Friday, July 22, 2016

Trump Night: What You Are Not Allowed to Say

Despite my disinterest in the Republican National Convention I did get to hear most of the speeches of Peter Thiel, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump in Cleveland on July 21, 2016.

I listened through my particular virtual noise canceling device, which says that, once government has got past protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic, it is tempting us with things we shouldn't have. So most of what poltical speakers say is nothing less than the voice of Satan.

Peter Thiel asked why we are stuck in the middle of fake culture wars while also speaking about how government could once do science and software. As in go to the moon. Well, we know why. Our liberal friends are running the culture war to stamp out all the dangerous sects and cults that oppose their cultural hegemony. These chaps that insist on the separation of church and state are determined to unite the state with their secular church of political correctness and silence all other voices. The culture war is not fake; it is real and deadly serious.

Ivanka Trump spoke to try and neutralize the "war on women" meme that Democrats have used so successfully in recent years. She worried about the fact that while single women earn about the same as men, married women with children earn much less. As if career and working and earning money is the most important thing in the world for women. Barbara Bush said it many years ago: at the end of your life you don't wish that you had spent more time at the office. We make men have careers because it is much better than having them do what comes naturally, which is rape and pillage and brawl in the streets. We've decided that women need careers because well-born women have always needed a way to differentiate themselves from ordinary baby machines. Used to be they differentiated themselves by doing nothing except sitting and sewing. Now they differentiate themselves by worrying about work/life balance.

Donald Trump showed that he has completely blown away the old Republican Party of gentlemanly conservatism. Gone is the old triad of social conservatism, economic conservatism, and national security conservatism. In its stead is a populist conservatism to "make it like it was." Except that the 1950s era of "good jobs at good wages" for high-school graduates that just stepped down the street to the unionized manufacturing corporation for a lifetime job is gone forever. But the fault is not the global corporations. The wicked globalist corporations that are shipping jobs to the Third World are just taking care of business. They know that a corporation can never stand still; it must always be preparing for the future. Today's profitable product is tomorrow's sad loser. And so it goes.

Politicians like Trump and Clinton can muck around a bit with the market; they can make things a bit more difficult for the Chinese, and harass illegal immigrants and people over-staying their visas, and reduce legal immigration, but they'd better not try too hard, or they will make a bigger mess than we started with. As in mortgage subsidies that ended up hurting the very people, women and minorities, that they were designed to help.

President Coolidge that that 90 percent of the people coming into his office were asking for things they shouldn't. They still are.

The Trump and Brexit phenomena tell us that something is wrong. The average person isn't doing so well. I say that is because of everything from the sexual revolution to education to family formation to the taxation and regulation of labor to the government's regulatory distortions. So we should unwind just about everything we have done politically in the last century except the civil rights acts of the 1960s.

But that won't happen because every market distortion and every government program has its powerful supporters. That's why nothing changes until the economy hits the wall, and probably not even then.

But there is this. All government is injustice, particularly for those on the receiving end of government force. Usually the ruling class and its supporters have no clue that their self-dealing is causing rage and frustration out among the boo-boisie. Until all of a sudden the boo-boisie just can't take it any more.

Is 2016 a year in which the people decide they just can't take it any more? Don't hold your breath.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Cop Killers Target White Working Class

I just had another epiphany.

The first one this year was to realize that the liberal turn in the 1960s to race and gender politics had an unanticipated consequence. After the turn the white working class would be the poster boys for white racism. That's what Archie Bunker was all about in All in the Family. This nobody living in a small home in Queens became the poster boy for racism, sexism, and bigotry.

But how could Archie be racist, sexist and a bigot? He didn't have the power: that's what liberals tell us. He was just a nobody working at a warehouse, albeit as a supervisor.

But the logic of the situation required that the white working class pay the costs of the racist sexist government Affirmative Action and later diversity programs. It has to be that way, right? Government is force; action and reaction are equal and opposite and all the rest of the Newtonian system. If the government were going to favor minorities and women, then someone had to be on the losing side. And it turned out to be the white working class.

When you think about it, it couldn't have been any other way. Liberals weren't going to cut themselves out of the gravy train, they were too important with their sharing and caring and activism. Ordinary middle-class People of the Responsible Self weren't relying on government goodies, except don't touch my Social Security and Medicare. So the residual victim had to be the white working class.

This is the eternal fate of the "little darlings" of the ruling class down the ages, here here and here.

Now we come to epiphany #2. The current Black Lives Matter war on the cops, now reaching a crescendo with black shooters killing policemen, is a war on the white working class.

Who do you think works the streets in America's police departments? Graduates of "Studies" programs?Yeah, wherever working class whites have not yet been chased out by "diversity" programs, they naturally go for police jobs. Given that factory jobs have gone the way of the horse-and-buggy, getting a job at a police department is a natural for a white working class guy or gal.

Only now the police are the target of the latest fashionable liberal activism craze. The police are killing young black men, because they are racist.

Hello! Doesn't that just sound like 1971 and Archie Bunker all over again? But the point is that the police constable on the street is not the reincarnation of Bull Connor. Or even In the Heat of the Night's  Police Chief Bill Gillespie, played by Rod Steiger in the movie and -- hello -- Caroll O'Connor in the TV series.

The average policeman on the street is just a guy trying to stay out of trouble so he can retire and get his pension.

But now comes Steven Greenhut writing that the problem with police violence is police unions, that dominate local politics and jack up police salaries and work to reduce police accountability.

Do you see the parallel? Back in the 1950s the white working class was flying high with union protected "good jobs at good wages." Then Stein's Law -- if something cannot go on forever, it will stop -- kicked in. World competition started to wash away the foundations of the union game, because big corporations could no longer pass increased costs onto the consumer. So the great unionized industrial corporations went into decline, and the white working class lost their above-market wages and benefits. In fact, the old union game was a bubble and crashed, and so many folks in the white working class lost everything, the women and minorities hardest hit in the housing crash of 2008 and just like Joe Soptic in 2012. Now the white working class is dying of despair, according to the Washington Post.

Now the rot is setting in for the white working class in police departments. Police unions have jacked wages up above market levels. Police unions have made police less accountable so that activists are mobilizing against the police. And anyway, state and local governments are all going to go broke in the next couple of decades.

So the white working class is going to get hammered again. Not just from the well-born activists running Black Lives Matter who want to make them the scapegoats for the social disaster of the black underclass. But also from the "cannot go on forever" aspect of police wages and pensions.

But if you are a liberal living in your NPR/NYT bubble getting all excited about electing the First Woman President, or a good little girl working as an administrator in a university bureaucracy, you know nothing about all this. And you won't until the sh*t hits the fan.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

The Fault is Not In Our Elites, But in the World They Made

For some reason, I can't get excited enough about the Republican National Convention to watch it. Perhaps it's because I am going to observe my 70th birthday at the end of the month.

Or maybe it's because much bigger things are afoot than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

I wrote some disparaging words about the failures of the "administrative faction of the ruling class" at American Thinker this week, including blaming it for World War I and its failed aftermath.

Looking at the big picture, I guess you could say that World War I tore apart the 19th century world and World War II put the world together again. Except for the Soviet Union.

That's because in the US and UK, the ruling class came together on World War II and forged their peoples, broken by 20 years of misery, back into a nation again. Talk to a person in their 80s, the generation that was young in the 1940s, and they are all pretty good with going along to get along with big government. Hey, big government had its finest hour in World War II.

The ruling class was so pleased with itself that it went to sleep and figured it would rule forever. But obviously with the Crash of 2008, political correctness, the rise of radical Islam, and Brexit and Trump, something has changed. The post-World War II world is coming to an end, and we don't know what will come next.

Here's a piece about the failures of the GOP elite by Jeffrey H. Anderson. He lists four failures: failure to listen to the citizenry, getting suckered into the Democrats' model for nominating presidential candidates (primaries instead of smoke-filled rooms), failing to make a big picture case, failing to back the viable challenger (i.e., Walker, Cruz). All in all, he writes, "the problems in our politics lie more with the elites than with the citizenry."

All true, but all ground level, tactical stuff.

And really meaningless, because the GOP elite doesn't have real power. They don't get to make the world; they just live in it. Their failure is really the failure to take down the political and cultural worldconstructed by the Democrats. Yet how are the GOPers to do that, since politics is downstream from culture?

Let us try and construct a big picture to explain our situation.

Back in the 19th century the Left, in what we will call a genuine concern for the plight of the workers, built a political movement by splitting off the working class from an identity with the nation. This project failed in World War I when the working class identified with their nations and fought in the trenches against each other. Anyway, it had turned out, capitalism wasn't "immiserating" the working class, it was enriching it.

Still, you had to hand it to the Left. Their project worked pretty well. It is only now, a century after World War I, that the working class, in Brexit and Trump, has become disenchanted with the leadership of the Left.

The point is that people respond to divisive politics, and are easily persuaded that "they" are out to exploit "us." And everyone is in favor of government putting its thumb on the scales of justice if it benefits "us." So it took a while for the workers to realize that the Left didn't care about people like them.

But the Left had another card up its sleeve. It went from class politics to identity politics. Now instead of splitting the working class off from the nation it would split off all kinds of groups, from women to racial minorities to sexual minorities. Looking at the result, it is clear that divide and conquer is not that hard to do. You can get women to believe that they have been kept down by the patriarchy, blacks to believe that they have been kept down by the police, gays that they have been kept down by Christian bigots, and so on.

Conservatives have reacted by fingering the tactics of this cultural Marxism, the community organizer tactics of chaps like Saul Alinsky and the activism culture that all good little girls learn in government schools. And we are outraged.

But from a big picture view we must understand that all politics is division: that is the politician's stock in trade. It is just that lefties are so much better at it. And they have set the rules so that their divisive tactics are all about communities coming together while their opponents' divisive tactics are bigotry and racism.

In addition the Left has grown the government from 7 percent of GDP to 35 percent of GDP as it has rewarded its supporters with government loot. But the more loot is handed out the less that capitalism can innovate and create new wealth. And the more that the losers get angry.

That gets us to Stein's Law. If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

Obviously, today's division cannot go on forever. So how can we stop all this division? The answer is right in front of us. The only time humans come together is during an existential emergency, like a flood or a war.

The only way we are going to be able to heal all the divisions provoked by the Left since World War II is by having us a great big war.

And it is pretty obvious what that war is going to be all about. Muslims.

Of course it's going to be pretty hard on Muslims who are, after all, just people. But the fact is that today's radical Islam is implacably opposed to everything that made the West great. Islam is opposed to the separation of church and state; it is tribal rather than national; it is opposed to social and economic innovation, the foundation of the Great Enrichment; it is social and religiously intolerant. It denies women a public life.

Suppose you were a populist leader looking for a way to unify a nation or a culture under your leadership. What would you do? You would look for an enemy that you could use to unify your people. Hey, liberals do it all the time, only their enemies are the racists, sexists, homophobes right here at home.

Don't like it? Neither do I. But the fact is that you cannot unify people around the concept of rainbows and unicorns. You can only unify them to face and to fight an existential threat to their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

So maybe that's why I can't get too excited about the political conventions. I think that much bigger things are afoot, but we are only in the early stages of this sea change in our politics and our culture, and the great events of the political season are meaningless skirmishes as great movements arise to deal with our existential crisis, and mobilize us, willy nilly, for war.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Everyone is Playing "Time for a Change"

When you think about it, it is remarkable how much of politics is the Blame Game. In the 2000s liberals liked to blame George W. Bush for everything, although his Iraq policy was the consensus ruling-class "regime-change" policy. Now conservatives are blaming Barack Obama for everything, even though liberals are confident that the problem is that conservatives opposed everything that Obama proposed.

There is a reason why so much blame goes in in politics. It's because government is force, and force is a very blunt instrument. So politics always comes down to our guys shoving around their guys. But the question always is: what happens if something goes wrong with our plan to shove the other guys around?

Here's a chap who says that the problem is that "the center-left has told the bottom 60% of the income distribution in their countries the following story: 'Globalization is good for you. It’s awesome. It’s really great...'" and so on. Only, of course, it hasn't been so great for a whole bunch of people, and now they are angry.

Here's a chapette who says that the problem is that "America has been rocked by a series of semi-coherent social movements that blend some real and compelling grievances with a great deal of confusion, cinematic victim-mongering, and wildly imprudent demands."

But don't forget that the last 200 years has seen a Great Enrichment of 3000 percent, and it has been lifting billions out of poverty in the last couple of decades. You'd think that everyone would be over the moon.

They aren't over the moon because at the street level life is always hard and full of disappointment. I like to say that the most disappointed are the "little darlings" of the ruling class that have been promised goodies and are now disappointed that the goodies haven't changed their lives and, anyway, the ruling class didn't deliver on its promises.

So the global elite promised wonders from globalization. Actually, they were right. Cheap everything from China has been a global miracle. But plenty of people have been hurt, starting with unionized workers that priced themselves out of a job. Whatever the advantages of "free trade" (which is just another term for market prices) the constant innovation of the market through market prices creates plenty of angry losers.

So the angry losers are rallying to politicians promising to punish the evildoers. Of course they are. Governments always promise to protect us from existential dangers and what is more existential than losing your job to a foreigner?

Yes, but what about the future? How can anyone expect Donald Trump to deliver on his promises of curbing immigration and teaching the Chinese a lesson? Good point. How can anyone expect Hillary Clinton to deliver on the fatuous promise of universal government health care and keeping all the Democratic victim groups onside? Everything the government touches turns to dysfunction, because government is force, and force is useful only for breaking things.

The truth is that we only advance by trying stuff, and most innovation is a mistake. So we bumble along from mistake to mistake, and turn around to find that, after 200 years of mistakes, we have increased per capita income by 30 times! And there has never been anything like it, ever.

We all wish confusion on our enemies, to teach them a lesson, and so we demand that it is Time for a Change. But the way to the future is by finding a useful way to serve our fellow humans, and not to demand our pound of flesh up front.

In the real world, humans demand to get their pound of flesh, their government check, up until the moment that the government runs out of money. Governments know this, so they do anything rather than disappoint their followers with "cuts" or "austerity." Until it is too late, Venezuela.

It is easy to say: Don't rely on government, but the truth is that the government takes 35 percent of everything we produce, so we have to take the government's dime and go along to get along. When the crash comes, of course, it will be minorities and women hardest hit, although in the Crash of 2008 it was probably minorities and white working class men hardest hit. Those folks are hardest hit because they have no option than to play the government's game. It is only people up the food chain that can afford to save for a rainy day against the government running out of money.

Meanwhile, I'm angry, I blame President Obama and politically correct liberals, and I think it is Time for a Change.

Monday, July 18, 2016

When Will Democrats Realize That Obama is Killing Them?

Government has only two things to do in this world. First, its job is to protect us against foreign enemies, pirates and plunderers and such. Second, its job it so protect us against domestic enemies, thieves and murderers and such. All else doth err.

But the whole program of the left is based on a denial of this. On foreign enemies they say that it is our aggressive foreign policy that incites anger across the world. Not the mention the precipitate of western colonialism. On domestic enemies they accuse the police of "brutality."

Hillary Clinton was playing that game a while back when she tweeted:
Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
President Obama was playing that game a week ago when he said the police could make their job safer by admitting their failures.

This sort of liberal jaw-flapping is annoying at the best of times, but when we have a Muslim global terror problem in the world, and a Black Lives Matter anti-cop program at home, it becomes unendurable.

At some point reality breaks through the liberal propaganda screen and people will start to demand that the government does its job, and protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic. They will start to say that they don't care whether Muslims are peaceful and tolerant, just kill the terrorists; they will start to say that they don't care if the police have it in for young black men, just stop the cop killers.

At some point this election year, I predict, Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media are going to wake up and realize that they are losing the American people and losing the election. It will break through Hillary Clinton's skull that President Obama and his lefty rhetoric are enraging ordinary Americans and that they are going to vote for change over four more wonderful years of Obama.

By then, of course, it will be too late.

You may ask: why do the Democrats do this? The answer, I think, is that the Democrats and liberals want to use politics to fight a different war than the war against street thugs and foreign thugs. They want to fight inequality domestically and internationally. Not to mention save the planet from climate change. It stands to reason that nobody is going to allow them to do that while there are still street thugs killing people and foreign thugs mowing down French people watching patriotic fireworks shows.

So, in order to do the fun things that liberals want to do with their political power, they first have to say that there is no need to do the basic stuff of protection. That stuff is old hat, and anyway racist and colonialist and irrelevant.

Of course, they are lying about this, and worst of all, have come to believe their lies. The only thing that government is warranted to do in this world is protect us against enemies, foreign and domestic. Everything else is just domestic loot and plunder, the armed minority of the ruling class taxing the inhabitants to reward its supporters.

OK. I've made my prediction. Now let's see how it turns out.

Friday, July 15, 2016

President Obama's Divisiveness: What Does He Mean?

My question about President Obama is this. Is his divisive rhetoric just his inner leftiness? Or is it cynical and strategic, based on a hard look at the polls?

I would have thought that his speech in Dallas at a service for the five slain Dallas cops would have been not just in bad taste, but bound to stir up feeling against the Democratic candidate for president in 2016. Why lecture his opponents as racists and haters at a funeral service?

But David Harsanyi writes that, "like most people on the left these days, [the president] no longer bothers to make a distinction between a policy position and a moral struggle."

But, of course, the left's collapse of politics into a moral struggle is not the whole story. Politics is violence, so the moral struggle can only be effected by a violent struggle. Thus it makes complete sense for the left to escalate the struggle for civil rights into an armed struggle, as in Black Lives Matter.

Scott McKay writes about Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson. After "rabble-rousing" in Ferguson, Missouri, he is how earning $165,000 a year as a community organizer for Baltimore's public schools, and living "in an 8,000 square foot house owned by board members of George Soros' Open Society Institute." Now he has been "feted for three hours at the White House."

See, I would have thought that Hillary Clinton, running for president, would want to damp down the lefty crazies for the duration of the campaign. I would have thought that she and Obama would have got together to keep the rowdies out of sight until after the glorious victory in November. After all, Hillary is the wife of the guy that ran as a New Democrat assuring us that there was nobody here except us moderates.

But maybe they have decided that the "we are all moderates strategy" can't win.

That leads to the other strategic idea, which would argue in favor of encouraging the thuggish Black Lives Matter. On this view you need to get 90 percent of blacks voting Democrat, and that means you need to get them frightened that Jim Crow is just around the corner and angry that the cops are killing their sons. If the Dems don't get 90 percent of the black vote and don't get a big turnout then they can't win a national election. As Steve Sailer puts it, the Dems need to "angry up" the various elements of their "Coalition of the Fringes" to keep them on the team.

I suppose the answer is: all of the above. The flaw in any conspiracy theory is to believe that the supposed conspirators really know what they are doing, and that the organizer of the conspiracy, the Mr. Big, also knows what he is doing. In reality Mr. Big is not as big as he seems. He is not master of all he surveys; he has to play politics with all the factions of his gang, and cannot just order them all into line for the good of the order. He has to temporize, and reward his hot-heads for their activism, and try to keep everyone happily fighting to bend the arc of history towards justice.

But there is a problem with the left's view of politics.

Let's think back to 1968. The New Deal wing of the Democratic Party just wanted to win the election on the old model of the New Deal coalition. But the New Left radicals and the peace faction would not agree to shut up, so they disrupted the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and represented that the police "rioted" against protesters in the park near the convention. In response the Republican Party became the party of "law and order" and won four of the next five presidential elections, and the Democratic Party had to claw back to the middle, using the astonishing political skills of Bill Clinton.

Stop press. Donald Trump just announced that he was the "law and order" candidate for president.

We racist sexist homophobes fail to understand that our liberal friends do not think like us. They really believe that their leftist politics is going to save the world, and they believe that the techniques of their politics, the division, the protests, the marches, the silencing of opponents are the right and proper thing to do. And above all they do not think that government is a necessary evil, on the idea that government is force and the point of social animals is to reduce the human and the material cost of force. They think that politics, emancipative and liberatory politics, is salvific.

So let's give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and accept that he actually believes the rubbish he spouts all the time. And the same for the rest of our liberal friends. What the president does not understand is that millions of Americans hate the continual division and hate the praise heaped upon low-rent community organizers. They just want to follow the rules, go to work, and obey the law.

And they want the government to protect them from enemies, foreign and domestic.

The only thing that will force the liberals to moderate their leftiness is defeat, repeated defeat, at the ballot box. That is all.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Learning from Haidt: Trumpism is the Natural Outcome of Ruling Class Failure

Yesterday I blogged a piece on Jonathan Haidt's analysis of Brexit and Trump and the confrontation of globalism and nationalism.

In Haidt's analysis, globalism is a little bit too far out in front and is provoking a nationalist and authoritarian backlash. I wrote that it was the globalists who were the authoritarians. After all, it is the globalists that have cunningly set up all kinds of global institutions from which there is no dissent and no means to petition for a redress of grievances. Can you spell Authoritarian?

But what really caught my eye was an analysis of how the world got here, looking at World Values Survey data. Haidt wrote that:
as they [countries] industrialize, they move away from “traditional values” in which religion, ritual, and deference to authorities are important, and toward “secular rational” values that are more open to change, progress, and social engineering based on rational considerations.
This is rather obviously an analysis from the globalist elite; it feels a bit like a 19th century colonial governor in his magnificent plumed hat talking about the natives. Compassionate caring social engineers will raise up the benighted heathen towards the rational world of social programs and reason.

Of course, I think that this attitude is precisely what creates Trumpism. People carefully relieved of their religion and ritual their "deference to authorities" are being taught to defer to their globalist authorities and their social-engineering experts. So the only way they have to petition their global overlords for a redress of grievances is through Trumpism or its local affiliates. I don't call that authoritarian; I call it rebellion.

But beyond that I think that the globalist approach misunderstands what it takes for an individual to enter into the industrial world order and succeed in it. It is not a process of advancing from "religion, ritual, and deference to authorities" to "'secular rational' values that are more open to change, progress, and social engineering." It is, I believe a process that must occur in every human heart to change from the rural subordinate culture of the peasant, with its deference to unpredictable lords and gods, to the responsible culture of the city, with its God that sets the world up to run by rules and divine justice, and its rulers that are accountable to the citizens. In other words, on my Three Peoples theory, the transformation occurs as people transition from being People of the Subordinate Self to People of the Responsible Self.

Trumpism, on my theory, is an inevitable result of a top-down transition to industrial capitalism where people are shuffled around into factories, promised life-time employment, kept shuttered up in labor unions, kept quiet with entitlements, educated in government child-custodial facilities, and protected from unemployment and de-skilling by social engineering programs run by the elite rather than by mutual-aid societies run by the people themselves.

Sooner or later, under the top-down system, the elite is going to make a mistake and will not have foreseen some social, economic, or cultural development, and the still-subordinate people are going to wake up and find out that their kind and compassionate political elite has not compassionately provided for them. In the particular case of the Trumpkins the white working class that was taught to expect a prosperous future by sitting back and following orders from its betters has woken up to find that their betters lied. The good old days of good jobs at good wages in the industrial sector are gone, never to return, and the skills that sustained the white working class half a century ago are no longer valuable.

Now, if the white working class had been raised to the culture of the responsible self they would never have got into this situation. They would never have believed in the lie of permanent lifetime employment. They would not have joined labor unions that ended up looting the companies they organized into bankruptcy. And when the world started to move on from Taylorist manufacturing the white working class would have moved on too. But they didn't. They believed the lies told them by the political left; they enjoyed their moment in the sun as political power forced prosperity on them for a season. And now they are angry; of course they are.

My theory of life, the universe, and everything, is that the old country way of "traditional values" was not in fact traditional values, because it was not self-conscious about values. People lived the way they had always done because that is what they did. They lived under a powerful lord as his serfs and underlings. And they worshipped terrible gods that might punish them for nothing. The worst thing was to change; that would almost certainly end in disaster. These people were People of the Subordinate Self.

But starting about 3,000 years ago, in and around cities and towns, people started to change. They started to live and work in a market economy, because that is what people do in towns. And they started to believe in a new kind of God, that ruled over an understandable world and dispensed not divine power but divine justice. They started to believe that to thrive they had to change and adjust to the changes in the market. They started to believe that they were responsible for their lives, and were responsible for doing something about it. These people were People of the Responsible Self.

Pretty obviously, these People of the Responsible Self are not going to wake up one day and say "we was robbed." Because they never would have gone to sleep. Of course they would not have done a lot of things. They would not have voted for politicians to loot other people to give them money for pensions. They would not have sat by while child education went from bad to worse. They would have voted out corrupt politicians on principle, never mind whether they were "ours" or "theirs."

But now our globalist leaders are shocked, shocked that the people they anesthetized a generation ago and more have woken up with a fearful headache. How could their rational secular governance have gone wrong? The science!

Yep. It's not just the white working class that has been living in the dream world. Hello ruling class! This is the future that you created with your top-down politics. You sowed the wind and now you are reaping the whirlwind. Get used to it.

And as for the science, it has been telling us for over a half century that top-down bureaucratic rule cannot work because there just isn't enough bandwidth in bureaucratic rule to fix problems in real time. Only the market can do that, and even then it typically does it with a nasty recession. But at least the recession is better than what they are experiencing in Bolivarian socialist Venezuela.