Open borders, and all that entails (including causing a flood of illegal immigrants) is a core plank of neo-liberal conservativism. It is a key part of their war against the labor movement and their struggle for fair wages and rights for workers. As you said, its traditionally been the left parties who oppose open borders.

The problem for centre right parties who drive this neo-liberal agenda (think Reaganism and thatcherism) is that their ranks will inevitably attract a significant segment of the traditional, social conservatives who oppose such mass immigration on social cohesion/family values grounds. That is the basis of the great schism we are seeing in just about all centre-right parties in the west today - but probably most dramatically in the US. Its the so called 'establishment' that is doggedly holding on to neo-liberal agenda, but they are being yanked to the far right by a significant section of their rank and file. Commentators routinely make the mistake of distinguishing between the "extremists" and the "moderates" - but in reality there is nothing moderate about the neo-liberal economic agenda. And of course, a key dynamic in the split is the so called "extremists's" rejection of the neo-liberal agenda.

Thus the rise of the far right across the western world is both a nationalist/racist movement, but more importantly, its a revolt against the economic agenda that is created for and by big business. This is the genesis of Brexit, the rise of One Nation, and of course the nomination of Trump.

Whats interesting about the American case is that it has the most pronounced 2-party system in the western world. Only about 10% of voters vote for someone other than the two major parties. No other country comes close. Therefore, rather than splintering off into another party like we see with say One Nation and UKIP in the UK, the far right just snipes at Republicans from within the Republican party. Until now they have generally coped with this - the establishment plays lip service to the far right - an outrageous racist statement here, a symbolic conservative gesture there, which generally keeps the plebs satisfied while they go full steam ahead the neo-liberal agenda. Useful idiots like fox news and Bill OReilly play their part by distracting them with confected outrage against the "liberals". All that changed in this election because Trump didn't play the establishment game - he didn't say "lets be outraged - but express that outrage through the republican party". Instead he said "lets be outraged against the republican party". Thus he awakened the simmering conservative resentment against the establishment, and very much ran his campaign as an anti-Republican Republlican (while interestingly enough Bernie Sanders did exactly the same on the left). The nomination of Trump was the announcement of the official revolt of the far-right within the Republican party - and the reality is that Trump's candidacy is every bit an anti-Republican candidacy as Clinton is. Hence it is little wonder that the republican establishment is coming out in droves to attack and disendorse Trump. And it will be interesting to see what happens to the Repugs after Trump's defeat - will the splinter be permanent, or will the neo-liberals once again be able to hoodwink the far right in their party?

Mr Hammer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 1:34pm:

Name a President of the last, say, 80 years who could not be described as a warmonger?

(Hint... There is really only one... And look what Americans thought of him!)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2016 at 9:34am:


I think you slightly misunderstand my angle here.

The fact that Clinton is a regular run-of-the-mill establishment candidate with regular run-of-the-mill establishment shenanigans is the whole issue here. Simply dismissing it by saying 'oh but she's no different to all the others' misses the point.

The point is that for once this election put establishment 'business as usual' politics in the spotlight. For once establishment candidates on both sides were attacked because of their establishment links. Unfortunately, Trump's bafoonry thwarted a golden opportunity to put real pressure on the establishment and declare to them 'enough is enough' and force real change. Instead we became so fixated with Trump's bafoonry that in the end the establishment has actually positioned itself as the solution, the saviour from the prospect of a Trump disaster  - when they were supposed to be the target, not Trump.