My (biased) interpretation: The author previously wrote a book about how Limousine Liberal vs Populist Conservative is a false dichotomy that has polarized pol

My (biased) interpretation: The author previously wrote a book about how Limousine Liberal vs Populist Conservative is a false dichotomy that has polarized political perspectives ever since Nixon invented the term. Back then, the progressive/socialist left opposed liberalism for it being intimately connected to the war machine (where war in Korea was engineered to serve aggregate demand for American goods). As we entered into the bold new (Post-Nixon Shock) era of the 1970s where the failure to replicate the "success" in Korea caused economic turmoil, liberalism co-opted the efforts & reforms of the left when it came to social equality, and then liberalism and the progressive left became conflated under assault from the resurgent right for decades to come. Around the time of the 1990s, the Clintons realized that you can form a bulwork against many forms of discrimination without "disturbing the equanimity of the 1%." Until both the Occupy Movement and Tea Parties arose, as responses to the damage of neoliberalism, whereas the former was motivated by similar ideals as the 1960s left, the latter was motivated by "fantasy of older capitalism, one friendlier to the way they think America used to be". Later in the article it talks about how Trump and Sanders camps have been damaged by neoliberalism, where Sanders is a New-Deal style social democrat, whereas Trump is a "conscienceless demagogue, serial liar, and nihilist". (By "biased" I mean that I would prefer to bring more attention to the economic paradigm shift precipitated by the Nixon shock rather than the particular propaganda method of the concept of "Limousine Liberal")