I took that to mean right-wing ideas endorsed and embodied by people in proximity to them. Not just a familiarity with.

Edited to add the rest, so pardon me for pinging you again bfv.

The point that I don't hear discussed is this:

By nominating a Trump rather than a Nixon or a Reagan, the Republicans may have saved liberalism from repeating that trajectory. But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent.

Hillary Clinton's being saved by the wretchedness of Trump (though it remains to be seen if it will be sufficient in the end). If there was a unoffensive Republican nominee, like Kasich or something, it looks like they'd have this election in the bag. As for why Kasich never secured the nomination in the first place, Trump had a plurality with 25% lead in the primaries, but that's because the field of adversaries was insanely watered down. I don't think Trump would have made it as far if the more reasonable/less vitriolic portion of the GOP electorate had one or two establishment candidates to rally around, instead of 15.

I disagree with the article. I don't think the adverse reaction towards Jimmy Fallon for treating Trump as a chum is unfounded. I do think the a social consciousness should impinge on what others believe should be off-limits -- "I Just Wish NFL Players Could Find A Way To Protest Without Starting A National Dialogue" (The Onion) -- vis a vis MLK and remonstration of the white moderate.

But still. Liberalism isn't in a strong place. And a lot of liberals are in an ineffectual bubble, myself sometimes included. I talk and think about these things a lot, but I don't know if I've ever changed anyone's mind.