I said it before, that the battle between the Trump Administration and the political establishment was simply a battle of oligarchs, like the House of York versus the House of Lancaster. It's a real battle, but it's largely meaningless to us peasants.
However, I've come to realize that there are two idealogical differences between the two political camps.

#1) The Democratic-led political establishment wants to keep around the dying embers of the New Deal and Great Society in order to keep the workers invested in a political system designed to exploit them. It's actually wise, long-term thinking.

The Trump Administration, and the Rand Paul-led Republicans, want to burn down the last of the social safety net and turn America into a Mad Max-style, anarcho-capitalist system where the only services the government provides are publically-funded security for the corporate warlords.

Both systems are designed for the benefit of the wealthy elite, but Trump has decided that the carrot is unnecessary when you have a big enough stick.

#2) Nationalism vs. Globalism
This is the only thing that the two groups of oligarchs really disagree about, and it is being played out right now at the G20 Summit.

The world's financial leaders rowed back on a pledge to keep an open and inclusive global trade system after being unable to find a suitable compromise with an increasingly protectionist United States.
Making only a token reference to trade in their communique, finance ministers and central bank chiefs from the world's top 20 economies broke with a decade-long tradition of endorsing open trade, a clear defeat for host nation Germany, which has fought to maintain the G20's past commitments...
"We are working to strengthen the contribution of trade to our economies," G20 finance chiefs said after a two-day meeting in the German resort town of Baden Baden, well short of a past commitment for rules-based, transparent, non-discriminatory, open and inclusive multilateral trade.
Seeking to put "America first", Trump has already pulled out of a key trade agreement and proposed a new tax on imports, arguing that certain trade relationships need to be reworked to make them fairer for U.S. workers.

Say what you will about Trump, but he appears to be truly patriotic, unlike every Administration before him for generations.
What is interesting is that if we go back just a decade, it was liberals that used the term "fair trade", not Republicans. Before it became a euphemism for international multiculturalism.
This, more than any other reason, is why Democrats lost the Rust Belt.

If Trump sees Germany -- which has a $68 billion trade surplus with the U.S. -- as having gotten the better of trading arrangements, China falls into the same category. Its newly found stance as the prime defender of the status quo reflects its economic gains under the rules-based system since it joined the WTO in 2001.
U.S. officials have criticized that setup, with the director of the National Trade Council, Peter Navarro, saying China’s accession was to blame for much of a 15-year American slowdown.
“China has been able to do well based on the multilateral system; it has been able to leverage the gray areas,” said Dominico Lombardi, director of global economy at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Ontario. “The Trump administration is for a level trading field. In the case of China, there are complaints of subsidies so ‘fair’ trade is what Washington wants to push for.”