Donald J. Trump is non-establishment as he opposes some of the cultural trends that have dominated the Western world in the last 50 years. He is the only non-establishment character from those you mentioned. Paradoxically, Bernie Sanders is MOST establishment, because he wants to extend those cultural trends which currently exist even more radically. His supporters are also generally the radical progressives who would go naked in the street to protest, disturb public order, scream and shout their opinions without listening to anyone, and follow other Alinsky tactics.

Koch, justice Roberts, etc. although not left-wing still do not oppose any significant elements from the modern cultural sphere of the US. They do not oppose political correctness, but sustain and support it.

What is The Establishment? — Bitter Crank

The current status quo, and over-riding culture.

Do you love or hate the establishment? (Applicable in every country in which TPF is available) — Bitter Crank

I dislike the establishment, as in some ways (though not in every way, there are some good things that have been done) they have harmed our societies greatly and have lead, knowingly or unknowingly, to a collapse in morality (which will be followed by social collapse in the future if this is not reversed).

The current status quo, and over-riding culture. — Agustino

IMHO, it is getting more and more difficult to use terms we could once deploy with confidence, like "The Establishment". If Sanders was more precise, he'd call himself a progressive -- not a socialist. He hasn't proposed that the government (which surely is part of The Establishment) take over major parts of the economy--something that socialists support. "Don't merely regulate the banks, nationalize them" would be a socialist position.

Cruz, Rubio, Ryan, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and Obama are all imminently Establishment.

It is difficult to be entirely for -or against- the government and its many policies and programs.

It seems to me that "The Establishment" (whatever that is) rides on top of "the current status quo, and over-riding culture." Everybody -- even the most outré people you see (or not) contribute to the "over-riding culture" -- even me and thee. Everybody isn't part of The Establishment.

A member of The Establishment is able to deliberately affect, and put into effect, changes in "the current status quo, and over-riding culture". So, George Bush I, George Soros, and your latest nymphet pop phenom are "Establishment" while distinguished, thoughtful, erudite people like thee and me are not.

If Sanders was more precise, he'd call himself a progressive -- not a socialist. — Bitter Crank

I agree, and the socialism you talk about isn't necessarily something I disagree with :) I would like to see banks nationalized, etc.

So, George Bush I, George Soros, and your latest nymphet pop phenom are "Establishment" while distinguished, thoughtful, erudite people like thee and me are not. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

It seems to me that "The Establishment" (whatever that is) rides on top of "the current status quo, and over-riding culture." Everybody -- even the most outré people you see (or not) contribute to the "over-riding culture" -- even me and thee. Everybody isn't part of The Establishment. — Bitter Crank

The Establishment also promotes a certain particular culture - that's the culture I identify with the Establishment. I also don't think the Establishment necessarily is bad, the current one though, I have to say, is. For two reasons: exploitation of the poor (rampant and cut-throat capitalism) and moral laxity. If you go too far left and too far right you run into problems.

I was just looking at interesting maps of London, and thought - you could probably map the Establishment by people, meetings and societies. I think of it as an elaborate network of people who know other people who know other people who are the real movers in one institution or another. Back in my college days I met a few people who have since become Part Of The Establishment. I think they learn early on how to recognise each other, the invisible equivalent of a secret handshake. Rather startlingly, a lot of them can't do the simplest things in life, they are so busy being Established. When the brother of a friend, a man high up in an international organisation, found himself deserted by his wife, he had no idea how to operate the washing machine. When Tony Blair announced in 1997 how he was going to 'modernise' Britain, it turned out he didn't know how to operate a computer mouse. Of course, the UK Establishment may operate by different rules, with breeding counting for more than elsewhere.

When Tony Blair announced in 1997 how he was going to 'modernise' Britain, it turned out he didn't know how to operate a computer mouse. — mcdoodle

Maybe he always used DOS -- no mouse. Out of date, but.... More likely he, like a cat, "has staff".

G. William Domhoff, sociologist, has spent much of his career studying just how it is that the wealth-based elite recognize each other. There are other (maybe lesser) elites not based on wealth, though and they, as a group, also have identifiable characteristics which can be quantified. (My suspicion/theory is that elite bound people have an ineffable hunger for the fruits that ripen at the top of the tree and they catch the scent of this hunger on like kind. You see this in various walks of life.

C. Wright Mills, another initial for first name sociologist, also published distinguished studies of the elite -- as I recollect, the non-wealth-based power elite.

G. William Domhoff: Who Rules America, The Higher Circles, and The Myth of Liberal Ascendancy are his principle books. (don't be turned off by the 1960s copyright; later editions were updated, and besides, the wealth-elite doesn't change all that much.

C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite, White Collar: The American Middle Classes (1951) I haven't read this for a long, long time -- and it's probably of interest now to compare the post-WWII period with the present period.

Domhoff is still alive, he's 79, and is still producing. From 2014:

The Establishment also promotes a certain particular culture - that's the culture I identify with the Establishment. — Agustino

Yes, it does. The Establishment, once comprising The State, The Church, The Local Wealth Elite, and The Academy. The State counts for less now. The Church, in many place, hardly at all. The local wealth elite have been submerged into increasing transnational, supranational entities. The Academy -- technically useful, no longer leading the elite--I don't know -- did it ever?

The values of the powerful no-longer-local-corporations have a flavor that is sort of, but not all that much like the civil institutions of The State. Some American states have been dithering over who's using the toilets. Target Corporation announced that it's staff and customers ("partners" and "guests" were free to use whichever toilet they felt comfortable using.

The state has a set of values, including protecting the rights and interests of both minorities and majorities. Target's values are simpler: don't offend any segment of the market, maximize the openness of the marketplace. An open marketplace is different than a civil society. Open marketplaces may seem free, but they are free for the one purpose of doing business. Civil societies have a more multidimensional idea of freedom. States have a relationship of power with the electorate that is, usually -- or at least can be, is supposed to be -- binding. The corporation can pull up stakes, close divisions, fire workers, sell crap or precious jewels, whatever they want. If you don't like it, "Go shop somewhere else and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

The culture of the marketplace inherently leads to what you consider moral laxity (and on some scores, what I consider moral laxity as well--though maybe not exactly the same issues).

Corporations can support whatever moral trend develops (except worker fraud, rampant shoplifting, and principled simple living) because most trends can be adapted to selling. Prostitution is legal and accepted? Great! Sell street accessories for street whores. Everybody is carrying guns? Great -- sell more bullet proof clothing, cars, and houses, guns, and ammunition. Sell to both ends of the gun barrel. Babies can be sold? Great...

Extreme examples, sure--just to make a point. The state can act to limit the wealth of its citizens through taxation (or more efficient expropriation) for the greater good. Maximizing profits in an open, efficient market place is all the greater good there is for the corporation. (A slight exaggeration -- some corporations donate 5% of pre-tax profits to charitable organizations. The amount of money some corporations--like Pillsbury, General Mills, or Target--donate is a lot larger than would be needed for mere PR purposes. The donations actually help people who may never buy something at Target.)

Who is more "establishment"? Senator Sanders? Hillary Clinton? David Koch? Donald Trump? Justice Roberts? Sanders and Roberts aren't very rich; how did they get in (if they did/are)? (Consider your own country's leading figures.) — Bitter Crank

I'm probably the weird one here, but I have to say that Trump is the most establishment, as he himself said, he has worked both sides of the system. He is who he is and where he is because he swims around in bribes and corruption like Scrooge McDuck in his money vault. That puts Clinton and David Koch closely behind with the degree of corruption and manipulation of the public through "well-established" systems. Sanders is probably the least establishment of the bunch, but I still reserve some suspicions about Sanders and "established" ties with unions and maybe some special interest groups, like the NRA.

I think the media is completely wrong about Trump. They keep saying things about how his followers are angry, (with the current system), or like the bigoted remarks. Those statements probably go over the heads of most people who are willing to follow, (even reluctantly, maybe because they learned to hate Clinton more). It looks more to me like he is blatantly offering to bribe everyone and every group, so people tolerate him because it is going to give their group a foothold into the real establishment. Conservatives that hate big government and wasting taxes should be up in arms over his plans to vastly expand government powers and expenditures, but they seem to accept it based on the appearance of appealing to conservatives and disparaging liberals. My father is a Trump supporter, and the last time I talked to him, (back when he was sure Trump didn't have a chance), I asked how he could accept some statements, (he is also a die-hard Ayn Rand fan) -- and I got the usual explanation about how Trump doesn't know what he is doing, but will hire a bunch of "advisers" that would fix all those problems afterwards. But just looking at recent history, I'm sure those advisers will be gathered right out of the upper shelf of "establishment".

What is The Establishment? — Bitter Crank

In reality? The existing system of collaboration between business and politics used to maximize profit and economy. In current public dialog in the US -- it has become a pejorative to discredit groups and individuals who are seen to be only serving the interest of "others". Anyone can be accused of being "establishment", because of a weird political system in the US that relies on the image of political tension. Technically, there is only one side to the political spectrum, and the only real choice is between who is going to inhabit that particular seat in the established system.

I've heard that the reason that liberal values or even socialism never gets much traction in the US is because the "American dream" is that everyone has a chance to become rich, so while we promote a lot of equality and disdain class distinctions, we want the system to be selective and favorable to our own group. I've found most Americans think it is strange to hear from British people that where you are born and what accent you have marks you for life, but regularly celebrate people in our own lower classes that makes it to the "big time".

Do you love or hate the establishment? (Applicable in every country in which TPF is available) — Bitter Crank

I am indifferent. I think the system that has been established ultimately derives power from everyone. It is a manifestation of the social and political climate and the reality of the consequences of our dreams and values. We don't rise up and revolt because we like the way things are. It exemplifies what we are really saying, even if it isn't what we meant. We seem to love blaming others for the problems we created ourselves. Some of us drive in SUVs to protest against petroleum industry. We condemn violence with bombs and bullets. The different social and political groups get into fist fights over the proper pronunciation "potato" and "tomato". I don't mean that cynically, it seems to be what is currently working for us. There are, of course, a large exceptional minority, but they are kept at a distance on the fringes of society. There is a lot more disdain for people based purely on very traditional fundamental values. We are one of the few places where "socialist" is still a derogatory term, and "competition" is a virtue. I guess I'm on the fringe of the fringe, because I want a fundamental change in values, not just another restructuring of the old values.

Hillary defends her recent statement that she wishes to deport child migrants. Basically, Hillary's reptilian shapeshifting behavior manifests itself yet again, now that Bernie is almost certainly out of the picture. Without Bernie, she is free to shapeshift into Trump.

She is the embodiment of liberal capitalism: constantly accommodating whatever it is that poses a challenge so as to protect the establishment, the real establishment.