Tuesday, June 2, 2015

In Defense of Hillary Clinton

By Robert Wenzel

I am certainly no Hillary Clinton fan. Although, for strategic reasons, I would rather see her as president than Rand Paul, since I don't believe there would be much difference in interventionist policies between the two, and Hillary won't be masking increased interventionism as somehow libertarian.

Hillary will make much clearer that the evil of government intervention is what it is, government lording  over us. She will for ever be blabbing about Eleanor Roosevelt and, also, the religious left.

She is even going to be launching her presidential campaign from Roosevelt Island!

Rand, on the other hand, will be babbling about protecting our freedoms while calling for expansion of the federal domestic enforcement arm of government and an increase in the military budget.

The fact that there are libertarians still defending Rand despite his call for expansion of the two sectors of the government that are the most violent violators of the non-aggression principle, tells you a lot about the problem Rand is for the libertarian movement.

I'd rather feel my oppression from someone who it is clear is a statist. It creates a lot more hate for the state. Hillary could call for the same expansion of the state as Rand and all libertarians would heap abuse on her. That's what I want to see, hate for the state. Not apologies for why a Randian call for the expansion of the state is somehow excusable.

I hasten to add that my preference for Hillary is only because in terms of actual policy there won't be significant difference between Hillary and Rand. If I genuinely thought that Rand would be significantly better than Hillary, I would not consider Hillary over Rand preferable .And I do note that, although I have put the challenge out there for libertarian Rand supporters to name just one significant position where Rand is clearly libertarian, the challenge has been met with complete silence. This is, I contend, because there is no significant issue where it is certain Rand will carry the libertarian banner. Indeed, as I have mentioned, on the two significant issues, domestic government enforcement and foreign military enforcement, Rand is calling for expansion.

All this said, I do want to point out the evil of politics and what is currently being done to the evil bitch Hillary.

The gif below is being promoted as Hillary dissing one of her supporters by showing Hillary allegedly telling a supporter  to go to the end of the line:






Daily Caller commented on the gif this way:
Most peasants are happy just to feel the breeze of Hillary Clinton’s passage through their meager, insignificant lives. But every once in a while, a serf forgets his or her place.
Every once in a while, Her Majesty must put the rabble back where they belong.
Every once in a while, we get to watch.
I just love the derision displayed toward Hillary in this comment, but I believe what is going on in the clip is being distorted. My guess is that the supporter was asking for something special, a photograph with Hillary, whatever, and  Hillary is telling her to go to the end of the line so that she can fulfill her request, rather than doing it while the supporter is in the middle of the line, which would cause everyone else in line to want the same favor.

Hillary for President! Let's put hate and derision for the president front and center once again!

 Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics



13 comments:

  1. I'm all for Bush vs. Clinton. At least it might wake people up to the fact the system is rigged.

    ReplyDelete
  2. An excellent argument why Hillary is actually better for liberty than Rand. But by this astute line of reasoning, a vote for Gary Johnson would be even better. Johnson's stripe of minarchism would bring the proper sort of attention to the proper ideas of liberty.

    The only utility politics has for obtaining freedom is either as sabotage tool, for example, if a strict anarchist were to run on an unmitigated obstructionist/repeal/harm-reduction platform, or as PR/educational platform to awaken people to the genuine core concepts of liberty (e.g. Ron Paul). Otherwise liberty necessarily demands eschewing politics.

    Walter Block should consider the broader, longer term perspective rather than subscribing so wholeheartedly to the short term "nicer master" gotchya that the state holds out as bait to participate in its scheme. Grasping for an inch less oppression in the moment (to be lost a few years later anyway) is a sad exercise. Block is ordinarily a big picture kind of guy who of all people should be focusing exclusively on the strategic use, if any, politics has for the long game.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not rooting for a horrible person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Wags

      Your comment is framed incorrectly. Your choice from a libertarian strategic perspective is to root for someone who is a horrible person, but fools many into thinking he is a libertarian and he is what libertarianism is all about or rooting for someone who is horrible and everyone will realize that person has nothing to do with libertariansim.

      It would be great if Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell or Walter Block were running for president, but they are not. Your only choice is a bad person who fools people about libertarianism or a bad person who does not.

      Delete
    2. Robert, I changed my mind. You are correct about this political strategy. We also don't want anyone associated with the liberty movement in office when the debt crisis hits.

      Delete
  4. Wags, I'm not rooting for anyone. Further, I'm not voting for any of them. They can have their elections. All that ridiculous political crap is going to go on until it can no longer be sustained, but sane people will have no part of it.

    Electoral politics is the province of rubes being hustled by amoral sharpies. There's no room in that game for anyone other than victims and victimizers. I don't want to be either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree. Not only should we hope she wins, republicans should either step aside or goad her to go further with anything she proposes. Hillary wants a $15 minimum wage? Republicans should propose $20 and let her explain why not. She is a fighter who only knows how to push. She has no capacity for restraint if there is no opposing force. Maybe we can get her to hit the gas so hard that this car spins out before it reaches the cliff. Rand will just tap the breaks, but still fly off the cliff and give us all a bad name. Let Hillary own the mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make it $100. Why not, since wealth is created by government price controls. Let's go full Venezuela as fast as possible. The practical path to liberty in our lifetime.

      Delete
    2. Haahaha yeah. Cause we all know when the government implements interventionist or socialistic policies it will only help the libertarian cause. Don't tell the people of Venezuela that though!

      Delete
  6. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Rand is no Ron but is the closest we have to vote for. So stop your whimpering and don't let him not being the perfect libertarian get in the way of having a semblance of libertarianism! I'll take a glass half to 3/4 full to one that is cracked and empty like Hillary ROTTEN Clinton!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "don't let him not being the perfect libertarian get in the way of having a semblance of libertarianism! "

    There you go. I was waiting for that. Someone always jumps in with that" not a perfect candidate" canard. Let me state it more clearly for you. Randy Paul isn't an imperfect libertarian. He isn't a libertarian at all. Randy is just another wannabe career republican politician. He's so far past " not being the perfect libertarian" that he couldn't catch a bus back to " not being the perfect libertarian" .

    Of course, to those among us who can't imagine abstaining from the electoral circus, he probably looks pretty shiny. The semblance of libertarianism ain't on my list of goals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So your alternative is? I'm under no illusion that Rand is perfect but you taking your proverbial football home and not playing is not an option if you want to prevail! Ron Paul demonstrated that hammering home a Libertarian/Austrian Philosophy has traction amongst the American public. The more it is promoted, all be it a watered down version, the more people will accept a more pure vision! Mises and Rothbard are great and brilliant yet relatively obscure economists due to their strident attitudes! It is Hayek who is the most acceptable to the main stream because he is more of a compromiser! We can win the war of ideas by winning it incrementally. Absolutism as appealing as it is to me is never acceptable to the general public!

      Delete
    2. Unknown,

      The message matters. The goal matters. Compromise in terms of accepting a lesser degree of progress toward a goal is OK. Compromise in terms of employing questionable tactics in service of a goal might be OK. Compromise in terms of admitting evil goals into one's agenda and working toward those goals is not OK.

      Ron Paul was not a compromiser. He found a ways succeed within the political system without compromising his goals. Rand Paul has evil goals, like war. Rand Paul is no compromise. He has become one of the bad guys.

      Delete