First of all, we libertarians are probably more argumentative amongst ourselves than in targeting neo-conservatives or progressives. For example, I'm more of a minarchist (the night watchman, very limited State), which our anarcho-capitalist allies argue as being a little bit Statist/pregnant.
Second, this must make the fourth time I'm picking on the "Good Morning Liberty" podcasters; the first two were on their pro-Trump spins on the Trump impeachments , and the third is actually related to this one in that both involve Justin Amash. According to my notes, the episode provoking my rant is #163.
Now, to provide the context, I think there is a significant number of libertarians with some odd affection for Trump, including but not restricted to Walter Block, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and the GML guys among others. I'm not going to paint them of being motivated for the same reasons, and perhaps I'm oversimplifying a bit, but they love the fact that Trump stuck it to the GOP establishment in 2016 and they see Trump as victim of the bogeyman Deep State, which stymied his attempts to end Bush and Obama's entanglements abroad. I'm sorely tempted to hire "Moonstruck" Cher to bitch-slap them and tell them to snap out of it.
Trump was no fiscal conservative; he nearly added $8T to the national debt, did away with sequesters in proposing record DoD budgets. He bombed even more prolifically than Obama and hired neo-cons as Defense Secretary and National Security Advisor. He said he had unlimited powers as Presidents, stole money from the Defense budget to add funding Congress refused to allocate for his southern border wall, tried to pressure the Federal Reserve into negative interest rates, and issued a large number of executive orders. Not to mention things like eminent domain issues with the southern border wall, his attempts to interfere with Bergdahl's rights, his anti-consumer tariff wars, his attacks on companies, e.g., with investments overseas, etc. Then there's his abuse of Presidential powers for personal benefit, like his extortion of Ukraine using US military aid to get political dirt on his political rival, Biden, and his role in the events of the Capitol incursion on January 6. I never saw any political ideology beyond personal political ambition.
This, of course, is a limited critical list, not exhaustive in nature. I did not intend this essay to be yet another rant on Trump, but the point is that any legitimate libertarian would/should have issues with any of the items I just listed. I'm not exactly sure why they would have a sympathetic view I've heard some mock the idea of Trump being an autocrat wannabe, arguing for all his bluster, he wasn't a very effective one. To a large extent it's probably "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", i.e., Leftist Statism.
Of the GLM hosts, I've usually picked on Nate Thurston, but in this case it's Charlie Thompson. Most of us have reprinted pictures of our 3 favorite libertarian-conservatives together in Congress, at one point all Republican: Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, Unlike Paul and Massie, Amash had been one more willing to confront Trump.
As I explained in the earlier essay, Amash was opposed to the Ryan/Trump "repeal and replace ObamaCare" agenda and became a target of Trump's displeasure and would later become the only Republican to support Trump's first impeachment, eventually leaving the GOP caucus as an independent, later officially affiliated with the Libertarian Party. Let's be clear: Trump was having Amash primaried in a district where his party constituents strongly supported Trump. Party polls showed challengers ahead by double digits. Amash who represented a purplish district was in a position where he probably would lose a 3-way race as an LP candidate, if anything let a united Dem candidate divide and conquer his GOP and LP opposition.
I cannot explain why Rand Paul and Tom Massie, both from deep red state Kentucky, other than for purposes of political survival, supported Trump on the impeachments The fact is that Rand Paul had run against Trump for the 2016 GOP nomination and found himself being personally attacked as having been bought off (Trump had contributed to Rand Paul's volunteer eye surgery charity in Central America). And a simple Google search that Rand wasn't necessarily afraid to challenge Trump on some issues: he opposed the 2018 farm bill, he distanced himself from Trump's "national emergency" declaration on border security, and he opposed Trump's Portland intervention. But, at best, Paul's politically convenient defenses of Trump for the Senate trials were anything but principled. Now perhaps a libertarian would on principle oppose foreign aid to Ukraine. But from the standpoint of the rule of law, Trump had no legal right to withhold aid he himself signed into law. His own departments had certified Ukraine was compliant with corruption reform stipulations. Furthermore, Rand Paul was trying to demagogue Burisma's compensation to Hunter Biden. Burisma has publicly said, in effect, Hunter Biden's compensation was comparable to other board members. (Now the Obama Administration, the UK and the EU were investigating the Burisma oligarch and given Joe Biden's role in Ukraine matters, I have argued that as a matter of professional ethics, Joe Biden should have insisted that Hunter Biden should resign to avoid the appearance that the oligarch was paying off the American government not to intervene.) But the timeline is unambiguous; the corrupt Ukraine lead prosecutor was NOT prosecuting Burisma at the time Biden was pushing Ukraine to dismiss Shokin, Hunter Biden had started for Burisma the year BEFORE Biden pushed for Shokin's dismissal. The intent of firing Shokin, under suspicion of corruption, was to push Ukraine into prosecuting the likes of the oligarch for alleged corruption. If the oligarch's intent in hiring Hunter Biden was insurance against prosecution, it had badly backfired on him. If anything, Joe's crackdown on Shokin put Hunter's position at risk from a ticked-off oligarch.
Rand Paul also namedropped the identity of the Trump/Zelensky conversation whistleblower, arguing Trump had a Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. There is no doubt whistleblower protections are more consistent with the Bill of Rights, which are designed to limit the power of government against individual rights. (Trump was PART of government.) Trump can and has fired people that he has deemed personally disloyal (Comey, Sessions, Bolton, the US Ambassador to Ukraine, etc.) Exposure of (say) a civil servant would expose him to possible reprisals, never mind Trumpkins targeting him and/or his family/home. The world's most powerful man targeting a government whistleblower revealing his wrongdoing is the most extreme example of why you need whistleblower protections to begin with (not to mention the right of anonymous speech. Logically extended, Paul's sixth amendment argument would apply to anyone exposed of wrongdoing. However, Paul's analysis falls short in several respects. First, it equates impeachment/trial to a criminal trial. A President in impeachment is accused of a Constitutional crime, not a statutory crime. Rules and charges are in large part based by Congressional definition. What the whistleblower did was more like a tip to a crimeline. The prosecutor still has the burden of proof in terms of evidence, witnesses, etc. Crimeline tips aren't always reliable. There was an actual conversation between Trump and Ukraine's Zelensky; there were transcripts of the conversation. The identity of the whistleblower is completely irrelevant; and Rand Paul's public reveal of the whistleblower was probably one of the most egregiously evil things I've ever seen a politician do. Trump himself released a damning transcript, where he specifically brought up Biden's name. And I think a solid case can be made that what the President does as the Diplomat-in-Chief is a matter of public record, not unlike a police officer carrying a body camera for accountability. But in fact, Rand Paul's position on Trump in contradiction one with his own more principled attempt to extend whistleblower protection for contractors.
On the second impeachment (the Jan. 6 riot), Rand Paul then argues that Trump, at the point of the trial no longer was in office, and hence constitutionally ineligible for impeachment. This was never acceptable for multiple reasons: first, there is precedent (again here) Second, it's not logical that a President is unaccountable for any part of his term in office, including his final weeks in office.
Massie has had his own nuanced differences with Trump, angering him over opposition to the COVID-19 relief package. Massie argued the first impeachment was purely partisan, and the second impeachment served no real purpose and was divisive in nature. It is hard to argue these positions were principled. Trump's abuse of foreign policy authority for personal political gain and his dereliction of duty on January 6 were compelling in nature.
Personally I can say that I followed all 3 politicians for some time on Twitter, and I ended up dropping Rand Paul and Massie for other tweets I felt were unprincipled. (I don't recall the context bur it wasn't just over a single tweet I disagreed with, more of a pattern of tweets.) I think Massie is more overtly partisan. I remember he wore an anti-Romney pin after Romney voted on one count to convict Trump on the first impeachment. I have been a fan of Amash for years; Amash had a reputation for writing up almost every vote he took in the House and publishing it on Facebook. I've republished multiple Amash comments in this blog.
So let's get back to the meme that led to Charlie's rant. Apparently a libertarian posted a version of the 3 of them together, only cutting out Paul and Massie as pseudo-libertarians. And Charlie complains that of the 535 members of Congress, why are you picking on two of the most pro-liberty people on Capitol Hill? We are trying to spread the libertarian gospel, and these LP purists are dumping on these two?
Let me point out that Rand Paul doesn't claim to be libertarian. But I think what Cato Institute writes here is equally applicable to Massie:
We have good reason, given his father and his background, to believe that deep down he is a libertarian who modifies his public positions to remain politically viable in the Republican Party.
I know Rand Paul tried to use his odd rapport with Trump to coax out of Trump certain non-interventionist impulses. And his alliance against Trump's impeachment was part of the price he was willing to pay to sustain that connection and remain politically relevant.
What Cato Institute said of Rand Paul on political positions also holds true for Amash and Massie: "On a broad range of issues, from spending and regulation to government spying, drug wars and military intervention, he has a more libertarian policy agenda than any major candidate in memory."
I do believe that Paul and Massie can and should be held accountable for helping to enable Trump's abysmal Presidency. Charlie went on to bash Amash for not fighting the good fight to keep his seat, although I think Charlie is in a state of denial about Amash's chances in s 3-way race. Amash is still a young man and may find his way in the post-Trump era. But he paid a political price for being the most ideologically consistent of the trio, and he had more influence in the Congress than outside it.
