One of the more eyebrow-raising claims for those supporting president-elect Donald Trump is that he is anti-establishment, an outsider. In political parlance, he’s considered a populist, someone who represents “ordinary people.”

That Trump could be considered a populist may be confusing for me due to my three trips this year which all had me looking at tall buildings (or the threat of one) with the name Trump placed on top: New York, Palm Beach and Washington DC.

Most of the other 23 candidates who ran for president lack this level of business or personal influence. (As an aside, tracking the entire election I had a count of a mere 22 candidates but this New York Times site shows some dude named Lessig on the Democratic side).

One of the reasons that Americans could consider a wealthy, dynastic businessman a populist is that we rarely acknowledge having a class system. Yet during elections, we begin to hear about the “middle class” which seems the only class we have. Yet in the business world, Trump-Kushner is considered one of the top 23 dynasties.

My liberal friends would like to think that Americans made a mistake and will wake up in four years to choose a more benevolent ruler, but I believe they are sadly mistaken. The Trump Dynasty has simply expanded into government. We complain that politicians are bought and sold by powerful corporate interests (as Trump admitted to doing himself in the early debates). Yet, when business tycoon enters politics, how is that better?

The Trump Dynasty is now in both corporate and political spheres, as are the Bushes. The Clintons, I would argue, were never a dynasty for two reasons: they don’t have enough members and they don’t own or control natural resources. While The Donald could last a short time in government, the dynasty will reap the benefits for a long time.

Populist?

Diluting the Trump Dynasty

If liberals can accept the raw reality of a Trump Dynasty, a class system based on heredity and that those owning natural resources have all the control, then they can plot a strategy.

Looking past our own cultural propaganda reveals some medieval structures to our system. Likewise, we must think in more historical terms for solving the problem. Astrology, of course, can help. All advice from Ohio Astrology is offered free of charge for the benefit of all Americans.

In the past, dynasties (then called royalty) were often toppled by violence. Americans have never cared for the domestic coup d’état (as the Latin American joke goes, the US has no coups because it has no American Embassy).; the closest we come to coup is a love of coupons.

There is one other, peaceful option, to challenging a dynasty – dilution. Dilution comes in the form of marrying one person of the dynasty into an opposing dynasty, like in the 16th century when Protestant Henri of Navarre was married to Catholic Margaret of Valois. Maybe that arrangement didn’t work so well in the short term, but it was still a common practice to merge two sides through marriage.

The best way to influence the Trump Dynasty is to marry influence into it. Let’s take a look at the possibilities.

Marrying into the Dynasty

The thrice married Trump has produced five children. Three of them are currently married (which in our culture can be considered a speed-bump, not a roadblock). That leaves two available for the dynastic marriage – 23-year old Tiffany and the 10-year old Barron.

Tiffany would make a fine match on the Trump side. She’s of age (which wasn’t relevant in royal alignments but is today), has the Libra sun drive for partnership yet lots of seriousness to her horoscope – moon/Venus in Virgo, Mars/Mercury/Pluto in Scorpio and Uranus/Neptune in Capricorn, sun in the 10th house (assuming Astrotheme time of birth).

Her Saturn in Aquarius adds to the seriousness in that connection with groups comes from having responsibility associated with them. While having Jupiter conjunct sun in Libra provides desire and opportunity for pleasure, the rest of her chart suggests she’s compelled to go to the gym instead of the party.

Now who should she marry to insert a large dose of truly populist energy?

Jack Schlossberg, only grandson of John F. Kennedy, is the perfect political match. The Kennedys deteriorated as a dynasty due to assassinations (John and Robert), accidental death (John Jr.) and immoral behavior (Ted et. al.). This is an opportunity to both revive a moribund dynasty and dilute a current one.

Schlossberg is matched in seriousness to Trump with Uranus, Neptune, Mercury and sun all in Capricorn. This generation born with Uranus/Neptune conjunct in Capricorn represents to me a generation faced with great responsibility for the future of our societal structures. Many structures have been collapsing since Pluto entered Capricorn in 2008 (banking, housing, politics, police, etc.). Children born in 1993 like Schlossberg and Trump but who are not part of a dynasty watched their parents struggle with paying the mortgage and finding work. This generation has had their Great Depression.

Schlossberg may have moon in Sagittarius which provides some levity and optimism to a person who probably has grown up with Duty as his middle name. Hopefully so, we shall say. If the moon is in Capricorn, there’s really no escape from responsibility. But in Sagittarius, there’s also a desire to fight for others and participate in foreign experiences. There’s more fire and enthusiasm with Sagittarius. Since Schlossberg worked in Japan, he may have that strong interest in foreign relations.

While I wouldn’t call Schlossberg-Trump a match made in heaven, political marriage has other purposes. Trump’s Mars in Scorpio may be more sensuous than Schlossberg’s Mars in Cancer. Trump’s moon/Venus conjunction in Virgo suggests no one is perfect enough for her love. Schlossberg’s Venus in Pisces is a bit more emotional than his Capricorn planets will allow. Trump needs more flattery than Schlossberg would provide.

But the importance of this political endeavor to the entire nation should override these petty, personal concerns. There definitely have been worse political marriages from a love and compatibility perspective. I’m sure each would agree to the marriage for the good of the nation.

Now it’s the liberal challenge to get these two in a room together.