The thing about your argument is that, while most of the claims you have made sound reasonable in themselves, you have inadvertently argued for why Bernie Sanders would have won, and why a set of ideas highly unfavorable to the Stanford Review are the true will of the people. People want national sovereignty? Well, who would have actually ripped up most of our trade deals rather than just taking about it? Trump, or a left-wing populist unanswerable to the business interests that support these agreements? People want financial stability? What better appeal to financial stability is there than a pledge to support that great conservative bogeyman, the American labor union? People are tired of smug intersectionalism? I can assure you, no political persuasion, including Trumpism, has been attacked more by the smuggest of intersectionalists than the “white male brocialism” of Senator Sanders.
There’s no question that the core of this nation is turning away from the figure of the elite technocrat to that of the everyday American. Nor is there any question that Trump’s crass demeanor and lack of concern for political correctness satisfies that demand far more than a habitually seizing and vomiting queen of the supranational elite lobbing the designation of “deplorable” upon the unwashed masses. But conservatives will find it hard to come to terms with the obvious conclusion: that a population seeking to return power to the everyday American will, in particular, wish that power returned to the economically everyday American. What sounds more in that vein? Breaking up Goldman Sachs, or appointing its president as a senior advisor in your administration?