Here we go again. Every time I put up a post about Hillary Clinton that is not a 100% condemnation of her the "libertarian" Donald Trump supporters come out in full attack.
Comments that came in after my post, What Real War Hawks Think of Hillary Clinton, included:
For the record, I am not a supporter of Hillary.
I have pointed out that she ordered the massacre at Waco, pointed out that she is a psychopath, called her a nutjob on domestic issues and linked to an article that pointed out that "She is a firm advocate of intervening on a preventive basis (e.g. Syria, Libya), as well as on a preemptive or defensive basis.
"She is dedicated to keeping putative rivals to the United States, like China or Russia, in a subordinate position."
I published the Roger Stone piece, Bill Clinton and the Selling of US Security. And I interviewed Robert Morrow, co-author of Clinton's War on Women, about the book.
If this is support for Hillary, then I am guilty.
But as any junior league economist knows, life is about choices and options. Our choice is not between Hillary Clinton and the angel Gabriel, nor for that matter between Hillary and Ron Paul.
The choice is between Hillary and Donald Trump. Hillary has no support in the libertarian community but Donald Trump does. A "Libertarians for Trump" group has even been formed.
I view this as absolutely horrific. Even libertarians admit that Trump is terrible on trade, that he appears to have no understanding of basic economics. That he talks big time infrastructure spending, That he appears to want a government planned industrial policy. That his call for tax cuts appears to be a scam. That he has called for idiotic "energy independence." That his top economic adviser, like Trump, has called for the Fed to keep interest rates low.
LFTs make their case for Trump based on foreign policy, which is why it is important to understand Hillary's foreign policy perspective.
When I quote warhawks accusing Hilary of being weak, not tough enough, on foreign foes, It is not because I am a champion of Hillary's horrific interventionist policies but to examine if there are limits to her interventions. The warhakws think there are.
That said, we must contrast Hillary's interventions with what might come in a Trump administration, It seems clear as day that Trump will most certainly put US troops on the ground in the Middle East "to fight ISIS" if he is elected. You are in denial if you don't believe this. There is no indication Hillary will do this.
It is clear Trump sees himself as a tough guy that "will do what it takes."
The names leaking as his possible running mate are getting worse by the day.
The latest via WaPo:
After weeks of focusing on a group of current and former elected officials in his search for a running mate, Donald Trump is increasingly intrigued by the idea of tapping retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn in order to project strength and know-how on national security, according to four people familiar with the vetting process.From the blurb to Flynn's forthcoming book:
The persons, who spoke with The Washington Post on Saturday, requested anonymity to discuss their private conversations in recent days with Trump’s confidants and campaign aides.
The turn toward a military figure is being driven by Trump himself rather than by his advisers, the people said, and comes as the real estate mogul is telling his friends that national unrest may demand a “tough and steady” presence alongside him on the ticket....
“I like the generals. I like the concept of the generals. We’re thinking about — actually there are two of them that are under consideration,” Trump said Wednesday on Fox News. He then acknowledged that for months he has been “really looking to go more the political route.”
A war is being waged against us by radical Islamists, and, as current events demonstrate, they are only getting stronger. This book aims to inform the American people of the grave danger we face in the war on terror―and will continue to face―until our government takes decisive action against the terrorists that want nothing more than to destroy us and our way of life.This is mad. There is simply no understanding of blowback and what is fueling the terrorist movement. It appears to fit right in line with Trump's thinking. It is true that Trump is not in favor of nation building but that doesn't mean he is against war. He just wants to go to war for other reasons.
Policywise there really doesn't seem to be that much different between Trump and Clinton. They are both interventionsits on a grand scale both domestically and on foreign affairs--though they are slightly different when it comes to pet interventions.
What scares me about Trump is that he has a core rabid following. I never want ot see that in a leader that is not in favor of liberty, That's where the domestic enforcers and busybodies for the government come from when a leader starts to crackdown.
Further, Trump appears to have a never backdown attitude and the people surrounding him appear to come out of the same mold, Sessions, Christie and Gingrich are all crack the whip, mad authoritarian interventionists.
There really is no good choice between Trump and Clinton, Either would be terrible. Though Trump scares me just a little more and I think "Libertarians for Trump" is a very bad idea.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics. Wenzel on LinkedIn