 So Republicans used to be the country club party, right, the party of the ruling class. It was the party of the rich people and the educated people and the party of CEOs, the party of business and the defense establishment, people who put national security first. And then in the age of Trump, not because of Trump, but right wing parties in general have moved down market and become parties of the working class. So obviously a party of the working class is not going to be a party of the ruling elite. So it's interesting in my lifetime, right, I moved to California in 1977 and Republicans are still the country club party of business. And now they're largely the party of the working class. The Tories have largely become, in England, the party of the working class. So aesthetics, I think, has so much to do with people's political, cultural, social and religious choices. I think the major reason that Richard Spencer moved from right wing ethno-nationalist to Biden supporting liberal is aesthetics. Like he didn't like the type of people that he was associated with in the Maga crowd. He found them down market, uneducated, stupid, unappetizing, gross. And he noticed that the most educated, elite, powerful people we most wanted to hang out with were overwhelmingly Democrats. And I think that had a profound effect on his political change, not just on him, on a lot of people. We want to feel something. We want to be aligned with something that is cool and appealing. We want to be part of something beautiful like the Sydney Haber here, Sydney Opera House, the Botanical Gardens. This is downtown Sydney. And then we want to be happy, we want to be cool, we want to be with a particular aesthetic. And we then shift our politics and our religion. Our cultural taste, our musical taste to fit in with the aesthetic that is embodied by the crowd we want to belong to. So people may move from low church to high church. People may move from primitive forms of religion to more intellectual forms of religion depending on what social class they want to hang out with. The major decider for where people will go to church or synagogue is the number of friends that they have at synagogue. I went to synagogue on Shabbos and I knew everyone from my last trip to Sydney. I walked in and I knew 20 people there. I'm not going to leave a synagogue like that where I know everyone. People are going to choose their politics to fit in with the crowd that dominates their community, their neighborhood, dominates the social class they want to belong to or to the social class they aspire to join. So the Democrats used to be the party of the working class. Now they've become the party of the top dogs, right? The elite and the bottom tier of society. The Republicans have moved to an increasingly populist appeal. The populism depends upon the notion of a public, right? There is such a thing as a general public who are united around certain values, causes, issues as opposed to the elites. The elites can only rule by divide and conquer. Elites can only rule if society is segmented, it's multicultural, it's divided up and then the elites can make alliances such as with doctors or CEOs or professors, intellectuals, the literati. That's how it leads rule by making alliances in a segmented, multicultural society. Populism depends upon a notion of a general public, of a united public which is a lot easier the more homogeneous you are. Populism doesn't have definitive political principles. It's a reaction. Populism is a reaction against ruling elites. It doesn't last. Almost by definition there can't be populist institutions. Populism is a spasm, it's a reflex, it's a reaction. And it's usually a reaction of the public against the elites. Now what happens is as populist leaders become elites, they notice that they are more in common with other elites than they do with their own constituency. This happens to a lot of Republicans. If you go to Washington or who are appointed to the Supreme Court or appointed to any prestigious group, you suddenly find that they have more in common with this particular group over the Washington DC set or the legal profession than they do with their constituency. So when populist gets leaders, when the elite is becoming elite, they start feeling more in common with other elites rather than with the general public. So populism is very hard to sustain. It's a periodic, episodic reaction. It's a reflex which can rise to power very quickly and fall apart just as quickly. You can't have sustained institutionalized populism.