I’m receiving tons of emails responding to my recent post on Donald Trump. No, not really. But I do have some further comments on all this Trump stuff.
Some people are perceiving this Presidential campaign as “important” because Donald Trump is shaking up the Establishment and others see the campaign as important because Trump is restoring the same kind of sense of national pride (such as it is) that Ronald Reagan seemed to do during the early 1980s.
Justin Raimondo says, in this analysis of Trump’s recent foreign policy speech, that non-interventionist libertarians should “point out (Trump’s) contradictions, recruit Trump’s supporters into a broader movement to change American foreign policy, and break the bipartisan interventionist consensus once and for all.” Raimondo also notes that the Trump “phenomenon” has a “larger significance” in that “the American people are waking up, and rising up.”
However, there have been plenty of wake-ups and rising up, such as with the 2011-2012 Occupy movement, the 2009-2011 Tea Party movement, and, in earlier times, the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” the 1980 “Reagan Revolution,” and so on. I don’t think this Trumpist nationalist populism is going to result in any kind of revolution as Raimondo seems to be hoping for. That is because many amongst the masses support an even further expansion of the federal government’s power and control: many of them are very anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant and they want a government wall on the border. Many of them are being bamboozled into accepting the post-9/11 police state, because they believe the FedGov’s exaggerations of threats by radical Islamic extremists. And many of them are just very easily romanced by Trump’s foul-mouthed, degenerate mindset. No, these people don’t want true change, they don’t want to dismantle much of the government, they want it expanded, they are not particularly supportive of restoring our freedom. If they were, they would have supported Ron Paul in 2012.
Speaking of Ron Paul, he also has an analysis of Donald Trump’s recent foreign policy speech. Like Justin Raimondo, Dr. Paul also refers to “we” when he probably really means the U.S. government, such as when referring to “we invaded Iraq,” and so on. One of the important messages I think libertarians should be giving others is the relationship between individualism and liberty. Collectivism is a very bad thing. As I wrote the last time I pointed this out, it is helpful to distinguish who’s who and who did this and who did that. The U.S. government and its military are the ones who have been committing the actions of violence and destruction, invasions and occupations, overseas. And I am not a part of that group. So, “we” did not invade Iraq, clearly it was the U.S. military who did that. Otherwise I think that Dr. Paul’s analysis of Trump’s speech is right on.
As I wrote in my earlier post this week, I disagree with Justin Raimondo on “rooting for” Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination and worse, winning the election. It seems to me that while Trump will not get any government wall built, he will step up the drug war rather than end it which is what needs to be done. He will step that up regardless of how many thousands and thousands more deaths or otherwise lives that have been harmed and ruined by the government than by drugs themselves in this 50-year failure. Economically, I will not be surprised to see a President Trump further dis free traders and order the U.S. government to seize control over and nationalize industries as a way to force them to stay in the U.S. Trump is very much like Obama in terms of government “stimulus,” good and hard. Trump is a moron, an ignoramus, and a control freak. He is not someone we should want to grab hold of all that power in Washington, someone to rule over us, which he would do with an iron golf club.
At American Thinker, Tom Trinko tells it like it is regarding Trump’s being just another a part of the “donor class,” as Trump brags about his “history of buying politicians,” and so on. He gives good examples of why not to support (or root for) Trump. But the article then goes on to promote Ted Cruz for President. Yech. Dracula and Cruella. But Cruz will not get the nomination. If the Establishment takes the nomination away from Trump, they will install another Bob Dole-John McCain-Willard Romney. They really want Hillary, who in fact will probably win 50 states if Trump is the actual Republican nominee. It will probably be slightly closer if Dracula gets the nomination, however.
It would also be nice to have an actual free-market capitalist and entrepreneur as President. Unfortunately, that could not be Donald Trump. This Politico article explains how Donald Trump was never a “self-made” millionaire or billionaire, how he not only inherited his father’s fortune and business but also inherited his father Fred Trump’s political connections, without which Donald could never have succeeded. Donald Trump has been relying on government largess, government powers and government tax-thefts all his life to get where he is today. When the FedGov collapses on its own weight just as the Soviet Union did, what will The Donald do? (Actually, in all fairness to the almost 70-year-old, he will probably have already keeled over and croaked by that time. Oh, well.)
And finally, based on my own observations of Donald Trump thus far, I think his emotional maturity seems to be stalled at about the 7th grade period, I guess that’s age 12 or so. I don’t think I can support or root for a guy who calls a lady who needs to breast-feed her baby “disgusting.”