> As I pointed out above, the status quo is actually pretty good.

For you. And me. But we are not the majority. The majority does not benefit from automation, globalisation etc. as much as you and me.

And it doesn't matter if in absolute terms we are all better of(for which citation would be needed, specifically for the lowest income bracket), it matters that the benefits of this new age are not spread around to those bearing the costs as efficiently as necessary.

This is why people vote for brexit, trump, afd etc. And no, those don't have the answers either. But they offer convenient scapegoats and changes with "tangible" effect in favour of their voting base.

Politicians on the left and the right are united in their elitism and their own bubbles of what is "important", and they have become disconnected from their populace so much that they can't even coral them effectively any more.

There's a strong disconnect amongst the beneficiaries of globalization that the status quo is overall good -- it's probably TERRIBLE for a quarter of the people, treading water for half, and beneficial to the remainder who are in positions that leverage cultural and technological progress.

A lot of communities are absolutely gutted by rural flight and the shift of power to urban tech centers, and they're really hurting. This is a consistent theme across many Westernized nations.

"I love the poorly educated."

This wasn't about the economy at all which is pretty good. This was a demagogue preying on gullibility. Y'all just elected him, citation unnecessary.

Trump, in my estimation, hacked his way into the White House. He recognized key vulnerabilities in the way the media handles politics and exploited them for all they're worth, putting his meagre resources where they counted, and ignoring everything else. This allowed him to remain the underdog right up until he won the election.

These vulnerabilities are going to be fixed in the next four years. There's just too much at stake for it to be otherwise.

When you say that to your own supporters what you're saying is "I know that some of you don't have as much education as you may have wanted. You're welcome here, and will be listened to."

Instead of that, the Democrats ran on "stupid people are mad because they are poor. We smart, enlightened people should make them shut up, and show them that this isn't their country anymore." i.e. "We will herd the poorly educated."

Yes, you've illustrated how demagogues work.

You've even elected one.

Yeah... um... the original article was about smugness among liberals. You might want to think about that.

What's the alternative? Hating them? Pretending they don't exist?

How did that work out for you?

He loves the uneducated because they're gullible. In fact, he loves them so much that he'll educate them at Trump University.

Trump University is indefensible, but do you really believe categorically that people with e.g. secondary education only are "gullible"? Who told you that?

Seems like you hate the poorly educated, and you're just attributing that to Trump.

Now only that, you're assuming that uneducated people are gullible. You're stereotyping a broad group of people without any evidence.

You say something that doesn't even answer wojcech's point, then say "citation unnecessary"? Not very convincing.

(The point, the request for citation, was the claim that the economy is doing well for the bottom 20%. A quote from Trump does not address that question whatsoever.)

>"I love the poorly educated."

Well, Hillary Clinton and her supporters hate the poorly educated, and look where that got them.