Monday, November 7, 2016

Once More: Trump vs. Clinton

In addition to the comment from Walter Block following the speech I delivered at the Mencken Club Conference, an anonymous commenter at the post carrying my speech asked:
Robert says, 
"The Rise of Extremely Conservative Politics

They are talking about us, folk, and it is not to create a reach out effort.

Ii is clear that we will be under active attack in a Clinton administration. The niceties of the differences between libertarianism and the right are not going to matter.

We have to be on high alert for whatever they are plotting here and create a unified front against it."

Robert, on this website you used to argue something like, "a Hilary Clinton presidency would be better for liberty than a Trump one because of the opposition to the government it would generate."

Do you still 100% believe this? Or, do you recognize that the SJW's backed by a Clinton administration would pose a bigger threat to liberty and have more success in crushing dissent and removing liberties?

Regularly at EPJ,  after I point out and warn of a horrific Hillary policy, similar comments along the lines: "Do you still support Hillary over Trump."

First of all, I do not support Hillary. Remember, I formed Libertarians Against Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein.

I see no significant difference between Trump and Hillary. They are both interventionists who think they should be in charge of interventions. Trump mumbles something about reducing business regulations at the same time he warns businesses about opening plants in Mexico.

There is just nothing non-interventionist about this guy. Even from a political correctness perspective, he is weak. He wants to coerce employers to grant mothers  six weeks paid family leave after the birth of a child. It's the right thing to do, you know.

When you have two interventionists where the differences do not appear significant,(I would expect Trump to use American troops on the ground before Hillary) you then have to look at things from a strategic perspective. And from this perspective, Hillary is the preferred candidate.  There are literally tens of millions who will object to Hillary policies. It is extremely fertile ground for libertarians to provide the intellectual arguments to the anti-Hillary crowd,

A Trump presidency would be different. It would dilute the anti-interventionist roar of the crowd. Whenever, I post a comment about a horrific Trump economic policy, I never get the outraged feedback that I get when I write something about Hillary.

The Left will be anti-Trump during a Trump presidency but there first instinct is interventionism so they are going to be difficult converts and to many Trump supporters he can do no wrong.

Thus from a strategic perspective, Hillary will provide many more opportunities to advance the libertarian argument. She is the better strategic option, although she will be terrible on almost every issue.

Ho, ho, Ho, Hillary must go!

As for Hillary attempting to crackdown on libertarians and the right, that is much more likely (though I am not sure Trump is going to be any better when it comes to the press in general), but as I pointed out in my speech we are a tough breed. Trying to shut us down will make us even tougher and we will be able to out think and out maneuver the plodding Hillary.



  1. I think the difference most people are looking at is outsider vs criminally corrupt insider and the elitist, incestual apparatus that enables her.

    The hope for Trump is that he can be a modern day Andrew Jackson and slay the beast. Given the people he's surrounded himself with, that's probably not going to happen anyway.

    However Clinton is under multiple criminal investigations, has deliberately incited violence and stoked racial tensions as a tactic, takes bribes from foreign governments who she knows fund terrorists, lost all bodily functions from a "flu" in perfect 70 degree weather, has an admitted sexual abuser as a husband, is shown to fly off the handle behind the scenes, admits to lying to the public on her policy positions, is known to have traveled to pedo island multiple times, etc. etc. and she is still running with the aid of the media, neocon shadow government and banksters.

    The problem with RW's analysis is that he assumes that the country going to pot under Clinton is going to change minds about interventionism. It's not. The media will blame Congressional obstructionists, misogyny, racism, state governments not playing ball and will push for more intervention. If the masses elect Clinton, there is no stopping them from electing GOP Inc. or Dem Inc. in 2020.

    This election then is very much about Us vs Them. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm squarely on team Us.

  2. "Trying to shut us down will make us even tougher and we will be able to out think and out maneuver the plodding Hillary"

    You may be correct, Bob, but we will not know until we are put to the test...too late as far as I'm concerned. When the JD or SEC or Homeland Security comes after you for publishing hate speech, or providing investment advise without the proper permits or for being a threat to the national security; or the IRS comes after your assets with some totally bogus filing and plans to tie you up in court for years, then we will see whether any of that makes you or any of us "tougher" or able to "out maneuver" the government thugs.

  3. I've been going back and forth about this. Long term, I can definitely see Hillary being more beneficial because she is such a corrupt disaster. Her administration would be hated by a wider swath of the population and after 4 more years of Democrats in power, it would be that much easier to blame all of the inevitable problems on interventionist progressive politics.

    Short term, a Trump victory sends a stronger message to the political/media/Hollywood establishment (corrupt insider vs. outsider). Trump would certainly have some Obama-like affect where his base is pacified by his election but nothing actually changes. The question is, how much? I get a sense from many of Trump's louder supporters that they see him as a vessel for their movement, not the head of it. I hope they can switch to a more critical MO when the election is over. But I'm sure the cult of personality will continue to some degree.

    One positive of a Trump presidency I was hoping for is that progressives would pretend to be anti-war again. Sadly, I think they are too far gone. All reason has been abandoned by the Democrat cult in favor of "stopping literally Hitler". The neo-cons are Democrats again. They are now the primary war party.

  4. Who was it that said, "In the short term, under Hillary, we are all dead?"

  5. The supreme court justices that Hillary will appoint and her antagonism towards Russia are the most concerning. So we get tougher under a Hillary regime by having more libertarian bloggers but higher taxes, universal health care, cold or hot war with Russia, a supreme court packed with liberal justices and amnesty for welfare/Syrian immigrants.

    For me a Hillary victory means less of my money is donated to libertarian causes, less of my time is given to libertarian thought, just less hope for any greater freedom in my lifetime. Not that Trump restores hope, but the magnitude of the hope that Hillary destroys will be significantly greater than any marginal changes in hope with a Trump victory.

  6. What about immigration? The argument goes that the Dems can secure a majority forever if they legalize enough invaders and Moslem rapeugees.