WASHINGTON, June 30, 2016 — Proponents of the global progressive project are growing increasingly frightened by what they perceive as dangerous populism. In America, that so-called populism has found its voice in the person of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Trump has unsettled the establishment of his party—many Republicans are Teddy Roosevelt, big-government progressives—and the Democratic Party leadership, as well as the mainstream media.
Likewise, the British people’s decision to pull free of the European Union’s authoritarian grasp has caused, as the British say, a lot of whinging.
Britain’s Independent reports that a majority of those voting to leave the EU are 65 years of age or older. “One of the biggest questions since the vote has been why older people were more inclined to vote to leave than younger generations.”
We can hazard a guess. Those over 65 might remember a time when Britain “stood alone … and gained time for the good cause to arm, to organize, and slowly bring the conjoined, united, irresistible forces of outraged civilization to bear upon the criminals.”
That was the view of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill after defeating the ideological leaders of another project seeking to unite Europe under one flag—the one with the swastika.
In his book “The Origin of the Second World War in Europe,” P.M.H. Bell writes:
“In the days of the German Empire, Hitler rose to the rank of corporal. In the new, fluid Germany of the 1920s and early 1930s he created a powerful political party and became Chancellor, even though to conservatives he was ‘neither a gentleman nor a German’. His supporters were often young, and tended to be personally unstable. In 1934 the average age of Nazi Party members was seven years lower than that of the population as a whole… There is every sign that most of them believed in its causes, but even if they did not there was no future for them outside it.”
It is apparently nothing new for young people to view political causes and their leaders as replacements for the fondly remembered stability and security of a two-parent home. But some families are highly dysfunctional and should be avoided at all cost.
David Axelrod, former adviser to President Obama, described Brexit voters for his avid followers, “Portentous and meaningful stat: 66 percent of people who left school at 16 voted for leave. Seventy-one percent of those with university degrees voted to remain.”
The argument that says the less educated are unfit to govern themselves also applies to Trump supporters.
According to the New York Times, what would eventually become the Trump supporter was first detected by the U.S. Census Bureau. When asked about their ancestral backgrounds, these individuals simply answered “American.”
“The places with high concentrations of these self-described Americans turn out to be places Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has performed the strongest,” wrote the Times, christening this newly discovered region as “the geography of Trumpism.”
Those hailing from Trumplandia are a “population that didn’t finish high school … So is the proportion of working-age adults who neither have a job nor are looking for one. The third-strongest correlation among hundreds of variables tested: the preponderance of mobile homes,” said the Times.
And there you have it. If you don’t have a college degree, you find yourself chronically unemployed in the Obama “recovery,” and your home happens to sit on wheels, you are unfit to govern.
So say our betters with university degrees and a lovely view of the water from their lake-front homes. They fear that their plans for our future may be undone by the unwashed, uneducated, tenuously housed voter: those who think nationally, not globally; those who aren’t keen to live in an authoritarian dystopia under elitist progressivism.
This brand of elitism at its core does not believe in the Enlightenment’s greatest declarative statement of self-evident truth: “All men are created equal.” Instead, like the totalitarian pig Napoleon in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” they believe, “Some animals are more equal than others.”
At a summit in Canada, President Obama attacked the leader of Trumplandia, his notions of national sovereignty and the idea that the only legitimate path to government power is by “consent of the governed.”
“They don’t’ suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes,” said the president. “That’s not the measure of populism; that’s nativism or xenophobia … just cynicism.”
What Obama and progressives the world over fail to understand is that the movement now spreading globally is not “populism.” It is best described as “rejectionism.”
They are rejecting the central thesis of a certain few that there exists a special class of superior being. Beings of high breading and intellect. An aristocracy of philosopher kings whose wisdom is unassailable, whose choices on behalf of lesser creatures are perpetual, everlasting, eternal.
Throughout the tortured history of our world, we have seen their kind before. The lowly Orwellian pig with an over-exaggerated sense of self, coupled with Napoleonic ambitions.