2016 has been a really bad year for the Establishment. Revolution is in the air and the People, it seems, will not stand for corrupt, out-of-touch leaders and their cronyism anymore. In the U.K., #brexit-ers have broken their country free of the overbearing and unaccountable EU. Across Europe, a whole bunch of nationalist parties intend to do likewise. In Australia, the One Nation Party is rallying voters to give the United Nations the finger, whereas here in the U.S., the Left has #FeltTheBern and fought for a President who isn’t in the pocket of Wall Street and the billionaire class, while the right intends to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain by electing a leader who won’t bow to the whims of crooked elites.

Trump is probably going to lose the 2016 election. However, there’s a good chance that the anti-Establishment populism he represents will only gain more momentum further down the track. This will be especially likely if the People can find themselves a leader to rally behind who isn’t as obviously despicable.

Let’s assume, just bear with me for a moment, that none of this is actually about racism, misogyny or white identity politics.

Let’s further assume that what we’re seeing is actually about people feeling taken advantage of by an Establishment they no longer think is credible or interested in helping them. This shouldn’t be too hard. According to Gallup, confidence in Congress is at a measly 7 percent.

Let’s even assume that many members of the Establishment are in fact somewhat “crooked.” What I mean by this is that the high-level bureaucrats, officials, ambassadors and experts that control much of the day-to-day functioning of the federal government and international organizations like the U.N., EU and World Bank do really enjoy the taxpayer-funded travel and diplomatic schmooze-fests that comprise much of their work. They are way too friendly with lobbyists and defense contractors. They are privileged people from privileged backgrounds, far removed from the problems and experiences of the average voter and insulated from the consequences of their mistakes.

Throwing them out might still be a truly terrible mistake.

In a recent interview, Donald Trump argued that the U.S.’ obligation to defend its allies should be conditional on their financial contribution to NATO, prompting a party establishment response to the effect of “YOU DO NOT SAY THAT.” You may be one of many voters who actually took this as a good sign, because the only real reason the Establishment ever panics is because someone threatens its power and influence.

Except, what if you’re wrong?

That possibility shouldn’t just make you pause for thought. It should terrify you.

What if the reason for this panic is actually because these people know more about geopolitics than you and think that making U.S. treaty obligations seem less secure would have catastrophic consequences? What if people in Estonia actually do live in constant fear of a Russian incursion? What if a credible ironclad commitment to defend NATO allies is actually vitally important to maintaining a world in which Russia and the U.S. don’t blow each other up?

These concerns can be generalized to wider questions about the role of the Establishment. What if presidential duties, like managing geopolitics or negotiating global trade agreements, are games with very high stakes and complex rules? What if breaking these rules had very real consequences, regardless of whether you agreed with them in the first place?

The point is that if these rules exist, the Establishment has the people that know them. However, if voters and their future representatives think the people warning them against breaking the rules are all b.s.-artists, then things could go rather badly for everyone.

An accusation often leveled at critics of the recent anti-Establishment populist wave is that those critics tend to be privileged people insulated from the consequences of the Establishment’s flaws and mistakes. This means they take certain things like job security for granted and can’t properly appreciate how bad something like a globalization-induced factory closure can be.

While that criticism is entirely fair and valid, it’s also possible that that there are some things we all need, and have, but take for granted. We might only have these things because some sketchy Establishment figure knew enough not to make a terrible mistake on a diplomatic mission. As futurist and machine intelligence researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky puts it, “The system isn’t as stable as it might look when you’re just strolling along your non-melted streets year after year, without any missiles ever falling on your own hometown.”

This is pretty unsatisfying, because it leaves us all in a position where we have to trust sketchy Establishment figures telling us they know what’s best for us.

Trouble is, no one seems to be buying that anymore. After Trump loses this round, a more palatable future populist with the same contempt for the Establishment might win the next one. And they won’t know the rules and will ignore the people who try to explain the rules.

I really hope these rules don’t exist and the Establishment has made them up to justify its own existence.

Because the alternative really frightens me.

Contact Nick Pether at npether ‘at’ stanford.edu.