The world remains a place of mystery: Clinton vs. Trump: Still A Dead Heat. Half of the American voting public would vote for Hillary. Who can make sense of such things, but there you are. More intriguing, we have William Voegeli writing The Reason I’m Anti-Anti-Trump.

The fact that Trump has become a credible contender despite, or even because of, his obvious faults argues, however, for taking his followers’ concerns seriously rather than dismissing them. It is not, in fact, particularly difficult to explain the emergence of Trumpismo in terms of legitimate concerns not addressed, and important duties not discharged. That such a flawed contender could be a front-runner tells us more about what’s wrong with the country than about what’s wrong with his followers. People have every reason to expect that their government will take its most basic responsibilities seriously, and every reason to be angry when, instead, it proves more feckless than conscientious. Governments are instituted among men to secure their inalienable rights, according to the Declaration of Independence. This means that when we and our rights are left avoidably insecure, government has failed in its central mission.

A government that worries about global warming more than immigration is a failed government and will in the fulness of time ruin the country it supposedly governs. And with the imperative for anyone to overcome the problems facing us being able to overcome the power of the media, there is no one other than Donald Trump who has found a way to do it. Voegeli concludes:

The best way to fortify Trump’s presidential campaign is to insist his followers’ grievances are simply illegitimate, bigoted, and ignorant. The best way to defeat it is to argue that their justified demands for competent, serious governance deserve a statesman, not a showman.

Fine, bring on the statesman or stateswoman. Meantime, if Hillary is the alternative, no one could look more statesmanlike than Trump.