The gentle reader will have heard or read of Donald Trump, a US billionaire who hopes to become the presidential candidate of the Republican party in the election 2016 and has become known for his style of campaigning: blackpainting less-than-Aryan minorities (such as Mexican immigrants), disparaging women by crude jokes, appealing to the childish pleasures (of especially men) of (collective) strength (such as being members of a great/strong nation), expressing himself often in politically incorrect ways (= inviting the followership of all those who are in the habit and also proud of not following the rules of political correctness – such as men at beertables) – in short, appealing to all those who at earlier times thought one Adolf Hitler so very marvellous, and being remarkably successful by this method (of all the Republican presidential hopefuls he has the clearly biggest support).
And it was about him that Yrsa Grüne was, in Hbl of Ons 12.08., writing a ledare titled “Trump förvånar och förskräcker”, in which she was pretty exclusively dealing with his style and its possible consequences for his chances of becoming the presidential candidate of his party.
My own point is that her piece was a rather typical example of a bourgeois reaction to a politician who is not expressing himself in the way one expects from a member of the established “elite”. Certainly I do not like his style either, but MUCH more important I should think the political intentions of a candidate and the consequences if he should get into a position of power. And when considering THIS, then the presidency of ANY Republican candidate would be a catastrophe for the whole world (all the same whether he expresses himself in politically correct ways or not). Because: the Big Money is very mostly supporting the Republican party (presumably because it can be relied on to not increase the taxation of large incomes or properties and also in other ways be very “friendly” to Big Money), and if somebody becomes president by Big Money having generously paid for his campaign and he also wants to sit a second term as president, then he HAS to follow the wishes of Big Money during his first term as a president in order not to lose the necessary financial support when campaigning for his second term. And as we know that the Big Money in North America is HEAVILY involved in the fossil fuel business, and that also several very influential EU countries are very much inclined to follow any US-American lead, a Republican US presidency would be an EXTREMELY big obstacle to any policy which would try to prevent catastrophic climate change. Quite apart from what a Republican presidency would mean for the lives and the health of poor US citizens, US women, US citizens of colour, US workers and employees, for the policy of NATO, et cetera … . – But perhaps one should simply not expect a bourgeois commentator to see (or at least to mention) this.