In Dealing With Pauline Hanson, Remember Rob Borbidge

With hysteria levels in nominally conservative circles approaching fever point on the question of precisely what to do about Pauline Hanson, I thought it instructive to repost an article originally published in August, in the aftermath of the federal election.

It does seem that every time I think the planets are aligning to permit me more time for publishing comment, something new emerges from other quarters: and to this end, spending most of last week interstate, combined with more interstate work before Christmas and a slew of commitments outside business hours over the next few weeks, it means our regular conversation will have to wait.

For now, I encourage everyone to contemplate afresh the initial thoughts on Pauline Hanson winning four Senate spots and with them, partial control of the balance of power in the upper house; One Nation now stands to inflict great damage on all who stand in its way, beginning with a state election in Queensland next year.

For the major parties, and the Liberal Party especially, cooler heads — and far more refined levels of astute judgement — will be paramount in heading off this insidious electoral threat.


The Red And The Blue

COALITION MPs who think Pauline Hanson must be vilified and her party smashed must reconsider; the inherent risks in any attempt at accommodation of the right-wing party are tempered by the dangers of literally ignoring it. A procession of state Coalition figures 15 years ago — headed by former Queensland Premier Rob Borbidge — offers an object lesson in the consequences of crucifying Hanson, One Nation, and the people who vote for it.

If there’s one thing that has generally been missed in much of the published commentary since last month’s election, it’s that the overall swing that occurred — in raw terms — was to the Right, the success of Nick Xenophon in South Australia notwithstanding, rather than to the Left.

Certainly, it’s the ALP and Bill Shorten who ostensibly emerge as the biggest winners and, in the House of Representatives at least, this is also certainly true; Labor now requires just seven additional…

View original post 2,893 more words

Warning Sign: Trump Win A Klaxon Siren For Libs, ALP

THE BOILOVER that saw Donald Trump elected US President on Tuesday is not confined to America, is not a vote “against women,” and is not an illusory phenomenon; people across the Western world are serving potent notice to their leaders they will not tolerate government by the United Nations, being brainwashed, or being marched around with templates for thought, speech and action. Politicians in Australia must take note — or pay the price.

One of the conversations I have had since the stunning triumph of Donald Trump’s Republican juggernaut this week centred on whether Trump was “destined” to win the US election, or whether the Democratic Party’s selection of Hillary Clinton as its candidate sealed the deal; my thoughts — in short — were that Hillary was certain to have been a decisive factor in some of the states that flipped, handing Trump the Electoral College votes required, but that endorsing “a human being” instead of a compromised, scandal-plagued insider might well have yielded a different result for the Democrats.

Welcome to the new world: across the globe, scribes will spend a fair chunk of time in the coming months intermittently dissecting what went on in America this week searching for “answers” as to how someone like Trump could be elected to the most powerful position in the free world; I don’t think it’s a rocket science study, and whilst I don’t mean to simplify complex questions into idiot-simple answers, the warning signs of Tuesday’s boilover have been writ large for years.

Richard Nixon — who, had he been better than a petty crook, might have been viewed by history as one of America’s greatest presidents — often talked of the “silent majority” in the United States; it echoes Bob Menzies’ “forgotten people,” and that cohort — working and middle class, aspirational, rooted in traditional values and yearning for optimism about their lot — can be found today in just about every Western country grappling with 21st century problems of economic restructuring, “disruption,” high immigration, and the odious slithering creep of the diktat of hard socialism.

When I see footage of young activists associated with America’s Democratic Party going on rampages through US cities, chanting “Kill Trump” and other incendiary slogans, I see proof that the purported voices of moderation, tolerance and reason of the Left are only sober and civil if they get their way; there is a difference between “protest” and “incitement to riot.” Nobody would object to a peaceful protest by these people. Calling for the assassination of their President does not constitute a “peaceful protest.”

One of the criticisms I made of Malcolm Turnbull back in 2009, when he was initially the leader of the Liberal Party (and a couple of years before I started this column) was that he was determined not only to minimise the differences between the Coalition and the Rudd government, but to do so by moving too far toward the ALP position; there are those who countered that politics is too confrontational at the best of times, and that Turnbull should have been commended rather than pilloried for his actions.

Yet politics is adversarial by nature — you cannot have a “battle of ideas” without comprehensively thrashing those ideas out — and in the end, public opinion aligned with turbulent unrest on the conservative wing of the Liberal Party to see Turnbull ejected from his post. In some respects, we are seeing a repeat of the process now, albeit with much higher stakes and against the backdrop of a far less forgiving “silent majority” in this country.

Much of the problem, as I see it, emanates from the United Nations; established in the aftermath of the second world war as a mechanism to prevent a third, this undemocratic and fundamentally anti-democratic body has extended its tentacles into the daily governance of member states to the point governments in the West are obliged to comply with UN treaties before they embark upon sovereign legislation of their own.

Tellingly, a lot of this is centred on social policy — human rights, immigration, aid for the third world and so forth — that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with preventing a war between the US and Russia. Certainly, it has never stopped regional wars and insurrections (the Middle East being a residual case in point) from breaking out.

But the point is that the UN has strayed so far from what it was set up for that it is now regarded, rightly, as a de facto One World Government by its critics and certainly, a lot of what drives the popular revolt against so-called “elites” these days in Western countries derives directly from the insidious crawl of the UN further and further into the governance of those countries.

What, pray tell, does a body charged with averting a world war have to do with mandating binding targets on the environment and climate change? Despite the ridiculous soothsaying of the most ardent climate change zealots, the answer is “precisely nothing.”

Britain — voting earlier this year to leave the European Union — signalled its intention to dispense with a localised European equivalent; the small matter of the UK paying the largest annual contributions to the EU aside, that lamentable body has regulated everything in Britain from immigration to industry, affecting everything from the rights of British fishermen to limits on what vacuum cleaners may be sold in British shops. EU regulation has stifled (if not crippled) huge chunks of British industry, whilst flooding the country with “free movement” of people to whom the British government is obliged to pay welfare and social benefits. Anyone interested in more on this issue should spend an hour watching the excellent Brexit: The Movie, which can be accessed here.

Yet the Left (of which the lamentable Hillary Clinton is a standard bearer) refuses to accept the referendum result; some in its midst seek to build “momentum” for a second referendum, with the intellectually insulting implication that those who voted to leave might belatedly come to their senses; others have seen fit to go to Britain’s High Court, with the result that any attempt to trigger Article 50 of the EU charter (the mechanism by which formal disengagement will commence) now requires a vote in the House of Commons to ratify.

This is dangerous ground, and the Conservative Party — less open to accusations of softness or leftward tendencies under the leadership of Theresa May — will almost certainly go to an early election next Spring on this issue; if it does, the opposition Labour Party, which ranks among the worst offenders for trying to obstruct Brexit proceedings, is likely to be absolutely slaughtered in one of its worst results since Ramsay MacDonald first formed a Labour government (in coalition) more than 90 years ago.

But the risk of electoral annihilation is no deterrent to the Left; it argues — fatuously — that a 52-48 result on 72% voter turnout, in a country where voting is optional and the population is 65 million, means only a quarter of Britons actually support leaving the EU. Had the result been 52-48 the other way, however, they wouldn’t utter a word about such dubious mathematics. Yet “the will of the people” is, once again, a disposable concept when it comes to the dictatorial agenda of the Left.

Even if it wasn’t, British Labour is a battle-hardened agent of the disgusting elitist filth spreading like a cancer throughout Western society; it threw hundreds of billions of pounds in bribes at minorities to purchase and seal their allegiance, and saw to it that Britain’s door was open not just to those it was obliged to accept from Europe, but from far beyond — keeping that door closed to easier entry for Australians, or New Zealanders, or others with a genuine claim to common culture and history — in a determined campaign to inflict “diversity” on the UK irrespective of what others thought; it fostered the oozing socialism of political correctness that seeps like toxic sludge through the public institutions it is calculated to diminish and break down. It oversaw the separation of “elites” in the media, the public sector and the ruling class from a population that would do what it was told. And the same vile lexicon of abuse that has become familiar here in Australia was deployed against anyone who dared to speak against it.

It is no wonder British Labour now faces a poleaxing for defying the will of the people that will make its humiliation at the hands of Margaret Thatcher in 1983 resemble an act of leniency.

Across western Europe, the same pattern has been followed: in socialist France, where a government sympathetic to such rubbish exudes neither an inclination nor an ability to respond — and is facing an involuntary fall from the cliff when it faces voters next year. In supposedly conservative Germany, whose Chancellor opened the floodgates to almost unrestricted Muslim immigration triggering social problems on a hitherto unimaginable scale, as instances of immigrant men raping young girls in public swimming pools and other atrocities are desperately hidden from public view, the government responsible for bringing them to Germany in the first place faces a rout.

Look across Europe: in Belgium, in Holland, in France, in Germany and elsewhere, the old world has become a powderkeg: its people taking aim at governments for selling them down the river (with the EU a central player in this process), whilst outsiders and a chosen few within their borders are feted with more privileges and rights than those who made those countries what they were in the first place.

Almost every aspect of what I have described was present in the boilover that saw Donald Trump elected on Tuesday.

The notion of government “of the people, for the people and by the people” is a noble sentiment indeed — one that can and should have application in every democratic society in the world.

Hillary Clinton didn’t lose to Trump because she is a woman, or because of “misogyny;” she didn’t lose because Americans are racist, or bigoted, or homophobic, or “deniers” on climate change (with the unspoken imputation they should face the Inquisition) or any of the other bullshit the Left bandies about to bully ordinary decent folk, or to justify its inevitable failures.

She lost because a) it was her personally, which is pertinent because b) Hillary Clinton is probably the highest-profile figurehead in the world for all this garbage.

And as I said in my post-election piece on Thursday, the US public — fed to the teeth with the Clintons and everything they stand for, after decades of scandals, crises, and a litany of misdemeanours that seemingly drags on forever — finally decided to simply say “no.”

This brings me rather neatly to Australia, where a government led by a proven sympathiser with most of the garbage now attracting electoral retribution abroad was lucky to be re-elected narrowly four months ago.

In the red corner sits a self-professed champion of everything ordinary people have just about had enough of: being told they’re “racist” for not wanting unlimited Muslim immigration. Being told they are “bigots” for not supporting same-sex marriage. Being told they are “sexist” and “misogynist” if they don’t support women being given jobs based on gender irrespective of whether they are the best fit for those roles or not.

It is an indictment on Bill Shorten that despite his claims this week to be “calling out” sexism — by ripping into Trump, jeopardising Australia’s relationship with the United States in the process, to continue a partisan battle on Clinton’s half that is already irretrievably lost — he’s never “called out” the CFMEU thug who called a female Fair Work Australia inspector “a fucking slut.”

It is an indictment, too, on the miserable scum lurking in some sections of the press who overlook such omissions out of herd-like solidarity.

Like all of the spearheads of this leftist elitist disease, Shorten’s adherence to “principle” is a flexible, elastic concept.

Meanwhile, over in the blue corner, sits Malcolm Turnbull: not an abusive specimen at all, but an ardent proponent nevertheless of the pet issues of the Left that the silent majority in Australia have come to bitterly resent. Climate change. Gay marriage. “Diversity,” with its overtones of involuntary enforcement and the message that objections will fall on deaf ears. Slavish adherence to the illegitimate United Nations. On and on it goes. If Turnbull wonders why his popularity has returned to the S-bend — where it has traditionally resided — he need look no further than this agenda, which might play well in his trendy electorate around Bondi and Randwick and Kings Cross, but which is reviled beyond their latte strips.

In the process, politically correct, socialist obscenities abound, unhindered and unrestrained by an allegedly conservative government.

Gillian Triggs, even after an outrageous report into child detention deliberately calibrated to transfer opprobrium from the socialist Gillard government which locked the kids up to the Abbott government that had released most of them by the time it was tabled, and after the disgusting fiasco of an ambit section 18c discrimination case at the Queensland University of Technology, has still not had her plum statutory appointment terminated.

The so-called “safe schools” programme — designed to brainwash kids about gender to destroy traditional values — lives on, despite the withdrawal of government funding: some states have picked up the cudgels; in others, variations of the scheme are taught anyway. Outraged parents (and I’m one of them) get no say over the crap their kids are being “taught.”

And as ever — in the examples we have already looked at, and in others unique to Australia — people in this country are increasingly face legislation (and hysterical bullying drummed up by irresponsible sections of the press, social media, the churches and the education sector) that governs what they may say, think, and do.

There is a difference between common decency and thought Police; there is a difference between genuine respect for each other and parroting prescribed lines that enunciate approved terms of reference for interaction.

And there is a limit to how much of this rubbish people will stomach — especially whilst watching their political masters rort entitlements, expenses, staff appointments, and shovel billions of dollars out in the interests of buying the loyalty of minorities — whilst they are told (almost in as many words) that their opinions do not matter, and neither do they.

Right now, the Liberal Party and the ALP — to varying degrees — are both guilty of perpetuating these fancies; the ALP because it means it, and the Liberals because the quislings advising it are too terrified of risk to properly or effectively stand up to it.

I saw a meme last week: it is instructive to share it now.

Image result for political correctness is totalitarianism pretending to be manners

Frankly, there is no credible argument against it.

The ALP (and Shorten) is a lost cause; a basket case that on current trends will fall into office again only on the receiving end of a backlash against Turnbull and his refusal to do more than mouth platitudes to assuage the conservative wing of his party. Even now — with a healthy election-winning lead across all polls — the ALP can’t do better than about 38% of the primary vote. The cultures of division and complaint are central to its success. The pursuit of of the PC socialist agenda, both in 1996 and in 2013, were central to its demise.

But the Liberal Party is able to do something about it: I am not advocating a change in the leadership; not today, at any rate.

But the party that is the usual guardian of individual opportunity, freedom of choice, traditional values and national pride has taken its eye off the ball.

Ordinary folk — that silent majority of forgotten people — are being priced out of essential services as cheap, inexhaustible coal is phased out in favour of unreliable and ultra-expensive renewables that would be dearer still if government didn’t shovel countless billions of dollars out in subsidies to make them “viable.”

They see an Australia where freedom of speech and freedom of thought are open only to people they are told they must unquestioningly accept — even if those minorities are, in fact, wrong — and an Australia where an opinion running contrary to this diabolical regime elicits a lawsuit from a government-sponsored body.

They see jobs disappearing at the same time family reunion schemes for refugees bring thousands of people to Australia who will probably never contribute economically: it is these people who are the target of complaints about migrants and welfare, not the ones who come to Australia (from literally anywhere in the world), join in with the rest of us, and work like the rest of us.

They see an Australia where a cabal of figures in the media, Parliament, its advisors, unions, government-funded social lobby groups and other fellow travellers smugly decree what is and isn’t acceptable, and where it is literally their way or the highway.

The rise of figures and parties on the far right are the confused embodiment of their resentment; One Nation, the Australian Liberty Alliance, and more extreme groups like Rise Up! Australia garnered more than 10% of the Senate vote between them at the July federal election, and enough in the lower house to influence many contests — in most cases, against the Liberal Party.

If the Liberals do not recalibrate their policies and public messages with mainstream conservatism to replace the broad capitulation to the PC agenda it has made in recent years, it will be unable to fend off the far Right in the medium to longer term.

Amateurish outfits like One Nation might be a political pain in the arse, but they have limited reach; at some point, however, someone is going to find a way to craft a vehicle of the radical Right that actually has mass appeal, and if and when that happens, the Liberals will be helpless to avoid the electoral consequences.

These are not necessarily my personal views, even if I’m a mainstream conservative frustrated by the direction (or lack of it) emanating from the corridors of power; rather, they are a snapshot of the contact I have with thousands of people each year (I almost live in two states, and make regular forays into two others) from all walks of life, spanning university-aged people to senior citizens. Today’s article simply reflects my observations, an assessment of the likely electoral repercussions, and a juxtaposition of these onto what is happening elsewhere in the world.

To make a penultimate point, we’re not that different to people in the UK, the USA, or anywhere else where the eventual effects of all this crap are now playing out.

And this is why the election of Donald Trump in the United States cannot be dismissed, explained away or ignored; the same forces that have propelled him to the White House are at work right here in Australia.

Australian politicians ignore the warning signs at their peril. Like a Cold War nuclear attack drill, the klaxon siren is blaring; if the warhead detonates, the status quo that will be obliterated: not the Trump-like agent of change, whoever it (or they) might be. The silent majority is restless, restive, and has had enough. The major parties must change — or pay a heavy price indeed.


USA: Trump Wins The Election Hillary Clinton Was Born To Lose

AMERICA has delivered a vicious rebuke to Hillary Clinton and the Washington establishment, voting Republican firebrand Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States; despite early uncertainty, the sky will not fall in, and Trump’s task is to make good his vow to “make America great again.” For Clinton, the repudiation is a brutal, thorough, deserved humiliation. For her party, it remains to be seen whether it can recover by 2020 — if at all.

First things first: congratulations must be minuted to President-elect Trump, his family, their supporters, and the 60 million Americans who voted for them; Donald Trump has been elected to the most powerful political office in the free world — and will become its 45th occupant on 20 January — and it is to be hoped, for the common global good, that the eloquent vision he articulated during his victory speech last night (Melbourne time) is one he delivers upon.

I am not a supporter of Trump, nor am I hostile toward him; I am however (as regular readers well know) flatly opposed to the Clintons ever again holding public office and in this sense, the United States and the world have been spared four gruelling and traumatic years of legal machinations, a probable impeachment, and quite possibly armed conflict with Russia. And this is before we even contemplate the divisive, insiderish, illiberal junta that would have comprised a second Clinton administration.

Donald Trump, to be sure, is far from an ideal candidate for the presidency of the United States.

But his alleged misdemeanours — real, imagined, or laid bare by Wikileaks as campaign plots by a morally bankrupt and repugnant Democratic Party — pale into insignificance alongside any contemplation of decades of shady legal and business manoeuvres, questionable (and possibly criminal) behaviour during four years as Secretary of State, or the arrant and abhorrent sense of entitlement with which Hillary Clinton pursued the position of President.

This is not to say that dirty talk about women and other insulting and/or demeaning conduct should be sanctioned or condoned; far from it, although there are those leftist zealots who will accuse me of doing precisely that irrespective of any declamations to the contrary. For those people, reality is a jaundiced concept.

But a woman whose conduct may yet be found to have been brazenly and wantonly criminal — and who, in “supporting” her husband has repeatedly silenced women who levelled accusations of rape and sexual assault against Bill Clinton — is in no position to wail about “misogyny” or the mistreatment of her gender; in any case, she has singularly failed to satisfactorily answer the charge that her flagrant misuse of email systems as Secretary of State at best divulged highly classified material, and at worst compromised the national security of both the United States of America and its allies.

Hillary Clinton is, to be sure, the most unsuitable candidate to ever seek to be President. Whilst the alleged misdeeds of Trump are nothing to recommend, they do not outweigh any reasonable or reasoned assessment of her claim to that office. On that score, one of the best deconstructions of that campaign I have seen can (and should) be viewed below.

At the time of publication, it appears Trump and Clinton are level pegging with 47.6% of the popular vote apiece, with the balance claimed by a raft of minor party candidates, although as counting concludes in the Democratic fortress of California, Clinton will likely edge Trump on this measure by about half a percentage point overall.

In the Electoral College — where it really matters — this translates into 310 of 538 votes for Trump to 228 for Clinton, as the Republican carried EC votes from 31 of the 50 states to Clinton’s 19 plus the District of Columbia.

It is, in EC terms, a convincing win that falls short of a landslide. The only real surprise is that the margin isn’t greater.

One of the points of interest I have noted is that of the seven extra states Trump won, six — Ohio, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — are clustered in the north-east in and around the area variously described as “Hillary’s firewall” and the home of America’s liberal Left “elites.”

In other words, the Trump victory has been primarily fuelled by a rebellion against Clinton and the Democrats on what is to all intents and purposes their home turf: the only extra state he picked up elsewhere was Florida, whose 29 EC votes ultimately proved surplus to the required 270-vote threshold.

The notion Trump’s win was driven by a backlash against the Democrats in their heartland is further underlined by the fact almost every state the Democrats nevertheless carried in the immediate vicinity of those they lost — New York, Maine, Connecticut, to mention a few — were carried with significantly reduced margins.

There is a very clear message to politicians of the liberal Left — in and beyond the United States — and one that transcends the populist claptrap that at times characterised Trump’s campaign tactics: people are fed up with being told how to think, and act, and behave, or that someone else knows better than they do how to run their lives or spend their money, or that their country is the plaything for profit of a cabal of mostly unelected spivs legitimised by the fig leaf of an electoral endorsement obtained by gross deception.

This message (and its impact) has now been felt twice in Britain, once with the majority victory by the Conservative Party last year and subsequently in the Brexit referendum in June; it was a key reason for yesterday’s victory by Trump in the USA; and the prospect of sitting governments being turfed out in western Europe in favour of nationalist and/or conservative libertarian outfits is high, with the Front National in France a real chance to push the ruling Socialists out of contention in next year’s elections.

It is one that is quickly generating a backlash here in Australia, as people fed up with the finger-shaking agendas of an insiderish few profiting from the public purse, aimed at enshrining political correctness and hard socialism, find their voices in (for now) minor fringe parties.

If the Liberal Party rediscovers its proper role as the steward of the individual, freedom and respect for traditional institutions and values, it will prosper; but if it does not, the risk a new conservative force rooted in the mainstream rather than the far Right may usurp it is very real.

In other words, the forces that have led to the ascension of Trump are on the march across the Western world, as people react against the scam of “climate change,” the spectre of unlimited mass immigration, the prescriptive regulation of speech and thought, and the consequent destruction of everything that made their countries great to begin with.

Contrary to nightmare scenarios bandied about by Clinton and her cheer squad in global media — in increasingly shrill tones as election day drew nigh — the world will not end under President Trump, and the sky will not fall in; it is an obscene intellectual dishonesty to suggest otherwise, but in the US, Australia, Canada, Britain and elsewhere, it is fashionable for the Left to frame any conservative electoral mandate as the precursor to unmitigated social, economic (and in this case, military) destruction.

Ironically, the prospects for global conflict will recede after yesterday’s win by Trump; far from the a candidate with “inappropriate links” to Russia, Trump has demonstrated that he understands the need to ratchet tensions with the re-emergent superpower down.

In this sense, the so-called “bromance” he enjoys with Vladimir Putin appears likely to provide a circuit-breaker in US-Russia relations that would not have materialised under Clinton, who spent four years as Secretary of State giving every appearance of being as provocative toward Putin as possible, and whose campaign articulated a series of positions on Syria and the Middle East that seem contrived only to goad Russia into armed confrontation.

Global financial markets — which initially reeled on discovering compliant media reports assuring a Clinton victory were incorrect — will soon enough stabilise, as they did in the UK in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum.

And whilst some of America’s trading partners may be entitled to feel nervous about changes Trump says he will make — backed by majorities in both Houses of Congress, no less — the truth is that US interests have been badly damaged during eight years of spectacularly incompetent Democratic rule. Whilst the Trump prescription might not be perfect, the prospect the American economy can be revived under this new approach is at worst no less probable than anything Clinton might have attempted.

Significantly, Trump has made it clear that the relationship with Australia is a key priority for his incoming administration: to safeguard our own interests, Australian officials have been building bridges to the Trump camp for months, and media reports yesterday featuring senior US figures suggested these prove fruitful.

But in the end, yesterday’s election result — a vindication of the Trump message, however unorthodox — was really a judgement on the illiberalism and socialism and failed international and domestic strategies of a moribund Democratic Party.

After two eight-year administrations in less than 25 years, it is easy to forget that America’s Democrats have lost six of the past ten US elections and that a seventh — Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992 — might have ended very differently had Ross Perot not drained off 19% of the vote as a third-party candidate: a development widely acknowledged at the time as having cost the senior George Bush a second term in the White House.

And in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, the euphoria of initial victory was quickly displaced by deep unpopularity and electoral mauling as soon as mid-term elections fell due; in Clinton’s case, a second term was made a certainty only by exceedingly poor candidate selection by the Republicans.

In short, the US Democratic Party of the past 40 years isn’t the most successful outfit on the planet.

I was shocked to learn, flicking through Wikipedia at the weekend, that many prominent names at Democratic presidential selection contests 30 years ago have remained prominent for most of the time since; the current Vice-President, for example, initially sought the presidency in the 1980s.

And with an eye to the future, it seems a tall ask for the Democrats to be competitive in four years’ time, let alone be in any position to win.

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was, in some respects, the last lunge by a patronage-addled, insiderish junta at an undeserved return to power in Washington; it has rightly been punished with defeat, and there are few credible names coming through that party’s ranks who might make plausible claims to the White House even after a further four years.

By contrast, the Republicans are blessed with fresh blood, with the likes of Scott Walker and Marco Rubio seemingly on the cusp of acting as standard bearers for a new era of American conservative politics.

I would be surprised if Trump seeks a second term in 2020, at the age of 74; whether he does or not, I suspect the axis of American politics is very much tilting away from the Democrats.

Either way — and whether he does or not — the onus is now on Trump to deliver on his rhetoric, and to make good his promise to “make America great again;” this project doesn’t start for another ten weeks, and until it does, I will reserve my judgement.

For Hillary Clinton, yesterday represented a brutal and thoroughly deserved humiliation, and a savage repudiation of everything she and her insidious cabal stands for; as I publish, Clinton has had neither the grace to publicly concede the election to Trump, nor the basic decency to address the American public or her long-suffering supporters. In defeat, Hillary Clinton has shown just how poor a champion she really is for the groups she claims to represent, and her actions remove any final vestiges of doubt that her only real agenda was power at literally any price.

America — and the world — are the poorer for the bruising and at times tasteless election campaign that concluded yesterday. It is Trump’s responsibility to now restore some decorum and prestige to institutions and processes that have been considerably tarnished.

But this election was destined to be lost by Hillary Clinton, who was born to lose any contest for the highest office in the United States at which she may have sought to slake her thirst for power and the imbecilic delusions of entitlement and public adulation that may have fed it.

In the end, this had nothing to do with oppressed women, or male dominance of spheres of influence, or the inherent “sexism” of the electorate, or any other bullshit with which the Left seeks to justify the failure of undesirable and contemptible candidates for high office.

Hillary Clinton has failed because the US public — weary of her after 40 years in public life, and contemptuous of her litany of scandals, fixes and other embarrassments — has finally decided to simply say “no.”

There is nobody else to blame. The result perfectly reflects her unfitness for office. Hillary Clinton emerges from this contest with precisely what she deserves, and that — literally — is absolutely nothing.