Tuesday, March 29, 2016

A Note on Supporting the "Worst Candidate" Versus Supporting the "Most Incompetent"

I continue to see, in the comments to various of my posts, confusion on the difference between the manner I use the terms the "worst candidate" and the "most incompetent," in my discussions of the current presidential race.

I have in a  number of posts advanced the theory that given the current crop of presidential candidates, I would like to see Hillary Clinton win.

This is not because I think she is better than the other candidates, I think they are all horrific and I wouldn't put my support behind any of them. I would never tell anyone that one is a  superior candidate who may hold okay positions on some topics that somehow outweigh that candidate's  horrific positions on other subjects.

Face it, it is not going to be fun in America regardless of who the next president is.

That being the case, the only thing we can hope for is that the most incompetent and ineffectual leader gets in.

That is not Donald Trump.

 Anybody that can get a large group chanting like this in almost any city in America is not an ineffectual leader as far as getting the crowds to follow.


There are certainly those who object to Trump as a candidate, but there will be plenty of others that will be energized, very energized if Trump becomes president. And the levers of power will be placed by Trump into the hands of people like this. 

This is not what I want. I want a president who couldn't even get a wave started in a packed baseball stadium.

Enter Hillary. 

Keep in mind, this is a woman who couldn't gain a presidential nomination against a community organizer who had only four years earlier failed in a bid for a house seat (!) and had only junior league experience in the Senate.

This round she has a self-described socialist nipping at her cankles that she seems incapable of dog spraying.

She is incapable of shutting down an absurd email server investigation.

And Brad Delong has wonderfully described her lack of skill as an administrator. 

Despite repeated coronations of Saint Hillary by the media, she has a horrible time of riding these coronations to victory. The coronations in a way hide the incompetence of the pantsuit lady.

This is what am looking for in a chief executive of the nation, incompetence and ineffectualness, when a freedom advocate is not an option.

If I must face evil, please make the evil the bumbling, disoriented bum, not the calculating, bodybuilding bully.

I also hasten to add that my position is not that incompetency will rush America through a painful collapse and light will emerge from the other side of the tunnel. Those who advocate measures that will bring us closer to collapse, fail to understand that collapse is not necessarily followed by fresh air and Spring flowers.

It should be remembered that the crushing of Germany by way of the Treaty of Versailles did not bring free markets to Germany but rather the transforming of the Weimar Republic into Nazi Germany.

The American people, indeed the world, is not ready for a liberty revolution, be it via pain or peaceful revolution. Don't full yourself into thinking that a great social and economic collapse brought on by evil government measures will necessarily result on the other end with a bunch of Tom Paines leading us toward a new free world. Movies, these days, always end with happy endings, real life is not always that way. And it is certainly not guaranteed after a terrible collapse, if the masses have no clue as to the tremendous importance of liberty.

In other words, in no way do I want to see the "worst candidate" win on the idea that the country will be crushed and phoenix-like rise from the ashes, that is a pipe dream coming from a pipe I am not smoking from.

I almost must add because of this comment:

Hitler was incompetent too....
Khmer Rouge? North Korea.... All incompetent...

That when I call out for incompetency in a leader, I am not looking at the ability to carry out ultimate totalitarian dreams, as libertarians, we should all be aware that totalitarian dreams must always fail. but rather I am using the term incompetency, in the sense of an incompetent leader who can't get the masses even thinking that totalitarianism should be tried on a grand scale. Hitler was very successful at implementing totalitarianism, as were the leaders of the Khmer Rouge and in North Korea. None of these leaders were incompetent in the sense I am using the term.
I want the evil leader, if we must have an evil leader, who is least likely to inspire the masses. who is least likely to draw crowds, who is least likely to get the masses chanting.


  1. There is logic in the idea that the world would be a better place if Darth Sidious could not find a doorknob. But remember that schmoe (to my knowledge) has the final decision on whether or not to launch nukes. With the USA Empire challenged by Russia and China, and the crazy Wolfowitz Doctrine that all current presidential candidates seem to follow (with the possible exceptions of feel the bern Sanders and Trump, who is all over the map on foreign policy) are we better off with a president who is the least likely to nuke Russia?

  2. George Bush was a "bumbling, disoriented bum"...How did that work out for ya?

  3. Hillary has a core competency in starting wars.

  4. The problem with putting an incompetent in the White House is that this person could very well be controlled by an evil, but very competent, manipulator. At this point I do not see a bright future for this once great nation.