>>Now immigration restriction is back on the table, however reluctant establishmentarians are to admit to it. The same thing will apply to a whole gamut of issues where the PC Left has either silenced or marginalized the opposition and co-opted the establishment “Right”.
<<
It is worldwide. Before Trump’s election, “nationalizaton” (vs. “globalization”) and “populist” were both epithets, virtually the equivilent to “racist.” The Left had claimed the high ground on these terms and basically cowed people (who thought they were in the minority) who honestly thought their country’s interest should come first.
Brexit was considered an aberration by a physically and currency isolated group of people. Nervous-making but nothing that can’t be dealt with.
Trump’s win has emboldened Juan, Joe, Dieter, Ivan, etc. that not only is “nationalism” OK but it is the DOMINANT philosophy. These guys now feel they can proudly and loudly (stole that back from the lefties) declare they care about their country first.
Future historians will point to the (now inevitable) fall of the EU to the election of Trump, giving credit to Brexit for starting it.
You may be right.
Until recently, the debate between "Left" and "Right" was restricted to two flavors of globalism. The globalist left wanted internationalism with more bureacracy and government regulation. The globalist right wanted internationalism with a little less bureaucratic oversight and regulation. Neither questioned the fundamental assumption that destroying national sovereignty, opening the borders, and outsourcing money and industry were fundamentally good things.
Now, instead of their fake debate over tactics, we have a real debate over the assumptions. That's why so many establishment Republicans covertly (and sometimes not so covertly) supported Hillary, and why European pseudo-conservatives like Merkel will eventually form coalitions with Socialists against rising nationalist parties.