Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Ebeling on the Second Presidential Debate

Richard Ebeling emails:

Dear Bob,

I participated in the October 12, 2016 “Libertarian Angle,” podcast sponsored by the Future of Freedom Foundation, with the Foundation’s president, Jacob G. Hornberger, on the topic: “The Second Presidential Debate.”

Our discussion surrounded the second presidential debate held at the start of this week. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s demeanor and verbiage reflected just how low American politics has sunk.

Much of the “debate” demonstrated the primitive level of political discourse, with criticisms and attacks on each other’s personality, words and conduct. A true battle of two “cults of the personality,” only in this case the potential voting public watching this circus could only conclude which of these personalities was more repulsive.

Trump is the crude, lewd, obnoxious, boor who truly captures that cliché; “He’s a legend in his own mind.” Hillary comes across as the smooth talking, snake-oil con-man (oh, excuse me, “con-person”) who stands at the back of the wagon selling the “magic elixir” that will solve all your problems and fulfill all your desires – if only you put her in the White House.

When they finally touched on issues of any real substance – whether it was international trade, ObamaCare, foreign military intervention, or “creating” jobs in America – both showed themselves to be two sides of the same interventionist-welfare state coin.

The common implicit premise in all that both said on any policy issue was that every American needs, deserves, and must have the paternalistic “helping-hand” of government to assure them a job, protect them from “bad” nations and competitors abroad, guarantee health care for those needing it, and make America “great” as defined by Donald and Hillary, respectively.

And most tragically, this seems to be the inescapable mindset of many Americans and most of the mass media. The challenge is great for those who value individual freedom and market liberty.




  1. To Trump's credit he did say he would like to get along with Russia whereas Clinton is already beating the war drums. Trump has also been strong on the Federal Reserve.

    As nasty as this campaign has gotten it's still not as bad as Jackson v JQ Adams or Jefferson vs Adams. The nastier, the better if you ask me. Leave no disillusions as to who our overlords really are.

  2. one advocates Russia handle Isis, the other wants a no fly zone( confrontation with Russia and possible ww3.) I have lost all respect for this website. War with Russia is a game changer on our way of life.