My interpretation: the right is broadly successful because they are presenting a compelling narrative to explain the problems in America. It’s “elites” in business, government (deep state), and schools that are pushing an unamerican agenda of “wokeness”, using immigrants to gain power, and indoctrinating through schools and universities. This is enough to get people to vote right because at least the right is doing something to address their concerns.
What the Democrats need to do, is present a more compelling narrative. They can’t just be the “non-maga” party. They have to actually address people’s concerns about economic insecurity and present a vision for the future. I remain convinced that the first president that runs on economic populism will sweep an election.
I’m not sure how serious your comment is but anyway…what you’re describing is a decades-long reorientation of military doctrine and procurement strategy. Getting a different multi-role fighter is already a huge expense with lots of ramifications but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Edit: IMO, if you really wanted to alter air force strategy to deter the US, you should look to Sweden and Finland who have been facing an asymmetric threat for decades. Aquire the Gripen, train with the Swedes in how to run and operate a distributed air force of small independent units capable of generating and performing missions from random roads in the woods.