Why Trump Won

The New Order of Things

The Wild Hunt (1899). Franz von Stuck.

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order."

Machiavelli

By winning once again, Trump demonstrated his undeniable appeal, establishing what Machiavelli might have called a “New Order of Things.” He broke political taboos, imprinted his vision onto the political landscape, and energized an American audience craving disruption.

While Trump’s campaign surged forward, coastal elites, cosmopolitan circles, and urban, college-educated individuals missed a crucial reality: many of their political initiatives lacked excitement, vitality, and relatability. Much of their messaging relied on appeals to ideological commitments that simply did not resonate with many Americans. Who would have thought that Kamala Harris, dancing around and laughing off questions about the economy, could backfire?

If Democrats took a cue from Karl Marx, they might recognize that material realities are the true drivers of political motivation. For most people, immediate concerns like inflation and job security carry far more weight than abstract ideals of progress.

Harris’s campaign missed something deeper than just messaging: Trump’s genius lies in his ability to connect with people who previously felt disengaged or fed up with politics. Trump structurally changed Republicans, drawing in unlikely supporters, from Muslim Americans in Michigan to Amish communities in Pennsylvania.

Trump has made pivotal structural changes to the Republican Party that I believe will reshape future elections:

1. Trump actively promoted early voting—a practice historically challenging to encourage among rural Republican voters—signaling a strategic shift in mobilization.

2. By resisting rigid ideological labels and refusing to conform to them, Trump broadened his appeal, expanding the Republican base. Meanwhile, Democrats, focused on an oppressor/oppressed narrative, have risked alienating parts of their constituency—a trend particularly visible among Jewish voters, who are gradually moving toward the Republican Party.

3. Trump tapped into unprecedented audiences, drawing support from groups as diverse as the Amish and Arab Muslims. When I saw the Amish voting, I knew Pennsylvania would turn Red. For one, even a few votes can make a difference. But more critically, if Democrats’ policies have frustrated the Amish to the point of political engagement—a historically passive faction—then Democrats are likely in serious trouble.

The Democrats have made several critical strategic errors, with perhaps the most glaring being their approach to Arab Muslim voters. Their praise of Liz Cheney—whose father played a central role in the Iraq War—and reliance on Barack Obama, remembered by many for his inaction during the Syrian crisis that led to immense suffering among Muslims, revealed a striking disconnect. What kind of response did they realistically expect from this audience?

Second, the oppressor/oppressed and decolonial narrative does not resonate with most Arabs. This perspective fails to align with the proud Arab identity, as the culture fundamentally rejects a mentality rooted in victimhood. This narrative primarily appeals to Western-educated Arabs who still seek to revive Edward Said’s anti-Western rhetoric. While Arabs may lose battles and wars, they trust that Allah has greater plans and believe that divine support favors only those who take action and help themselves. Understanding Arab Muslim values would show just how foreign a victimhood mentality is to them—an insight the Democrats overlooked in this campaign.

Moreover, Democrats assumed that campaigning against Israel and waving Palestinian flags in Muslim areas would win them favor, especially compared to the pro-Israel stance of Trump. They were surprised when this tactic yielded little support. Some might argue it’s due to cultural factors, like reluctance to support a woman leader like Kamala Harris. But I believe the issue runs deeper: Democrats are stuck in the past. The Middle East no longer revolves solely around Gaza or Palestine. People desire peace, yet they understand that entrenched issues like the Palestinian conflict require tangible solutions, not idealistic gestures.

Trump’s Abraham Accords and normalization efforts with Israel have demonstrated that diplomatic solutions are achievable when there is a shared commitment to countering Iran’s network of terrorist proxies and respecting the sovereignty of Middle Eastern nation-states. This approach suggests that a “solution” to longstanding regional conflicts doesn’t require endless struggle but, rather, practical, prosperity-driven initiatives that foster stability and growth across the Middle East—something Democrats fundamentally do not grasp.

Finally, I believe that Democrats rely on platforms that most people, not just Americans, no longer care about or have time for.

As I mentioned in my previous article “Terminally Online Elections,” everything is now happening on X. The typical Democratic analyst, still watching hours of TV daily and meticulously reading the traditional press, has lost touch with the cultural shifts reshaping public engagement around him, and most importantly, has politically excluded himself.

While I am among those who believe Trump doesn’t have a fixed ideology, I do believe he has a doctrine—a blueprint for winning that demonstrates how to capture victories in unexpected areas and win big. Unless Democrats fundamentally realign their policies to address tangible, realistic concerns, they will continue to fall short. No amount of demonizing Trump’s base will change that.

This is the New Order of Things.