Books, Politics, recent, Review

Timely Return to Battle for a Veteran of the Culture Wars

A review of The Case For Trump by Victor Davis Hanson. Basic Books, Hard Cover (March 2019).

“I too grew up, and still live, outside a small town in California’s Central Valley,” Victor Davis Hanson writes, in his new book The Case For Trump. “For a century (1880–1980) it was a prosperous multiethnic and multiracial community of working- and middle-class families. By 2010, high unemployment was chronic, drug addiction was endemic, crime commonplace. In 1970, we did not have keys for our outside doors; in 2018, I have six guard dogs.”

Hanson remains one of the rare prominent writers and theorists to throw his intellectual weight behind the new conservatism that is taking shape across the Anglosphere and broader West since the twin victories of Brexit and Trump in 2016. While there have been recent attempts from both conservative (Legutko, Hazony, Mearsheimer) and liberal(ish) perspectives (Deneen, Goodwin and Eatwell, Walt) to explain what went wrong, Hanson’s latest refers more specifically to the social conditions in the United States. It is also very different from the works of scholarship he is known for. Hanson is one of the world’s pre-eminent scholars of classics and military strategy, and his last book, The Second World Wars (2018), which I reviewed for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, remains peerless in its thematic analysis of history’s most devastating conflict to date. But his new book addresses a distinctly modern phenomenon, namely the rise of Donald Trump. Its misleading name notwithstanding, the majority of the book focusses on the social forces behind Trump’s first success rather than making the case for his re-election.

Hanson suggests that these social forces are nothing new. “Middle-class populism—less government, doubt over overseas military commitments, fears of redistribution and globalization, and distrust of cultural elites—was as old as the Athenian landed revolutionaries of 411 BC,” he writes. But what changed is the spread of this populism to the working class, something the Left, with its urban bubbles and intersectional dogmas, failed to foresee. “In the 1990s, an array of issues such as the post-industrial and global economy, illegal immigration, and the Democratic monopolies of big-city mayorships split the country apart along new regional lines,” Hanson writes, indicating that it all started during Bill Clinton’s presidency. “[The Democrats] were content to let the labor market, not existing law, adjudicate border crossings. Prior and rather pathetic Republican efforts to go soft on immigration were predicated on outdated stereotypes about ‘family values.’ Spanish-speaking immigrants from Mexico and Latin America, if amnestied, supposedly would vote as if they were third-generation middle-class Cuban Republicans, even as open borders allowed hundreds of thousands of new arrivals to enter the United States illegally from Mexico and Central America.”

Immigration is the key theme in Hanson’s book—the word itself appears well over a hundred times. Hanson points out that immigration was not always a right-wing concern. In fact, it has traditionally been a section of the capitalist Right which has espoused labor mobility and the Left was usually opposed to it. “Even Barack Obama, an old laborite community activist, as late as 2008 had campaigned on enforcing immigration law,” he writes. “During his first four years as president, Obama had reiterated (twenty-two times, to be exact) to mostly Latino pressure groups why he could not provide them with blanket amnesties and open borders: ‘I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.’” Indeed, Obama’s own words on immigration—“Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they’ll get sent back”—were indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton’s: “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.” Bernie Sanders was castigated by the liberal left for saying that open borders are a Koch brothers’ plan (nonsense, obviously), which places him at odds with some of the other Democratic Presidential hopefuls who say they want to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and tear down existing borders. The Right, by contrast, has turned Laschian. The phrase “illegal alien” has become “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant” has become “undocumented migrant.”

President-elect Donald Trump speaks, December 9, 2016 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Photo: vnews.tv / Shutterstock

However, Obama failed to end illegal immigration. “I will secure the borders first, and I will have the border states’ governors certify that those borders are secured,” he promised during his 2008 campaign. That didn’t happen, and neither did many of the other “tough” measures he proposed. The backlash to those broken promises forms the core of this book. Hanson sums up:

[The Democrats’] free-market dogmas offered answers to far wider social and cultural questions, from immigration and the role of government to education and defense. Summed up brutally, it meant that for the market to enrich society, champion the individual, and protect liberty, there would have to be short term winners and losers—players who were constantly engaged in a cauldron of modification, rejection, and adaptation of their very lives. Nothing was static; nothing sacred.

This is the cause of the Right turning against the Republican establishment, according to Hanson. Because, traditionally, conservatism isn’t about the market, but about prudence, restraint, and realism, the erosion of nationalistic conservatism by neoliberals pretending to be conservative deserved a backlash. “If preserving the linchpin steel mill of the community meant 10 cents more in the price of steel per pound over competing South Korean imports, then such an iconic plant needed to rust away,” he writes. The masses didn’t want that. And they rebelled. In the most ironic twist, it was the conservatives who were the radicals in 2016 and the erstwhile sixties radicals who were trying to preserve the market’s dominance. As conservatives in the Anglosphere looked back to Teddy Roosevelt, liberals and leftists had more in common with the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard. As is generally the case, the masses do not care about the messenger as long as the message is what they want to hear. “The Trump base had no such moral dilemmas over Trump the messenger as did the Never Trumpers,” writes Hanson. “As we have seen, they believed that no other Republican or Democratic candidate could have been trusted to address illegal immigration, deindustrialization, and globalization, and to adopt pro-jobs economic and Jacksonian foreign policies. They could not have cared less that Trump…had a sordid dalliance with Stormy Daniels a decade earlier.” Trump in this respect is a tragic hero, according to Hanson, uniquely unsuited and unprepared for the role that destiny has bestowed on him.

The book is far from perfect. I looked for some nuance in the immigration segment and found none. While Hanson is good in setting out the causes of Trump’s victory, he falls short when it comes to making recommendations for the future. He doesn’t take into account the difference between Cuban-Americans, who are staunchly Republican, pro-free market, and socially conservative, and Mexican-Americans, who are mostly leftist. Hanson also doesn’t address the low caliber of black and minority ethnic Republic politicians. Ilhan Omar and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are both Somalian refugees, and it is the ultimate failure of Republicans to not find someone of Hirsi Ali’s intellectual weight to counter Omar. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat congresswoman, proudly proclaims herself to be a Palestinian. Why hasn’t an ethnic minority Republican of a similar stature challenged the narcissistic liberal individualism which has led to the rise of Islamist terrorism in Europe and the U.S., which attracts jaded second-generation children who don’t feel any loyalty to the land beneath their feet? Why aren’t there more black Republicans willing to make the case for nationalism as a counterweight to sectarianism? It’s not as if there is a shortage of success stories. For every MS-13 gang member, or ISIS wannabe, there are thousands of individuals like Maria Rivas, who made America their home and are potential allies in the patriotic cause.

Maybe Hanson could focus on this in his next book. Nevertheless, this book is a necessary corrective to the center-right, neo-liberal dogma of the last quarter century. To crudely paraphrase David Frum, if liberals and conservatives do not take control of mass immigration, the public will elect authoritarians to do the job because the job needs to be done. At the time of writing, the states along the southern border are overwhelmed, with over 75,000 migrants crossing the border in one month alone. That’s the population of a medium-sized town. Hanson is an old warrior, who has repeatedly written about the corruption of institutions and has been at the forefront of the culture wars, and he is a fine scholar. This is a timely warning that conservatives who ignore the laws of nature in favor of the laws of the market are doomed to electoral oblivion.

 

Sumantra Maitra is a Ph.D. candidate in great power politics and neo-realism, with a special focus on Russia, at the University of Nottingham. Follow him on Twitter @MrMaitra

Feature photo by Olga Steckel / Shutterstock.

119 Comments

  1. Anonymous says

    You cannot wage a sustained ideological assault on your own civilization without grave consequences. We are approaching the end of the Anglo-American moment, and the eclipse of the powers that built the modern world…Cecil Rhodes..said that to be born a British subject was to win first prize in the lottery of life. One the eve of the Great Ward, in his play “Heartbreak House”, Bernard Shaw turned the thought around to taunt a ruling class too smug and self-absorbed to see what was coming. “Do you think,” he wrote, “the laws of God will be suspended in favor of England because you were born in it?…. [After America by Mark Steyn]

    I think it is far too late to convince the cognoscenti of their folly. I love this quote from Mark Steyn’s book After America where he gives the reader pause to question when an upper class so deluded in itself will walk its nation off the precipice.

    • Saw file says

      @ Anonymous
      I too was reminded of Mark Steyn’s writing’s.
      Not familiar with Cecil Rhode’s (other than historically) writing though. I’ll check further, TY.
      I came to know Steyn from his CDN ‘hate speech’ exoneration. Followed him ever since.
      Some I don’t agree with, mostly do…

    • The question with immigration is not whether it is beneficial or not for out economy, but rather why should America wish to turn our former monoculture jnto a multiculture?
      I adored America when she was 90% white; now, nausea is my default posture.

    • Money is not nearly as important as genetics. I loved America when she was 90% white. Would I go to war for an America that is less than 50% white. Never.

      • Jim Matlock says

        Be careful there, Albert. There may be other reasons that will compel you to fight for our common piece of dirt. If you ever have to wind up doing so, you’ll be surprised at who’s standing next to you, but why they’re there probably won’t surprise you at all.

  2. Hanson is an observer, not necessarily a prophet. His book, “Mexifornia” predicted the future of California but had no solution. Cecil Rhodes, by the way, had a good hand in the destruction of Britain by his support for the Jameson Raid and the Boer War, which led eventually to the First World War.

    • Erica from the West Village says

      He can offer no solutions because Democrats own California lock, stock and barrel. Like those of us who’ve migrated to the suburbs (legally, I might add), it’s the Left that has taken this radical approach that discipline in schools is racist; police enforcing the laws of the people racist; and the landlords renting property to people who pay rent as slumlords.

      This populist fervor that drove the Occupy Wall Street protests has manifested itself in the anarchy movement and the AltLeft that is the base of the Democrat Party today.

      Even Tom Perez (head of the DNC) said it. AOC is the new face of the Democrat Party.

      Radicals beget radicals. Those of us with good ideas are told to step back and shut up…so we move to the suburbs where 90% of our kids have 2 parent families and 90% of our kids to to 4 year colleges, taught in high schools where 95% of the kids have no behavioral problems.

      Go to the Democrat controlled inner city and you’re lucky to get 50% graduation rates; lucky to get a kid arriving at school who’s already eaten breakfast; damned lucky to get a kid who has completed their homework; and incredibly lucky if that same kid has two parents.

      Fact of the matter is..if a kid has two parents in his/her home…there is NO difference in educational achievement between races and income levels.

      It’s a cultural issue that Democrats can’t control…can’t manage..can’t judge…but can weaponize..particularly on election day.

      If it were me in charge, I would offer anyone living in the urban core of our largest cities a free one way UHaul, gas money and 1st/last month’s rent to relocate to another city where the jobs are available and opportunity is more abundant.

      Propose that in a big city today, and white liberal politicians will declare you a racist for wanting to steal the voters in that district.

      Which..at the end of the day…is what this is all about.

      Power & money. Money and Power.

      • gda53 says

        “Fact of the matter is..if a kid has two parents in his/her home…there is NO difference in educational achievement between races and income levels.”

        Oh dear, one can only hope this was sarcasm. Otherwise……..how will we win, when even those ostensibly on our side remain blind to the brutal truth, and continue to promulgate silly falsehoods.

        A thunderous YES to the importance of two parents in the home, but……..

        • Craig Willms says

          @gda53

          perhaps statistically the two parent claim is a bit off, but Erica is absolutely right… No one can deny based on easily seen evidence that the purposeful destruction of the family unit for the last 40 years has gotten us to this point.

          • a bee ee? says

            Let’s just say it’s a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

      • NickG says

        Fact of the matter is..if a kid has two parents in his/her home…there is NO difference in educational achievement between races and income levels.

        It’s a cultural issue that Democrats can’t control…can’t manage..can’t judge…but can weaponize..particularly on election day.<

        Likely a genetic confound, you’d have to control for heritability to be assert convincingly that ‘it’s a cultural issue.

  3. E. Olson says

    “…if liberals and conservatives do not take control of mass immigration, the public will elect authoritarians to do the job because the job needs to be done.”

    It doesn’t require an authoritarian to do what the majority want and simply enforce the current immigration laws. If someone is here illegally – back they go. If someone is not arriving directly from an active war zone, they have no right to refugee status – and back they go. If they bring/send a kid, back they all go. Even legal immigrants who commit crimes need to be sent back. Only when the border is permanently under control can the nation have a real discussion about who and how many people they want to let in.

    It would also be useful to send the IRS and FBI after the real criminals – the NGOs and drug gangs that actively fund, recruit, and organize the caravans of illegals who are crashing the borders. NGO have to be breaking many immigration laws and certainly deserve to lose their non-profit status as the very least.

    • E. I just watched Seattle is Dying and there’s a weird parallel between the lawlessness there (and the fed-upedness of the locals) and America at large. If one believes in changing the law, that’s one thing. But the idea that laws are meaningless, or apply to some and not all, is very dangerous. It’s a one way ticket to nihilism.

      • E. Olson says

        BC – I recently saw it also – very depressing. High taxes to pay for well paid cops who are told by “woke” city leaders to NOT do their jobs and enforce the laws.

        • Ray Andrews says

          @E. Olson

          But although being over-paid public employees with gold plated pensions, note that those cops would rather earn their pay and enforce the laws but they’re not allowed to. So they’re only half bad.

          “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” So those folks are just going to have to die, and do it out of sight, please. That’s disgusting, them dying on the sidewalk like that. Sensible, decent folks would advocate for a fast and hygienic way of disposing of surplus people once they become indigent.

          Remembering that I promised K to stop being sarcastic:

          Seriously tho, that documentary pointed out that virtually all of the street people are drug addicts, but whereas the righties will say that homelessness follows drug addiction, the leftie will say that drug addiction follows homlessness, and I’ll say that the truth is a bit of both. What’s that statistic?: Half the country couldn’t meet a $500 emergency expense? Your car breaks down, you don’t have the money to fix it, so you loose your job and then your residence. You live in the car for a while but after a few weeks you look and smell so bad that no one will hire you anyway. Eventually the car gets towed away. Now what? Well, for $10 you can at least enjoy a little bit of oblivion. And in their Compassion the Seattle authorities will give you free socks and a sleeping bag. Seems they spend $100,000 per homeless person per annum. Sheesh, I’d like to head down there and just ask for the cash up front, please.

          • Shamrock says

            “Seems they spend $100,000 per homeless person per annum. ”

            I’d love to see the breakdown of those expenses. I’d be surprised if even half of it was actually spent on the homeless rather than generous contracts to well connected corporations/ngos’s and large non-front line, useless bureaucrat salaries.

          • Peter from Oz says

            Ray
            Australia doesn’t have this problem. Yes there is homelessness, but it is within the bounds of reason. Australia’s economy is just about the same as that of the US. It’s culture is slightly different, but it has many similarities.
            I think the difference might be that our city governments don’t have any power over such things. The police and welfare services are provided by the State Government and the Federal Government respectivley. Further, Australia doesn’t have so many what I call ”pixieland lefties” who seem to be hellbent on denying reality and would rather see their neighbourhoods turn into ghastly ghettos of filth and crime just to prove that the homeless are all misunderstood saints.

          • E. Olson says

            Ray – the video certainly showed the cops were frustrated by not being able to do their jobs, and I believe it. I also don’t begrudge government employees for accepting their gold plated compensation packages. The blame belongs entirely to Lefty government officials that negotiate these crazy unsustainable packages, and then tell their expensive cops to watch crime rather than stop it.

            As for the causes of drug addiction – hopelessness certainly has something to do with it, and welfare dependency and the constant social justice refrain from kindergarten on that males are bad, white males are worse, and while male heterosexuals are worst doesn’t give the down and out much hope for the future. The documentary doesn’t mention it, but the fact is most of the addicts in Seattle are not local, but come from all over the country because they know they won’t be hassled by the cops, they get lots of free stuff (including needles), and the weather is tolerable.

          • E. Olson says

            Shamrock – you hit the nail on the head. Governments and most NGOs never want to solve a problem, they want to permanently administrate it from nice offices with nice salaries, generous pensions, and frequent travel to conferences with the never-ending problems are discussed with other well-paid “professionals”. And after all those administrative costs there isn’t much left to actually spend on addressing the problem, which of course means they need more money and more personnel and more travel…

            If they really wanted the drug problem to go away, they would just need to give each junkie $10K which would immediately go up their nose or in their veins and cause quick and painless death and the demand for drugs disappears. Then send the cops after all the drug dealers and convict them of murder, and the supply problem also disappears.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Shamrock

            “I’d be surprised if even half of it was actually spent on the homeless”

            I’d be surprised if 10% of it actually was spent on the homeless. In the minds of the bureaucrats, what the poor need is more bureaucrats and that’s what they get. Jesus, it makes my hair catch fire. They could give $5000 per homeless person to the Sally Ann and get results but no. Starting to steam here … they manage to achieve the worst of all possible outcomes. The city dies in filth and the homeless, both working poor who simply can’t afford the rent and those addled on drugs, tho they may be multiplying in numbers, aren’t exactly living the high-life either, are they?

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Peter from Oz

            “Yes there is homelessness, but it is within the bounds of reason.”

            We’re about half way between you guys and the Yanks. Nice to check and compare tho, isn’t it? We can learn from each other’s successes and failures. That is, presuming our bureaucrats are capable of learning which seems not to happen very often. Canada is showing signs of the Trumpist disease, that is, we’re starting to get desperate for some relief. Our Tories are still more or less sane tho, but if they don’t deliver, then some demagogue could show up here too. Mind, Canada could never spawn a Trump, we just don’t do things like that.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @E. Olson

            Sorry if this post shows up anywhere, ‘Reply’ buttons are sometimes hard to find. Why is that Claire?

            “and welfare dependency and the constant social justice refrain”

            The strange thing is that a completely agree with you, but I think it does not have to be so. We do not have to choose between AOC’s Victim – socialism and Ayn Rand. Within living memory FDR’s ‘socialism’ was not designed to be a lifetime of idleness at public expense. Building the Hoover Dam was not a hippie’s idyll. They say that the rock scalers didn’t even have hard hats. If your head got caved in by a rock, that was too damn bad.

            “The documentary doesn’t mention it, but the fact is most of the addicts in Seattle are not local, but come from all over the country”

            I’d like to see some statistics on that, but I don’t deny it’s entirely possible. But as always my sympathies are with the working poor far more than with the drug vermin.

      • The movie was disturbing enough, depicting the ruin, the pain and suffering, the human toil and justified outrage at the city’s incompetence but the civic elites’ response was far worse. They hired a PR firm and launched a coordinated misinformation campaign reframing the issues, pressuring critics with faulty statistics, disingenuous conclusions and shame. A case study in “idea laundering.”

        http://bit.ly/2IS8Pdk

        • E. Olson says

          Thanks for the link CJ – the Left can’t handle the truth so they need to create their own truth.

    • Diana Ayala says

      E. Olson, I work in the NGO sector. They definitely are.

      • E. Olson says

        DA – Thanks for the confirmation – now I wish another type of DA would run with the information and do something about it in court.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @E. Olson

        ” never want to solve a problem, they want to permanently administrate it”

        Yup. I’d like to dump the entire situation into the lap of Mother Theresa’s outfit, they actually do give a damn.

        “give each junkie $10K which would immediately go up their nose or in their veins and cause quick and painless death and the demand for drugs disappears”

        No, because following my little story above, there will be a steady rain of new homeless hitting the streets all the time. It’s true that your solution comes close to my suggestion that a quick and hygienic way of removing economically useless people be found. We’d not want to spend money (tax money) trying to give them a second chance, or God forbid some chance at living in an economy where even the unskilled or less brainy might still lead a decent life. That would be socialism and before you can say ‘collateralized debt obligation’ Seattle would be a suburb of Havana.

        Sorry, sarcasm again.

        Yet there is only so much you can do sometimes. What we do with our junkies up here in Vancouver is Seattle lite. We give them safe injection facilities and bureaucrats to love them and encourage them to enter rehab … except that there’s a multi-year waiting list for rehab, and even then, they still live in town, where smack is of course freely available and recovery is about as likely as asking an alcoholic to clean up while owning a liquor store. Rites. The junkies have Rites and they have Dignity.

        So, it has to be like they do in Rhode Island. Lock them up, hose them off, clean them up, teach them to read (this is no longer done in schools) give them a trade, and wish them luck. Relapse: try one more time. 2nd relapse: like you said. Or maybe haul them before a guy known colloquially as The Grim Reaper, who offers you a box full of syringes full of the finest heroin, or asks you to sign a paper to the effect that you are now an incompetent ward of the state, who will be day-cared for the rest of your life. Mind, you’ll still have to earn your keep. Stringing beads for the ladies, chain-gang work for the men. Yes, chain-gang. But with opportunities for improvement always there. You decide your own future at all times. We can offer you redemption, but we can’t force you to take it. That’s Ray’s version of tough love.

        • E. Olson says

          Ray – I’m not against attempts at rehab, but most rehab programs have a medium term success rate of less than 10% (and “success stories” are always the people interviewed in the documentaries), and that is with clientele that actually want to get clean.

          As for your request for documentation on the geographic sources of Seattle druggies here it is:

          https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness

          • Shamrock says

            E
            Unfortunately, you’re right about the low success rate of rehab. One big reason for the failure is that after getting someone clean, they often go back to the same environment where they were a junkie and hang out with the same addicts as they did prior to rehab.
            I watched a program a few years ago about why rehab didn’t work very well. They interviewed a dealer and he said when he sees a clean addict come out of rehab, he offers them some free drugs to get them started again.
            One of the best ways to keep them off drugs after rehab is to move them to a new environment. But where would they go?

          • Ray Andrews says

            @E. Olson

            Thanks. That was a bit ideological, but I take the statistics as given. So about half are immigrants. As to rehab, yes, but as I mentioned, they way they do it here would seem to be designed to fail and I honestly think it is. Tough love is the only love that is going to work. You know, these idiots in Seattle truly have managed to create the worst of all possible worlds — a decaying city, rising taxes, and negative results as far as doing anything for the poor and/or addicted. And I don’t mean nil results I mean negative results. The more they fix it, the worse it gets. Not my idea of ‘socialism’.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @ Shamrock

            “But where would they go?”

            To the institution for the incompetent. Really. There are folks who cannot manage their lives. We can do what we do now, which costs a fortune and works for nobody except the bureaucrats, we can do what Ayn Rand would suggest and let them starve, or, for far less than the $100,000 per head paid now, institutionalize these people. The almost competent might just have a subsidized room in the outermost circle. The next ring in, feeds you too, and probably provides you with work to do, but you’re free to wander around town. By the time you get down to the 7th circle, the inmates are treated about the same as at an institution for the severely mentally handicapped. Folks would move down as needed and up as they showed ability. You are ‘sentenced’ to the institution, but this is for folks who are not so much criminals as they are simply incompetent and probably not very bright, either.

          • Shamrock says

            Ray
            This is in response to your comment “To the institution for the incompetent”. With a lack of reply button I can’t be sure where it’ll get posted.

            The institute for the incompetent sounds like the Seattle Council Chambers.

            But on a serious note, your idea makes sense. There will of course be resistance from those making good money from the current crisis. Hopefully someone will have the strength of character and political savvy to make it happen.

  4. Hestia says

    Too bad the author did not interview Candace Owens, and did not address the Blexit movement.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Shamrock

      “The institute for the incompetent sounds like the Seattle Council Chambers.”

      Laugh out loud. Well yes, but that’s not what I had in mind.

      But seriously. We institutionalize criminals and the insane, why not the simply incompetent? Some of them don’t need very much help. Some criminals are only such because it’s the only way they can get money and given a bit of support they might be quite honest. I had an uncle like that. Nice fella, but he was only at home in prison so he kept breaking the law to get back to his cell. I suspect some up-front support for such people would end up being far cheaper than what we do now. If people can’t keep off drugs, keep them off drugs. No one rides for free of course, if they can’t find work then work will find them.

      • Turd Ferguson says

        Yes let’s hand more power over to the government to imprison people for the crime of being incompetent. Seems reasonable what could go wrong.

  5. Lightning Rose says

    Good review. I do feel, though, that the “elites” who write books frequently miss the forest for the trees when it comes to people’s motivations that made them vote for Trump:

    (1) The economy under Bush & Obama was not providing growth for about 90% of the people.

    (2) The people are fed up with (their) blood and treasure prolonging endless, pointless wars.

    (3) WTF is happening to our culture? Elite bastions promoting/normalizing debased social mores.

    (4) “Diversity” turning large swathes of US into “shitholes” resembling 3rd World (NY, SF).

    (5) Anarchist breakdown of law and order, including southern border and constraints on police.

    (6) Over-regulation that made expansion of business, energy or agriculture all but impossible.

    Bernie came off as a Bolshevik nut job. With Hillary, we knew we’d be getting a 3rd Obama term, and more antics like “apology tours” and pallets of cash to placate our enemies. Along with anti-Semitism and pushing the Globalist agenda of making the US a depleted branch of the EU.

    Compared to THAT, how bad could DJT be, really? His unapologetic trolling and refusal to kiss all the sacred cows’ asses was a breath of fresh air to many of us. The guy is actually entertaining (remember Mitt?) and gets away with saying out loud what we’d probably lose our jobs for, which is entertaining in and of itself. Choice of the shrill, shaming schoolmarm in the crappy pantsuit or the funny, unique class badass? Who’s more fun to get up to in the morning? 😉 With Trump, every morning is a new day in America. We’ve dropped the barriers to growth, we’re winding down the wars, we’re respected abroad again, plus, most of us are actually making more MONEY!

    • Erica from the West Village says

      Good points, but I think VDH gets to those issues in his book, not the review above.

      Truth is, Trump and Sanders are two peas on a pod.

      Granted, opposite ends of the pod, but residing in the same pod, nonetheless.

      Both are Populist Nationalist Independents, but Sanders adds in 1.5 cups of Socialism to his recipe while Trump adds in 2 cups of Capitalism in his recipe.

      Guess what? American working men and women don’t see themselves as the Proletariat like Sanders does. They just want a legit shot at achieving the American Dream like every other man, woman and child who is an American citizen.

      Sanders is sadly mistaken if he thinks these Populist working class types are his for the picking.

      Sanders is attracting the uber-wealthy white liberals (college graduates) and millennials who wouldn’t understand Socialism if they spent 5 years in Cuba and Venezuela.

      If Sanders is the D nominee….Trump wins 49-1.

    • Chad Latta says

      You’re worried about “debased social mores” so Trump is the answer? NY and SF resemble 3rd world shitholes? Trump is a badass?

      I understand the angst and the need to flip a big middle finger to the establishment. I also agree that Hillary was the Democrats worst option. However, trump is far from the antidote. He’s a spoiled bully, who’s narcissism and pathological lying corrodes everything he touches. We need a change, we need leadership, but the human temper tantrum isn’t the answer.

      • gda53 says

        Too much MSM in your diet it would appear. The TDS is showing.

        Trump is EXACTLY what was needed. No one else could have done what he has done.

        Do we need a steady permanent diet of Trumps? Heavens, no! But we will need at least 8 years, and we need to hope and pray that at the end of that 8 years there will be an adult in the room to take up the mantle.

        We HAVE to break the back of the intersectionality cult which has infected the “loyal opposition”, for the sake of all that is good and just. Until then they cannot be trusted with power.

      • Harland says

        San Francisco is actually you know, somewhere where people shitting on the street isn’t uncommon. This actually IS uncommon in middle America. That would literally make San Francisco an actual shithole. Just pointing that out for clarity.

        http://mochimachine.org/wasteland/

        http://www.kabc.com/2018/02/21/uc-berkley-professor-compares-streets-of-san-francisco-to-third-world-slums/

        Do you understand what anybody in their right mind could have seen in Trump? No! But maybe that’s why you lost.

      • Craig Willms says

        @Chad

        “I understand the angst and the need to flip a big middle finger to the establishment. I also agree that Hillary was the Democrats worst option.”

        So who’s it going to be? The cadre of one-up socialists on the Democratic side? Biden? Take away Trump’s abhorrent personal style and the equally abhorrent behavior of the media and opposition to him and look at the state of the country. It’s going well right now. A rising tide does lift all boats. Not that every thing is hunky dory, but it’s far better than it was 2 short years ago.

        We needed someone like Trump (just not Trump, right?) however, there is no one else that would flip the finger at the bureaucratic swamp and the elites for fear of the media etc etc. I wish someone less self obsessed would emerge to take this role – but I just don’t see anyone.

  6. Interesting. But I wouldn’t worry too much about the USA until untold millions of foreigners STOP wanting to get into it!

    • MrJD says

      In other words, don’t worry about it until it’s too late?

    • David of Kirkland says

      Isn’t the idea to get them to stop wanting to now, at least at a level that they ignore immigration laws and just come here illegally?

  7. MrJD says

    A) How are Republicans supposed to manufacture strong conservatives of the “appropriate” ethnicities, as this article requests?
    B) Why should the race of a speaker matter?

    I can call out Omar’s stupidity without having to be Somali. Suggesting otherwise is an appeal to awful identity politics.

  8. I’m sorry, but you can’t have any serious analysis of the “causes” of Trump’s election in 2016 without first acknowledging that he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and his victory was a function of an Electoral College that gave him a narrow path to victory due to the distribution of his votes. That’s more “gaming the system” than any sort of issues-based groundswell.

    In terms of the extent that immigration motivated the voters who did vote for him, that’s not terribly surprising since “build the wall” was the core feature of his campaign. That said, I don’t think you can underestimate the extent to which the election was a referendum on Hillary Clinton.

    It is entirely possible that Trump will be re-elected in 2020 while once again losing the popular vote. More than any specific set of issues, 2020 will likely mostly be a referendum on him. I could be wrong, and I think it depends on who wins the Democratic nomination.

    As for why the GOP can’t seem to consistently attract high-quality non-white politicians? Well… that’s kind of hard to do when you’re increasingly the party of white grievance.

    • It is irrelevant to talk about the popular vote, just as it is irrelevant to talk about hockey rules in a game of football. That’s not how elections happen in the United States, regardless of how many times that complaint is made.

      It is the United “States” of America, and the right of the small states are guaranteed so that the more populous states cannot throw their weight and decide for the rest of the country. Otherwise, NY and California would decide national policies.

      I suggest Federalist 64, or any High School civics class, to start with.

      • Peter from Oz says

        SM
        You are right. I would just like to add that if the election had been based on the popular vote, no candidate would have won, because no candidate got over 50%. Secondly, if the election had been based on popular vote, then the candidates would have campaigned differently. Also Democrat voters in die hard red states or Republican votters in die hard blue states who might ordinarily not bother to vote would actually vote in larger numbers.

        • Precisely. The entire election campaign strategy would then be different.

    • Stephanie says

      Maz, that’s not gaming the system, that’s simply the rules. Clinton won the popular vote by the equivalent of a third the population of NYC. Not all that impressive, and certainly not relevant to who wins the presidency, if you care about the constitution. Gaming the rules would be changing the rules of what constitutes victory because you’re a sore loser 😘

      The part of this review about ethnic minorities in politics was strange. It sounded as if Republicans should elevate people because of their ethnic heritage instead of their competence or their merit, to match Democrats who’ve done the same with their embarrassing bunch. AOC, Omar and Talib have done nothing to earn the attention being lavished on them, and have offered the Democrats nothing of substance other than credible accusations of anti-Semitism and a laughable climate change plan that’s little more than a punching bag for the right. Even Talib recently noted they were being used as props because of their diversity points.

      It is deeply patronizing and cynical how the Democrats use people of colour. The Republicans should absolutely not copy that strategy. Whatever prominent minority Republicans there are (Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Candice Owens, ect) should have no reason to doubt they are there because they are valuable for their individual contributions, not their diversity points.

    • Diana Ayala says

      @Mazzakim are you a troll? Why should a candidate’s race matter? I am a legal immigrant from Honduras and please realize many of us love trump.

    • Echo Alpha Kilo says

      To keep the nation together, the territory must come first. Its the ‘United States of America’ not ‘United People of America’. Consider this – While standing on a globe(earth) our feet are closer together than our heads, so that which you stand upon is first. Our heads split our unity and the fickleness of the voters is the reason to focus first on the territory.

      The founding fathers got it so right!

      • david of Kirkland says

        Democracy is what is destroying liberty. The founders knew of this issue, but didn’t have a great answer. Of course, they didn’t start with democratic elections, but democratic “ideals” took over just like party factionalism and political corruption that cares nothing about equal protection under the law, and prefers special interests, the donor class, etc.

  9. bumble bee says

    When I heard that DT was running for president, I had zero intention of voting for him. In fact, I was more apt to pull up a lawn chair in anticipation of his antics most thought were coming. Then as the republican field of contenders rose, and debate season was upon us, every single republican was nothing more than a smiling mannequin. It was remarkable how they all just stood there with absolutely nothing to say about anything. It looked more like someone dragged people off the street for a line up. Trump was the only republican who had anything of substance to say. First and foremost, he spoke of and to American citizens and their plight of losing job, underemployed, stagnant wages and he wanted to create jobs for these Americans, as well as all Americans. That was the slogan Make America Great Again.

    He was not going to acquiesce to other governments at our expense. He was not going to allow foreign countries to dictate our trade terms that lost millions of jobs. He pledged to bring back Americas autonomy for our own good and prosperity. In his view why should we continue as is, to the benefit of other countries when our own citizens were faltering. It is like parents who is more concerned about others while their own children languish from neglect.

    Conversely, the Democrats gave us Bernie and Hillary, or should I say just Hillary. There were no choices, no different views, just a regurgitate left over from a failed prior presidency. Bernie was the dark horse for the Dems, and if it wasn’t for Hillary demanding that she be the nomination, Bernie just may have been the one going against Trump. So it became vote Hillary or choke on it. Many, including myself would not vote for her because this country has not and is not founded on dynasties. We had enough of the Bushes, now we have had enough of the Clintons. Nothing diminishes democracy more than political dynasties and the continuation of such in position of power. They do not represent we the voters, but themselves and generating more power and money for themselves. Add to this the social upheavals going on at the time, the onslaught of SJW and their attacks and bullying of their own liberals and enough decided to vote the other way.

    What no one really wants to admit, or maybe they cannot see it, but Trump could have been very supportive of liberals. He is not a diehard Republican, and has a history of donating and supporting liberal causes and politicians. However, since the left went absolutely berserk with their own rage and blindness, they alienated him. Every pathetic attempt to belittle, mock, tear him down they produced (and still producing) a president that will not idly sit by and endure their abuses. Even the MAGA interpretation is a false narrative they invented because they thought it would shame and shun his supporters. Every attempt to discredit him has backfired and more and more people see the dems and their supporters for what they are, vindictive hypocrites. They are shouting to an empty room, or the few rabid supporters they attract.

    As far as Omar, she is the product of being told time and again the liberal narrative that since she is Muslim and a woman of color the USA hates her. She has been drilled in their mantra that she is being discriminated against whether her personal experience supports that or not. They have turned her into the radical she is and love her regardless of her anti-Semitic remarks or other public and private views of the world. She is a SJW dream, as they continue to support radicals and any radical ideology because they cannot see their own short comings. Americans would do well to continue to point out her divisive radical agenda, and the full support of the DNC and liberal alike. If this country wants to survive, wants to live the American dream of doing better than our parents, being able to support ourselves and raise a family without the immediate fear of devastating poverty, they need to reject these radicals.

    What no one has address is the utter failure of progressives to even accomplish any of their goals. They speak of poverty and homelessness, but this country has created more. They speak of education but ignorance and lack of job opportunities has made even college educations teetering on being obsolete. For their entire narrative, they cannot focus on even one issue that plagues our society to even indicate whether any of their believes and convictions hold true. They have done more damage and caused more strife that it is a wonder why anyone listens to them any more. I know I don’t.

    • K. Dershem says

      Trump was the only republican who had anything of substance to say.

      I agree that candidate Trump did a masterful job of dominating media attention — often by saying something unexpected or outrageous — but I don’t think I would describe his rhetoric as “substantive.” Although he repeated the same slogans and insults over and over, he didn’t (and doesn’t) seem to have a very good understanding of public policy. In contrast, candidates like Kasich, Cruz and Rubio offered far more substantive proposals.

      He was not going to acquiesce to other governments at our expense. He was not going to allow foreign countries to dictate our trade terms that lost millions of jobs.

      Do you think that President Trump’s protectionist trade policies will bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.? That seems highly unlikely to me, especially since most jobs have been and are being lost to automation rather than outsourcing. Blue-collar workers in the manufacturing and extraction sectors have been hard hit by economic changes over the last several decades, but I think they would be better served by retraining for future jobs instead of impossible promises about restoring what they’ve lost.

      Trump could have been very supportive of liberals. He is not a diehard Republican, and has a history of donating and supporting liberal causes and politicians.

      This is true; some (but not all) Democrats were willing to work with President Trump on bipartisan efforts like infrastructure spending and comprehensive immigration reform. However, the President has taken a very hard line on immigration and never seemed serious about infrastructure. It’s also true that many Democrats refused to give President Trump a chance, but this is not unprecedented: President Clinton was pilloried and demonized by his opponents in the early 1990s. Despite their animosity, he successfully worked with Republicans in Congress to pass bipartisan legislation.

      Every attempt to discredit him has backfired and more and more people see the dems and their supporters for what they are, vindictive hypocrites.

      I’m not sure why Democrats are hypocritical for criticizing a President they dislike. In my view, Evangelical Christians who support President Trump seem far more hypocritical. They have consistently ignored or excused the President’s moral failings because he’s promised to appoint conservative judges and justices to federal courts.

      They are shouting to an empty room, or the few rabid supporters they attract.

      According to surveys, the majority of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s performance and regard him as untrustworthy. I don’t think the room is empty. In electoral terms, the Democrats did extremely well in the 2018 midterms despite the fact that the economy is relatively strong.

      Americans would do well to continue to point out [Omar’s] divisive radical agenda, and the full support of the DNC and liberal alike. If this country wants to survive, wants to live the American dream of doing better than our parents, being able to support ourselves and raise a family without the immediate fear of devastating poverty, they need to reject these radicals.

      I agree. If the Democrats nominate an extremist to run against President Trump in the 2020 election, I think they’ll probably lose. Pandering to the left may activate the “woke” base, but it will alienate centrists and moderate Republicans who are repelled by the President’s antics.

      What no one has address is the utter failure of progressives to even accomplish any of their goals. They speak of poverty and homelessness, but this country has created more. They speak of education but ignorance and lack of job opportunities has made even college educations teetering on being obsolete.

      The poverty rate was cut almost in half from 1960 to 1970, although it’s remained fairly constant since then. Homeless is an intractable problem, but some cities have been successful in reducing rates via innovating “housing first” policies. College educations are far from obsolete. To the contrary, it’s very difficult to make a good living in today’s economy without one. For most graduates, college degrees pay huge dividends over the course of their careers. (This is partly due to degree inflation, but it’s nevertheless inaccurate to suggest that college is nearly obsolete.) More broadly, progressives have made progress toward many of their goals: legalizing pot, allowing samesex marriage, increasing opportunities for women in the workplace, expanding access to health care, protecting “Dreamers” from deportation, promoting renewable energy (on a regional basis), preserving Social Security and Medicare, boosting the minimum wage (on local and regional levels), implementing criminal justice reform, etc.

      It’s disingenuous to dismiss all criticism of President Trump as a “pathetic attempt to belittle, mock, tear him down.” Some people doubtless suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” — just as many Republicans evinced irrational hatred for Presidents Clinton and Obama. However, a significant percentage of Americans believe that President Trump is unfit for office on the basis of his erratic behavior and questionable moral character. This includes principled “Never Trump” conservatives, as well as some number of elected Republicans who are afraid to express their views in public. You obviously disagree with this assessment, but it’s not therefore illegitimate.

      • gda53 says

        @K. Dersham
        “They have consistently ignored or excused the President’s moral failings because he’s promised to appoint conservative judges and justices to federal courts.”

        Not a Christian, are you?

        Or perhaps you’ve forgotten the adage that God works in mysterious ways.

        “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-nine just persons, which need no repentance.”
        — Luke 15:7

        Trump may been a bit of a sinner (although I’m beginning to even doubt that – where’s the beef after 3 years constant investigation?), but it seems pretty clear that virtually everyone in Washington is a bigger sinner than him.

        Now he’s got a real adult for an AG, the faeces is about to fly, and the sinners are most definitely going to be thrown from their temple.

        • K. Dershem says

          @gda, I’m not. I don’t think it’s likely that President Trump is a Christian either. He consistently exhibits the exact opposite of Christian virtues: pride instead of humility (he boasts that he’s the “best” at everything despite abundant evidence to the contrary), greed instead of generosity (he’s fixated on the accumulation of money and the trappings of wealth, and has given very little of his fortune to charity), deceptiveness instead of truthfulness (he appears to be a pathological liar), lust instead of fidelity (he’s cheated on every one of his wives and has paid off multiple mistresses to keep them silent), vengefulness instead of forgiveness (he has extremely thin skin and holds a grudge against anyone who wrongs him), and narcissism instead of self-sacrificial service (he’s completely self-centered and lacks empathy for others). Repentance requires recognition of one’s sins and a commitment to change going forward. President Trump has done neither.

      • E. Olson says

        K – you wrote: “In my view, Evangelical Christians who support President Trump seem far more hypocritical. They have consistently ignored or excused the President’s moral failings because he’s promised to appoint conservative judges and justices to federal courts.”

        Christians forgive people who acknowledge their sins, and Trump has never said he was a choir boy. The way the mainstream media lambastes Evangelical Christians also give them personal experience with “fake news” and makes them very aware of the media bias, and hence they are more likely to see the media portrayal of Trump as highly unfair, mean spirited, and more Fake News. Finally, not only do they support Trump because of the judges he appoints, but also he doesn’t force nuns to buy birth control, doesn’t support infanticide, doesn’t support using the federal government to force bakers to make gay wedding cakes, and other such anti-Christian and anti-religion policies of the Left.

        You also wrote: “In electoral terms, the Democrats did extremely well in the 2018 midterms despite the fact that the economy is relatively strong.”

        How do you think Republicans would have done if the mainstream media had covered Trump the same way they covered Obama? Trump’s 3+% economic growth wasn’t given any coverage in the media, record low unemployment (including for blacks and Hispanics) wasn’t given any coverage, and instead it was 24/7/365 coverage tax cuts for the rich and Russian collusion and obstruction of justice that anyone with half a brain knew was total fabrication 2 years ago, but Mueller finally got around to confirming safely after the mid-terms.

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-trump-media-three-times-more-negative-than-for-obama-just-5-percent-positive

        https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/latino/kathleen-krumhansl/2017/12/11/record-low-unemployment-news-only-two-six-spanish

        • K. Dershem says

          E. — FYI, I don’t read and won’t respond to your posts because I’ve concluded that you’re a far-right polemicist who doesn’t argue in good faith.

      • Peter from Oz says

        K.
        Can you name these moral failings of President Trump?
        Like his supposed racism or sexism they are just a chimera invented by the left, based on totally subjective criteria.
        O me the who.e “diversity” movement is immoral. Making all issues political is immoral. Enacting policies that are supposed to help the poor and marginalised but in fact make their lives worse is immoral. Decrying bourgeois values in favour of the abnormal is immoral. Making fortunes out of left wing activism is immoral. The projection of the left’s own personal moral failings on others by means of constantly crying “bigot” if anyone criticises someone who is a member of a favoured “victim group” is immoral.

        • K. Dershem says

          Peter, please see my post above. Many Republicans recognize the President’s moral failings as well; it’s telling that there was no significant faction of “Never Bush” or “Never Romney” Republicans. I sympathize with conservatives who support the President for pragmatic reasons, but I’m honestly mystified that anyone would claim that he’s a good person. From my perspective (and given my moral values), he’s the antithesis of everything a good leader should be.

  10. Jim Gorman says

    Globalization has only one goal, to make all wage earners be paid the same low rate. If someone in Timbuktu was willing to work for 50 cents a day with no benefits, then that is where jobs would go until everyone else in the world was also willing to work for 50 cents a day with no benefits. People are finally waking to the fact that the U.S. is not immune to this. There is simply no way to support our culture without manufacturing. Computer tech, retail service, and financial service jobs are simply not going to support everyone in the U.S. These jobs don’t create wealth the way making something does, they only service the wealth of people with wealth. You must manufacturer goods in order to create the wealth that drives the system.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Jim Gorman

      Well said. There are too many very wealthy people in the country who might style themselves capitalists but who produce nothing. They are rich because they know how to game the system. In fact wealth is what we make and if we aren’t making very much, then whatever wealth we might seem to enjoy comes from the spinning down of the flywheel of a once powerful ‘real’ economy and eventually it stops.

    • K. Dershem says

      Manufacturing is still a significant segment of the U.S. economy, but the number of jobs available has declined dramatically due to automation.

      “The number of jobs in the manufacturing sector has declined by about 5 million since 2000, falling from 17.3 million at the turn of the century to 12.3 million in 2015.

      The decline in manufacturing jobs certainly makes it seem as if America has been deindustrialized, but it’s not so. America still makes lots of stuff, but the number of jobs has shrunk because it doesn’t take nearly as many workers as it used to.

      Gross output of U.S. manufacturing industries — counting products produced for final use as well as those used as intermediate inputs — totaled $6.2 trillion in 2015, about 36% of U.S. gross domestic product, nearly double the output of any of the other big sectors: professional and business services, government and real estate.

      The output of durable goods was at an all-time high in 2015, more than triple what it was in 1980 and double what it was 20 years earlier. The production of electronics, aerospace goods, motor vehicles and machinery are at or close to all-time highs.

      And, of course, other industries have nearly disappeared. The output of the apparel industries is down more than 80% since the heydays in the 1980s, while the output of textile mills is down about 50% since 2000. Those are the factories and jobs that are really gone for good.”

      https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28

      If it’s properly regulated, globalization creates wealth rather than destroying it. The global economy has grown by orders of magnitude as different countries develop in ways that utilize their comparative advantages (in the case of developing countries, that means low wages). Although some Americans workers have been hard hit by these changes, over the U.S. has benefited enormously from relatively free trade. The economic elite has benefited more than the rest of us, but that could be partially remedied by increasing their taxes and using those funds to expand opportunity for working class Americans. (Elizabeth Warren has several proposals along these lines, including a wealth tax that would eliminate college tuition and student debt.)

      • Heike says

        Jobs were destroyed because our elites admitted China to the WTO. Trying to handwave it away with “some Americans workers have been hard hit by these changes” smacks of bigoted classism. “expand opportunity for working class Americans”? Seriously? The ones you think are deplorable? Why would anyone help them? They voted for Trump! The cultural distance between progressives and working class people is now vast and I see little reason why that should change.

        Elizabeth Warren is an establishment Democrat who has zero intention of following through with any of her campaign promises. This is just a public position, she also has a private position that she won’t tell us.

        • Peter from Oz says

          Heike
          Jobs were not destroyed they withered away as economic reality changed. The role of the economy is not to provide jobs, but to produce wealth. People who think of jobs as the be all and end all of everything are putting the cart before the horse. They want socialism, not freedom. They want a 19th century world of matster and servant in the workplace, where the jobsworths all get paid for doing the minimum amount of work possible whilst whinging about the boss.
          No-one owes you a living. Stop thinking about economic life as ”having a job” and start thinking about it as a commercial proposition where you create wealth and add value. It will make you think much more clearly

          • Heike says

            Economic reality didn’t just “change” as if it were the weather. It was deliberate malice. They knew that NAFTA and admitting China to the WTO would harm us and they did it anyway.

            If you are an average working class American, then your incomes and your throats are being cut by exporting your jobs. Working class jobs are being destroyed by illegal alien labor at one end and automation at the other, leaving working class voters angry and broke and with no place to go.

            That’s where the backlash is coming from, and that’s why so many upper income people can’t see any problem with it. It’s the old old problem of the landed gentry and the nobility looking down their noses at all of those stinking whining peasants, all over again.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Peter from Oz

            “The role of the economy is not to provide jobs, but to produce wealth.”

            People make normative claims as if they were true by virtue of having been proclaimed. In my view the role of the economy is to serve human needs. That is no more ‘true’ than your claim, but there is no truth to be had. I choose it. So, whereas producing wealth is obviously the first consideration, if people do not have jobs, or some other mechanism for obtaining part of that wealth, then the economy has failed them.

            There is no such thing as The Free Market. All economies are designed. I say we design the economy to maximize human welfare (in the older meaning of the word). That means that everyone has both the right and the obligation to produce, but also the right to consume.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Heike

            “It’s the old old problem of the landed gentry and the nobility looking down their noses at all of those stinking whining peasants, all over again.”

            Exactly. They think back fondly to how Wat Tyler’s Rebellion was handled. Mere vulgar working people! Deplorables. They want some share of the wealth that they produce! Do we give mules a stake in the farm?

        • K. Dershem says

          Did I call anyone “deplorable”? Please stop mind-reading. That applies to Warren as well — conspiratorial theorizing is not an argument.

          In fact, a majority of working class voters voted for Hillary and align themselves with Democrats. Turns out that “tax cuts for the wealthy” is not a winning argument for people who are justifiably dubious of trickle-down economics. Do you actually think that President Trump’s trade war will “make America great again” by restoring the post-World War II economy? If so, you’re living in a fantasy world.

          • ga gamba says

            What trade wars do is force those countries with protected markets, such as China, to liberalise.

            It’s hard to find any developing country’s government voice opposition to “free trade”, but when you dig into the details what they want is open markets for their exports whilst protecting the home team as much as possible. This extends beyond steel and rice to even include advertising and motion picture screening. The WTO permits this by assigning countries into one of two tiers of developed and developing, and the developing countries are allowed to declare they are least developed for even more preferences.

            The WTO writes: The WTO agreements include numerous provisions giving developing and least-developed countries special rights or extra leniency — “special and differential treatment”. Among these are provisions that allow developed countries to treat developing countries more favourably than other WTO members.

            The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, which deals with trade in goods) has a special section (Part 4) on Trade and Development which includes provisions on the concept of non-reciprocity in trade negotiations between developed and developing countries — when developed countries grant trade concessions to developing countries they should not expect the developing countries to make matching offers in return.

            More affirmative action. The social justice crowd meddles everywhere.

            Trump is very much a quid pro quo guy. His complaint of trade treaties is the lack of reciprocity. I think he’s correct. To gain reciprocity, or, failing that, at least greater openness to imports is a goal of his trade war.

            Asserting industrial jobs won’t return to America ignores the fact that many industrial countries have retained their manufacturing base. What do you think the Germans, Japanese, and South Koreans are doing? In 2012, the hourly labour costs in Hyundai’s South Korean factories were estimated to be 24,778 won ($22) per worker, higher even than in its plants in the US. In its 2012 strike, these were the demands by Hyundai’s workers:

            130,500 won ($120) increase in basic monthly salary.
            A bonus of eight months’ pay for meeting production targets. (The then current bonus was five months.)
            One-off payment equivalent to 30% of Hyundai’s $8.17 billion 2012 profit.
            A 56.25 gram gold medal (then worth about $2,400) and a bonus of two months salary for those with over 40 years of service.
            10 million won ($8,800) for each worker whose children opt not to attend college. (Hyundai pays college tuition fees for workers’ children.)
            Full reimbursement of medical expenses if workers are diagnosed with cancer. (Korea’s national health scheme doesn’t cover 100% of expenses.)

            The final agreement included a wage increase of 5.14 per cent and a bonus payment to each employee of 500 per cent of the basic monthly wage, plus 9.2 million won ($8,100) in cash and incentives.

            Because union members strike almost every year, Hyundai’s union members’ annual average wage was 92 million won ($82,000) in 2017, amongst the highest in the global auto industry.

            You’d think with such high costs Hyundai would be desperate to offshore, and it has to an extent, but in February of this year it agreed to the union’s demand to open a new car factory inside Korea. Also this year Hyundai announced to would cut 1,500 workers in its joint venture Chinese plant.

            Hyundai (and Kia, which it owns) have about 60% of Korea’s domestic auto market, down from about 75% five years ago. Has Hyundai lost market share to low-cost rivals? No, the big gainers are the high-priced German marques. Still, imports are only about 15% of the domestic market by unit (though 23% by value), so other high-wage Korean makers GM-Daewoo and Renault-Samsung make up a quarter of domestic sales.

            Wage and non-wage increases ought to be offset by productivity increases, yet ultimately it’s the unit cost of production that determines price competitiveness. Thinking it’s only about employee costs is naive and betrays a failure to understand business costs. How important are employee costs in relation to the price consumers see? Depends on the item manufactured. For automobiles, research by Dr. Chris Borroni-Bird of Chrysler Corporation analyzed the conventional vehicle cost structure for US-built cars and estimated 6.5% of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price was due to employee wage. Components and manufacture were 42.5%, transportation and warranty 4.5%, and the total of depreciation and amortization, corporate overhead, employee non-pay benefits, adverting, and engineering were 21.5%. Price discounts to the dealer were 5%, dealer markup 17.5%, and the manufacturer’s profit was 2.5%. Argonne National Laboratory’s Center for Transportation Research found similar percentages.

            BTW, imports are only 5% of Japan’s market, and of the top 30 selling car models in 2018 zero were foreign. Of Germany’s top 30 selling models in 2018, not one was Japanese or Korean. Of France’s top 25 selling models of the same year, only two were Japanese and none Korean. It appears many industrial nations are able to keep their markets largely dominated by local makers. This ought to be explored. I’m sure there isn’t one reason. How is it that excellent quality Toyotas and Hondas (and their upmarket marques Lexus and Acura) do so well in US competing against all other makers from the US and Europe, yet they can barely sell anything in Europe. The same can be asked for the German marques selling poorly in Japan, though it has to be recognised Mercs, Audis, VWs, and BMWs aren’t of the same quality as Toyota-Lexus, they are better than Nissan-Infinity.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @K. Dershem

            Let’s have trickle-up economics: Working people will keep all the wealth that they produce (and they produce ALL of it), but as they spend it, there will no doubt be opportunities for capitalists and entrepreneurs to make a buck selling things, which is just fine. So some wealth will trickle-up to folks like Steve Jobs and other such innovators.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @K. Dershem

        “The decline in manufacturing jobs certainly makes it seem as if America has been deindustrialized, but it’s not so.”

        A fact-centric post as always K, but how is it that just about everything you buy now is made in China? I mean just about everything.

        “Although some Americans workers have been hard hit by these changes, over the U.S. has benefited enormously from relatively free trade.”

        I’d characterize that as the Obama doctrine. Why tho do so many Americans seem to think that they are not benefiting enormously? They seem to think that their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living — or they did a few years ago, whether the change is to Trump’s credit is very suspect. The enormous benefits have produced the mother of all trade deficits, too. What happens when China wants to balance the books? Here in Canada we solve the problem by selling the country itself out from under our own feet, thus the hysterical real estate market. Dunno, in the 60’s an ordinary guy could expect to buy a house and support a family. We have more gadgets now of course, but in terms of what matters, are we richer? I don’t know anyone who is.

        • K. Dershem says

          Ray, it’s true that very few consumer products are manufactured in the U.S.

          Employers feel like they’re falling behind because wages have not increased along with worker productivity — most of the wealth has been captured by the top 10% of earners. At the same time, the cost of health care and higher education have increased far faster than inflation, severely straining many families’ budgets.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @K. Dershem

            Yup, and it just ain’t right. If productivity goes up and wages do not, then someone is being robbed.

        • Ray Andrews says

          @E. Olson

          There are too many morons in university already. Let’s look a scholarships and generally reduced tuition. Mind, this presumes there will still be universities that are worth attending at all.

        • K. Dershem says

          E. — FYI, I don’t read and won’t respond to your posts because I’ve concluded that you’re a far-right polemicist who doesn’t argue in good faith.

      • Turd Ferguson says

        A wealth tax that would eliminate college tuition and student debt you say. That seems reasonable till you realize how completely broken our educational system is in this country. The cost of a college degree went up 8 fold since 1980. There has been a proliferation of programs in the college curriculum that have an extremely dubious value in the marketplace and yet are some of the most popular majors. Many many jobs in our economy do not require a college degree yet use the presence of a college degree has a screening mechanism for determining qualified candidates. This makes having a college degree in the marketplace useful only in the sense of getting you in the door. The knowledge you obtain in college outside of STEM is mostly superficial. Simply yammering on about how great college is and how taxpayers should subsidize it doesn’t get us any closer to solving the real problems of how broken our public education system in this country. But by all means lets add some more to our national debt while not fixing anything.

        Your rosy depiction of globalization looks like it was ripped out of the EU charter. No globalization hasn’t simply benefited the haves a little more than the have-nots it has massively benefited them. And no not just a few Americans have been adversely affected by poor trade deals and globalization a lot have been affected. Median wages have been stagnant in this country since the 1970’s. The cost of consumer goods on mostly cheap electronics has gone down giving the illusion that the peoples wages were rising. Meanwhile housing, education, and healthcare have all skyrocketed in cost along with soaring national debt.

  11. John says

    I would describe Hanson as a life long professional psychopath!

    • Turd Ferguson says

      What exactly defines a professional psychopath. Is there also a category for amateur psychopath as in somebody who dabbles in psychopathy on the weekends.

  12. Shamrock says

    I am not American, but if I was I would have voted for Trump and I would vote for him in 2020. I am a straight white male and I am tired of the way the western world and it’s wokeness is going. I am tired of hearing how everything I have achieved is due to white privilege and white supremacy. My views, if I don’t tow the sjw narratives, are racist. Nothing I can do is right short of self flagellation.

    Trump, in his crude way, pushes back against this. He doesn’t go down the futile route of apologizing because then the pile on intensifies. He instead doubles down.

    I will happily vote for the adult in the room when our current climate calms down.

    To paraphrase a saying concerning the 2016 election: Trump is the worst option for president except for all the other contenders.

    • K. Dershem says

      Sham, doesn’t it make more sense to wait until the Democrats have chosen their nominee to pledge your support (meaningless though it is) to Trump? Do you honesty think that wokeness and deplatforming are the most serious issues facing America? If so, you should probably expand your media diet beyond Breitbart and Quillette.

      • Shamrock says

        KD

        Yes I do believe wokeness is one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue facing the US. By wokeness I am referring to the split in society that is causing us not to have sensible debates about issues such as illegal immigration, inner city poverty and gun crimes. Anytime you disagree with the left narrative you are a racist.

        The msm is left leaning and doesn’t even try to give objective reporting. Look at the great outpouring of grief and anger at the New Zealand shooting and how leaders the world over denounced white supremacy, yet the far greater slaughter in Sri Lanka recently didn’t elicit the condemning of “Muslim” terrorists. Instead the statements or tweets decried the killing of Easter Worshippers while not condemning the in-group terrorists. Wokeness at its finest.

        As for waiting for the Democratic nominee I would theoretically vote for, I stated “I will happily vote for the adult in the room when our current climate calms down.”

        • Ray Andrews says

          @Shamrock

          Pretty good riposte. On the surface the woke might not seem to be much worse that summer mosquitoes, but one might liken them to sand in the gearbox — they are slowly eroding the very soul of our culture. They’re like parasites slowly eating us alive from the inside. K is right that there are more serious issues superficially, but will a weakened, wokened culture be able to face them?

          • Turd Ferguson says

            The problem is most of us are not full time political activist like many of the woke types on the left who eat breath and sleep their political fanaticism. Most of us are blissfully unaware of these radicalized minorities hell-bent on changing the system to conform to their narrow agenda. These people put in more work politically in a given month than average person does in a lifetime. Their supporters often pretend they are simply a fringe element and not be taken to seriously which is exactly expressed in the sentiment of people like Dersham. In its worse form it turns into gas lighting which is evident when you reads sites like Vox where they portray the social justice left as just “a few Marxist professors”. The radical fringe of the left may have been a fringe at some point but now have grown significantly in power as they have taken over the universities, media, Hollywood, and now increasingly their views are popping up in the mouths of once mainstream democratic politicians like creepy Joe Biden. For moderate liberals who don’t seem to understand the situation I often ask them to consider how they would feel if creationist began to grow in power and influence and were able to push their views in education or media. Sure its a small vocal minority but who cares their views are ridiculous.

      • Shut the fuck up dershem says

        ” Do you honesty think that wokeness and deplatforming are the most serious issues facing America?”

        It is if they are using these as a way to shut down information during a democratic election, which is supposed to be about the aggregation of voter’s beliefs before the vote, you disingenuous fuckwit.

        • K. Dershem says

          @STFUD, how exactly is information being “shut down”? Are SJWs going to ban Fox News, conservative talk radio, and right-wing websites?

    • K. Dershem says

      Did I call anyone “deplorable”? Please stop mind-reading. That applies to Warren as well — conspiratorial theorizing is not an argument.

      In fact, a majority of working class voters voted for Hillary and align themselves with Democrats. Turns out that “tax cuts for the wealthy” is not a winning argument for people who are justifiably dubious of trickle-down economics. Do you actually think that President Trump’s trade war will “make America great again” by restoring the post-World War II economy? If so, you’re living in a fantasy world.

      • gda53 says

        “If so, you’re living in a fantasy world.”

        Is that the same fantasy world where Trump shows Obama the “magic wand (that he has) to bring those jobs back?”

        OK then.

  13. the gardner says

    If you agree that people are persuaded by the direction the country is going in, then Trump will win by a landslide. His direction—booming economy, a rejection of identity politics, foreign policy with a spine, a rebirth of safe nuclear energy that will solve the global warming problem (whether you believe in it or not) and assure a plentiful supply of energy. Dems have nothing but attacking Trump relentlessly, envy, divisive identify politics, futile gun control, reparations, and destruction of the electoral college. They are putting the interests of illegals over those of Americans. Trump’s campaign will skewer them on these points. The dem party will collapse in 2020.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @the gardner

      Unless they agree on a moderate candidate. One might hope for a respectable Pub to challenge Trump, but that party is in a disgraceful condition entirely. It really is a crying shame that the nation has to turn to someone like Trump to say a few things that need to be said.

      • Jim Gorman says

        The chances of a moderate Democrat winning a primary is nil. I have almost reached the opinion that it about time to let the socialist try to govern so that the last two or three generations can learn first hand what freedom really means. Freedom is not free. It requires work and sacrifice, and yes, self-reliance. It requires one to have the self-discipline to wait and save for things rather than expect them to given away for free.

        The younger generations simply have no idea where the government money comes from. They don’t realize that there are not enough old, white guys with enough money to finance the things they want. The only way to get the amount of money they require is to take it from the millions of every day people who work for a living. Pretty soon they will realize those people are themselves!

        Doing this will probably drive the U.S and the world into another Great Depression, but what better teacher? I think about my parents and grandparents who went through the Great Depression and what they would think of the demands being made by the progressives. They were forever touched by the experience and would not stand for the road we may be leaning toward.

        • Ray Andrews says

          @Jim Gorman

          “into another Great Depression, but what better teacher?”

          Just so. There’s this theory that once every lifetime everything must fall apart so as to reeducate society as to reality. The Greatest Generation knew reality, their snowflake grandchildren do not. They now live in a fantasy world and as you suggest it is very likely to evaporate on them.

      • K. Dershem says

        Ray, I’ve been pretty impressed with Pete Buttigieg. He’s obviously a long shot to win the nomination, but he has been gaining traction. Biden is relatively moderate, although he’ll have to kowtow to the progressive wing of the party if he hopes to prevail in the primaries.

        Personally, I think that President Trump has been a disaster for American politics on almost every level. He may have raised some important issues, but his contributions to the debate have rarely been reasoned or constructive.

    • Jean Levant says

      “a rebirth of safe nuclear energy that will solve the global warming problem (whether you believe in it or not)”
      If you believe in AGW (as you have to), neither the nuclear nor any “clean” energy would solve the problem. The truth is that if the othodox theory, at least the MSM’s version, is right, we’re doomed in any case. The only way for us for saving Mother Gaïa is to disappear from her surface. Of course, the important word here is… if.

  14. Softclocks says

    Nuclear energy will solve the energy problems the world is facing? Due to a multitude of reasons, I doubt nuclear will ever cover more than 10% of our need. Too reliant on rare expertise, long term investment and too stigmatized I think.

    • Jim Gorman says

      You had better hope that isn’t true. When the wind dies and the sun isn’t shining for days at a time, large cities will go dark and they won’t be nice places to be living in. Tribalism will reign supreme and we will see internecine warfare like we haven’t seen for several hundred years.

    • ga gamba says

      Due to a multitude of reasons, I doubt nuclear will ever cover more than 10% of our need.

      Do you live in Botswana? Presently 20% of America’s electricity comes from nuclear power. In France it’s 75%. Japan was 30% prior to the tsunami; Germany was at 25% prior to Japan’s tsunami but decided to kill it and it now down to 12%. In South Korea it’s 40%. Same to for Sweden. China is 13%. UK is 21%, which is the same for Russia as well. Canada is about 16%. Nuclear power provides 11% of the world’s electricity.

      If all these vehicles are going to be electrified, and homes are to shift from oil and natural gas, people had better figure out very quickly where the electricity is going to come from. It’s isn’t going to be the sun and the wind, and if you don’t want it to be carbon-based, your options are limited. Perhaps the power of imagination and wishful thinking?

      • Ray Andrews says

        @ga gamba

        Yup, nuclear is the obvious answer. Really the screamingly obvious answer. Yes, renewables can help, and some work on the ‘instant on’ problem is welcome. But rotten old nuclear is simply the bestest for the mostest. Seems they’re figuring out how to reprocess virtually all the waste.

        • K. Dershem says

          We need an “all of the above” strategy. Nuclear should definitely be part of the mix, but renewables have an important role to play as well. Energy policy should be shaped by considerations of reliability, environmental impact and cost-effectiveness, not by ideology.

      • Softclocks says

        @Ga Gamba, I’m not arguing against the necessity of nuclear energy, I’m pointing out that it has been stigmatized and that countries are reluctant to rely on them as their main source of energy.
        Sweden was in the process of shutting down several of their plants, even withouth reasonable alternatives. A reason upturn in clear-headedness had them remove the crippling “nuclear-tax”, but they’re still in the process of phasing out half of the remaining reactors in Ringhals.

        • the gardner says

          @softclocks—- Gen 4 nuclear power plants are designed so they can never melt down. Stigma gone. Imagine if we had virtually limitless power—- we could operate expensive technology that strips excess carbon dioxide from the air (climate change solved) and we could desalinate sea water (droughts solved). If it makes people feel good to have inefficient wind (dead birds) and solar (enormous unsightly farms), so be it. Citing what a European country has done vis a vis energy is maybe not a great idea, unless you mean France, which relies primarily on old tech nuclear.

          • Softclocks says

            Where is the societal impetus for more nuclear energy? Plenty of countries are in dire need of alternatives to coal/gas or unreliable renewables, but where is the political will? You think people will be swayed by facts, with Fukushima and Chernobyl etched in their minds?

            I think there is a need more concentrated efforts towards swaying public will/educating people.

  15. Max York says

    I just finished this book yesterday. This review is unfair.
    QUOTE: “Trump in this respect is a tragic hero, according to Hanson, uniquely unsuited and unprepared for the role that destiny has bestowed on him,”
    WRONG: Prof. Hanson did not say or imply that Trump is “uniquely unsuited and unprepared for the role that destiny has bestowed on him.”

  16. I see Trump differently than the Left and the Right see him. He is, to me, your typical, wealthy New York real estate, know-it-all asshole. Spy Magazine followed him in the ’80s and was mostly right about him. However, his pro-America stance is a breath of fresh air. He’s embarassing to listen to, and to read, but his bluster is in the right place.

  17. Harrison Bergeron says

    The phrase “illegal alien” has become “illegal immigrant” and “undocumented immigrant” has become “undocumented migrant.”

    Update. They are “asylum seekers” now.

  18. TheSnark says

    There were lots of reasons to vote for Trump, lots of reasons to vote against him. But whatever the result, we have now reached penultimate state of the Politics as Entertainment. Not the fun sort of the entertainment like a nice musical, but the old fashioned nasty blood sports…cock fights, bare knuckle boxing, and bear baiting. Like them or not, they were very popular.

    And politics has become entertainment. Getting anything done has taken a permanent back seat ranting on social media. Trump got little through Congress in the two years the R’s controlled it, but got constant press attention. He doesn’t get out of bed until noon, spending the morning sending idiosyncratic (to be polite) messages designed to capture attention instead of getting work done (ya know, like working Congress to write and pass laws).

    And now the Democrats have people like AOC striving to be his mirror image, and coming to dominate the party through it. It’s gotten so bad that Nancy Pelosi has become the voice of moderation and reason.

    Even the mainstream media is making a fortune off of Trump; without his constant provocation half their readership would go away. I sometime suspect the NYT, CNN, and the WaPo are actually trying to entice the Democrats into fatal fratricide just to keep Trump in office and keep their readership. But then I conclude that it’s just the same brainless emphasis horse-race and manufactured controversy reporting that got us here in the first place.

    It seems it does not matter who is in charge. It will just be ranting and screaming, with nothing actually getting done that would improve things in the country.

  19. asdf says

    “He doesn’t take into account the difference between Cuban-Americans, who are staunchly Republican, pro-free market, and socially conservative, and Mexican-Americans, who are mostly leftist.”

    In addition to the anti-communism issue driving Cubans rightward in a way Mexicans wouldn’t relate to, we are just talking about different people. Cubans, especially those that fled Castro three generations ago, are what they call “white Hispanics”. That is if they spit in the vile and sent it away to Ancestry.com, you are going to find majority European DNA. Their skin in fair. ‘

    They were driven away in part because they were successful white people fleeing a largely brownish communist revolution. That’s the subtext in Latin America today and was the subtext behind all of the third world communist revolutions during the Cold War. The “workers” were dark skins and “capital” were light skins. In Asia is was even the case in terms of darker Southeast Asians versus lighter skinned people descendent from East Asians (especially Chinese). Vietnam was about this in part.

    So a bunch of basically white people from the capital class who leftist revolutionaries tried to kill vote Republican? Obviously some dark skinned Mexicans with low IQs and no similar history are natural conservatives. After all they go to church (how Republican do black church goers vote?) and they don’t get divorced (until the second generation when divorce and all other social dysfunction skyrockets).

    It was dumb dumb dumb, but hey it allowed Karl Rove to narrowly win Florida that one year by upping the Cuban turnout a little.

  20. scribblerg says

    Great writeup until the last two paragraphs. Those two paragraphs are incredibly presumptuous and obnoxious about the nature of Republican politics, identity politics and what may be a way forward.

    I want this writer to get something. Mass immigration of non-Europeans into the U.S. for the past 40 years has been a disaster for this nation. Not a boon. It’s destroying us and is unprecedented. Any nation that does this has failed throughout history. This idea that somehow an invasion of 50 million peasants with avg IQ of 75, and no experience in real self govt and democracy who we let ghettoize and speak other languages, and then organize and scream at us that we are bigots and must be bred out of the population is a good national policy or something I must support to be a moral person is absurd and something only asked of white Westerners.

    Go jump in a lake if you think I’m supposed to find that a-okay. VDH doesn’t have to either. Where on earth does this author get her arrogance from? We are a nation and we have a right to control our ethnic and racial composition wrt immigration as most nations do today. Try telling South Korea they just have to find the right Somalian woman to represent them. Why are Tlaib or Omar the type of “right people”? I don’t want to be represented by some immigrant, muslim Somali woman. I’m required to tolerate her, not support her. I’m 100% within my moral rights with zero bigotry to simply reject her due to being a Muslim. I find Islam loathesome, regressive, premodern and savage.

    Where did the idea come from that I must reject everything of my culture and be willing to piss on it? Because some progressive hack says so?

    I’m hoping for a response, as I’ve had it. Let’s argue this out – you will lose. Muslims aren’t the descendants of African slaves brought here as property against their will. The U.S. owes a debt to those descendants of slaves, and to Native Americans, but that’s it. My “openness” doesn’t extend to Islam. I find it dangerous and something that, if you understand history, is bloody and threatening to the West. Hispanics? I can take ’em or leave ’em. I in no way feel like I should be obliged to want more “Latinx” here. I wonder, do Mexicans want 20 million more white people to come to Mexico? To Somalia?

    Yeah, I’m angry, you’re damn right. I cannot take this kind of talking down to those of us on the Right. Grrrrrrrr….

    • TheSnark says

      Scribblerg, you sound just like the Know-Nothings from the 1840’s. Replace your “Muslims”, “Hispanics” and “Somalis” with “Irish” and “Italians” and “Catholics”, and it’s indistinguishable from their 175 year-old manifestos.

      The difference is that back then immigrants were expected to become Americans, and nobody questioned that. Today, you have a significant part of the native population encouraging them to “celebrate” their old cultures (whatever that means) and discouraging them from integrating.

      We need a pause in our current mass immigration in order to properly absorb the ones that are already here, but most of all we need encourage their assimilation. The American culture is strong and resilient. We assimilated and Americanized millions who many though would never fit, we can do it again.

  21. Robert Martin says

    I’m baffled by this line in the article – “Bernie Sanders was castigated by the liberal left for saying that open borders are a Koch brothers’ plan (nonsense, obviously)”

    Sorry, but why “nonsense, obviously” ? The Koch Brothers ARE massive supporters of mass immigration. They never saw cheap, vulnerable labor they didn’t like.

    I have to admit after 20 years of neoliberalism – I’m done. I listened to these people in the 90s when they argued for “free trade in goods and services” and then a decade later it mysteriously morphed into “goods, service and people”. Well, I never agreed to that last part…

    The only issues I vote on now are free speech and immigration/multiculturalism. Demographically replacing a population is a radical and extremist policy, and radicals have no business masquerading as conservatives. If you can’t even conserve the posterity of your population (literally), what exactly are you conserving?

    The fact is, against all my earlier expectations, I now regard the Chamber of Commerce as more devastating to what I care about that any number of Antifa losers.

    And no, whining about Iran and Al-Shabab and Obamacare have no effect on me.

    If a Bernie Sanders type character promised to end immigration, I would support him even if it meant putting up with mediocre economic policies. Economies can be repaired, an extinct identity can not be.

  22. Jezza says

    I am dismayed by the increase in abusive epithets in the comments sections of Quillette essays. It just drags this whole exchange towards the gutter so cut it out, you fucking morons.

Comments are closed.