One Problem for the New York Times is

Here's a crazy mirror story from the New York Times. According to Carlos Slim's blog the Democrats represent all the economically successful regions of America, for a

huge portion of the nation’s globally competitive economic activity occurs in those blue places. Dominated by highly productive, export-oriented advanced industries, high-tech enterprises, and professional services including the management of companies[.]

And so naturally the voters of those regions are all in favor of free trade. Republican regions do not add much value, because of their old tired industries, and the voters of those regions are in favor of Donald Trump's protectionism.

This is curious, because it inverts the narrative of the last century or so. Used to be that progressives said that the whole point of a compassionate and just politics was to think about the folks left behind and try to help them. And Republicans and free market enthusiasts were excoriated for being deaf to the cries of the unprotected, believing that the market should be left to itself.

Now, the NYT guys seem to be saying to hell with the deplorables; we are the winners.

Allow me to introduce a different explanation of all this.

First of all, Progressives live in an over-under culture, as reflected in the priorities of the Democratic Party. On the one hand they are the educated ruling class and their educated supporters; they are globalists. The folks that manage and work for the high-tech economy are natural globalists, and that's fine. But then there are the Unders in the over-under culture, and they are tribalists. They belong to the single-women tribe married to the state, the racial minorities married to the racial spoils system, and the government employees married to the government pension system. None of these people give a damn about the economy or trade; they just want their checks.

You can see that the policies of the Democratic Party neatly reflect these realities. They are all for the globalist corporations and the government handouts, but they don't give a damn about the folks in between. In fact, as Hillary Clinton so obligingly said, the folks in between are the racists, sexists, homophobes, the deplorables of whom you've heard tell.

Now the Republican Party represents the broad middle of America, people that aren't cut out to be tech wizards, and who follow the rules, get a job, and obey the law. So they are people that don't rely on government handouts much beyond the mandatory Social Security and Medicare. On these people falls most heavily the weight of big government taxes and regulation. See, it's one thing to get into tech, which is not heavily regulated, and make a ton of money on some brilliant exploitation of the information revolution. It's another thing to try to get ahead in the ordinary economy where the taxes and the regulations represent a real headwind.

If you are a tech-head, the complexities of high marginal taxes on income, and high taxes on labor, and impenetrable regulations and complexities of employee fringe benefits, and interferences in the labor market like minimum wage laws and labor unions, all these things are not that important, not if you are shooting for billions with your high-stakes tech startup. So you don't worry about them. You can afford to locate in high-tax high-regulation California or New York City.

But if you are an ordinary mortal, the high taxes and regulations and labor laws are like a punch in the solar plexus. It is very hard to start and run an ordinary-mortal business if you have to lift the heavy weight of government as well as learn how to thrive in the market.

The New York Times writes that, despite the attempts of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison to gin up a populist surge in the Democratic Party, "the Democratic electorate has actually become less receptive to populism over the past two decades."

Well, yes. The upper side of the over-under coalition has become less economically populist. Although they don't seem to have any problem with raising the minimum wage. The point is that the under side of the Democratic coalition doesn't have a voice. Their "voice" is the voice of the ruling class that affects to represent them. And as far as we can see the under side of the Democratic coalition is quite happy being kept on the liberal plantation as long as the checks keep coming. But then nobody asked them.

The way that politics works in the United States is that, from time to time, a group that used to be the little darlings of the Democratic ruling class gets expelled from the party and finds itself in the political wilderness. After 40 years in the wilderness this group eventually finds itself a home in the Republican Party and the Republicans, being kind souls, adapt their party platform to accommodate the newcomers. That's how Southern whites became Republican; that's how the religious right became Republican. And that's how the white working class became Republican.

What I want to know is who will be next to be cast into the wilderness. Will it be East-Asian Americans? Will it be Hispanics? Is it possible that African Americans will at some point decide that they can't take it any more?

I can't wait to find out.

The Left's Murderous Cult of Power

One of the great facts of the living world is the fact of social animals. Although life, the universe and everything is a frantic lifelong effort to kill or be killed, yet success in staying alive depends on groups of animals declaring a zone of peace where violence is banished and cooperation reigns and trust is king.

But the left is a murderous cult that denies the facts of humans as social animals and the reign of trust, and it has declared war on the three ramparts of modern society: its peaceful economic cooperation that has extended economic prosperity to all that labor, its peaceful political process that adjudicates political differences without the resort to civil war, and its freedom of religion that allows people to practice their moral and cultural faiths without the resort to religious war.

The left is opposed to peaceful economic cooperation. Right through the astonishing history of the Great Enrichment in the last 200 years the left has insisted that it is all a mirage, and that only revolution and rapine can prevent the cruel hegemony of the capitalists. In fact, the Great Enrichment, which has seen per-capita income rise from $1-3 per day to $100 per day and more, is the fullest expression of the notion of social animals. The rule is that you seek out some work or make some product that other people are willing to pay for. And then you accept the verdict of the market. The left insists that this cannot work, because alienation, exploitation, oppression, and immiseration, and therefore activists should be empowered to regulate and dominate the commanding heights of the economy. And therefore it has waged war against peaceful economic cooperation between consenting adults for nearly two hundred years.

The left is opposed to peaceful political cooperation. It licenses itself to practice political "activism," to oppose anything using the threat of force and demand that society capitulate to its demands. This revolutionary doctrine had merit when workers first came to the city in the industrial revolution and lacked the vote and any political power. And so the mid 19th century in Europe featured street action by the working class that had newly migrated to the city. But the expansion of the franchise to the workers ended the occasion for street violence, and the workers happily stopped political violence once they were given a seat at the table of political power. The whole point of universal suffrage is that people give up, in exchange for the vote, the right to resort to civil war in the pursuit of their just demands and agree to abide by the verdict of the sham fight of elections in which the various political factions compete for the votes of the electorate, which now includes the entire adult population.

The left is opposed to peaceful moral-religious competition. That is the logic of Marx and his notion of religion as the "opiate of the masses" to be demolished by his ideological cult of socialism. It is also the logic of 20th century fascism, featuring Mussolini's Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato, or "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." It is also the logic of so-called cultural Marxism, that seeks a cultural hegemony over society with all cultural forms subordinated to the cultural ruling class's secular religion. But this means that anyone opposing the ruling class's cultural hegemony is forced to raise a head of cultural rebellion, which quickly becomes a political head of rebellion when the cultural ruling class uses its political power to enforce its cultural will. But the whole point of freedom of religion, of the separation of church and state, is that the political power keeps out of religion and permits all those that practice religion in peace to compete for adherents and to influence the culture by their example rather than by their ability to compel general obedience to their beliefs.

The whole point of the modern human experiment is to test the possibilities of more cooperation and less force; it is, if you like the, radical human extension of Nature's idea of social animals. How much force is really needed to police the realm of economic cooperation? How much force needs to be deputized to government to enforce society's will against bad actors? How much force is ever justified in enforcing cultural and religious norms? The left's answer to these questions is: a lot, and we are willing to apply whatever force is needed to enforce our will.

In viewing the left's rebellion against the astonishing ideas of the modern era, we can at least understand the ground of their revolt. What do you mean, that the way to prosper in this world is to submit your economic life utterly to the market and its prices, to trust that there will always be a place and a life for a man or a woman who merely proceeds on the faith that the market will reward those that seek to serve it? What do you mean, that people should submit their political yearnings to the verdict of their fellow voters, and accept defeat with the mild challenge of "wait until next time!" and the resolve to fight the next election with improved arts of persuasion? What do you mean that ignorant and superstitious cults stuck in the past should be allowed to practice and proselytize on equal terms with my scientific and rational knowledge?

But the fact is that the left's fears have proved to be groundless. The Moloch of capitalism and the robber barons? They have transformed the economy, again and again, but it seems they are not that interested in power. Political power? It has come a cropper again and again in the modern era, and instead of being a force to protect the unprotected has more often protected the powerful. Religious power? The separation of church and state was working pretty well until the left came along with its march through the institutions that deliberately tries to intellectually terrorize those that disagree with it.

So why does the left hang on its gospel of power, after its prophesies have failed again and again, ruining millions and lives and its followers have killed in the hundreds of millions?

That is the great question that cries out from the mass graves of the left's millions of victims. What, on the grave of Marx, is the point of this murderous cult of power?

How Do You Know When the World Has Changed?

I noticed a piece on the Berlin Christmas bombing in the Brit Independent by a leftie writer. He said the bombing had ended "his leftie fantasy about Germany," but if you read the article you can see that nothing has changed for him. Berlin is still the bohemian enclave of Weimar Germany, "a sanctuary for gays, liberals, artists and weirdos of all stripes," but now

The coming days will be a test of openness, understanding and love, and I hope Germany will remain strong. 

Yup. He has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

The point is, when the world changes, and it is time to go, how do you know? Here is a leftie, experiencing the end of his hopes for a multicultural society starring gays, liberals, artists, and weirdos, and in the bloody mess of terrorist acts he talks of love and openness.

As if the left has ever been in favor of love and openness, except in its conceits. In fact what is needed is a few strategic deportations, just like back in the 1920s: a little Murdstonian "firmness."

Here is Zombie, looking at the political events of the last year and the election of Donald Trump and suggesting that it is a hinge point of history. The whole point of the left's cultural hegemony and its march through the institutions and its complete domination of education and the culture and the bureaucracy was that the electorate would be carefully taught to hate and to fear Trumpism,

And then November 8, 2016 happened, and BOOM: It was all revealed to be a lie. Not only did the indoctrination fail, but the general impression that the relentless indoctrination had always been successful was itself a gigantic meta-deception.

So the questions is -- after the Muslim terror in Europe, after Brexit, after Trump -- have we reached Peak Leftism? Or is this just a correction, as they say of the stock market, with the leftist bull market to resume after a season?

I'm sorry to be pessimistic, but I don't think you can tell. Not now, not yet, and I think this applies also to life, the universe, and everything, in general.

You can see this reflected in every business venture, and every war. How do you know if your business venture is going to succeed or fail? When do you pull the plug on failure, and avoid sending good money after bad?

You really don't, because often persistence pays off, and one more Big Push turns the corner. Or it doesn't and you descend into bankruptcy and ruin.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is writing a book, "Skin in the Game," in which he attempts to apply the lessons of his Black Swan and Antifragile to the notion of avoiding "ruin," so that your mistakes don't wipe you out.

I am not sure that this is possible. I think you can certainly do things to minimize ruin if things go wrong, but I don't think you can guarantee it. Taleb apparently thinks that genetically modified organisms (GMO) are a recipe for disaster and ruin. But are they? He seems to support the Precautionary Principle. But is the Precautionary Principle possible? We can never look around the corner when we start a project, because of the famous unknown unknowns. We can avoid potential ruin by making ourselves "anti-fragile" but we cannot completely avoid the consequences of failure.

Yesterday Donald Trump truly became President-elect when the Electoral College met in the several state capitols and elected him president by a vote of 304-227. Is this a sea-change in US politics, after a business tycoon upended the Republican Party to win its nomination and upended the Democratic Party by appealing to its neglected white working class voters in the Rust Best states? Or is it a mere correction, with politics as usual to resume after an interregnum?

The truth is that We Don't Know. And people will be contesting what happened and the meaning of it for the rest of my lifetime.

Meanwhile, life goes on, and the croupier cries faites vos jeux, place your bets, on the next turn of the wheel.

They are Coming for the Electoral College

In the aftermath of the 2016 election, when the system worked exactly as it should, liberals are calling the Electoral College into question. And who better to front the campaign than outgoing President Obama:

The Electoral College is a vestige, it’s a carryover from an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states[.]

Oh really, Mr. President. You mean that the Electoral College is a vestigial organ, like the appendix?

You can see what comes next. A liberal 5-4 Supreme Court majority declares the Electoral College unconstitutional and orders some liberal-friendly remedy in the name of democracy or social justice.

Although I prophesy that whatever that remedy is, it will turn around and bite liberals in the butt.

Right now there is a liberal proposal in which states promise that their Electoral College electors will vote for the popular vote winner: National Popular Vote.  The idea is that when a certain number of states, with a majority of the Electoral College, have enacted laws to pledge their Electors to the popular vote winner then those states will activate their popular vote mandates and vote for the national popular vote winner rather than their own state's popular winner.

Right now the following states have enacted laws to implement the national popular vote; they are : CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA. You can see that they are all liberal states, and some of them are also big liberal states. So that makes sense. And hey, according to National Popular Vote, even President-elect Trump thinks it is a good idea.

I'd say that this idea is in your dreams because of the original point of the Electoral College, which still holds. The Electoral College was put into the constitution to get the small states to sign on and vote to adopt the constitution. And the whole point of the Electoral College is to prevent a couple of big states from dominating the election. Back in 1787 the biggest state was Virginia with 10 members in the House of Representatives followed by Pennsylvania and Massachusetts with 8 each. The four small states were Delaware and Rhode Island with one member each, and New Hampshire and Georgia with three members each. So even then the small states wanted special protection. Today we have a lot more small states, and they are not going to let their Electoral College power get drowned in the tsunami of popular votes available in California and New York.

The fact that liberals are coming up with a creaky idea like National Popular Vote indicates to me that they probably don't have the will to just overturn the Electoral College in the Supreme Court. Not yet. And that, to me, is a relief.

But still, here we have President Obama calling the Electoral College a "vestige." Another 20 years of that sort of talk from the great and the good, amplified by the Democratic operatives with bylines in the media, and a future liberal Supreme Court will reckon it has the authority to excise the vestige from the Constitution, which is, after all, supposed to be a living thing.

The other thing is this. If it weren't for the Electoral College we wouldn't have heard the cry of the white working class, dying of despair out in the Rust Belt.

Tell you what, liberals. Think of the Electoral College as a form of "peaceful protest." That should make you feel better.

Hey, how about the idea of voting as peaceful protest? What a concept!

Because, improbable as it may seem, there are people out there suffering from oppression and exploitation that liberals have never heard of, and don't want to hear from.

And it is a good idea for the electoral system to make their voices heard, even if the ruling class doesn't want to listen.

The Left's Catalog of Errors

Let us set forth, as a public service, the catalog of errors that our lefty friends have compiled over the years. But let us not just dismiss with a snarl but understand the ground of their errors and give their follies the benefit of the doubt.

Wage Labor is Alienation. No it isn't. Wage labor is a boon to the worker because he assigns a lot of the risk of producing and selling away to his employer. Source of error: Marx believed in the classical economists theory of value, with competing "use value" and "exchange value." He proposed that the natural task of labor was producing for "use" rather than producing for sale. But the marginal revolution of 1870 solved the value problem by realizing that all prices are determined "at the margin." Benefit of the doubt: Wage labor was dehumanizing, especially at the start of the industrial revolution before inventors had figured out how to automate all dehumanizing work.

Capitalism will "Immiserate" the Workers. No it won't. The capitalism of the last two hundred years has been a Great Enrichment with successive innovations building prosperity from $1-3 per capita per day to $100 per capita per day in real dollars. There has been nothing like it, ever. Source of error: Marx understood that market competition tends to squeeze profit out of any undertaking as new market entrants compete for the consumer's business. So, if nothing changes, competition is likely to squeeze all costs, human and material, to the bone. But Marx forgot one thing. It is true that in each individual industry increasing competition squeezes profit away from the producers and "immiserates" them. But actual history is that every decade or so, a new revolution of innovation produces new opportunities for profit, and most of the immiserated workers get jobs in the new industry. Benefit of the doubt: At the time that Marx was writing nobody could have foreseen the oil revolution, the internal combustion engine, the electrical revolution, the physics revolution, the electronics revolution, the computer revolution, the internet revolution.

Socialism will end the exploitation of man by man. No, it didn't. Socialism has been a disaster wherever it has been tried, whether as a simple rural commune or as an administrative socialist state. Source of the error: In its rural commune version socialism fails because "to each according to his needs" discourages people from working. That is why all rural communes like New Harmony, Indiana, fail. In socialism's administrative version the political bosses decide what work is to be done. But political bosses don't know what work needs to be done. In fact, we now know, socialism can't work because it cannot compute prices, and administrative bureaucrats cannot outperform the price signalling of the market, and regulation cannot work because it ends up captured by the regulated. In reality, of course, capitalism is the closest we are ever going to get to socialism, because capitalism, through the price system, encourages everyone to altruistically find work that is useful to other people; it demands that they do socially useful things with their lives. Benefit of the doubt: The world is a cruel place, and mankind has ever dreamed of a perfect land of peace and justice.

Government can Deliver Social Services. No it can't. OK, it can for a while. But over time government fails to adjust its service delivery program to new conditions and needs. Source of the error: Government is an armed minority that occupies territory and taxes the inhabitants so it can reward its supporters. Thus all new government programs and "reforms" end up merely rewarding the government supporters and only incidentally providing social services. It becomes almost impossible to reform an existing government program because the clients of the program object vociferously if anyone proposes to reduce their benefits. This is why education is failing to teach, Social Security will go broke, Health care is brutally expensive, government welfare doesn't raise the poor out of poverty. All this reduces to the truism that it is almost impossible for a government to reduce spending. Instead, government resorts to subterfuges, including hyperinflation, as in Germany and Austria after World War I, Zimbabwe in the 2000s, Venezuela in the 2010s. The root of all these disasters is a government that dared not reduce its spending to balance against its reduced revenue. Benefit of the doubt: Humans ask for things from their leaders that they shouldn't ask for, and politicians try to deliver. Until they can't.

It's all the Fault of Racists, Sexist, Homophobes. Yeah. The problem with all oppression theories under capitalism is the question: why don't the evil capitalists hire the oppressed and marginalized and underpaid and exploit the hell out of their marginalized status? Why don't businesses flood into the inner city and hire blacks? Why don't they prefer the underpaid women that apparently work for 80 cents on the dollar? Or, under the current diversity regime where the capitalist all advertise their eagerness to diversity their workforces, why aren't the traditionally marginalized zooming up to the top of the charts? In fact, as the Jim Crow era in the South showed, you need to pass and enforce racist laws in order to force business to hew the racist line. Source of the error: People don't appreciate the depth of the social revolution we call the industrial revolution. It requires people to abandon their pre-industrial culture of the kindred, the tribe, and the village, where you only trust your kin, your race, or your fellow villagers. The modern world demands that everyone enter into the trust culture of capitalism where you trust and work with anyone that can be trusted, and submit yourself to the judgement of the market rather than the judgement of your in-group. This is hard, very hard, and it creates a demand for political activists that conjure up scapegoats. See René Girard. In modern democracy we scapegoat the "in" party and hope to end our troubles by throwing the rascals out and voting for "change." Benefit of the doubt: It is very easy to see the mote in another's eye, but very hard to see the beam in one's own eye.

To be continued.

How to Help an In-denial Liberal

I had dinner last night with a retired Pentagon colonel, and we had a delicious tour d'horizon. But then the colonel went on to tell the liberal woman next to me exactly what we had discussed for the previous hour. And, you can imagine, she didn't like it.

I was impressed that he was willing to spend his time watering such a water-resistant plant. Basically, I don't try to persuade liberals; I always assume that they are beyond an intersubjective discussion of the issues. Rather like the woman whose husband had voted for Trump. She still insisted that "Democrats want to help people." Yes, but what if the "help" doesn't help? "I don't want to talk about that."

So that's why I don't tend to talk politics to people that I profile as liberals. What's the point?

Anyway, everything I write and think is calculated to cause a little tremor to a liberal's NPR/NYT bubble. My reductive Three Peoples theory is intended to show liberals that they need to think about people who are not cut out to be world-historical creative people. My little darlings concept is designed to show liberals that their Patron/Client politics damages the people they pretend to help, and then devastates the little darlings when liberals dump the old little darlings for fresh new faces.

But I think I need a new concept to round out my world view. How about Five Lefty Fallacies?

1. The Marxian fallacy: capitalism will immiserate the workers.
2. The socialist fallacy: socialism can't work because it can't compute prices.
3. The administrative fallacy: big government can't work because bureaucrats can't outthink millions of consumers.
4. The regulatory fallacy: regulation can't work because the regulated always "capture" the regulators.
5. The reform fallacy: government can't reform its programs because it cannot cut spending.

I think this needs a little expansion; I've been writing about it for a while and now I need to formalize it and add in the arguments.

But the Big Idea of the modern era, I think, is to "hurl" the proletariat off the plantation, and its feudal relations, and teach ordinary people how to live as responsible persons rather than subordinates. The whole narrative of the left has been to keep the people in their subordinate peasanthood and workerdom, rather than encourage them to enter the world of responsibility and self-ownership.

In my discussions with the Pentagon colonel he stated that the failure of the ruling class was that it had failed to protect great groups of people, who now felt "unprotected."

It is, of course, the one-and-only job of government to provide a regime of peace and protect its people from enemies foreign and domestic. But because every government is an armed minority that occupies territory and taxes the inhabitants thereof to be able to reward its supporters, every ruling class tends to forget what it is really there for. It thinks about nothing but rewarding its supporters and so licenses its supporters to prey on the other inhabitants, because one of the rewards of supporting a ruling class is to be able to wield power in your own little world. Then the ruling class is shocked that the other inhabitants start to think that the government does nothing for them except prey upon them.

But I don't think that the average liberal is within a country mile of understanding this. Anyway, our liberal friends are not really out of the first and second stages of grief after the Trump election. Not yet.

The Liberal Post-election Meltdown

Back when Al Gore lost the 2000 election, liberals couldn't let go. So we had the Florida recount (which was only necessary because the media called the state before the polls in the Florida panhandle had closed). And Democrats chased the result all the way through the Supreme Court.

So Democrats decided that George W. Bush was "selected, not elected." And they never really conceded defeat. All the Priuses and Subaru Outbacks in rich-bitch north Seattle had anti-Bush bumper stickers for four years.

After the 2004 election, which was another surprise since the polls had Kerry winning, Democrats were so traumatized that their obliging therapists invented a new mental health category for them: PEST, or post-election selection trauma.

Now, after the 2016 election we have Democrats crying all over the place. We had a CNN personality talking about popping Xanax; we had college girls crying together; we had college presidents sending out sympathetic letters. Not to mention the usual stuff about racism, sexism, -phobias, and digging up conspiracy theories like "fake news" and Reds under the bed.

Somehow, when Republicans lose there is no need to invent new mental health categories. Why is that?

Of course we know what this is all about. It is not quite what Rush Limbaugh would call the "chickification" of America. It is certainly the mainstreaming of the left's victim culture.

It goes without saying that a victim is incapable of action. A victim needs a wise and powerful patron to do all the thinking and acting for her. And it is a profound act of betrayal if the victim ever feels unsafe or afraid.

And the classic behavior of the victims is this delicious story about a college instructor ranting in class about the Trump win being an "act of terrorism," and then heading for the hills when one of her students videoed her rant and put it up on social media. Because she got death threats.

Our liberal friends are always quick to publicize death threats to liberals. But not so much when conservative women are threatened.

Look, I get it. Good little liberal girls go to college and get taught that politics means a protest march to City Hall.

What they are not taught is that politics is civil war by other means. They do not get taught that "peaceful protest" is nothing of the kind, but a deliberate attempt at intimidation, the first escalation from a genuine discussion of the issues to outright street violence. So these good little girls get the shock of their sheltered lives when their liberal virtue-signalling runs into opposition. Nobody ever told them about that! No fair!

I think there is a big issue here, arising out of the entry of women into the public square in the last century. And my go-to guy on that is German sociologist Georg Simmel. He wrote that in time women would transform the public sphere to suit "a more feminine sensibility."

Yes, but. It stands to reason that some aspects of the public square do not lend themselves very well to a more feminine sensibility. For instance, in high-stakes politics and business. If you ask me, the number one requirement for a successful politician or business leader is to have a warrior personality. He must be a courageous person ready, willing and able to boldly outdare the dangers of the time. And that includes physical danger.

I well remember my days as a glider pilot. One of the things we learned is that when women pilots experienced a dangerous situation, they would almost always quit flying. When you think of it, it makes sense. Who would continue to do something that is dangerous? But that is exactly what men do, they instinctively know they must outdare the dangers of the moment, and then come back and do it again tomorrow.

The woman college teacher that got caught in her rant fled to another state. OK. That's what liberal SJWs do. But a real man would have stayed his ground and confronted the student that recorded an undercover video. Maybe he would have staged a teach-in so that all sides in this contentious post-election season would get their chance to be heard. Yeah, maybe, if he were a conservative.

It is nice that women are out in the public square. It is nice that they have altered it to suit a more feminine sensibility.

But not everything in the world can be altered to suit a more feminine sensibility. There will still be a big area in the public square suitable only for people willing to boldly outdare the dangers of the time. Truth is, there aren't many men capable of that: certainly I am not that kind of man. There are fewer women: Margaret Thatcher, for example.

But one thing about Trump. He doesn't give a damn about caterwauling liberal women.