Barrel Strength

Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Barrel Strength - Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

All Trump,all the time,,, part(7)

Our soi-disant conservative National Post is gloating in several places today that Trump may be on his way out after coming in second in Iowa.

I will refer our social and intellectual superiors to the Reuters rolling poll of candidates. Trump consistently polls around 38%, Cruz 14-15%, Rubio 12%.

It will do Trump good to absorb a loss. A little modesty might suit you better, Donald.

As to the National Post, we can only regret the loss of insight into what makes North Americans tick since Conrad sold it. The Post reveals that it has bought into the Republican establishment view which, in my opinion, is why the latter have lost several recent Presidential elections. The Republican candidate lacked the vital connection that would attract the average American to his cause. The Donald does not.

But we shall see.

All Trump, all the time,,,(part)6

It amuses me to read the clever and the wise gradually bring themselves around to the inevitability of Trump. Colby Cosh can usually be relied upon to be insightful, and less knee-jerk, than many Post commentators. This weekend he allowed himself the following on the subject of The Donald:

It’s a strange election season, all right. Scott Adams, best known as the creator of “Dilbert,” has carved out a niche on his weblog as the leading expositor of Trumpian strategy. Adams believes Trump is literally hypnotizing the American public, using an arcana of powerful persuasion methods. The cartoonist disavows any claim to support Trump per se, but he has remained bullish even as other commentators predicted disaster after every grandiose halfwittery or scornful bon (?) mot.

Adams’ Trump-as-Master-Persuader schtick is becoming tacitly influential, I think, among chastened journalists who thought Trump would crash months ago. When the revered psephologist Nate Silver did a dramatic U-turn last week and admitted that he had harmed his prophetic bona fides by underestimating Trump, one could not help thinking of it as a surrender — could not help envisioning the sudden cinematic crumbling of a mighty fortification built out of Excel spreadsheets and wishful thinking. Silver almost seemed … relieved.

First, Trump is not “literally” hypnotizing anyone, he is metaphorically hypnotizing.

Second, this is what Adams had to say in August 2015, now fully six months ago.

Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.

The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?

Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you.

And he describes them in the posting. Now take the example of Trump not retreating from anything he ever said, even when it was silly. This is from January 2015:

He does use hyperbole for effect, but the deeper explanation is simpler. It is Persuasion 101.

The first rule of persuasion is that you nudge the other person, but you NEVER let them nudge you. Let me repeat this word a few times: NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER.

That’s exactly how often a good persuader should admit a wrong: NEVER.

If you show a willingness to get nudged, you lose your power in the negotiation. Your opponent will try to nudge you from that point on, and you will be on defense. Once you get nudged, it never ends. A good persuader is always the nudger and NEVER the nudgee. You want to keep the opponent off-balance.

Have I said NEVER enough?

Probably not, because you might be thinking that anyone who fails to acknowledge a truth that is right in front of their nose is probably a narcissistic, mentally unstable liar who is just saying things for attention.

Like Trump.

In the 2D world, Trump appears to be all of those things. In the 3D world, where you NEVER want to let yourself be nudged, it is a sign of a Master Persuader.

What you see in the 2D world is Trump the egomaniac who “can’t admit when he is wrong!” What I see in the 3D world is the most disciplined persuader I have ever seen. Trump intentionally accepts the scorn of many as a cost of winning. And it works.

________________________________

On another note, I have been reading Jon Meacham’s excellent Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of George Herbert Walker Bush, Destiny and Power. The time was just after Bush had won the New Hampshire Republican primary in March 1988. President Bush the Elder turned to the question of who would be his Vice-President.

The New York developer Donald Trump mentioned his availability as a vice-presidential candidate to Lee Atwater. Bush thought the overture “strange and unbelievable”.

So The Donald has been angling for high office for 28 years, it would appear. He has found that the simplest way to get there is to be elected. “Strange and unbelievable” indeed.

Those who doubt Trump’s electoral chances need to refresh themselves in the history of the United States. Andrew Jackson came from the backwoods to overthrow the Federalist Party; Abraham Lincoln was the candidate of a political party formed scarcely four years before; Franklin Roosevelt overthrew the Republican dominance which set in after US civil war, and Nixon’s southern strategy enabled the Republicans to dominate US Presidencies until recently.

The United States is capable of huge political change, and I think we are seeing one before our eyes. Some people have trouble discerning a tsunami because it first appears that the ocean water is going out.

 

 

 

All Trump, all the time,,, part (5)

Heather McDonald, chief editor of City Magazine, has this to say about Trump, whom she calls the Coarsener-in-Chief:

 

Trump is the embodiment of what the Italians call “maleducato”—poorly raised, ill-bred. Indeed, judging by the results, his upbringing seems to have involved no check whatsoever on the crudest male instincts for aggression and humiliation. Trump is unfailingly personal in his attacks. Nor is his comportment merely a refusal to be politically correct. Trump was on solid ground when he responded to Fox News’s Megyn Kelly during the first Republican debate that he had no time for political correctness. A repudiation of political correctness means truth-telling, however. Trump’s personal sneers are not truth-telling but merely the self-indulgent gestures of someone who makes no effort to control his desire to humiliate.

Conservatives, of all people, should understand the preciousness and precariousness of manners. Boys in particular need to be civilized. That task will be more difficult with Trump in the White House. There is no reason to think that Trump will change his tone should he get elected; he shows no sign of a capacity for introspection and self-correction. Any parent trying to raise a boy to be respectful, courteous, and at least occasionally self-effacing will have a hard time doing so when our national leader is so reflexively impolite, just as it is harder to raise girls to be sexually prudent when they are surrounded by media role models promoting promiscuity. The culture has been coarsened enough already. It doesn’t need further degradation from a president.

I agree with the sentiments. What is the cost in social manners that a Trump presidency would exact against the cost in further degradation of the United States in most other dimensions: economic, political, and in foreign relations, that would follow from a victory by Hillary Clinton?

Concerns for the coarsening of culture are legitimate, but they have to take their place against a background where forces seek to destroy western culture entirely. McDonald’s criticism is of a type that a friend of mine calls “high Tory”, and it is a tone that comes easily to some of us who believe ourselves well brought up.

The counterargument, which attracts me maybe more than it should, is that we have reached the stage where someone has to be repudiate the political correctness that is strangling us, and rip up the giant telephone book-sized rules of comportment (the iron masks of political correctness) that are not allowing us to think flexibly and appropriately about the political menace of Islam, about fighting the global warming scam, about the malicious role played by the Left in ruining universities, and about the entitlement culture that demands special awards for natives, women, gays and whoever else composes the left’s mascot groups of the moment.

When I contemplate the insane rules the Trudeau government is imposing on pipelines in Canada, I grow more tolerant of someone who is ready to rip up the social agreement that makes it difficult for people in polite society to say that global warming is a pile of shit, or that Islam is insane, or any of the myriad social shibboleths about race, class, sex and culture that keep us headed down the road to social disintegration.

Patrick Buchanan and the rejection election

Patrick Buchanan observes that backers of Saunders, Trump, Cruz and Carson have something in common: they are fed up with the way things are in the United States, and they reject the official candidacies of Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and those approved by the Establishment. He writes:

This then is a rejection election. Half the nation appears to want the regime overthrown. And if spring brings the defeat of Sanders and the triumph of Trump, the fall will feature the angry outsider against the queen of the liberal establishment. This could be a third seminal election in a century.

In the depths of the Depression in 1932, a Republican Party that had given us 13 presidents since Lincoln in 1860, and only two Democrats, was crushed by FDR. From ’32 to ’64, Democrats won seven elections, with the GOP prevailing but twice, with Eisenhower. And from 1930 to 1980, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 46 of the 50 years.

The second seminal election was 1968, when the racial, social, cultural and political revolution of the 1960s, and Vietnam War, tore the Democratic Party asunder, bringing Richard Nixon to power. Seizing his opportunity, Nixon created a “New Majority” that would win four of five presidential elections from 1972 through 1988.

After examining why that electoral majority has fallen away, Buchanan observes:

Still, whether we have a President Clinton, Trump, Sanders or Cruz in 2017, America appears about to move in a radically new direction.

Foreign policy retrenchment seems at hand. With Trump and Sanders boasting of having opposed the Iraq war, and Cruz joining them in opposing nation-building schemes, Americans will not unite on any new large-scale military intervention. To lead a divided country into a new war is normally a recipe for political upheaval and party suicide.

Understandably, the interventionists and neocons at National Review, Commentary, and the Weekly Standard are fulminating against Trump. For many are the Beltway rice bowls in danger of being broken today.

Second, Republicans will either bring an end to mass migration, or the new millions coming in will bring an end to the presidential aspirations of the Republican Party.

Third, as Sanders has tabled the issue of income equality and wage stagnation, and Trump has identified the principal suspect—trade deals that enrich transnational companies at the cost of American prosperity, sovereignty and independence—we are almost surely at the end of this present era of globalization….

For the Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Carson voters, the status quo seems not only unacceptable, but intolerable. And if their candidates and causes do not prevail, they are probably not going to accept defeat stoically, and go quietly into that good night, but continue to disrupt the system until it responds.

Unlike previous elections in our time, save perhaps 1980, this appears to be something of a revolutionary moment.

We could be on the verge of a real leap into the dark.

The complete article is published at Vdare here. Well worth a longer reading.

All Trump, all the time,,, part (4)

Why the fight with the leading Republican conservative television network, Fox News? Because if Trump can set the terms with these guys and thereby with the forces that run the Republican Party establishment, Trump can set the terms with anybody.

What astonishes me (and disturbs me slightly) is that Trump is ripping up the political landscape inside the US.

Trump is transformative because he is aiming – I believe and in part observe – at the renegotiation of everything that besets America: political correctness, lack of suitable immigration controls, relationships with the USA’s trading partners, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and I suspect, Islam itself, and the tolerance which has been extended to it by Western political cultures and legal frameworks.

There is no monster he is not confronting, and people, especially America’s enemies, have every reason to be concerned.

Maybe the inclusion of tolerance of Islam on the list of things that needs to be renegotiated will seem a stretch to some. I sympathize with your doubts. Nevertheless the largest unspoken issue in Western political life these days is “what are we going to do with it?”.  Right now it sits in our constitutional structure and in our multi-cultural accommodationist framework as unassailable, even as jihadists seek to make our society unlivable, our freedoms nugatory, and our streets unsafe for non-Muslim women, and later for men.

We experience a totalitarian social ideology seeking to reform our lives in its intolerant image, and the people who come under police observation, and the harassment of human rights commissions, are those who draw attention to the problem, not the makers of the problem, or the inspiration for their deeds.

My fascination with Trump is that the guy is ripping up any rulebook that gets in his way, and he appears to be getting away with it, and to a degree we are breathing easier because someone, at last, seems to fighting the political decadence into which the United states has fallen.

Shenanigans around televized political debates are nothing new; I just finished reading of some that occurred when Ronald Reagan debated GHW Bush in New Hampshire back in 1979.

What distinguishes Trump is not so much his rudeness, which I deplore, as his ruthless determination not to accept terms that he considers disadvantageous. As Scott Adams observes, he is changing the game before he even enters the room to play it.

All Trump, all the time…part(3)

Wow, things are moving fast. I drew attention to the attack on Trump from National Review magazine and the Great Pundit of Pundits, Scott Adams’, analysis of it. In his Master Persuader theory, he added another layer at the BOTTOM of the pile, that of capitulation. That is, after Identity, Analogy, and Reason have all failed to convince, capitulation means throwing the empty gun at the monster. That was NR’s anti-Trump issue and their capitulation to Trump.

Now, NR produces another screed which is nothing but a dumpster full of insults for Trump fans and supporters. For example:

“…[T]he candidacy of Donald Trump is something that could not happen in a nation that could read.
This is the full flower of post-literate politics.
Thomas Aquinas cautioned against “homo unius libri,” a warning that would not get very far with the typical Trump voter stuck sniggering over “homo.” (They’d snigger over “snigger,” too, for similar reasons.)”
…blah, blah, blah.
John Nolte at Breitbart takes this to task admirably(National Review Goes Full-Snob). For me, I have not seen quite such a spiteful, arrogant and contemptible assault on voters from any political party from any source over many years. Further, it’s not the political left, for we expect it from them, it’s the GOP Establishment, the GOPe, doing it, showing their inner contempt for ordinary folk who actually do real work in this world. It really is the final proof that they have totally lost it. NR is now cat box liner. A sad end for a once influential magazine.
Allow me to pay homage to the Master Persuader theory by adding yet another layer at the BOTTOM of the list below capitulation—self-immolation. To illustrate this, the first rule when stuck in a hole is,…stop digging. Not content with “throwing the empty gun at the monster”, NR sets about furiously digging a deeper hole for its own grave, standing in the pit, and spontaneously self-combusting. And, may I add, to the cheers and applause of the onlookers.
One has to wonder what these folks in the GOPe have between their ears, because it sure ain’t brains. If they want to alienate a huge chunk of their base vote, they’re going the right way about it. If they want to win the White House, make an alliance with the most powerful asset, do not antagonize it. If they want voters to support their program do not tell them they are idiots. Lord have mercy, these folks have the political IQ of a sack of hammers.
There’s nothing special about me, I fit pretty clearly on the right wing of the Republican Party. But when I see the GOPe trashing the most dynamic candidate EVAH, I throw my hands up in despair. Whatever misgivings I have about The Donald, I’m even more in favor of him now, and I’m willing to bet that there are a lot of others like me.
Rebel Yell

Quotas for Oscars

There will be quotas of Oscar awards for black film makers and actors soon enough. The spread of identity politics is inevitable until some social convulsion repudiates them. So it is not surprizing that the Oscars are blamed – in this tail end of Obama-dom – for not having enough black (specifically Afro-American) nominees.

As Sir Ian McKellen noted, with irony, gay men do not get Oscars for portraying straight men, and Mark Reina, a self-proclaimed gay Latino member of Oscar-granting Academy got on his high horse about accusations of racism in the choice of Oscar contenders.
I suppose Reina has double the victim credibility as McKellen for being Latino and gay.

This will not end well, people. Once the media fasten on like lampreys to an equality of result issue – as this one is – there will be no way to settle it except by affirmative action for minorities. All minorities, that is, except white people. Be sure of that.

Best film for catering to  Afro-American self- victimization this year goes to – breathless pause – Straight outta Compton!!

Straight outta Compton, the invaluable Wikipedia informs us, concerns the rise of the rap music group NWA, or Niggers with Attitide, whose lyrics were accused of  glamorizing black on black violence.

Many critics feel that the album’s lyrics glamorize gang violence. The Washington Post writer David Mills wrote: “The hard-core street rappers defend their violent lyrics as a reflection of ‘reality.’ But for all the gunshots they mix into their music, rappers rarely try to dramatize that reality — a young man flat on the ground, a knot of lead in his chest, pleading as death slowly takes him in. It’s easier for them to imagine themselves pulling the trigger”. However, Wichita Eagle-Beacon editor Bud Norman noted that “They [N.W.A] don’t make it sound like much fun… They describe it with the same nonjudgmental resignation that a Kansan might use about a tornado.”[10]

To speak of young black men killing each other for sport or imagined offences against their dignity, as if these actions  were morally equivalent to damage from tornadoes, captures something gravely horrible about black American gang life: morons with pistols and no emotional control, coupled to savage instincts, killing each other for very little purpose.

Yessirree, Oscar committee, reform thyself, and put Straight Outta Compton on your Oscar list, ahead of ten other films of merit which did not make the list. This effort is one of the last gasps as the baneful Obama regime lives its last days.

The house divided, a “soft civil war”

An article on university life by Fred Siegel in City Journal says better than I can why things are going to hell. The article is a review of a book published 25 years ago by Arthur Schlesinger, an arch-Democrat courtier of the Kennedys, and a liberal academic of some repute. It was called “The disuniting of America: Reflections of a Multicultural Society”.  Schlesinger foresaw some of the issues raised by multiculturalism in universities, but could not possibly have seen how bad it has become since his time.

 

disuniting of America

I have excerpted the core of Siegel’s argument.

The connection between political correctness and the doctrine of multiculturalism is integral. PC proscribes open debate. Instead, in classic Communist fashion, it judges an argument on the basis of the interests it serves….

Collapsing standards in high schools and colleges reinforced one another. Ill-prepared college freshmen increasingly needed remedial assistance. They arrived at college equipped with the politically correct attitudes appropriate for what passed as “higher education” in the humanities and “social sciences.” They left with their attitudes reinforced. Likewise, academia increasingly marginalized or repelled students with less politically correct views….

As the faculty became increasingly uniform in its outlook, power passed to students, who were treated as precious consumers. At the same time, academic administrators, now outnumbering the faculty, aimed for a stress-free atmosphere on campus. Colleges across the country replaced their classes on American history with therapy sessions about diversity that demanded not just orthodox thinking but orthodox speaking and feeling as well….

Somehow, even as they have spent the last 30 years insisting on the fundamental differences between people, multiculturalists are surprised at the rise of a white nationalism that feeds into the support for Donald Trump. Trump replays the extremism of Obama. Trump and Obama have been drawn into a see-saw dynamic in which each plays off the excesses of the other. Trump speaks to the frustration and anger of people whose wages have stagnated as government bureaucracy has grown dramatically more intrusive. Trump is a peculiar spokesman for that honor-driven egalitarianism that Walter Russell Mead describes as “Jacksonian America.” “Our ruling class,” writes Angelo Codevilla, “has created ‘protected classes’ of Americans defined by race, sex, age, disability, origin, religion, and now homosexuality, (and perhaps Islam) whose members have privileges that outsiders do not. By so doing, they have shattered the principle of equality—the bedrock of the rule of law. Ruling class insiders use these officious classifications to harass their socio-political opponents.”

What rankles most among workaday white Americans is that, even as their incomes and life expectancies decline, and even as the protections promised in the Fourteenth Amendment are eviscerated in favor of new minority carve-outs, they’re accused of benefitting from “white privilege.”…

Trump is both a reaction to and expression of liberal delusions. Schlesinger’s fears have largely come to pass; we’ve become what he called a “quarrelsome spatter of enclaves.” Schlesinger was too much a part of the elite to imagine that the class he always thought of as representing the best of the future would come to be despised by a broad swath of Americans for its incompetence and ineffectuality. But what Schlesinger saw on the horizon seems to have arrived, with no sign of abating: we are in the midst of a soft civil war.

 

The National Review attacks Trump

This morning I read the National Review’s attack on Trump. It would have been devastating, had I cared for Conservatism Inc.’s views on the matter.

 

Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

Maybe.

We need more fencing at the border, but the promise to make Mexico pay for it is silly bluster

Yes, probably.

As for illegal immigration, Trump pledges to deport the 11 million illegals here in the United States, a herculean administrative and logistical task beyond the capacity of the federal government.

Yes, it is impossible, but can you get  80%? The first 20%? Can the US at least enforce its current laws on immigration, as Obama conspicuously refuses to do? Very likely? Can you slowly begin to change the direction of the ship of state? Absolutely.

Indeed, Trump’s politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled.

The problem that Trump poses for the Republican intelligentsia is that of a man who seems disinclined to listen to their professional soothsaying. He does not care for them and they do not care for him.

Worse, I think, than any of Trump’s anti immigration stances is his complete rejection of the free-trade orthodoxy of the past forty years. This orthodoxy has held that America is best off when it can get China and Japan to make its goods, and as the States has not enough to pay for the imbalance of trade, the US can sell them Treasury Bills (debt) in exchange. Thus, as Trump points out, the Asian powers take American jobs, we get their consumer goods, US factories shut down and move out, and the American working class is left in a crisis of despondency, which is reducing their lifespans in somewhat the same way that Russian men are dying earlier. Labour force participation is also dropping as more and more people find they can get by on disability pensions.

If it had been any other ethnic group than whites, the recent news that there is a huge die-off of the American working class male would have been declared a national crisis. But in a world where Black Lives Matter, white lives do not – or so it appears.

All this is well described in Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, the State of White America, 1960-2010, which should be  reading for anyone reading Barrelstrength, and for opinion writing in the National Review.

The proposition advanced by white nationalists like Pat Buchanan is that you cannot really have the United States without a significant, probably majority, core of white people; that the United States is a nation, not just an assemblage of factories and suburbs, tied together by laws, and that the policies of free trade and mass immigration as well as a host of other policies which are anti-white, anti-productivity, and against social order,  are threatening the social core that makes the United States work, as a society, as a nation, as the great experiment in republican government that it is.

We have wandered far from Trump into the basic issues that are confronting the United States, and in many cases they are racial, in the sense not of black versus everyone else, or white versus everyone else, but what is the United States going to be in fifty years? Will it persist in any recognizable form?

The questions that lie below the level of free trade and walls against Mexico, and the objections of the Republican intellectual class, derive from basic anxieties about the fate of the country that cannot be discussed in polite company, but which everyone knows are the real issues.

Here is where Trump is generating support, and it goes far deeper than trade policy and immigration. He is acting as the icebreaker for the rest of us, plowing through the frozen seas of Marxist thought control known as political correctness, shattering one shibboleth after another. The effect is to free up society to have the discussions which are prevented by the iron masks to which people have submitted, or which have been placed upon their heads, by the actions of left-wing intelligentsia trying to make society “safe” from white people and their attitudes and beliefs.

When Chinese dynasties changed they had a period called “the rectification of names”, when all the politically correct labels were replaced and people could go back to calling things by their real or habitual names again. Inevitably the new dynasty would create its own set of prohibited terms and changed expressions. For a brief few years, people could talk freely.

We have not been able to talk freely for fifty years about race, religion, class, sex, or any of the important issues of life. The promise of Trump is that for a little while, maybe even longer, it will be possible to talk about what most people think are the real issues, not those chosen for us by the increasingly fatuous National Review.

________________________________________

Post script: Rush Limbaugh said the same yesterday.

LIMBAUGH: It’s something really simple . . . They’re fed up with the modern day Democratic Party . . . The Republican Party establishment does not understand this. They do not know who their conservative voters are. They’ve over-estimated their conservatism . . . They’re not liberals. They’re not Democrat. Many of them do not want to be thought of as conservatives for a host of reasons. So somebody who comes along and is able to convey that he or she understands why they’re angry and furthermore, is going to do everything to fix it, is going to own them. What’s happening here is that ‘nationalism’–dirty word, ooh people hate it–and ‘populism’–even dirtier word. Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.

Life is about life, which is biological and inherently racial, tribal or national (depending on the scale of aggregation you consider). It is not essentially about markets, trade, or technical innovation, though we hold these to be naturally good things. When the underlying anxieties of people start to concern themselves with the question”will we exist in 50 years?”, then the kind of anti-white racialist talk and action which is tolerated by the official conservatives and encouraged by the Left start to become the issue. Thus to discuss Trump is often to discuss issues that the post-World War 2 consensus had banished, and wished would go away, but will not.

And this is what has official conservatism concerned. The topics of which they are masters have been declared irrelevant, and no one gives a damn for their views. National Review could banish the brilliant British mathematician John Derbyshire from its pages for his frank discussion of what white people must do to be safe against black criminality, but National Review cannot banish the issue he raised or the anxieties Americans experience for their continued existence.

 

Trump scares the Davos crowd

I guess that Trump has the minimum amount of money these days to buy himself complete political independence. That is what scares the rulers of the earth today, who are congregated in Davos, Switzerland, busy networking with the latest chattering class memes. Goldman Sachs does not own him. He can run a Presidential campaign out of his own pocket.

This alarms our invisible government.

The prospect of Trump in the White House is ratcheting up anxiety among the 2,500 business and political leaders gathered at the Swiss ski resort for the annual World Economic Forum. With less than two weeks before voting in primaries gets under way and Trump in the Republican Party lead, those who fear a rise in protectionism and economic mismanagement are speaking out against the billionaire property developer.

“Unfortunately I do think that if there were to be a Trump administration the casualty would likely be trade,” said Eric Cantor, a former Republican House Majority Leader and now vice chairman of Moelis & Company. “That’s a very serious prospect for the world.”

Be afraid, elites, be very afraid.

The presidential race shows that the U.S. is not immune to the wave of populism sweeping the globe. In the U.S. case, the economy has recovered faster than other developed nations from the global slump of 2008 and 2009, and yet wages haven’t kept pace with a rebound in corporate profits. That’s helping candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders who say the system is rigged against average Americans.

I recall that great patriot, public servant and war hero, George Herbert Walker Bush, being defeated after one term by a hillbilly genius called Bill Clinton because Bush was thought to be out of touch with Americans in an ordinary economic downturn. Here we are, in an eviscerated economy, and a President playing golf more than he is at the office, and a Democrat representative of the billionaire class trying to succeed a Democrat representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. How likely to you think Hillary is to be the next American President?