To draw on several things I have posted in other thread on semi related, matters, too many politicians failed to grasp who their own base was and what they wanted and found themselves shocked and horrified when they all turned out in support of an orange man.
This is in part because of the lies that the Conservative movement has told itself about the history of their own movement as well as the history of the country, while at the same time failing to adequately adapt to and incorporate the views of the millions of ex-Democrats who had streamed into the party and weren't going to be satisfied with a party still catering to the Mark Sanford low country South (cut taxes, open the borders and outsource the manufacturing) and thinking that was the end all be all of conservatism when the earth was created by St. Ronaldus Magnus in 1980.
If the Republican establishment (inclusive to the leadership of the conservative movement generally) had not been so dogmatic, so corrupted and so out of touch with their own voters and had instead read the writing on the wall and quit trying to force feed top down liberal views (historically speaking) on trade, immigration and foreign policy), Trump probably never would have had his opening. And for those of you who are repelled at the concept of a major party taking the conservative positions on these issues, keep this in mind. Arbitrary consensus enforced from above by both parties, when a large segment is opposed and the parties are realigning along these axis, is the recipe for either an internal revolution (WJB and currency in the 1890s, Reagan and Supply side Econ in late 70s) or the collapse and replacement of one or both parties (1850s on slavery).
Was wondering if you could explain this more. I think this is a key point. And it goes hand in hand with my post on this subject.
