I’d point out that Trump did a mostly excellent job of synthesizing immigration and trade into the overarching question of Borders for America, which he strongly favored while Hillary tended to act ambivalent toward the whole concept. Borders was the meta-issue of 2016.
Sailer’s Thesis: immigration
Kristol’s Antithesis: trade
Trump’s Synthesis: borders
On the question of predicting Trump’s victory, to be precise, unlike Ann, I don’t believe I predicted that Trump would win (nor did I predict that Trump would lose). My contribution over the last 16 years has been to point out that there was an alternative strategy for the GOP rather than the Bush Family’s dominant strategy of more Hispanic immigration, and that my strategy made at least as much sense as the conventional wisdom.
In case you are wondering about who is participating in this video:
WEEKLY STANDARD editor William Kristol provided his post-election analysis with the Brookings Institution’s William Galston and Boston College professor Susan Shell at Harvard University last week. Moderated by Harvard professor and frequent Conversations with Bill Kristol guest Harvey Mansfield, the discussion is part of a biennial debate series between Kristol and Galston presented by Harvard’s Program on Constitutional Government.[Comment at Unz.com]