I keep telling myself not to get sucked into time-consuming Internet kerfuffles with trolls. It reminds me of the time I spent in academia spending countless hours doing and reporting research that only a few peer reviewers actually read. I have pride in my scholarship, beautifully written articles and book chapters. I have particular interest in measure development and validation, which to most people is probably as interesting as watching paint dry.
In political discussions and other things (e.g., low-carb diets), I've found myself being tied down in tedious discussions few people would be interested in following. A lot of times it's more the interpersonal crap, with other people trying to yank your chain, insult/laugh at your expense. It reminds me of my salad days, working as a Jimmy Carter volunteer in Texas. A few of us probably spent a good half hour trying to persuade this young couple on the issues, only at the end the guy ends up saying something flippant like, "Sorry, dudes but President Ford reminds me of my good old Uncle Patrick, and that's who we're voting for." He was laughing at our expense, because he had wasted our valuable time, knew we were vested in our political views, and his vote counted just as much as one of ours. (Of course, Carter ended up winning Texas and the Presidency anyway, and I came to regret my support for Carter. Ironically what had attracted me to Carter was his position on zero-based budgeting, not exactly a "progressive" idea. The idea that the Congress would ever enact ZBB was unbelievably naive, of course.)
I used to spend a lot more time on Facebook than I now do. I left a number of political groups for a variety of reasons; there was a group of Christian libertarians dominated by conspiracy theory truthers, there were others dominated by anarcho-capitalists who seemed obsessed with targeting minarchists like myself. Tom Woods had annoyed me with petty comments of the kind, "Happy birthday, Ron Paul; I thank God every day you're not a phony like Mitt Romney." Every time the pro-immigration Cato Institute publishes a relevant post, immigration restrictionists spam the thread. I would occasionally fight the good fight but I would find myself swarmed by a wolf pack of xenophobic trolls more interested in personally insulting me than discussing the issues. I would find myself repeating the same points over again. I developed a great deal of patience as a university professor, but it has its limits. I don't give a troll power of approval; it may be honorable for the other party to admit that he is wrong, but it takes unusual integrity and in general not in human nature. I think the general intent of the wolf pack is to intimidate others into silence. I'm not obsessed with the idea of having the last word (it's nice, of course), but in simply having my say.
And sometimes you know when you've hit the other party with a kill shot. One exchange below makes the point. The troll at one point says, "Who the hell is Jacob Hornberger? He doesn't even have a Wikipedia page?" I replied with a relevant Wikipedia URL and asked, "Do you know how to use Google?" Now I could have simply given the predictable soundbite of depending on Wikipedia in a political dispute, but producing a URL after he claimed there wasn't one undermined his credibility.
The LP has had a track record of nominating GOP politicians as POTUS nominees, starting with Ron Paul in 1988. Gary Johnson was the most recent, a two-term New Mexico governor. Now there's a double-edged sword; yes, incumbent politicians have name recognition and can draw support versus, say, Hornberger, who is well-known in libertarian circles but has not served in elective office himself. (He once did run for the US Senate from Virginia and got about 7% of the vote.) Now there are a number of conservative positions which can play well to economic liberalism ideals of libertarianism, but others that don't, e.g., military or drug interventionist policies, minimum sentences, and/or information gathering of private information, etc. (I'm making a general point about libertarian-conservatives, and it's more nuanced depending on the candidate's record). With Gary Johnson, who I voted for in 2016, I was particularly unhappy with his position in support of requiring bakers to bake (say) Nazi cakes, which in my view undermined the key libertarian construct of voluntary exchange. But it's not just political positions: you also have a candidate tied to past votes, decisions, etc. You don't want the election to be a rehash of past political controversies. For instance, Amash took a very active role in Trump's impeachment. Not very many libertarians took a hard line on Trump's impeachment, and none of us wanted this fall's election to be about Trump's past. We are focused on a liberty agenda.
Now, to be honest, a year ago I would have been ecstatic about Amash's POTUS candidacy, and I knew little about Hornberger, except one of my high school colleagues was probably his little brother. But Amash, even after leaving the GOP last July 4, expressed little interest in the LP nomination; in fact, he registered not as a libertarian but as an independent and seemed focused on reelection to the House. I wouldn't say I ever forgave Woods for his petty shots at Romney (I myself have had my issues with Romney, just like I have issues with Trump. I know I've had my many points of disagreement with Trump and have often mocked him, but I don't insult him for the sake of pettiness.) I haven't re-followed him on Facebook, but I've re-subscribed to his podcast and I'm on his email list. Some time back on his podcast Tom Woods and Scott Horton started promoting Jacob Hornberger's candidacy and forming a Mises caucus in the LP. I started doing due diligence, looking up his organization fff.org, looking at his Youtube channel Jacob for Liberty. It didn't take long for me to see a sound, consistent libertarian perspective, including principled takes on two controversial topics in libertarianism itself, abortion and immigration, completely in sync with my own.
I wholeheartedly endorsed Jacob's candidacy when all of a sudden a few weeks back, Justin suddenly announced he had put his Michigan reelection campaign on hold and had formed an exploratory committee to pursue the LP Presidential nomination, maybe a month before the LP convention this month. I had mixed feelings, especially since I felt it was bad sportsmanship for Amash to join the campaign late in the primary, not going through the debates and primaries like Hornberger had done. Still, Amash had given the LP huge publicity; he was being interviewed on major networks. I wasn't quite sure enough about the LP to know if Amash could get the nomination anyway. I published multiple tweets and posts reaffirming my support for Hornberger but pledging to support the eventual LP nominee.
The Democrats having lost two plurality-winning POTUS elections in 2000 and 2016, blaming Nader and Stein for having bled enough progressive support from the Democrat nominees to throw key states to the GOP challengers. The conventional wisdom seemed to be that Amash would split off just enough of the anti-Trump vote to cost presumptive Dem nominee Biden the election. Even Trump seemed to subscribe to that point of view, welcoming Amash to the race. I'm not sure I believe that. I think if I were Trump, I would be really careful of what I wish for.
I don't know the full story, but the rumor I saw was that Amash's polling showed him gaining no more than 5% in a 3-way race; he didn't see anything near Perot's strength in the 1992 election and didn't want to vest in a campaign with no prospect of realistically winning. I don't know if maybe he's returning to the House race or maybe pursuing the Mchigan governor's mansion; at 40, he's young enough to seek the Presidency again over the next 3 decades.
So the Trump Derangement Syndrome Dems were ecstatic over Amash leaving potential spoiler status for Biden. And Reason posted the following clip embedded below.
I commented:
The REAL LP candidate was and remains Jacob Hornberger.
A couple of trolls responded effectively, "LOL! Who the fuck is Hornberger?"
I responded:
You are not a libertarian. Jacob has won most of the LP primaries. He is a founder of fff.org. He's been endorsed by the likes of Tom Woods and Scott Horton and a good friend of Ron Paul. Go to the Jacob For Liberty channel on Youtube and educate yourself.
To the other troll:
Amash , like other Republicans the LP has recruited since 2000, is not a solid libertarian on many grounds. To give a sample issue: his embrace of COVID universal basic income. Name recognition is nothing.
Making reference to the same troll, a point I discussed earlier:
You don't know how to use Google, do you? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Hornberger
Troll #1 responded:
Correct. I am not a libertarian. I couldn't care less about philosophy. I'm a Libertarian participating in American politics trying to effect policy that will actually impact my life. I have no time for the musings of philosophers that claim government shouldn't exist then try to run for office. Go teach a college course or write a book but stay out of our campaigns. We are actually trying to get someone elected.
You're exactly the reason the LP never goes beyond 3%. The last GOP dude they ran would force bakers to bake Nazi cakes. Stay out of LP politics; we real libertarians don't need your unprincipled kind.
I really didn't want to deal with the first troll's flippant response that Jacob and I are anarcho-capitalists living in some ivory tower, not in the real world. I had to deal with the same kind of anti-intellectual bullshit when I had to leave academia without job offers in the middle of a recession. I really had issues with Amash's candidacy for reasons mentioned in this post. It seems that the thread is ended, but I really don't see the point of extending our discussion. They don't think Hornberger can win; I think Hornberger concedes that's likely. But sometimes an election is not about short-term goals.
