But from a libertarian perspective, the candidate least capable of supporting and launching authoritarian programs is the best
And Hillary Clinton? Whatever her attributes, she is uncharismatic, unexciting, greedy, wonkish, scripted and devious, an individual you can neither fully believe nor fully trust.This has to be music to a libertarian's ears, when the only options are authoritarians.
Yes, her staff will still be able to do much dangerous mischief, but great mischief requires a leader to bring along the masses. Hillary, as I have said, couldn't get a WAVE started at a baseball park. She is everything Buchanan says she is.
Trump would get absolutely the worst people in our country energized: employees of the state who carry arms. His support of gun-carrying government agents and willingness to expand the number of gun-carrying government agents should be of great concern to libertarians. (SEE: A Peek at Donald Trump's Police State)
He is already energizing such agents and he is proud of this and regularly notes so:
And he said in last night's speech:The endorsement of me by the 16,500 Border Patrol Agents was the first time that they ever endorsed a presidential candidate. Nice!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2016
I’ve had a chance to spend time with these incredible law enforcement officers, and I want to take a moment to thank them. The endorsement I’ve received from the Border Patrol officers means more to me than I can say.Not good.
His confused understanding of society which causes him to think he can plan vast parts if it should also be of great concern (SEE:The Fatal Conceit of Donald Trump).
From a policy perspective, there is nothing good to say about Hillary. Nothing. A Hillary Clinton presidential administration would be horrific. But she is not a creative oppressor. She does not have the energy to drive grand oppressive schemes.
The best that can be said about her is she is not as creative, interesting, charismatic or energetic as Donald Trump, but that is saying a lot.