Ignoring his terrible record and taking his argument at face value, I think he's right on some counts, but misses three important points: * "The Elite" include

Ignoring his terrible record and taking his argument at face value, I think he's right on some counts, but misses three important points: * "The Elite" includes not just bankers and B-list actresses. It also includes most of Hollywood and many athletes, many media pundits, the Clintons, himself, and other politicians who make millions in "speaking engagements", book deals, etc., get cush healthcare and retirement, advocate and legislate wasteful policy, then lecture us on how evil we are for wanting to keep our hard-earned money to invest, share and spend as we see fit. * Disagreeing with someone is not automatically racist or sexist. Sure, those evils exist today and should be confronted, but having nuanced, principled opposition to "Elite" talking points should not get you banned from social media or doxed. We throw around ___ist words and hyperbole way too much in an effort to bypass rational debate. * A person having money or status is not a problem in itself. When those people start looking down their noses at me (a middle class libertarian), insinuating I am ___ist because I don't like a healthcare program they made, and creating a culture where people are maligned for their beliefs, it does begin to raise concerns. I think much of the nationalism we see is a reaction to those points. He's correct in the broader problem, but shortsighted in his application.