Trump: Objectivist Opportunity?

Posted by D_E_Liberty 8 years, 9 months ago to Politics
62 comments | Share | Flag

Sometimes, out of disaster comes historic opportunity. From the ashes of a failed enterprise arises the Phoenix of a more evolved and ideal reality – sometimes!

Whether you support(ed) Donald Trump or not, he is the presumptive Republican nominee. His christening has ushered in a deluge of apocalyptic predictions from the left, but also, more surprisingly from the right. It evidences far less a coronation than a coup by a populist faction led by an accidental revolutionary who has high jacked the GOP by becoming the personification of the frustration, fear, and anger of its party faithful and newcomers who feel abandoned by their Republican leaders.

Say what you will about them, what these Trump supporters lack in fidelity to traditional GOP principles and character litmus tests, they make up for in loyalty. They don’t care who or how many people Trump insults. They don’t care how often he exposes his breathtakingly narrow understanding of the issues―they are going to support him no matter what. As Trump so brazenly stated himself, “I could shoot someone in the street, and I wouldn’t lose any votes.” His supporters are “Trumplidites” to the core, and a very hard core it is.

But beyond his “cult of personality” followers, Trump is not so popular. In fact, he is roundly hated by large segments of the voting populations. His negative popularity ratings are record-breaking for a Presidential candidate, particularly among Independents (the only voting block that really matters since it is the only one really “in play”)

And while the Democratic nominee has her own serious popularity problems, conventional wisdom and historic voting patterns among independents and moderates in the middle eschew extremism and extremist candidates. They abhor loose cannons and cavalier characters―both of which are perfect descriptions of Donald Trump. No one, including Trump, knows what he is going to do or why since, by all indications, his policy making process is devoid of any discernable principles―let alone an actual guiding philosophy. In that sense, he is an unknowable enigma, completely unpredictable. Such capricious and erratic propensities make everyone, but particularly, the majority in the middle, nervous.

This may very well mean that many among the “undecided” will cast their voting in keeping with the old adage, “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”

Clinton is the devil we know, while Trump is the devil we don’t.

This would seem to give the edge to Clinton. Either way, it is a Faustian choice at best. From the Liberty perspective it a choice of “picking your poison.” Do you go with woman who is peddling poison that offers you a slow death by economic strangulation or the many who is a political poison pill that could cause instant death by one careless misstep?


From the perspective of Libertarians, and more pointedly Objectivist Libertarians, it would appear that the election of either candidate is a nightmarish scenario of apocalyptic proportion. But as apocalyptic as this may seem in the short term, it just might be the harbinger of good news for Libertarians and other liberty-loving micro parties in the long term―as unlikely as this might seem.

So let’s play this out. Here is one possible, if not likely, scenario:

Trump secures the Republican nomination, riding a wave of unprecedented dissatisfaction of traditional Republican voters and new Trumplidite voters (the latter being independents and conservative Democrats and Republicans who are not able to formulate their own political philosophies beyond the sloganeering sound bites Trump spews―they are, by definition, anti-intellectual).

Second, we can assume virtually all Democrats will eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Hillary. Add to that the Independents that strongly dislike Trump, either personally or politically. Subtract from Trump’s total MOST Libertarians and recovering Republicans who dislike and mistrust Trump (and who will just stay at home), and the remaining support for Trump will be woefully insufficient to secure him the Presidency. In fact, his hard ceiling for support is probably in the 40s. Translation: Hillary wins by a landslide.

Trump at the top of the ticket proves to be a tremendous drag on the ticket for those Republicans running for the Senate and the House―such a drag, in fact, that it reverses the majority in both chambers.

Now the Democrats have a field day for four years. Hillary―the human, unprincipled, political wind sock―further adjusts her orientation to the far left, driven by the new Sanders Socialistic/Millennial gale force political winds blowing at her back. She and her Democratic Congress begin passing ultra-progressive legislation and regulations.

The unprecedented landslide of freebies and give-aways (i.e., enhanced Obamacare, free college education, LBJ-ist expansion of the welfare state), in addition to draconian regulations on banking and financial systems, will lead to the final financial meltdown of epic proportions―not hard to imagine given an economy that has tittered on the brink since 2008.

Desperate to address the record budget shortfalls, Hillary makes good on her threats to make up the difference out of the financial hides of both the “rich” and the “upper-middle-class” causing many to flee not only the labor market, but perhaps even the country (effectively bringing to pass “the producer strike” Rand foreshadowed in Atlas). The net effect of the hostile business climate causes a massive economic collapse of depression proportions.

As part and parcel of this demonic Democratic dictatorship, Hillary and her PC Police and newly appoint ultra-progressive Supreme Court Justices, begin to dramatically curtail individual rights (and private institutions) in an attempt to legislate THEIR morality―subjectivism and relativism―into existence, all based on the collectivist ideal.

But there might be a light at the end of Taggart Tunnel – that’s not another train. As has historically been the case in this country, when the political pendulum swings to the extreme left or right, principles of political physics usually dictate that it swing just as far back to the other side. In this case, back to the right, from its precipitous pinnacle on the left (per Einstein, “for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction”).

Now the splintered right might finally find the crucible they have been searching for to melt their disparate coalition back together again.

The atomized right―now made up of traditional Goldwater Republicans, Neocons, the Evangelical Usurpers (many forget the GOP has already lived through one high jacking), the Tea Party, and good portions of the “Liberty Party”―may suddenly realize that their “way of life” is in jeopardy and that their most dearly-held principles of personal freedom are under a withering assault from the Hillary/Sanders rising liberal tide. Maybe then they will see that their only hope of avoiding permanent political irrelevance in Hillary’s “Brave New World” of European-style Socialism is to… UNITE!

In the midst of an economic crisis (perhaps even a depression), the GOP will be looking for a rallying point―the only one that can cure the progressive-induced black plague―and that rallying point is around the only flag that can be planted on the common ground they truly share―the one with the “$” on it.
(For the rest of this article go to www.libertas.website)


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Let's see. I will bring you up to date since you just joined a one year old conversation and discussion. No we just ignored all that information you presented in such a timely manner. So Mr. John J come lately how do you justify voting against one left wing socialist candidate in favor of another left wing socialist candidate and where the hell do you get off with the antiquated out of date notion the Republicans and the Democrats are separate parties. You want to go do your homework which is listed at the top in the archives sections and then come up with something besides wearing cheer leader rah rahs for a national socialist and taking us to task with any of your left wing supporting comments.

    That clear enough?

    So here's a little test of you knowledge of objectivism. To every question there are three possible answers. Name them and describe them?

    Landed 1 year three months a go last seen on this forum five months ago. and this is your first post.

    Republicans are the right wing of the Left they are not a separate party. They are part of the a single party system of government
    Democrats publically annouonced they are no longer democratic but socialist.

    The definition of the left is Government over Citizens. So my take is yiou prefer the right wing of the left as the lesser of two evils which makes you a publicly self confessed sipporter of evil.

    A lot of hard working and THINKING reasoning people spent a year exploring possibilities. Why not take your obvious enthusiasm and learn what objectivism is ....because objecting is not objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnJMulhall 8 years, 9 months ago
    Well, thanks for all the negatives. Did it ever occur to you that Trump is filling a void that no one has since Ronal Reagan? Yes, Trump is an OUTSIDER!!! Hated by the left and doing the job that Republicans have promised to do for decades (and then became "Roll-Overs" for the Democrats), the media and their school-mates. I suggest you read Trump's two books and hunt down his U Tube interview with Oprah following the first book. He doesn't sound very different then to now (to me). Since he has financed his own campaign, he doesn't owe "donors".
    I look at him as a Capitalist who is fed up with the self-serving politicians and "can do the job" just like he did with the ice rink in NYC.
    The best reasons I can think to vote for him is that the press (media) hate him because he pushes back and they didn't 'make' him; the left hate him because he is the antithesis of who they are: a man who grew from small-time construction to big-time casino and re-developer becoming fabulously wealthy doing so; and the elite Republicans hate him because he isn't one of them or their classmates - he is an OUTSIDER, and he has actually DONE what they claim that they want to help us do (if only they weren't second-rate democrats).
    He was not my original choice, but he and Cruz and Carly were my top three. Having seen so much PC spinelessness, I became part of his cheering section. Is he perfect? They crucified that last 'perfect man'. Has he a record of doing what he says? Yes - in spades.
    If the GOP actually did what they said they were going to, we would be a far freer country today. We wouldn't have a socialist complaining that a college degree today is worth what a HS diploma was in the 1960s and all our immigrants would be Americans first and appreciate what our Freedoms offer them rather than making their fiefdoms in the image of where they came from.
    I think Trump will bring on prosperity that we haven't seen since the late 50s and early 60s when we had the skills to put men on the moon with less than 1 millionth the computing power that a 'smart phone' has in it today.
    I am a convert!!!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Anyhow, I am not here to discuss Rand. "
    1. movies first
    2.about AYN RAND's IDEAS
    3. and that's what this post is about!

    let's start with NAP. you want this to be a fundamental. this is NOT a fundamental in Objectivism. It leads to many contradictions under Objectivism. By your own definition, someone who claims they are Objectivist and Libertarian. I think that many O's come together with Libertarians for political reasons. but two different animals :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Based on current somewhat factual evidence I would suspect he hits ten billion in four years. For sure Hillarywill be able to buy the White House China instead of steal it. This time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh? Who? This old claim that an “Objectivist cannot be a Libertarian” has been around since Rand set up a straw man and burned it. The phrase is accepted as dogma at ARI, as illustrated by Peter Schwartz. To be a “Libertarian” means only in a political context one opposes the initiation of physical force. Rand and Schwartz try to make a simple political principle into something else. Indeed, one of their failings.

    I never saw anything where Rand did anything other than name-calling regarding Libertarians. When reading her statements about Libertarians, she was close to incoherent because she was so inconsistent about whom her targets were. Most telling, to me, was when she displayed utter jealous emotion in saying: “… [L]ibertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose.” [The Ayn Rand Letter, quoted from my notes, I have not checked which issue. ] Of course, she “plagiarized” many ideas as well, if one defines plagiarism as building upon the ideas of others. She had a way to insult people who did not agree 100% with whatever she said, and I am sure this arrogant attitude drove many people to other, friendlier, camps. Anyhow, I am not here to discuss Rand.

    As a friendly suggestion, in the future, when suggesting to a person they should “check their premises,” which comes across to me as less than nice, a rather “Randian” in attitude, you would specify the premises to which you refer. It would make a lot easier for the listener to understand. I for example, have no idea what it is you mean when you say that to me in the context that I am both an Objectivist and a Libertarian.

    Perhaps you can explain to me how agreeing with the Libertarian principle of not to initiate physical force is inconsistent with Objectivism’s principle of not to initiate physical force?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Most people want stability"
    I hope you're wrong about people wanting stability over freedom; in many cases I know you're right.

    Regarding having large number of noisy people abusing drugs, including alcohol, we already have that. So it's unfair for people to compare a libertarian approach with a hypothetical approach that doesn't exist where drug problems are mostly eliminated.

    I completely agree with sticking to liberty that each party recognizes or at least sticking to moderate approaches, i.e. approaches that don't scare people and have a chance of winning. Johnson is good about that.

    The great thing about Libertarianism is we can UNITE under a few basic principals, with no requirement we agree on personal issues.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have just not been very impressed with him. He does not seem to be focused or clear headed, or dynamic, or much of a leader. He seems wishy washy and no, I do not think he represents the Libertarian Party to me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank for reading that poem, let alone referencing it. I have to admit the same sentiments crossed my mind over the last sad saga.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Clearly you know nothing about "victims rights" other than it is "left liberal statist sounding." Rather than condemning the phrase by how it "sounds", you might want to consider actually looking it up.

    The victims rights movement is like all liberty movements. It the fights to secure basic rights for crime victims in the criminal justice system otherwise denied them by the government - including the rights to be present, informed and heard in criminal justice proceeding OF THERE OWN CASES - rights similar to the ones we are all fighting for against and ever more intrusive and reclusive state.

    As for your "left liberal statist" label, victims rights are supported across the political spectrum in the same way civil rights are i.e., by the left, the right, the middle. (polls show 81% of Americans said they support victims rights - source: America Speaks Out: Citizens' Attitudes About Victims' Rights and Violence (NVC 1991)).

    Rand specifically mentioned the judicial system as one of the few indispensable functions of government:

    The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

    Does it make any rational sense the Rand would state that courts are their to protect the right of individuals but that individuals [crime victims] should have no rights?

    As for your comment that I don't say "much about production" you didn't actually read my vitae. As it clearly indicates, most of my work, (30 years of it) has been writing. I think that puts me in good company with Rand herself, unless you are implying that Rand's writing don't constitute production.

    As for your accusation that I am a "looter" - you give no logic or evidence as to why you draw this conclusion, so it makes it difficult to respond to a non-exist argument.

    Nevertheless- I spent my life working for non-profits, not as a lobbyist but as a legal advocate (non-profits are not allowed to lobby by law). Yes, I advocated for changes in the laws, almost all of which were intend to grant rights to; child abuse, sexual assault, homicide survivors, drunk-driving and economic fraud victims. Rights not over and against defendant's constitutional rights, but over and against criminal justice professional and bureaucrats who deny them the opportunity to be involved in their own criminal cases. So, ironically, a majority of my professional career has been to afford justice to those who have been looted - looted of their money, looted of bodily safety, and looted of their very lives.

    My non-profits were supported wholly by donations from private entities and grants from the U.S. Department of Justice funded 100% by fines levied by courts against fraudulent businesses and crony capitalists (in other words "looters"). NOT A SINGLE TAX PAYER DOLLAR ever found it way into my pocket. Oh, but of course their is no way you could know that, since you didn't bother to educate yourself with even a 10 minute search on the net before launching your "looter" label.

    So my criticism of your criticism stands. I don't get into "flame wars" with the negligently misinformed. So I just let my fellow Gulchers form their own opinions about the fairness, facts and judgments behind our respective statements.

    Have a Good Life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    At the end of the top post was UNITE!, which is what libertarians do not want since they are mainly individually directed and will run from any form of unite and the possibility of being ruled in the future. Most people want stability and not a possible future with larger numbers of noisy drugged (including alcohol) parties to deal with due to the libertarians emphasizing legalizing drugs as their primary approach to liberty. They should stick with combining what liberty each party still recognizes and showing the negative of the rest of the claptrap anti-individualism of the other parties.
    That stability, though, makes it difficult for libertarians because it involves mostly those who desire being ruled, whether by religious collectivism or by political collectivism. Trust seems to come at great cost in lost liberty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ed75 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    D E Liberty, Your post that started this thread, particularly your description of Trump, seems right out of the progressive playbook, (or any liberal commentary) rather than a factual analysis. Your claim to be an objectivist/libertarian is undermined by your essay. What, exactly was your intent for the essay you posted?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If in a longshot break he got elected, he would make mistakes unrelated to his ideology that would widely recognized and thereby taint the Libertarian Party? Or do you think he's not a good representative of the Libertarian Party who would make people think LP isn't that different from Republican and Democrat Parties?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 9 months ago
    Assuming the Establishment GOP is unable to stop Trump, then the choice is Hillary or Trump. Pick one. All other issues are not relevant.

    Trump is one who at least offers us little people the chance of dealing a blow to the ever growing power of the Big Government Party. Trump ain’t no Galt, but he sure as hell ain’t no Hillary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsudell 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There should be a difference, but you are right, there isn't. The PGOP is just like the Democrats. They are #TeamGovernment trying to destroy #TeamPeople. And our choice -- Donald or Hillary -- proves that we have a one-team government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 8 years, 9 months ago
    The author's analysis of the electorate is wrong. All the candidates have a core of "do or die" supporters but what pushed Trump to victory (so far) was the groundswell of the "anyone but the establishment" voters. Identical to the Tea Party groundswell that overturned the establishment apple cart and returned the House and Senate to Republican control. Was Trump the only anti-establishment candidate running? No. But he was the best at articulating the message. The same message was being heard on the Democrat side with Sanders nearly derailing the anointed one. Subsequent polls have shown a significant number of Bernie supporters opting for the outsider Trump rather than facing 4 or 8 more years of the same. And finally, among the middle and independent voters, the "devil you know" argument falls flat. The universal malaise about the economy (and remember, it's always about the economy) is likely to sway people to someone who they believe will change things as opposed to someone who is simply promising more of the same. Trump was not my first or second choice, but it is hard to argue with success. And then there is the whole charisma thing. Hillary and charisma don't even live on the same planet.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There's a difference? Republicans are just right wing of the Left wing anyway. Personally I think he's closer to Hillary than most Democrats In Name Only.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsudell 8 years, 9 months ago
    He is NOT a Republican. Liberal, New York, Democrat. Got it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think Gary Johnson is the hill the Libertarian Party should die on. Sorry, I just do not see that guy running this country very well. I think it would be disastrous.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
    Unless Trump is empowered with all the attributes of the Marvel Pantheon, and no matter how strong his rants, I doubt if he can turn this rusted ship of state around. It is sinking, and as of yesterday, the rust broke through and the sinking is accelerating.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 9 months ago
    there is no such thing as "objectivist libertarians." and no. not voting. just not.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 8 years, 9 months ago
    Ayn Rand was more anti-conservative than anti-liberal. Bill Buckley was hard against Rand. Objectivists are not on the same moral right-left spectrum as either conservatives or liberals who are both altruists. i converse and meet with human secularists at monthly atheists meetings...they too are altruists as are socialists/communists/fascists. A selfish moral spectrum is a rarity, but the only morally logical and consistently reasonable, defendable position.

    Clinton and Trump are opportunists and pragmatists...altruists who are on the collecting end...not giving end...

    the title of Trump's book is the Art of the Deal...nothing is sacred or absolute...freedom, liberty, etc...it is all on the table...his only absolute is himself in a narcissistic sense of the word...not rational or logical...
    the govt totalitarian educational system does not teach philosophy and principles by design...it wants "good" citizens, not thinking rational logical individualists.
    I remain optimistic, but at the same time, wide eyed realisticand follow Harry Browne's book "How to Live Free in an Unfree World"...
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo