A recent editorial in The Economist points out that this presidential election is about open vs closed rather than left versus right. That every one of the editorial contributors who favor openness want diversity in this context live as cloistered away from the consequences of that openness--private schools, gated Ice People communities, etc--is beside the point. Yes, that want the dirt people to take openness good and hard while they skim all the cream off the top up into the clouds. But here's the actionable part:
As for tactics, the question for pro-open types, who are found on both sides of the traditional left-right party divide, is how to win. The best approach will differ by country. In the Netherlands and Sweden, centrist parties have banded together to keep out nationalists. A similar alliance defeated the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off for France’s presidency in 2002, and may be needed again to beat his daughter in 2017. Britain may yet need a new party of the centre.And just as those "who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support" crooked Hillary, so should those who want America first vote for Trump irrespective of their beliefs on abortion, transgender restrooms, drug legalization, or any of the other masturbatory 'hot button' social issues.
In America, where most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.
If this polyglot empire is going to be held together, local customs will have to prevail at the local level. The Macedonians knew it, the Romans knew it, the Mongols knew it, and Trump seems to know it.
On the other hand, as I recall Jack Donovan hoping for, nothing could break apart the few remaining strained bonds precariously holding the US together as a putatively unified political entity faster than a Hillary Clinton presidency.