will not be that different than what is happening now under Biden anyway. America's rule of law and separation of powers are robust.


• Debasement of politics. Trump's undiplomatic langauge and rabble-rousing rhetoric will bring politics back down into the gutter, even if it is entertaining. This might be the only thing I'd miss about Biden, who brought back civility, kindness, and grace to the office. But this is a minor issue for me because, well, politics is not my profession.


• USA's image abroad. A second Trump term will hurt America's image in some nations that engage in hypocritical virtue signalling (e.g., in the EU). Meh. Besides, the USA now under Biden is already a laughing stock in many parts of the world for their failure to protect their own borders and end the illegal migration mess.


• Israel-Gaza war. Their violence cycle goes on and on matter who is in power in the USA, as I have noted before. Nothing new here.


• Trade war with China. Thankfully the Democrats saw the wisdom of this signature impactful policy by Trump to keep continuing it.

Bitter Pills to Swallow For Me:

• Human-caused climate change and mass species extinction. Republicans/conservatives need to wake up and smell the coffee on how this is also an existential threat for not just the USA (including its economy, food security, water security, etc.) but for the whole planet. It is also cruel (and "un-Christian" for those who care about it) to live in denial over how human-caused climate change is causing a new ongoing mass species extinction, as well as disproportionately hurting the world's poorest peoples. I do commend the successful Republican push to help the USA achieve fossil fuel energy independence over the last few decades to avoid being taken hostage again by Middle Eastern dictators. But the sun is setting on the era of fossil fuels. Republicans need to amp up innovative market-driven solutions for carbon capture and also empower American companies to pioneer affordable clean tech manufacturing that we can sell to the whole world insead of letting China take the cake (again). All the above said, I see this existential threat as less urgent for the USA than the other ones I outlined above.


• Rollback of some trans rights. Sadly, transphobia is still common among conservatives but not among libertarians, thus representing a wedge issue among Republicans. There will likely be some overreach in the name of defending women's rights that trample on the civil rights of trans individuals. The trans community has a lot of grassroots work to do to educate people of all backgrounds to roll back transphobia bottom up, not just rely on top-down measures. They can learn a lot from how gays and lesbians did so to roll back homophobia over the last 3-4 decades. The grinding work of winning hearts and minds is the best insurance for trans rights, not simply yelling (faux) "transphobe!" repeatedly. I also think federalism will play a bigger role in how this is handled, akin to abortion rights.



• Inaction on gun violence control. There might still be some bipartisan movement on this like in 2022 but I suspect it will get more stalled going forward, in part due to the partisan polarization. I'd like to see more restrictions on military-style weapons among civilians, tougher rules for problematic individuals, actual funding and progress on the much-touted "mental health programs" to help prevent "lone wolf" attacks, and innovations in security systems/protocols to better protect schools from mass shooters. Once again, it is cruel (and "un-Christian") to keep ignoring the mass murders of innocent school children, minority groups (e.g., Black churches), and other civilians by violent terrorists or deranged individuals.


• Violence by rightwing extremists. This one is my biggest short-term worry because the first Trump term emboldened rightwing extremists, e.g., see the violence in Charlottsville. Trump famously dithered over condemning Neo-Nazis. I just hope the FBI, police departments, etc. are competent and vigilant enough to keep such violent threats at bay, unlike their historic failure over the Jan 6 attack. Trump's hands are not clean over that unprecedented attack and his role is condemnable.
  
  The above said, when the evidence was tallied, it seems Trump did not directly ask the crowd to attack the Capitol but spoke in terms of metaphors, lending him plausible deniability under the First Amendment. I am not sure if it was an "insurrection" but it was a violent riot. So, the individuals in the sheep-like crowd who rioted that day must be held accountable, and the law is taking its own course. But to quote MLK Jr., "A riot is the language of the unheard." I can now see that many of them rioted in part due to fears that Congress was ignoring some of the existential threats to the USA that I described above. Nevertheless, I hope Republicans/conservatives are smart enough to not be swayed by Trump's rabble-rousing to engage in violent anarchy again but instead scrupulously adhere to lawful means of criticism and protest.


• Trump's legal cases. I have taken a cursory look at the many pending cases. My read is none of them are likely to go beyond a reasonable doubt and be a showstopper for him serving as President again. The hush money case seems more like petty "persecution" based on activities that are common among sleazy politicians, media types, etc. But the Georgia case seems more serious and could lead to novel constitutional conundrums, although it helps them that rightwingers have the upper hand now at the Supreme Court. Either way, I think it is fine for the law to take its own course. It is sad to see the pitiful nadir that US democracy has fallen to when even such a candidate as Trump seems actually better placed on many major policy matters--and thus more popular in most polls--than someone as decorated as Biden!

Concluding Remarks

As I noted at the end of this recent post, the bar for earning my vote is high. Indeed, the last time (and first time) I voted, back in India in 2009, none of India's political parties met my bar. Fast forward 15 years, I will now cast my vote for the US Presidency. Trump is mostly a garish, thuggish, sleazy, loudmouthed, bullshitting, opportunistic, unkind, and perhaps criminal political bully. And yet, he is likely to get my vote due to all the reasons I outlined above. I am not alone, of course, as more people realize that the usual "devil vs. deep sea" apathy could be actively harmful for the nation's future this time around. Unlike MAGA types, I get no joy in pondering voting for Trump--on the contrary, I feel a bit sad about it--but Republicans failed to nominate a more prudent alternative, while Biden/Democrats/liberals have dug too deep a grave for the nation due their dishonesty, delusional hubris, and incompetence on existential policy issues.

I might still change my mind if the above existential threats recede by Nov 2024, but it seems unlikely. My vote will anyway matter little given how CA is "deep blue" and a winner-take-all state for the electoral college. But I hope my above discussion helps more folks in other states, especially in swing states, grasp the gravity of how 2024 is a turning point election for America's future in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous multi-polar world. I encourage all US citizens to think carefully about their vote instead of apathy or partisan groupthink. Please feel free to comment with your thoughts on any of the above opinions and/or your own policy preference calculus. I always welcome open and frank discussions as long as they are civil!

EDIT on May 3: Addendum Commentary

Thanks to everyone who read the post and weighed in with their own opinions, thoughts, and pointers! These discussions happend over on Twitter. I got 3 new inputs that I had not thought (much) about before that could change some of the above calculations.

• Abortion rights. It appears this may not actually be a "dead horse" yet at the federal/Presidency level. There is a non-trivial chance that if Trump wins again, one or both of the two oldest and most unreasonable (IMO) ultra-conservative justices on the Supreme Court--Thomas and Alito--could strategically "retire" to enable Trump to nominate much younger but also unreasonably ultra-conservative justices to replace them. I had missed this possibility and its implications. The shameless politicization of the Supreme Court by both parties saddens me, but it is an unfortunate reality the US is stuck with, as I have noted before, and so it is part of the calculus. There is a chance the court could wash its hands off of cruel no-exception abortion bans in some "deep red" states that violate women's rights on emergency medical care, e.g., see this ongoing case. Although I suspect Roberts and Barrett--and perhaps also Kavanaugh--are unlikely to let cruel state-level total bans stand, this risk is non-zero given their past track records. Likewise, endless predictably partisan divisions at the court are likely to keep damaging the credibility of both the court and eventually the Constitution itself, yet another existential risk that could set the USA on a path to a second civil war.


• Possible end to legal migration. Although Trump and most Republicans repeatedly emphasize the need for points-based meritocratic reform of legal migration and its importance for the US economy, there is an ultra-nativist subset among conservatives, especially MAGA types, who want to end legal migration altogether. I had missed this possibility because Trump may rope in someone like Steve Bannon again. Such a policy will almost surely damage both the short-term and long-term interests of the US economy and raise the burden on all taxpayers. It will also eventually diminish America's technological and military advantages against China and the RCIN Axis more broadly. I highly doubt that the many powerful business lobbies in DC will let such a policy come to pass, but the risk of such harakiri is non-zero.


• RFK Jr. I had taken only a cursory look at RFK Jr. before and dismissed him due to his bizarre anti-vaxx rhetoric. But his campaign has been gaining momentum and attracting voters away from both Trump and Biden! I had missed the possibility of his viability as a "dark horse" in the 2024 race. I plan to take a closer look at his policies and perspectives. He has a very tall mountain to climb to defeat not one but both of the billion-dollar party machineries. And given the existential risks I outlined above if Biden were to get re-elected without changing course on those policies, I suspect many voters will change their minds closer to the actual election date.