So the Brexit vote happened, and this means the UK has asserted the right of its people, democratically, to take control of their country back over the white haired old Frenchmen who make speeches with a glass of 1957 Montrachet beside their microphone as they rule by fiat.

This is a canary in a coal mine for the US election for multiple reasons.

Firstly, it's a sign that The People are getting a bit sick and tired of having burdensome regulations foisted on them by people they didn't elect. One of the politicians in the UK remarked that they spent more time reacting to memos from Brussels than actually governing their own country.

Never mind the businesses having to deal with the burden of these regulations and memos from Brussels - eggs being priced by weight rather than the dozen, water being forbidden from being advertised as hydrating, because EU scientists could see no causal relationship between drinking water and rehydration, and so forth. Never mind the absurd rules that you couldn't sell a cucumber that wasn't perfectly straight and laws against bananas with "abnormal curvature".

Keep in mind the EU isn't an agreement to relax trade barriers and allow the free movement of people - it's an organization with a government that's seeking to build its own army.

What does any of this have to do with the price of tea in China, or more relevant - the US election?

There's two competing ideologies in play here. Ignoring "Crooked Hillary" and her email servers and pantsuits, or Trump's bloviating jingoism, oompa-loompa spray tan and marvelously crafted comb-over, there really is a pair of diametrically opposed viewpoints being represented by them both.

On the Hillary side, it's establishment government, the expansion of trade deals and trade rules, and so forth. But she's seen as an extension of the Obama administration with its "czars" and its "executive orders", and rules generated by the EPA and other bodies rather than elected officials. If Brexit represents a zeitgeist of rejecting non-elected officials doing deals that benefit big bankers and other countries rather than the people - Hillary is going to have trouble.

Because Hillary is championing the TPP and referred to another trade deal she brokered as the "gold standard". Ross Perot warned against NAFTA before it was signed, telling people about the "great sucking sound" you'd hear as Mexico vacuums up all the jobs. Nobody cared in the 1990s when they were holding job fairs in homeless shelters - but now that there are entire regions who never recovered from the credit crunch of 2008 people are quite rightly worried about jobs. Although the administration can brag that unemployment is down from that peak, there's been no real change in the employment rate: much of that reduction has been people simply giving up hope and abandoning finding work. The labor participation rate is now at 60%. Almost half of US residents are not working. If Trump can capitalize on framing the TPP as a huge handout to Big Pharma and other corporations with a view to resetlling all remaining jobs to Asia that didn't already go to Mexico, he stands to gain.

The other thing to consider is that the strategy of the left and the establishment against the idea of a Brexit amounted to nothing more than "you're racist, that's racist. Oh my God I literally can't even. It's 2016". When asked, nobody could give a concrete reason why staying in the EU was even remotely in any average Briton's life. It would certainly affect the bonuses of the financiers in the City (e.g. England's version of Wall Street). But worldwide, where "the recovery" from 2008 has mostly benefited the ultra-rich, you know - the bankers who caused the crash and were fully compensated for their losses by the governments without a vote and with nobody going to jail... people are really bleeding from the heart about the fates of people with three homes and a multimillion dollar golden parachute making a little less money. Less Wall Street, more Main Street. So the only rebuttal they had was to paint everyone who disagreed with the status quo as a giant racist. It failed.

And sadly, that's the tack people have been trying here against Trump. "Oh my God I literally can't even. He's a racist, sexist homophobe". Let's be clear on one thing: some of his supporters really are virulent racists, and I've seen "Trump 2016" shirts sold next to Confederate flags at flea markets in the Deep South. But there's no evidence that Trump harbors any actual racial or sexist bias. The worst they can come up with is that he is personally pro-life.

Of course, he wants to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, but apart from some comments about Mexico "not sending their best" (he was referring to drug traffickers and gangsters crossing the border) there's no evidence he wants to make America White Again.

And when you see footage of illegal alien protestors bashing Americans in the side of the head with a bag full of rocks and saying they hate Trump because "he's a cracker" and talking about taking over and making demands for jobs without taxes and they'll shoot police until they get what they want - some people are starting not to care if there's any racist intent involved.

So I'm sure somewhere in camp Trump, they're energized and renewed. In camp Clinton, they're going to have to do some strategizing. The Brexit was unthinkable, but it happened. Donald Trump as President is unthinkable - but if they try the same old routine to try and stop him maybe that unthinkable set of circumstances could happen too.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.