The Discomfiture of the Elites

To no one's surprise the Economist endorsed Hillary Clinton last week: [bold added]

The choice is not hard. The campaign has provided daily evidence that Mr Trump would be a terrible president. He has exploited America’s simmering racial tensions (see article). His experience, temperament and character make him horribly unsuited to being the head of state.[snip]

This presidential election matters more than most because of the sheer recklessness [electing Trump] of that scheme. It draws upon the belief that the complexity of Washington is smoke and mirrors designed to bamboozle the ordinary citizen; and that the more you know, the less you can be trusted. To hope that any good can come from Mr Trump’s wrecking job reflects a narcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrong.

Wow, they really didn't like Donald Trump. If the Economist is trying to sway an undecided voter, or even one who is leaning to Mr. Trump, sneering condescension and value-laden adjectives (terrible, unsuited, narcissistic) directed toward Trump supporters aren't the way to do it. On the other hand, if one is merely engaging in virtue-signaling to its presumed Oxbridge/Ivy readership, then the writers did a fine job.

Though I didn't vote for him, the discomfiture of the elites about the election results has been a wholly unexpected pleasure.

In its post-mortem the Economist displays a glimmer of self-awareness:

ordinary Americans...repudiate the media—including this newspaper—for being patronising, partisan and as out of touch and elitist as the politicians....The election of Mr Trump is a rebuff to all liberals, including this newspaper.

However, they still expect Donald Trump to fail:

We are deeply sceptical that he will make a good president—because of his policies, his temperament and the demands of political office.

Baby steps. Baby steps.