Donald Trump's presidential win has exposed the complacency of the US liberal establishment and prompted some distinctly illiberal responses from these people. They have been humiliated. The Internet is full of TV clips of news anchors and pundits roaring with laughter when a guest suggested, even early this year, that Trump might actually beat Hillary Clinton. For such representatives of what regarded itself as the liberal consensus, a Trump victory was unthinkable. And therein lies the problem for them and perhaps also for America. It was unthinkable because no one had bothered seriously to think about it. Those who are so sure of the correctness of their political opinions that they refuse to reexamine them, even when the economic and social pieces are clearly moving around them, are guilty of purblind arrogance. A philosopher once said that whenever he found himself certain about something, he immediately began to doubt it. Modern players of the democratic process, absorbed as they are in inspiring broad-brush policies and catchy sound-bite statements, do not have time for such subtle reflections. Instead, admiration in recent years has been given to so-called "conviction politicians" who are said to aspire to a higher level of motivation than the majority of their colleagues. In truth, however, this is a feeble rebranding effort - the average Western politician is in it for the power and prestige. "Convictions" which used to be known more prosaically as "policies" are merely different brightly-colored vehicles to get them noticed and hopefully carried into office. The dominant liberal consensus has been that globalization was an undoubted good and that one of the finest manifestations of this coming together, this economic and social integration, was the European Union. In July, British voters rejected EU integration and chose Brexit while US voters have just pushed back against the export of American jobs and the shrinkage of average incomes compared to the hyper-rich leaders of the elite, nearly all of whom are major supporters and funders of the liberal establishment. The sheer disbelief and indeed the immediate attempt to reject the Trump victory says a lot about the democratic credentials of the US liberal establishment. The rules say that after a fair fight the political process lines up behind the victor and voters get the chance to change their minds in four or five years. This is particularly true of the US presidency, where there is an automatic respect for the office itself, even if the incumbent himself does not deserve it. Trump, of course, said before the vote that he feared it would be fixed and vowed to challenge the result if he lost. Such a threat was seen by the liberal establishment as yet a further reason why it was unthinkable that he could win. Most newly-elected politicians get to enjoy a honeymoon period of around 100 days before the political knives are unsheathed. But for Trump the "right-thinking" American establishment is already busy slashing away. The president-elect's sudden emollience toward his critics - he said he understood why protestors had taken to the streets in the nights after his win - seems to count for nothing. In their burning fury at being found to be so wrong, the US liberal establishment seems set on destroying the evidence of their stupidity.
