Ebeling on Trump versus Clinton

Richard Ebeling emails:

Dear Bob,

I participated in the May 6, 2016 “Libertarian Angle,” webinar sponsored by the Future of Freedom Foundation, with the Foundation’s president, Jacob G. Hornberger, on the topic: “Trump versus Clinton.”

It is all but certain, now, that the U.S. presidential race will be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, as the nominees of the two leading political parties in country. But what is also clear, as the focus of this week’s discussion emphasized, is that the friends of freedom are without a winnable representative in this political competition for the White House.

Hillary Clinton represents the worst of the corrupt and power-lusting elements of the Democratic Party and “progressive” movement in America. More government, bigger government, more intrusive and controlling government are the mantras of both Clinton and her primaries challenger, Bernie Sanders. The only thing separating them is how fast and how comprehensively to continue moving in a fully statist direction for the country, and the fact that Hillary has the Democratic Party plunder establishment behind her, who wish to have a surer bet to maintaining and expanding their power.

Donald Trump has ridden to victory over all his primary opponents by appealing to the worst features of “populist” conservatism: nativist nationalism, anti-free trade protectionism, and the desire for a strong “leader” to set everything right – with little regard or even lip service to a constitutional order meant to secure and protect individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, rule of law and limited government. And this includes on Trump’s part a guarantee of conservative welfare statism, with promises not to touch the core entitlement programs – Social Security and Medicare.

Even on foreign policy, while Hillary holds the banner high on behalf of interventionist internationalism and foreign policy welfare statism, beneath the rhetoric of an new version of “America First,” Trump promises a “huge” increase in military spending, a “renegotiated” series of foreign alliances in which “the deal” is merely to have other nations pay more of the tab for America’s role of global policeman, and a guarantee that military force will be used, again, in the Middle East to destroy declared terrorist threats.

It is precisely because of this disheartening presidential race, that friends of freedom must not allow pessimism to deflect them from the important task of making sure that out of whatever may be the result of the November election, the case for liberty is defended and articulated so that out of these nightmarish alternatives on the collectivism theme, new voices for freedom will be available and ready to be heard when the next crises are running their course.

The webinar runs for about 35 minutes.

Best,
Richard