I think people can reasonably disagree about what's in their economic interests, but it is hard to deny the line she draws between examples of demagoguery in the past, and the methods that Trump uses. In her case, she draws comparisons from American history; in plenty of others, you see examples from the fascism of the WW II era.

That is different from accusing the Don of racism or anti-semitism. Or even sexism. I am not convinced that the Don has any true anti-women of anti-minority views at all, deep down. He may for all I know, but I think everything he's done has been calculated to stir the disaffected masses by identifying scapegoats, and speaking very strongly about how he's give 'em hell!! Round up every every last one of them Mexicans who took all your jobs! Or monitor all those evil Muslims who are here, and keep the rest of 'em out! It's calculated use of extreme and mostly unrealistic rhetoric.

And when large numbers of people feel disenfranchised both politically and economically, those kinds of messages resonate. I think the author's points are less about who can still be attacked in our PC world - its just an age old divide and conquer strategy by a demagogue seeking power. Poor people of all ethnicities share many common interests, but the Don has done a marvelous job of pitting some against others. At least that's the theme of the article - and that it's nothing new.