My own stand against Trump is well-defined across dozens of posts and thousands of tweets. This includes, but is not restricted to:
- his unprovoked trade wars. Even pro-Trump libertarian icon Walter Block has distanced himself from Trump's protectionist impulses. I've seen estimates that Trump's tariffs are trimming a half percent or more off economic growth.
- his massive spending and deficits. Trump has taken the true budget cost drivers off the table, i.e., mandatory spending, including senior entitlements. Although he takes credit for tax cuts, he did not cut spending accordingly, especially defense spending. He did away with sequesters, has added trillions to the national debt, and we're on track to a $1T deficit in a robust economy, for the first time since Obama's first term.
- his neo-con military interventionism. Trump has supersized Obama's unconstitutional drone wars. His military strike in Syria was unprovoked. His recent assassination of an Iranian general was a war crime that could have triggered a regional, even global war. Despite "America First" rhetoric, even a suggestion of a Syrian withdrawal, Trump's actions contradict his rhetoric: he has hired neo-cons like Bolton, Pompeo, and Mattis into influential positions.
- his violations of individual rights. I have in mind here a variety of things, such as violations of the rights of Bergdahl, Julian Assange, property rights of those on the Southern border where Trump wants to build his wall with eminent domain abuse, treatment of migrant families, travel bans, etc.
- his unconstitutional abuses of power. This includes things like unauthorized transfers of military funds for use of border wall construction, his use of foreign relations authority to extort an investigation into Biden by the Ukraine government, his non-defensive military attacks, including the assassination of an Iranian general (when we were not in a state of war with Iran), drone wars, and a military strike on Syria. I would even include here things like granting war criminals clemency or pardons. He tried to end the Russia investigation.
- his growth of the imperial Presidency. Trump has inherited Obama's "phone and a pen" and issued constitutionally dubious sweeping executive orders. He defies the will of the Congress, e.g., vetoing constraints on Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen. He has seized constitutionally dubiously delegated powers by falsely asserting "emergencies". He has blocked Congressional oversight authority, including the impeachment inquiry. He has pressured the Fed into cutting rates in advance of his reelection effort.
Is all of the news negative? No, for instance:
- Trump has slowed the growth of federal regulations. In particular, he has attacked the unconstitutional health insurance mandate, he has reined back creeping water regulations which have impacted personal property rights, and he has liberalized energy production and pipelines. His FCC repealed the net neutrality government toehold into Internet regulation.
- His tax reform (although failing to trim spending to accommodate revenue losses) made business taxes more globally competitive and stepped away from a worldwide tax system towards more of a territorial model (like most of the developed world).
Now I think any taxonomy I might specify of libertarianism would probably be universally rejected by its adherents, but a useful practical distinction identified by Mitchell between individualists and paleolibertarians. At the risk of oversimplification, individualists are more practically oriented, accommodating over the existence of government and focus on individual rights within the context of limited government. Paleolibertarians tend to be more philosophic anarchists of sorts in the tradition of the Austrian school and Rothbard. The former are (not exclusively) represented by outlets like Reason and the Cato Institute, the latter popularized by the likes of Walter Block, Ron Paul, Tom Woods and the Mises Institute.
Where do I fit in this taxonomy? Well, I'll simply point out that I liberally sample content from both sides in my daily posts. I'm influenced by the Austrian School but not in the camp. I still consider myself a minarchist, not an ancap, although I am very receptive to market alternatives to government monopolies. I will say that on the topic of Trump, I'm probably more strident on Trump than either camp.
The paleolibertarians tend to be more sympathetic to immigration restrictions; I can point to multiple Ron Paul clips where he disingenuously suggests the corrupt welfare state is a lure to unauthorized immigration; this doesn't explain strong immigration in the nineteenth century without a central welfare state. For example, my immigrant ancestors had a difficult life working in textile mills or farms. However, generalizations are dangerous. Early Rothbard was very principled in accordance with free market principles and supported open immigration, like I do. Walter Block is also very good on immigration rights; you have to wonder how Walter ever got past Trump's initial candidacy announcement with xenophobic assertions of Mexico dumping violent criminals across the border.
Lew Rockwell, former Congressman Ron Paul's longtime chief of staff, was heavily involved in the development of the Mises Institute and has also had his own website. (I subscribe to his daily digest and frequently visit the website.) Lew Rockwell and Walter Block have been prominent libertarian backers of Trump; don't get me wrong. Rockwell is anti-war and hasn't been impressed with Trump's Middle East meddling. But he and others are ecstatic that Trump, among other things, has mainstreamed the concept of the Deep State and has at various times bashed the Fed. You really won't see much coverage of the impeachment kerfuffle, but as I write, there's a sample blog post on "Ex-Deep Staters and the Impeachment Hoax".
Tom Woods doesn't get into polemical discussions about Trump (I think I've heard him say like others, "Nobody agrees with Trump on everything."), but he has Rockwell to review the Dem debates and occasionally his political hero, Ron Paul (and notably is featured in Paul's home school program). Still, when he has episodes entitled something like "what the Trump impeachment is really all about", you know it's not a discussion about the evidence of Trump's extortion of Zelensky.
Ron Paul has published multiple clips on the impeachment kerfuffle and I'm not implying the clip below (which I don't think I embedded in earlier posts) is representative. [They spend a lot of time discussing process, including Pelosi's footdragging in delivering the counts to the Senate. I generally agree Pelosi was playing a game she couldn't win, but I think this is Ron Paul's way of dismissing the impeachment as purely partisan.] One of the takeaways is that they argue that the "real" impeachable grounds include unauthorized military interventions, but Trump is not alone. McAdams is dismissive of anything from the Zelensky phone call (note he completely ignores Trump's "favor" involving having Ukraine investigate Biden, Trump calling the corrupt prosecutor Shokin a "very good" man, etc.). I wrote a set of 3 tweets over the weekend (embedded below), and I don't think Ron Paul would disagree with the second tweet.
Where do I fit in this taxonomy? Well, I'll simply point out that I liberally sample content from both sides in my daily posts. I'm influenced by the Austrian School but not in the camp. I still consider myself a minarchist, not an ancap, although I am very receptive to market alternatives to government monopolies. I will say that on the topic of Trump, I'm probably more strident on Trump than either camp.
The paleolibertarians tend to be more sympathetic to immigration restrictions; I can point to multiple Ron Paul clips where he disingenuously suggests the corrupt welfare state is a lure to unauthorized immigration; this doesn't explain strong immigration in the nineteenth century without a central welfare state. For example, my immigrant ancestors had a difficult life working in textile mills or farms. However, generalizations are dangerous. Early Rothbard was very principled in accordance with free market principles and supported open immigration, like I do. Walter Block is also very good on immigration rights; you have to wonder how Walter ever got past Trump's initial candidacy announcement with xenophobic assertions of Mexico dumping violent criminals across the border.
Lew Rockwell, former Congressman Ron Paul's longtime chief of staff, was heavily involved in the development of the Mises Institute and has also had his own website. (I subscribe to his daily digest and frequently visit the website.) Lew Rockwell and Walter Block have been prominent libertarian backers of Trump; don't get me wrong. Rockwell is anti-war and hasn't been impressed with Trump's Middle East meddling. But he and others are ecstatic that Trump, among other things, has mainstreamed the concept of the Deep State and has at various times bashed the Fed. You really won't see much coverage of the impeachment kerfuffle, but as I write, there's a sample blog post on "Ex-Deep Staters and the Impeachment Hoax".
Tom Woods doesn't get into polemical discussions about Trump (I think I've heard him say like others, "Nobody agrees with Trump on everything."), but he has Rockwell to review the Dem debates and occasionally his political hero, Ron Paul (and notably is featured in Paul's home school program). Still, when he has episodes entitled something like "what the Trump impeachment is really all about", you know it's not a discussion about the evidence of Trump's extortion of Zelensky.
Ron Paul has published multiple clips on the impeachment kerfuffle and I'm not implying the clip below (which I don't think I embedded in earlier posts) is representative. [They spend a lot of time discussing process, including Pelosi's footdragging in delivering the counts to the Senate. I generally agree Pelosi was playing a game she couldn't win, but I think this is Ron Paul's way of dismissing the impeachment as purely partisan.] One of the takeaways is that they argue that the "real" impeachable grounds include unauthorized military interventions, but Trump is not alone. McAdams is dismissive of anything from the Zelensky phone call (note he completely ignores Trump's "favor" involving having Ukraine investigate Biden, Trump calling the corrupt prosecutor Shokin a "very good" man, etc.). I wrote a set of 3 tweets over the weekend (embedded below), and I don't think Ron Paul would disagree with the second tweet.
We libertarians have convoluted positions about the Trump impeachment. At first glance, Trump's outrageous, grossly incompetent Presidency, following the failures of Bush & Obama, might cement the case of why we should be skeptical of the increasingly imperial Presidency.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 25, 2020
Some, like Ron Paul, totally ignore Trump's corrupt attempt to bribe Ukrainian President Zelensky for personal, political reasons. There are 2 reasons: they basically think all recent Presidents have been similarly corrupt; they believe the crisis is promoted by the Deep State— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 25, 2020
I was puzzled by Reason editor Nick Gillespie's disagreement with the principled stand against Trump by Napolitano and Amash. He seems to believe the partisan war may result in a greater power grab by the government.https://t.co/m6Rwg50rOj— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 25, 2020
I could go at some length on differing libertarian opinions on Trump:
- here is a debate on Trump between Robert Wenzel (Economic Policy Journal) and Walter Block
- Cox here points out how Trump tried to cut the government bureaucracy, brought up a libertarian idea of selling US assets (land, buildings, etc.) in an effort to reduce the national debt, introduced our constructs of the swamp and Deep South, etc.
- here is the divide between pro-impeachment libertarian Congressman Amash and anti-impeachment Rand Paul. I should include Thomas Massie (pro-Trump). I've become so alienated against Rand and Massie on this, I've stopped following them on Twitter.
I don't think most libertarians really give a damn about partisan politics; they see the Democrats and Republicans as mostly different flavors of Statism.
Once again, this essay is meant to give a bite of the apple over differing libertarian takes on Trump. I may expand on this topic in future posts.
