Of all the Trump team that was, to me he sounds the most thoughtful. There's a strategy in his head. He's original.
Who knows, I may even have some areas of overlap if I spend time on figuring out his beliefs.
There are some big questions about immigration and free trade. Do they benefit US citizens on average? Even if they do, are there losers?
For instance, it's legitimate to ask if GDP growth is generated mostly by population growth (immigration) rather than per capita productivity improvements. If it's the former, then how does the citizenry benefit economically from immigration?
The lower quintiles may also say - why the heck should we put up with competing with Chinese and Indian labour if our wages become so depressed in consequence that we cannot afford to consume? If society as a whole (and on average) benefits from free trade, and has access to cheaper goods, then maybe the costs and benefits should be shared around a bit.
For myself, I believe these are some of the ideas that gave Trump his election win. And they ought to be addressed.
I also think identity politics adds to his vote tally. Segmentation of US society into minority victim groups is unappealing to this Liberal. The insertion of lawyers into conversations in which they don't belong adds to the problem. The Gay Cake controversy is a great example. The Google email was another one. You want a broad conversation, not a narrow one. If the Constitution cannot bind people together, then the nation will come asunder. As it did when it failed to resolve the biggest issue it confronted: slavery.
Integrity is already falling apart in favour of materiallism.
Maybe the status quo ain't working. Maybe it benefits China and not the US. Why would the US go along with a scheme that impoverishes its middle and working classes?
Legitimate question.
Unfortunately, Trump isn't smart enough to create the answers. He needs someone to do it for him.
Bannon returning to Breitbart was a smart move.
| 
