1) There is an interesting article at Vanity Fair by TA Frank: www.vanityfair.com/...
2) Some points from the article:
a) As Michael Lind argued in the New York Times, Trumpism -- "friendly to entitlements, unfriendly to expanded trade and high immigration—will be the platform of the Republican Party in the years going forward. Clintonism—friendly both to business and to social and racial liberalism—will cobble together numerous interest groups and ditch the white working class"
b) The interests of the Richest 1% thus lie with Clintonism and no longer with the Republicans.
c) Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama pursued policies extremely beneficial to the 1% -- and the result has been massive financial support for the Democrats -- a three-fold increase since 1980.
d) Whereas Trumpism's policies -- crackdowns on hiring of illegal immigrants, a big reduction in US military committments in Europe and Asia, a withdrawal from globalization , trade agreements and outsourcing -- will greatly harm several financial interests of the 1%.
e) Trumpism "would cater not to the donor class, but rather to the white working class. Rich people do not like that idea. "
f) But the 1% will have high demands in exchange for their support. The resulting tensions between the Democratic Party's Rich and the middle class/working poor Democrats will cause tensions but "the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use." Forms which do not annoy the Rich or cost them much.
3) Over time the conflict between Trumpism and Clintonism will increase racial conflict -- whereas Bernie Sander's argument that the workers and poor of all races have a common cause is a more unifying agenda.
4) TA Frank's article is consistent with the analysis made in a recent book "Listen , Liberal" by Thomas Frank: listenliberal.com
5) Michael Lind’s analysis in the New York Times of how the two parties are evolving covers a longer historical period and is here:
www.nytimes.com/…