While there are parts I differ with, this article* by Charles Murray gets a lot right, especially with regard to the condescension of the new elite class toward working class whites. That’s why his antagonism toward Trump is so puzzling. While Murray has not been snarky about it, unlike much of the elite class he discusses, his objections to Trump have largely consisted, from what I have seen, to what I call sophistication signaling. In the face of the sea change in national character that he describes, such objections strike me as deck chairs on the Titanic.
* The article is behind a paywall on my computer, but I was able to access the whole thing when I clicked on it from FaceBook.
Conservative Heritage Times 
I have a couple of issues with this article.
1. The WSJ knows nothing about Southern Culture and it’s last 100 years.
2. Being a writer of the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) no Southerner should be impressed with his Northeast Neocon Credentials and phony allegations, allied with Wall Street and the rich.
3. Reagan was the great actor on their behalf in the eighties. (Only thing in common was a nasty hatred for the USSR and communism.) There were 9 billionares in the U.S. when Reagan took office and 99 when he left.
4. This guy is clueless to how the “Conservative Dixiecrats” kept order from 1865 to 1965. (100 years.)
5. Ross Perot, PJB, and others told us years ago how Free Trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, and other parts of Globalism would destroy the middle class in the U.S.
6. Remember Tom Tancredo of Colorado many elections ago?…………………He was right!…..He even called Miami a third world country. There is no TRUMPISM.
But we do intend to vote for Trump, even if he runs a third party campaign…………..And the Elites can kiss our arses, as we will soon be in their neighborhoods with pitchforks and torches. (It will make the French Revolution look like a pathetic little Boston Tea Party!)
LikeLike
WSJ’s paywall means I no longer read WSJ.
Supporting Trump is so confusing:
He potentially just appeals to everyone, because Sam Francis and Steven Sailer were right, as well as Pat Buchanan. And why the only thinkers are on the far right, no one knows. I always like quoting “moderates”, but the reality is Francis (MAR and reaction to trade), Sailer (Citizenism), and Buchanan (four Americas) have Trump explained. No one else gets Trump.
Raimondo (emotional appeal) might have an argument that Trump’s appeal is his lack of substance, but truly he has substance. I just wonder sometimes if everyone is aware of his substance. He’s taken clear, firm positions though. I almost think we should write a book explaining Trump’s positions… There are not that many sources to go through, really. The focus would be after his switch to pro-life or so. Anyway, just a thought.
LikeLike