Politics And The Potty

As Iran continues to pursue nuclear weaponry, as Russia marches on in Eastern Europe, as ISIS crucifies children and threatens to attack the United States, as our economy stagnates at .5% growth,  and as our debt soars to $14 trillion, once again, our leaders choose to pursue what really matters. The potty.

And incumbent leaders scratch their heads in disbelief at the rise of Trump and Sanders...

Transgendered Americans make up less than .05% of the population. For some reason, however, the government has decided that this is the issue we need to debate right now. Who cares who started it. Whether it was states passing anti-transgendered bathroom legislation, or whether it was progressive cities who did it, it doesn't matter. Like two toddlers arguing in the Kindercare, they need to be separated and put in time out by the grownups. 

This was not a problem until someone decided to make it a problem but, thanks to the federal government's intervention, it has now become a real problem. The Obama justice department and the President have now proclaimed that all schools, employers, and government buildings allow transgendered individuals to use the bathroom of their choice. This, of course, is a huge problem. Liberals paint anyone opposed to the administration on this issue as a bigot, but that simply isn't the case. Americans, for the most part, could care less about the extremely rare occurrence of a transgendered person using any bathroom. Transgendered individuals just don't make up such a large portion of the population to have their bathroom habits be noticeable. Americans do, however, care about sexual predators, who far outnumber transgendered people. 

The liberal narrative that nothing evil ever happens in the bathroom is just plainly false. If you doubt that, just google it. Children are abducted from bathrooms. Children and teens are attacked in bathrooms. Voyeurs do attempt to exploit locker rooms. At best, if the liberals have their way, this law will create confusion in the minds of potential victims. "Should I say something? Am I a bigot if I speak up about this man in my locker room? Will I be mocked on campus if I don't accept this man exposing himself to me in the bathroom?" 

Also overlooked is the cost. Liberals argue that employers and schools should create unisex bathrooms and locker rooms like the family changing stations that exist now. No they won't. I promise you they won't. Schools have community locker rooms and showers. So do employers. They are currently divided by gender. There is no way the parents of teenage boys and girls are going to allow unisex locker rooms and showers. For their part, employers are not going to risk the sexual harassment exposure of unisex showers and changing rooms. To retrofit schools and business to provide privacy in communal changing rooms and showers would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Building new facilities would cost even more, and for what? To fix a non-problem for a very small portion of the population. 

Finally, there is no definition of "gender identity" that could serve to set uniform rules for bathroom use. The term is entirely subjective and, no matter where you stand on the issue, it is universally true that no rule can be formed or enforced if it's based on complete subjectivity. So, either the other 99.95% of Americans are going to be forced to accept this, or it will be totally blocked except in rare circumstances. 

Minorities seeking acceptance and protection as a class need to be very selective about the cases they use to achieve those rights. Test cases are filed and rejected all the time. The LGBT community unquestionably wants to be recognized as a protected class and provided remedial rights against their communities, schools and employers for a history of discrimination. This is not the case to use to do that. There is an old adage in legal profession: "bad cases make bad law." Imagine, as a member of the LGBT community, that you were finally granted protected status under federal law based on one of these test cases. You may celebrate, but forever and always those rights would be tied to the bathroom. This just isn't the best case to use to achieve equal protection.

Five Requirements For Republicans To Sweep

As Establishment heads explode, the race for the White House has tightened. If recent polls are correct, Trump has managed to close a nearly 11 point gap against Clinton in about a week and a half. This may come as a surprise to Democrats, but it's no surprise to Trump supporters. He's constantly beaten highly qualified candidates on whom he trains his sights. 

Clinton, by contrast, has proven to be a truly awful candidate. Bernie Sanders just won yet another state yesterday. Clinton, who won every county in West Virginia in 2008 against Obama, managed to alienate just about every voter she could by promising to "put [them] out of work." Donald Trump, granted, says some stupid things, but seriously, "I want to put you out of work"? I can't imagine a more damaging statement. "Build the wall" simply doesn't compare to threats to disenfranchise and unemploy hard working, blue collar Americans. In any event, her comparative weakness as a candidate provides Republicans with exactly the opening they need to sweep the elections, if they play their cards right. As a life long Republican, here is my advice.

Embrace Some Trumpsim

I did not say "embrace all Trumpism." I said "some." Specifically, Trump's jobs message is extremely powerful and has resonated with all Americans, even if he has alienated some others. All Americans can be unified in some very basic things: (1) we love our families and want them safe; (2) we want ourselves, families and neighbors to have good jobs; (3) we want our representatives to be proud to be Americans; and (4) we all want to feel like we're heading in the right direction in our lives.

Trump speaks to all of these common American aspirations. In that way, he is an ironic aspirational candidate. He clearly loves his family, and he speaks often about keeping America safe. He wants to rebuild the military and do whatever it takes to protect Americans from dangerous Jihadis who are, inevitably, flowing across our borders, (hidden in bales of marijuana). 

Trump is strong on jobs. He wants everyone to get back to work, in good jobs. Manufacturing jobs, infrastructure jobs, and mining jobs are good jobs. Somehow in America, right around the passage of NAFTA, Republicans and Democrats got together to convince Americans that these forgotten man jobs were somehow too dirty or low for any real American to do. It was a foolish proclamation that has deeply damaged our nation.

These jobs lead directly to production. A producer economy is always stronger than a consumer economy. Making things like coal, steel, automobiles, clothing, or furniture is far more important than making paper wealth through currency manipulation and markets. Building the infrastructure to  support these manufacturing jobs is much much more important than shuttering plants and mines. Trump is a builder. He builds "beautiful buildings, and a beautiful business" etc. He promises to rebuild American manufacturing and to exploit American strategic resources. That can only be good. How that is accomplished is up for debate. Trump has his ideas, now it's up to individual Republicans to offer some modifications. But they should embrace his energy and passion on the issue.

Trump is proud to be an American. My wife laughs every time she sees Trump, this billionaire New Yorker, wearing that ridiculous red trucker hat. But it works. He is telling voters in every state that he wants, above all else, to make America great again. Clinton has an effective response, I have to admit. She says that America is great now and she wants to make it better. Her message may resonate with voters, it may not. My guess is, that if she is branded as a liberal coal hater, who still embraces globalism rather than jobs, she will lose. Trump does not believe in globalism. He believes in an America First approach to dealing with every problem from immigration to foreign policy. After decades of Globalthink, perhaps he is correct. Regardless, a majority of the Republican primary voters, and a significant number of cross-over Democrats, agree with him. It is time for the Establishment to get on board with the America First agenda and then find ways to tweak it to make it work.

Finally, we all want to feel like our lives and our country are headed in the right direction. The single most important poll in every election is the so called "right track, wrong track" poll. An historic number of Americans believe the country has been on the wrong track. That is the fault of both parties and Republicans would do better in their own down ballot elections if they took at least some responsibility for that. Trump is the outsider. He has enormous credibility with voters looking for change, including anti-establishment Democrats. He can, and likely will, vouch for individual candidates as "part of the solution" rather than "part of the problem." There have been a large number of Establishment politicians stating that they don't want Trump anywhere near their elections. Maybe they're right, but it is likely that these Establishment incumbents would lose anyway. This is obviously an anti-incumbent year. Look at Bernie Sanders "Berning" Clinton to a crisp with energized, anti-establishment voters. Between Trump, Cruz and Sanders, almost three fourths of Americans have already voted for outsiders who promise to destroy the Washington Establishment. I'd hate to be running as an incumbent from either party this year. I would probably reach out to Trump and ask him for his endorsement, and I would also adopt the popular parts of his message. Candidates who choose to face this electoral hurricane on their own may be able to claim they stood on principle, but they may be claiming that from their next stop in some cushy multinational boardroom, not the Senate.

Name a Cabinet

Embracing some Trumpism will be half the battle when it comes to unifying the party. The next will be his choice of Vice President and cabinet members. Trump has already announced that whoever his Vice Presidential pick will be, it will be an insider with significant political experience. That sounds to me like he will pick an Establishment politician. Hopefully, the party can get behind that person rather than ripping him or her to shreds for supporting Trump. If they don't, well that's on them. Trump can only reach out so much before looking weak with the electorate he has clearly energized. 

Stay Away From Politicizing The Supreme Court

Trump made a huge mistake when he said he would provide voters with a list of ten Supreme Court nominees. This has never been done before and for good reason. The Court is obviously political and has become even more so in recent years. Judges write hundreds, sometimes thousands of decisions in a career. This may offend some of my judge friends, but guess what? Some of them aren't great decisions. Judicial nominees are very easy to attack. Everything is in writing and, in our legal system, often times the law is unpopular. Rulings force a judge to pick one party over the other. Someone always loses and sometimes that person can be a rallying point for politicians. 

Naming ten Court picks gives the opposition ten more highly vulnerable candidates to run against. Judges are not elected to the Supreme Court, so subjecting them to the electoral process necessarily defeats the Framer's intent. They will be inundated with press and opposition researchers. They will be hounded in their homes and security will be difficult to provide. They will be held up to scorn and, ultimately, a number of them may not want to be considered or may drop out of consideration. It's just a bad idea and the Establishment should not push it either.

Don't be Afraid to Attack Clinton

Establishment Republicrats have been shocked by Trump's "attacks on women." Trump needs to avoid saying stupid things about women, but he does not need to "moderate his tone." The fact is, women are not infants. They don't need to be mansplained to or protected from the harsh realities of the world. Trump doesn't mansplain. He literally treats women like he does men, and Republican candidates can learn from that. There is a phrase for it that I won't repeat, but basically, he is an equal opportunity harsh tone user.

Hillary Clinton wants to be President of the United States. In my view, she's already demonstrated that she's not up to the task by her time as Secretary of State, when every conceivable global rival mowed her down like a weed. She clearly didn't have the stomach to save Americans in Benghazi, or stand up to Putin in Eastern Europe. Now she wants to extend her reach to the Presidency. 

Clinton's record is fair game and no one should put on silk gloves to attack her on her decisions. The Obama Administration, with her support, has placed women in combat, in special forces training, and on the front lines. If she was serious about those decisions, then she can stand with them and fight bare knuckles. Yes, even against a man. Republican men should have enough respect for women in general and Clinton in particular to go after her like they would a man.

Resist the Urge to Campaign on Reproductive Politics

The conventional wisdom is that Trump has a "woman problem." As I've said before, I think married women will likely vote for their husbands in this election, somewhat blunting the impact of Trump's rhetoric. The Establishment's constant gloating about Trump's unpopularity with women, however, is the most hypocritical development so far in this cycle. The Republican Party has done terrible with women, and individual candidates who make stupid statements about reproductive politics are to blame. Every candidate who discusses "legitimate rape," or refuses to consider any exceptions to abortion bans, further erodes what modest support the party has. For his part, Trump doesn't have this problem. He doesn't discuss "legitimate rape," and he wants to change the Republican Platform to recognize, as the Catholic Church does, exceptions for the life of the mother. In fact, the entirety of Trump's woman problem rests in his willingness to attack women personally like he does men.

The Party needs to avoid making this election about abortion, birth control, Planned Parenthood, or anything else that involves a discussion about women's sexual health or sexual activities. None of those things has ever helped a single Republican win the womens' vote. If asked, candidates need to be measured in their opposition to abortion and recognize that the vast majority of abortions are not carried out by women who have some murderous desire to kill a baby. The nation is deeply divided on this issue and demonizing women who you are trying to persuade to change their position is unproductive. Unfortunately, Republicans, especially Republican men, have sometimes had a real problem articulating the pro-life message in a way that is not considered universally offensive. It's better just left unsaid for now. 

Conclusion

In the final analysis, Republicans should take a page out of the old Bill Clinton playbook. "It's the economy, stupid." Two decades later, his wife has completely abandoned that message, instead promising to put people out of work to pursue some bizarre liberal ideology. Trump, by contrast, has a clear jobs message. Embracing that message, promising to curtail globalism, and staying away from unnecessary political debates will carry them to victory on a new wave of populist voters.

A New Third Party Emerges From The Ashes Of Trumpism

Jeb Bush will not vote for Donald Trump. Neither with George W. Bush, nor George H.W. Bush. Mitt Romney and John McCain will sit this one out as well. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Republican Convention, isn't sure whether he will support Trump or not. 

The Republican and Democrat elites have now established their own party. We'll just call it the Establishment Party.

The Establishment Party will vote for Hillary Clinton, a member of the Establishment. They may not all actually pull the lever for Hillary, but they might as well. None will attempt to block her candidacy. The Bushes, of course, are now terribly sorry that they played a part in forcing Trump to pledge his support, in writing, to the Republican Party. They now know they could've done much better. They could have forced Trump (and his anti-establishment, grass roots supporters, made up of blue collar miners and machine operators) to run as a third party. They know from their own family history that, while a third party Trump would divide the vote like Ross Perot did, they still would maintain their power and influence. Eight years later, another Bush could be President. It's just a waiting game for the Bushes. 

And what will this new Establishment Party stand for? Well, we actually know what they stand for. They stand for themselves. They stand for maintaining their own influence, even if they have to sacrifice the nation to do it. They stand for higher taxes, and more spending, just as they've done, more or less, for three decades. They stand for the invasion of Iraq, nation building, limited war and globalism. They stand for free trade, even if that puts hard working Americans out of work. They stand for the federalization of education with Common Core and No Child Left Behind. They favor bank bailouts, "too big to fail," cronyism, and anti-abortion platforms that make no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. The Establishment Party believes that Democrats are mostly right, but their policies need to be tweaked - just a little. They prefer unsustainable debt and spending to fiscal responsibility and hard choices. The Establishment Party prefers cocktail parties in Georgetown to a beer with a miner at the end of his shift. They prefer cheap, illegal labor from Mexico to higher paying jobs for blue collar Americans. They prefer their buddies to the voters.

The Democrats are even worse, but at least they're honest about it. Everyone knows that Democrats are corrupt. They hardly deny it themselves. Hence the rise of Bernie Sanders. Between Trump and Sanders, a full 70%, yes 70%, of Americans want to Bern down the Washington playground. Trump's unfavorables are terrible. There is no doubt. But they are lower than the unfavorables of the Republican Congress. Think about that. The Establishment Party is lambasting Trump and calling him unelectable because of his unfavorables when theirs are even worse...

It's both a sad day in America and a great day. I did not vote for Trump. But, everything in my core tells me that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the right messengers for this nation right now. As Peggy Noonan said today in an article for the Wall Street Journal, Trump was the spark, not the fire. http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-was-a-spark-not-the-fire-1462488099. It's a good read.

Trump was surprised today that Paul Ryan wouldn't support him. I'm not. After all, Ryan is a Wisconsin Representative, in a moderate district, in a liberal state, who ran as Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential pick. He's a good man, but he's obviously still learning on the job. Donald Trump should run against Ryan and the Establishment Party in the general election. For starters, the Establishment won't support him, so why should he care what they think or say? Trump appeals to a broader cross-section of Americans, including service workers, blue collar manufacturing workers, entrepreneurs, miners, married middle class women, evangelical Blacks and, of course, a huge percentage of white men. White men alone made up nearly 37% of the actual voting electorate in 2012. By contrast, hispanics of both sexes only make up 14% of the entire population, and in 2012, hispanics made up only 8.4% of the electorate. African Americans  of both sexes made up about 12% in total. It's very difficult to find statistical information about married white women because, I have to suppose, the media just ignores their importance in the overall electorate. A pew poll, however, indicates that white women made up about 40% of the electorate in 2012. It also appears that married couples basically voted the same, within one or two points of each other.

My point is this, building the wall is not unpopular, no matter what the media says. And no matter how unpopular it might be with hispanics, it probably will not the determinative factor in the election. For every one hispanic voter who wants illegal workers to have unfettered access to our country, there are ten miners, truckers, electricians, journeymen, autoworkers, and machine operators that are out of a job because of NAFTA or that illegal worker. If everyone in this nation votes his or her interest (which they will), the wall will be built. Period. This is democracy. The majority will rule, with exceptions spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

The Establishment Party doesn't want majority rule. Quite simply, they are in the minority, so they must use force of law to maintain their power and influence. The day there is a true populist revolution is the day they lose everything they've built for themselves and their families. Before you feel sympathy for these elites, however, consider how they got their wealth. The vast majority got it through influence peddling, trading favors, playing politics and making unfulfilled promises to the voters. Very few of these men and women built their own wealth. It was handed to them because of their political station. And they tend to forget that their power is granted to them by the people who they have willingly betrayed now for decades. 

It is worth considering this: 535 representatives of our government are all there are for 325 million Americans. When Hawaii became a state in 1959, capping the number of representatives we have, the population of the United States was 154 million. The size of the country has more than doubled, but the number of politicians representing our interests has remained the same. I doubt this was our founders' intent. Each year as our population grows, our elected officials become more and more elite just by virtue of the fact that the number of representatives remains stagnant. It is an untenable model. Elitism is quintessentially unAmerican but unfortunately it has become the norm just by default.

The Establishment Party represents American elitism at its worst. The "Bush Dynasty" is the best example. Prescott Bush started the dynasty as a Connecticut moderate Senator. His son was Vice President and then President. His grandson became President and his other grandson was the anointed one by his party to become the next President. Bill Clinton came from nothing, but his wife is now running for President. No doubt his daughter will run some time in the future. Dynastic politics is anti-American. When George Washington was offered a crown, he declined. Jeb Bush had to have his crown taken away by the sullied masses.

There are many things I dislike about Trump. But there are a lot of things I do like. I like his willingness to say out loud that Americans should come first. That security should come first. That jobs make everyone happier and better off. "How will you win the Black vote, Mr. Trump"? "That's easy," he responds, "they want jobs, and I'll get them good jobs." 

It's the same with any demographic or balkanized group in our country. For my liberal friends, Bernie Sanders represents the same singular focus. And I like Bernie, a lot, even though I totally disagree with his position on the issues. At least he tells it like it is. And that's what Americans want.

For the Establishment Party, the last thing they want is to have the truth exposed. That would mean that they are exposed as the power mongers and elitists that they are. I say, expose them all. Sanders vs. Trump is a fair fight for the hearts and minds of Americans. The Clintons and Bushes can stay home.

Establishment Disloyalty Earned A Trump Candidacy

Many of my Republican friends are setting themselves on fire today. Donald Trump has now totally obliterated a field of experienced political insiders that stood opposed to him for the nomination. He did it with almost no party support and very little money or advertising. He had almost no staff and preferred large crowds and free media to attack ads and fund raisers. As he has correctly noted, his opponents spent $60M in negative advertising against him. Against all odds, he won and, he didn't just win, he crushed the field. 

The Erik Erickson wing of the Republican Party has made it clear that they will not support Donald Trump. They have rejected the judgment of the voters, their message to the Establishment, and their messenger. In other words, they will now be disloyal to the Republican Party and its nominee because, in their view, Donald Trump is not ideologically pure. What they continue to miss is the fact that it is exactly this kind of disloyalty to the electorate that gave rise to Trump in the first place.

Establishment disloyalty began in 2006 when George W. Bush took a sudden turn away from his otherwise very conservative presidency. He began legacy building with Ted Kennedy Democrats, passing massive new entitlements and educational reforms like "No Child Left Behind." Most conservative Republicans felt completely betrayed, and it only got worse. In 2008, the great Republican compromiser, John McCain, won the nomination. His campaign was obsessed with "Democrat light" arguments. He was the embodiment of the type of Republicanism that Ronald Reagan ridiculed as "pale pastels," rather than "bold colors." He refused to attack Obama, instead leaving it to the media to vet the inexperienced first term Senator; a job they did not do. 

President Obama was elected of course, and he went on to ram Obamacare through Congress. Two years later, a large group of usually silent voters began protesting. These protesters appeared at political town hall meetings and events to voice their deep concern over the sudden expansion of government. In 2010, these protesters (later called the "Tea Party") voted in huge numbers for Republicans, putting them back into power in the House. 

"Tea" stands for "taxed enough already." The principle ambition of this loose affiliation of voters was to reduce the size and scope of government. It was originally a grassroots movement made up of ordinary Americans fed up with big government. Democrats, sensing an impending disaster, began attacking the Tea Party movement as "radical." Exactly no one in the Establishment of the Republican Party came to their defense and, as a result, the Tea Party activists set their sights on Republican incumbents. As it turned out, most of the nation had grown tired of elite, establishment politics on both sides. Many incumbent Republicans lost their primaries and a small but vocal group of Tea Party Republicans made their way to Congress.

But the Empire struck back. Establishment Republicans, angry that their special little club was being invaded by ordinary Americans, began in earnest to destroy the Tea Party. They joined Democratic Party attacks on their own candidates and tarred and feathered political amateurs who made any statement perceived to be out of the mainstream. In short, the Establishment attacked its own grass root voters; voters who had loyally supported slack-jawed moderates and Republicrats for decades. It was no doubt a surprise to most of these Americans that their own party would be so disloyal to them, especially after they handed them control of the Congress. You never hear about the Tea Party anymore. The Establishment accomplished its goal. Or so they thought...

Over the course of the next four years, Republicans proceeded to do exactly nothing they had promised to do. In fact, the only thing the Republicans did was rubber stamp President Obama's huge, Omnibus Budget bills, doubling the deficit in the process. Adding insult to injury, the Republican Party shoved Mitt Romney down voters' throats in 2012. The same voices now attacking Donald Trump's conservative credentials said very little about Romney's record of liberalism, like Romneycare, gun bans, and tax increases. This time, the Tea Party stayed home on election day. Somewhere between 7 and 11 million Republican voters opted out of Establishment politics, leaving Romney to lose by 3 million votes to Obama. The Establishment should've taken the hint. They didn't. Instead of focusing on winning back the voters who stayed home, they instead began to "reach out" to every conceivable balkanized Democrat in a desperate attempt to sell ice to Eskimos. They continued to pass enormous, deficit busting budgets, and they continued to demonize ideological conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Party candidates.

It was the most pathetic misreading of the electorate since Howard Taft stole the Republican nomination from Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, the Party has been so wrong about the will of the electorate, that many Republican voters began to believe it was intentional; that, in reality, the Republicans only cared about staying in power and voters were nothing more than a fig leaf used for legitimacy.

It was always going to be the case that there was one remedy for this entrenched group of political elites who consistently ignore the will of the electorate - an outsider. And not just an anti-establishment politician, like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. No, it had to be a true outsider, like Ben Carson or Donald Trump. Voters chose Trump.

I've had my fair share of jury trials. I've won some and lost some, but I've always accepted the judgment of the jury. One American alone may not be a genius, but if you put 12 of us together in a room, something miraculous happens. The collective intelligence of the jury, more often than not, gets it right. Any lawyer who doesn't respect that collective intelligence will fail as a trial lawyer. More importantly, however, is the fact that the jury will know if you think they're nothing more than a bunch of stupid commoners, and they will punish you for it.

Elections are really no different. The collective intelligence of the American people far exceeds that of any individual candidate or party. Accept their judgment or don't, that's your business. But remember this, America is the most powerful nation that has ever existed and it is the collective wisdom of the American people that has made it that way. The collective will of the Republican voters in this election was to disenfranchise the elites and influence peddlers. The money changers have now been thrown out of the temple, and "we the people" will start over, building a new Republican Party that listens to the electorate.

Win or lose in the general election, Trump or someone like Trump was inevitable. The Republican elites fawning over the idea of a third Bush presidency likely sealed the deal early in the process. Voters have had enough, and who can blame them? Trump now goes into the general election with a popular "America First" agenda. He will get votes from segments of the population that haven't ever voted or who have traditionally voted Democrat. Coal miners will support Trump. Manufacturing employees will support Trump. Service workers will support Trump. In fact, anyone who has been left out of the Bush/Obama/NAFTA/Wall Street/Finance/paper pusher economy is a potential Trump convert.

In the Trump election, Americans will be defined and divided on the basis of their own personal ambitions and desires, not on the basis of skin color, or ethnic group, or sexual preference. While Democrats will desperately attempt to use racial politics to divide Americans, Trump transcends group politics with a broad prosperity agenda. He will unite "Americans" by promoting an "America First" agenda. If you are an American, you will be targeted for prosperity at the expense of a Chinese in Hong Kong or an Eastern European or, yes, a Mexican working in Mexico. How will he help African Americans? He will get them jobs. Why is he good for women? Because he will get them, and their husbands, jobs. Why should hispanics vote for him? Because he will get them jobs. It is the simplest, most pure message in modern politics. We all put our pants on the same way in the morning. We all want jobs, and we all want to support our families. We all want to do just a little bit better than last year, and we all want the freedom to pursue happiness. We care about those things far more than we care about our own skin color or the skin color of our neighbors. Us married men want our wives to be happy, whether that's working or staying at home. Us fathers want our daughters to be happy, whether that's working or staying at home. We want our sons to have better opportunities than we had. Prosperity is not a theory in some old American History textbook. It is not some fantasy that is reserved for the super-rich or the elites and influence peddlers. It is real, people know it is real, and people are demanding it.

Trump is, like most messengers, imperfect. He has nevertheless dutifully carried the populist message through the primaries, earning more votes than any other Republican primary candidate in history. Unbelievably, he did it with 16 other highly qualified and popular candidates in the race. Voter turn out is 70% higher for Republicans this year than in the last cycle. Like him or hate him, his argument resonates with the jury and he should be respected for that. The worst thing that could happen to the Republican Establishment in this election has probably already happened, but it could still get worse. If they refuse to support him, or if they actively work against him and he still wins, then the Party's influence will be done for a generation. My guess is that the elites will find a way to compromise with him and his followers if for no other reason than to preserve what little influence they have left.