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 3.
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Supporting Johnson to get the word out is a good idea. Actually voting for him, and guaranteeing Hillary the presidency is NOT a good idea. Trump will at least delay the inevitable somewhat, and clean up some of the corruption and maybe, just maybe, make it possible for a third party candidate to get elected next time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
    Unfortunately, this analysis borders on stupidity and ignorance of how things will actually go. Take a look at Venezuela, and even Atlas Shrugged. Things will go downhill and as they do, government powers willbe expanded to keep them in power. This could go on until the wealth of the USA is used up (which will take awhile). Maybe 20-30 years will go by in an increasingly disastrous scenario of searching for basic foods and toilet paper before revolution occurs against the hordes of entitled people supporting a government that has promised to save them.

    I would rather have 4 years more of relative prosperity with Trump than an accelerating decline with HIllary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The author's web page discussing his career describes his life as a lobbyist and being compensated therefor. Much more written without saying much about production. Lots of left liberal statist sounding words like "victims rights".
    Your reaction is to attack the writer of the post (while claiming not to do exactly that) instead of explaining how you are not a looter.
    Here is your second chance. Explain.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    Oh Say Can You See, The Home of Bravery

    Those Who Died for that Document that dwells in D.C.

    Equal rights for all, our nation’s living decree.

    Long Live the Constitution! R.I.P.

    After the events of the last 24 hours where a Navy reservist is prosecuted with the Attorney General's Office citing the exact opposite reasoning as that used by the FBI in the Hillary Clinton vs People Of the United States case I recalled D.E.'s poem and the last four lines and thought it the right place and time to present it again.

    What a great day to be a left wing fascist! Lynch, Corney, Obama, Clilnton and the rest of the comrades probably confused this with the real reason for the Fourth of July. Sorry that's our holiday and day to celebrate freedom and independence. It has nothing to do witht he four of you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "most americans are libertarians, they just don't know it... or at least that is what the issue polls repeatedly show."
    Yes. This is my impression too. A solid majority would agree to the proposition "you give up your favorite gov't programs in exchange for less gov't interference and lower taxes." Instead politicians make the reverse deal: "accept taxes and gov't interference and we'll fund things important/helpful to you."

    I do think most people are libertarians, if that option were clearly presented.

    "AND THAT DOES include non-republicans - to acknowledge your point."
    Yes. I've always been registered Democrat, and most people in my non-random sample of the country claim to be Democrat. Also most of them claim to want libertarian policies. Sanders reminds me of Trump, and Trump is the personification of why I am not a Republican. So I think the time is ripe for Libertarians.

    Thanks for the response and all your points I liked but didn't comment on.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    Would have gone up the flag pole and maybe been saluted if there were still a two party system of government and the Republicans were not the lap dog right wing of the left. They most assuredly are part of the single party system of government.

    The rest of it was the same old boring attempt to characterize the GOP and the Demos as something they are not. Honest People who are not responsible for the world we live in today.

    What you are left with is One Wrong Answer disguised as two. Right wing or left wing the two presumptuous candidates are still left wing fascist liberals hiding behind a few other labels such as statist and corporatist.

    One can hardly call uniting around a National Socialist much improvement over an International Socialist.

    One can only call it what it is. One wrong answer with two names that are so similar they don't even add up to a compromise.

    You can vote Libertarian instead.

    You can vote None Of The Above and reject the entire rigged election system and then start doing it on the local level.

    Or you can learn the other Russian story. Those with hope learned English. Those with no hope learned Chinese. Those with any brains learned Marksmanship. They may have spelled it with an X

    The real choice is Constitutional Republic versus a Socialist State and a lifetime of old Russian sayings.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for your thoughtful and well considered commentary. It was a very useful contribution to the discussion. Two lines. The first tags me with a liablist-leaning and inaccurate label of lobbyist/looter without any reason stated for his summarily dismissive impugning of my character.

    The only thing that is missing is the school-yard taunting nick-name ala Trump, like maybe "Liberty the Looter."

    The Second sentence proceeds to cast aspersions on my political prowess, and grasp on "political reality" - all without a single reference to the content of my commentary. And then you top it off with a final one word verdict - "naive."

    I'm not going respond with my own character assassination, or unfounded attacks on your comments. That would be the antithesis of everything I believe as an Objectivist.

    I'm only disappointed since I really would expected more from a Gulcher, any Gulcher.

    The hallmark of this forum, in my experience, is intellectual honesty based on rational analysis of the facts. People here rarely "name call" or toss out conclusory statements about fellow Gulchers and their comments without offering evidence to support their position. You have chosen to do both.

    It's intellectually lazy and beneath standard of fair and respectful discourse that is the foundation of this forum. I guess what they say is true, if you can't attack the speech, attack the speaker. I thought the Gulch was the one place I could expect more... where we all could expect more.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First, let me be clear. I have supported Gary Johnson personally, financially and in print. He will get my vote if for no other reason than my conscious will not allow me to vote for the nominees of the other party. Plus, as an objectivist libertarian, my view are far more closely aligned, not to state the obvious.

    But we need to be realistic about the Johnson candidacy. Now that Hillary has managed to defuse the bomb that could have blown up he campaign (indictment for the e-mail scandal) even if Trump self-distructs, Johnson has almost no chance of getting elected. To think otherwise is self-delusional. BUT that's not a reason not to vote for him - since the realistic goal, and the one I think Gary has in his own mind, it to give Libertarians a voice in the national debate that is the Presidential Election. If he were to succeed it making it onto the debate stage, giving him the opportunity to lay out his policy platform, many americans would find themselves agree with him - in fact many might discover what we already know, it that most americans are libertarians, they just don't know it... or at least that is what the issue polls repeatedly show. AND THAT DOES include non-republicans - to acknowledge your point.

    I'm really surprised that you think President Hillary, backed by a Democratically Controlled Congress and newly stacked progressive Supreme Court would simply defend the status quo. It seems to contradict your point about "paying off" all the constituent groups you named. Some would argue that staying the course we are currently on will likely end in economic disaster, and that its just a matter of time before the economy crashes and burns. But I can't imagine there are many intellectually honest economic and political observers who think that a Clinton Presidency will not have the effect of push the yolk forward, rather than pulling it back - hastening out decent.

    Frankly I foundly wish you were right, and that Johnson had an immediate path to the Presidency, but I think we need to focus on the long game. We need to for strategies that will get our message out now... so we will be their with a solution when people are finally ready to listen, as I said. Johnson can be the start of that process, but he is not the end... at least not yet.

    Thanks for your time and thoughtful commentary
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wanderer 8 years, 9 months ago
    The United States isn't as vastly underpopulated and undeveloped as it was 60 years ago. Communications and surveillance are much more sophsiticated and intrusive than they were 60 years ago. Hiding is impossible.

    The Soviet Union was several times more vast than is the United States. The population was smaller than was ours. When the communists took over there was indeed, a producer's strike but, it didn't look like Atlas Shrugged. Those who couldn't flee were observed and arrested and killed or, battered into submission. My Russian friends told me: 'They pretended to pay us so, we pretended to work."

    Even in the vastness of the Soviet Union, without today's electronic assets, they couldn't disappear and build a producer's paradise. Nor will we be able to. The economy and country won't collapse around us while we watch from afar, it will collapse on us.

    We can't give up saving this ship because there is no hidden lifeboat and, if it sinks, we'll end up treading water for generations, as have all the other countries collapsed by socialist experiments. No one on this board will see the light at the end of the tunnel because, the tunnel lasts for generations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago
    Thanks for posting this. I agree with most of it, but I'll only focus on the parts I have issues with.

    The analysis completely ignores Gary Johnson. At there very least, he's an alternative for people put off by Trump and Clinton. He is polling over 10% despite not being in the debates. If he gets more attention and/or Trump or Clinton have a glaring scandal, he could really shoot up in popularity.

    You talk about an atomized right, a coalition of neocons, evangelicals, Tea Party people, and liberty-oriented voters, coming back together. This feels natural b/c they've been allied under the rubric of "the right" all my adult life, but I could easily see that changing. Sanders wrote an article for the NYT recently saying he agreed with most of Trump's concerns but no the racism and mean-spiritedness. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... I could easily see kinder, gentler Trump bringing Trump supporters and Sanders supporters together as a new coalition that would need some new name.

    The article accepts without question that Hillary Clinton would enact some radical new policies and huge spending programs that would cause a crisis. I can see why that's comforting, but I don't see that at all. I see her as a great politician and manager of the status quo. Gov't is a quarter of GDP now, has a huge military, has a large percentage of the population jailed or under supervision of the justice system, has gov't programs to take care of middle-class basic needs like heathcare and and education, has risk-prone fiscal and monetary policy; and all of that would state the same after eight years of Clinton. For voters who accept that gov't is involved in everything and see the citizens as members of various groups (rural evangelicals, gays, blacks, high-tech urbanites, and so on), she will make sure all those groups get their ration of gov't support. In short, she'll be good at keeping the current system running. She'll be bad at reform and reducing the scope/cost of gov't.

    So if Johnson were not on the ballot in all states, I could see why someone wanting reform of the issues I mentioned might support Trump, hoping he'll either fix the problems or bring them to a head, instead of just kicking the can. That is way too close to the "flood-myth" thinking, saying let things fall apart to lead to a better world in the future, which I strongly reject. I would rather have Clinton kick the can than have some cataclysm that my lead to reforms but may lead to even worse gov't. This is moot, though, because there is a third choice: Gary Johnson. He actually could win, and even if he doesn't he will at least raise the issue of shrinking gov't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 9 months ago
    Read the author's background and you will realize he is a lobbyist/looter. He should have a better grasp on "political" reality as a result, but this article shows that he doesn't. Naive.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo