She would be in the Gulch like me. She would not vote for either one anymore than she would vote for Mr. Thompson.

What is described here are the first and true Liberals or "free-traders" who blossomed most prominently in 19th England and opposed Conservative mercantilism, protectionism, economic nationalism.

It has nothing to do with, and is actually the complete opposite of modern "Liberals". In advertising terms, it was a highly successful (although evil) "re-branding"
of essentially Marxist theories. Black is white.

The unfortunate but necessary result being that modern free market Economists are careful to use the term "classical liberals" to refer to the early free-traders. (Another example of successful and devastating rebranding is the term "progressive", which now applies to people and ideas who are the exact opposite.)

Richard Hofstadter's The American Political Tradition (1948) was written from a liberal perspective. He defined that tradition as "......shared a belief in the rights of property, the philosophy of economic individualism, the value of competition... [T]hey have accepted the economic virtues of a capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man." (Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ame...

Read the history of the times that Ayn Rand grew up and matured in. F. A. Hayek considered himself a liberal and invited Walter Lippman to join the Mont Pelerin Society. See my comment to MinorLiberator above: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Hard to tell. She said one time, "It's no sin not to
vote," and in 1980 she said, "There is a limit to the
notion of voting for the lesser of two evils." She was very much anti-Reagan, because he was a
"religion-based conservative," and he was anti-
abortion. Yet in 1976 she went for Ford, even
though he gave some lip service (she said he
had caved in "shamefully" to the anti-abortion
people).
She said at one point that there was (this is
a memory quote,pardon me if there is a mistake)
"There is only one group of people who could
make it necessary to vote for Reagan--the Dem-
ocrats (by voting for some version of Kennedy)
...".
If Trump has gone anti-abortion, I do not
think he is fervently so, or that he will do much
about it.
But I consider Hillary Clinton an intolerable
socialist. As I have said, over and over, it is
like a choice between being shot through the
head with a gun one knows to be fully loaded,
and playing Russian roulette.

I can see why she might admire Stevenson, as at that moment in time many Liberals were still actual intellectuals, and even though wrong-headed in their ideas, they still loved America. The Conservatives of that era were exactly as named: tradition bound, non-thinking anti-Intellectuals. I was too young to know of that brand of Liberal first-hand, but not too young to remember the 60's, when The Far Left, anti-Amerika non-intellectuals began to take over and replace the Stevenson like Liberals. Certainly Nixon was no intellectual, but McGovern was clearly the first real New Left candidate. Hence her decision to vote for Nixon. Nobody can really know what her thoughts would really be now, but I'd have to think that as Hillary makes McGovern look like Jefferson, the Nixon/McGovern logic would still apply, and IMO she would vote Trump.

Correct, and in todays culture, we would be in the same boat as Venezuela, where they just hope against hope that socialism done the right way will save them

A "collapse" in any form only wakes people up to the presence of a serious problem, if they don't already know it. It doesn't provide a solution.

I have been convinced for the past few years that Hillary would be next. That hasn't changed. What has changed is my feeling of doom as the reality nears. I was out playing golf with a buddy yesterday morning and we had time to discuss this election. He said something that is haunting me. "Trump just talks about money. He has no plan." I subconsciously mulled that over until this morning when I had the thought, "What is Hillary's plan?" I haven't heard any plan from her. Oh...I heard her yell in the middle of a speech, "We will raise taxes on the middle-class!" But, that's all I've heard.

I have to be honest. I'm scared of this woman.

Excellent reminder Mike. I always enjoy your postings as they always prompt me to examine CONTEXT.

America remains (IS!) great, though its light has become dimmed, those that wish to turn off its power seem steadily on the ascendancy.

The proper context, as you remind, is that despite what seems to occupy our focus, we are living in the best of times in the best of places - with comfort, security, and opportunities that would challenge the imagination of those who came before us.

Yes, we are watching it all put at risk, but as Rand aptly stated, the power of evil comes from the sanction of the victim. Thanks to the fact that Gutenberg's printing press has been reinvented using touch screens of all descriptions, more and more victims are understanding the sanction!

It's all about CONTEXT.

Re: "So you are good with passing the problem on to your children. That's what slowing it down does." So speeding it up is better? Any chance of giving Objectivism a foothold in our culture depends on a slow enough decline to allow the further spread of rational principles. I'm not voting for Trump, but I understand the reasons why others might.

I don't have children and I have a limited time to live. Anyway, it will take a collapse to wake people up, and hopefully by then enough education will have been done so that the system will be rebuilt the right way. I say the collapse will take 40 years before all the wealth is squandered by the socialists. That will be a time of hardship and governmental control. I would rather not live thru that

So you are good with passing the problem on to your children. That's what slowing it down does.

Well stated!

LOL!

As I remember, Rand said that its ok to vote for the least bad statist, if that is the choice

All throughout this election process, I kept thinking Orren Boyle and Trump are interchangeable. Orren was a 'pull peddler' and so, it seems, is Trump in his business dealings. Trump's cheating of his contractors and their workers out of payment for services rendered is not the action of a Reardon.

I don't believe she would ever vote for Trump. She believed in women's rights..she was pro-choice before it was labelled pro-choice. She thought that women had a right to control their reproductive rights, up to and including abortion. I suspect that she would not vote for anyone in this election, but based on some of the statements Trump has made (particularly those about punishing those who have had abortions, etc.), she would never vote for him.

I think you are right. But before she endorses him, she would require an interview or better still to be on his staff as an advisor. However, the Ayn Rand I'm referring to is the younger woman at the peak of her powers, having just written "The Strike." Later, she likely would not vote for either of them, and certainly not Johnson.

She did not support the Democrats.

"Liberals having a intellectual approach to problems"??? Now I've heard everything!

I have a hard time believing Ayn thought that...her mind must have been slipping back then cause just look around at the problems all that "liberal" compartmentalized thinklessing has done for us...

I would rather vote for the self-made business and real-estate emperor, than for the venal sellout.

Even if he slows it down, good
enough for me!!

i love it...

I did watch that. Its SCARY. I just hope that people are pissed off enough over corruption and government intrusion that Trump succeeds. Otherwise, I will lose this business I have (cant afford the $15/hr wages) if Hillary gets in. Not to mention, she might just get us into war with Russia over stupid safe zones in Syria.

Big bruiser confident bouncers are less likely get into fights in bars because the bad guys are intimidated. Scrawny insecure security people are more likely to have to fight.

Hillary and Obama are likely to project weakness and will invite challenges from Russia. At some point they will be forced to fight Russia. Trump wont have that problem. He will meet with Putin and they will understand each other and neither will actually want to fight