Confusion reigns.

What would a Donald Trump on the American throne mean, would it be any worse than the existence of Putin on his.
Would the world be a scarier place or would it have clearer definition, black on white, no more of this wishy washy grey.
One of the disadvantages of political "universality" is that we lose our identity and psychologically suffer from not knowing who we are or what we stand for as we conciliate more and more.
Of course the alternative could lead to confrontation and our "identity" then becomes lost in the fall out of a nuclear war.
Trumps appeal to the mass of voters, much like Corbyn over here, is the belief that the ordinary man and woman in the street have become invisible and the "Suits" just don't care. The ultimate Establishment figure Hillary Clinton is seen as a chameleon, flip flopping to which ever audience she addresses unable to fully convince her constituency that she means what she says.
The real power lies not in the Presidency, not even the Congress but in the people who fund the political establishment to gain influence. Wall Street decides what is important, the boardrooms behind closed doors, the faceless people who lobby for "pork".
Trump proclaims an end to the shibboleth of Party allegiance with its self serving carve up of the national pie. He, the billionaire, will speak for the people, he knows their fears and he understands their frustrations as the "Suits" sweet talk the people into doing what is clearly not in their best interests.
Democracy has become a tool. Complacent governments have been complicit in allowing the political ideal of one man one vote to be sullied by the buying of influence. Money means more than the idealism of representation based on being a member of society. Society has no value, it is a cost not an asset and therefore can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Founding fathers,Washington and Cromwell, in their different ways tried to find a place for the common man in the considerations of the rich. One based on a Constitution and the rule of law, the other more brutal tried to chase out the money changers from a parliament which was little more than an extension of Crown and Gentry and far less than the idealistic search for a balanced "rights of man" assembly. One of the reasons we have never had a Constitutional Document in this country is that the Establishment would never wish to cede real power.
Like chaff in the wind we hope and pray that some of the largesse come to us but it is more in hope than in power of persuasion.  The Referendum, notwithstanding is a once in a lifetime opportunity to exercise real power and is the reason why the political class are in such a state. Manifestos can be broken the day after winning an election but can a Referendum. I suppose it could since the ruling party might say it was in our best interests to ignore the democratic result.
One of the fall out factors of 'single policy' question is that people coalesce into two camps and as we see in Scotland unless there is a decisive outcome the question is never, one way or the other, successfully answered. The nation remains divided and government seen playing catch up rather than leading.
We live in interesting times and although conflict and disharmony fill our screens each night we are still, as always individuals buffeted by the wind of change but never the less getting on with living our lives as best we can.