Who’s the Libertarian Now?

[Brian4Liberty]

Who’s the Libertarian Now? (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-the-libertarian-now/)
By Justin Raimondo • July 7, 2016


Where are libertarians going? What is clear is where they are not going. The much-touted “libertarian moment,” as a New York Times Magazine article phrased it two years ago, never materialized. The story hailed the presidential aspirations of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) as the harbinger of a political sea change that would usher in a new era for the GOP and the country. It never happened. What happened instead was Donald Trump.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Senator Paul spent much of his energy backtracking and distancing himself from the strict libertarian positions of his father, former congressman Ron Paul, particularly on foreign policy. Team Rand thought they had only to trim their sails and he would enter the GOP mainstream: instead, the ship capsized and sank.

As the senator caviled and maneuvered in a bid to look respectable, Trump did precisely the opposite: defying the political class, he launched a frontal assault on the GOP establishment—and succeeded in overthrowing it, to the cheers of the Republican grassroots.

Paul reiterated his opposition to the Iraq War, but Trump went several steps beyond that, accusing the neoconservatives who surrounded George W. Bush of lying us into war: “They said there were weapons of mass destruction and they knew there were none,” he said at the South Carolina GOP presidential debate. “They lied.” As the lobbyists and party mandarins booed him, Trump reveled in their catcalls, serenely defiant in the knowledge that he had the country behind him.

On domestic issues, too, Trump’s boldness overshadowed Paul’s caution. While the Kentucky senator introduced legislation that would make it difficult for visitors from countries rife with terrorism to enter the United States, Trump leapfrogged his Republican rivals by saying he would temporarily ban all Muslims from traveling to the United States. In a year in which half-measures and nuances weren’t selling, Trump understood the zeitgeist and went with it, while the rest of the Republican pack fell by the wayside—Paul being one of the earliest casualties.

The senator had started out by being dubbed “the most interesting man in Washington,” but by the end of his presidential campaign he was surely among the least inspiring. His campaign was supposed to have been a less intransigent version of his father’s quixotic yet impressively enthusiastic White House bids in 2008 and 2012, mobilizing the young people drawn to the elder Paul’s angular libertarian message yet tempering its rough edges so as to neutralize neoconservative critics like Bill Kristol. What happened instead was that Paul’s cautious tightrope walk between these two poles wound up pleasing no one. Paul went from a high of 15 percent or so in the early polls down to 2 percent and fading fast. He dropped out after polling less than 5 percent in Iowa—not even a quarter of his father’s vote total four years before.

It looked like the libertarian moment would never arrive. But there was still a glimmer of hope embodied by that leftover remnant of the early days of the libertarian movement: the Libertarian Party.

After all, Trump’s economic program of tariffs and maintaining the basic infrastructure of the welfare state represents a reversal of longstanding GOP orthodoxy. Ever since 1964, when Barry Goldwater ousted the Rockefeller wing of the party, Republicans had limned libertarian rhetoric on economic issues—a trend that continued through the Reagan years and beyond—albeit without putting theory into practice. Trump has negated all of that, appealing to working-class voters with a pledge to preserve entitlements and sweep away the “free trade” agreements so dear to the hearts of libertarian economists. And while Trump is roundly condemned by the political class for his supposedly “isolationist” foreign policy—he questions the utility and cost of NATO, and wants to dump Japan and Korea from our Pacific defense perimeter—the real estate mogul always accompanies this kind of talk with almost comically bellicose rhetoric, declaring that we’re going to “wipe out” ISIS “fast,” denouncing the “bad deal” with Iran, and refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

With the Trumpification of the GOP all but an accomplished fact, would the Libertarian Party learn the lesson of the Rand Paul campaign—don’t trim your sails, unfurl them!—and nominate a candidate with the clarity and consistency that made Ron Paul into a political phenomenon? With a Clintonian corporatist on the left and a populist nationalist on the right, the Libertarians clearly had an unusual opportunity.

Yet they chose not to take it.
...
The answer lies in the storied history of the libertarian movement, which has really been two competing movements ever since the Libertarian Party underwent a debilitating split at its 1983 convention. That conclave showcased a bitter struggle between two factions, which superficially represented the old pragmatist-principled divide, yet the differences really went much deeper.

On one side were those aligned with Edward H. Crane III, then the head of the Cato Institute. Their candidate for the presidential nod was Earl Ravenal, a foreign-policy analyst and academic who served in the Defense Department under presidents Johnson and Carter. This was quite in line with what might be called the Crane faction’s “Fabian” strategy, which was to appeal to the political class in a bid for credibility.

On the other side of the barricades was the “Coalition for a Party of Principle,” which cared not one whit for “credibility” and sought to mount a populist challenge to the political class rather than court it.

The factional warfare started in 1980, when the Libertarian candidate was Ed Clark, a corporate lawyer who had garnered over 5 percent of the general-election vote as the party’s candidate for governor of California in 1978. To the consternation of Murray Rothbard, the LP’s unofficial ideologue-in-chief, the Clark campaign in 1980 refused to advocate abolishing the income tax, instead coming out for a mere reduction, and seemed more interested in generating favorable coverage in the liberal media than in actually building the LP. The internecine battle came to a head when Clark, interviewed by Ted Koppel on national television, described libertarianism as “low-tax liberalism.”
...
One has to ask: what exactly is the point of a Libertarian Party that puts two moderate Republicans at the head of its presidential ticket and aims to win over Mary Matalin rather than Joe Sixpack? The LP is enacting, on a smaller scale, the very strategy that turned the bright promise of the Rand Paul campaign into a disaster. Or to go farther back, it’s a replication of Ed Clark’s “low-tax liberalism,” now transformed into pot-friendly conservatism

The media is pushing the Libertarians this year because they think they’ll split the Republican vote and deliver the White House to the Clintons.
...
More: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-the-libertarian-now/

[Ronin Truth]

Upper case or lower case 'l'? A lot of them are very different folks.

[Natural Citizen]

...The media is pushing the Libertarians this year because they think they’ll split the Republican vote and deliver the White House to the Clintons...


While the media may certainly be contributing to the shenanigans, many who identify as libertarian people are choosing to split the Republican vote and give it to Clinton of their own doing.

Of course, libertarians haven't historically made much difference. Then again, we saw record turnouts during the 2014 Mid-Term. Independent and third party candidates had numbers that we haven't seen in modern history. I think that those folks will likely lean toward Trump. And I think that particular demographic is who the media is aiming toward.

I will say, though, that I've started to distance myself from libertarianism (as in the movement) just because it is so disingenuous at times. There's a lot of deception going on from within the movement. And I don't like people like that.

[euphemia]

And the so-called Libertarians are taking the bait. They are doing everything they can to be media darlings, but they are not engaging on the principles of liberty. Some wars, some guns, some big government. What's different?

[Natural Citizen]

And the so-called Libertarians are taking the bait. They are doing everything they can to be media darlings, but they are not engaging on the principles of liberty. Some wars, some guns, some big government. What's different?

The Johnson crowd kills me. I'd say he's libertarian in name only at best. And people should know that. For folks who understand the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty to jump on the Johnson bandwagon as if it's some commitment to principle is disingenuous. It's logistically just running interference for Clinton. And I'd take Trump over Clinton any day of the week. While they're both certainly authoritarian, one of them is going to be elected.

Now, I can excuse the ones out in the general population. They don't know any better. That's something entirely different. And they'll likely commit to either Johnson or Trump regardless. There is nothing strategic in it for that demographic aside from existing as a consequence of the political paradigm itself.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Brian4Liberty]

Q: Who's the Libertarian Now?
A: Donald Trump

There is not a doubt that if Trump had decided to run as a Libertarian right from the start, he would be the Libertarian candidate today...

[William Tell]

I liked how Justin Raimondo called Ron Paul "quixotic". :rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

I liked how Justin Raimondo called Ron Paul "quixotic". :rolleyes:

I like that the Libertarian talking heads totally exposed themselves as to which side they are truly on during this election cycle.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[erowe1]

Interesting thread. I wonder what its purpose is.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[erowe1]

Brian4Liberty is a mod. Something to think about.

[specsaregood]

You mean the Loosertarians? lololololol

I don't think I ever have/would use that term and doesn't really apply to the reasoning behind the assholes I'm referring to.

[acptulsa]

Oh, gee. americanconservative.com is trying to get the libertarians to apply their purity tests to Johnson, but not Trump, to be afraid they won't attract disaffected anti-war Democrats despite it being a perfect time to do so, and to dissuade libertarians from choosing the lesser evil even though the choice is Satan, Be'ezelbub or a guy who once sold a used car, and the lesser evil is much, much less evil.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

[Brian4Liberty]

Interesting thread. I wonder what it's purpose is.

Raimondo has an interesting perspective, especially when it comes to Libertarian history, of which he has first-hand knowledge. He knew Rothbard, and can speak to early Libertarian politics, as he did in this article.


It's pretty clear, the purpose is to demonstrate that Trump is the true libertarian in the race (and, as Brian pointed out to me in his response, Mr. Trump is so libertarian, he could have been the LP candidate if he'd wanted to be.)

Your sarcasm aside, the article speaks to the Libertarian Party dilemma of mainstream acceptability vs strict dogma. Gary Johnson and Bob Barr represent the acceptability (Cato/Crane/Clark) faction.

If Trump had run as a Libertarian, the allure of billionaire campaign wealth and reality TV fame would have been enough to put him in front of Gary Johnson.

[Suzanimal]

Raimondo has an interesting perspective, especially when it comes to Libertarian history, of which he has first-hand knowledge. He knew Rothbard, and can speak to early Libertarian politics, as he did in this article.



Your sarcasm aside, the article speaks to the Libertarian Party dilemma of mainstream acceptability vs strict dogma. Gary Johnson and Bob Barr represent the acceptability (Cato/Crane/Clark) faction.

If Trump had run as a Libertarian, the allure of billionaire campaign wealth and reality TV fame would have been enough to put him in front of Gary Johnson.

Absolutely

[acptulsa]

Raimondo has an interesting perspective, especially when it comes to Libertarian history...

...which is chock full of examples of Raimondo screwing us over.

Or talking us into screwing ourselves over, as the case may be.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[acptulsa]

Absolutely! Look how many libertarians he won over even without the LP banner.

That number would be exactly zero.

But he's sure doing a fine job of filling libertarian venues with spammers, so as to give that impression. And in securing the services of guns-for-hire like Raimondo.

[phill4paul]

Q: Who's the Libertarian now?
A: Nobody running for POTUS.

[Krugminator2]

Rothbard gave full vent to his view that a “right-wing populist” upsurge would be the vessel of a libertarian victory:

The proper strategy for the right wing must be what we can call ‘right-wing populism’: exciting, dynamic, tough, and confrontational, rousing and inspiring not only the exploited masses, but the often-shell-shocked right-wing intellectual cadre as well. And in this era where the intellectual and media elites are all establishment liberal-conservatives, all in a deep sense one variety or another of social democrat, all bitterly hostile to a genuine Right, we need a dynamic, charismatic leader who has the ability to short-circuit the media elites, and to reach and rouse the masses directly. We need a leadership that can reach the masses and cut through the crippling and distorting hermeneutical fog spread by the media elites.

Pretty funny Raimondo and Rothbard want full-throated, in-your-face, none of that sissy stuff libertarianism yet advocate a form of populism which is totally antithetical to libertarianism. They are the two most comfortable people I have ever seen in doing the total opposite of what they preach.

Q. Who's the Libertarian Now?

A. Not Justin Raimondo (if he ever was one)

[Antischism]

Not Raimondo. This election cycle has shown us exactly who's willing to sell out libertarianism and who was using it as mere ideological cover.

[Peace&Freedom]

Not Raimondo. This election cycle has shown us exactly who's willing to sell out libertarianism and who was using it as mere ideological cover.

Sadly, the anti-Raimondo bile on this thread shows that for many on this forum, libertarianism simply means hating Trump, and anybody who doesn't, no matter who they are, is "selling out."

[Origanalist]

Sadly, the anti-Raimondo bile on this thread shows that for many on this forum, libertarianism simply means hating Trump, and anybody who doesn't, no matter who they are, is "selling out."

Sadly, many are. I guess Trump is doing some good after all. He's separating the wheat from the chaff.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Peace&Freedom]

What is libertarian about supporting Trump?

What is libertarian about hating Trump?

[Origanalist]

What is libertarian about hating Trump?

I never hated Trump until so many supporters came around insisting he was worthy of support. In fact I never gave a shit about him. But there is nothing about him that ties with liberty. He is a authoritarian.

[undergroundrr]

Paul reiterated his opposition to the Iraq War, but Trump went several steps beyond that, accusing the neoconservatives who surrounded George W. Bush of lying us into war: “They said there were weapons of mass destruction and they knew there were none,” he said at the South Carolina GOP presidential debate. “They lied.”

Raimondo has a very selective memory. trump took this @!#@#% line from Rand Paul.

From June 2014:


Paul said the same questions raised by Cheney in his op-ed could be asked of those who supported the original decision to invade Iraq. He also said he didn't blame Obama for the current crisis, pointing the finger at Cheney and other supporters of the Iraq War for the current Middle East chaos — and for "emboldening Iran."

"I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War," Paul said of Cheney's op-ed. "You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That’s what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable? Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won?

http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-iraq-obama-cheney-bush-iran-2014-6

Jack Hunter, considerably more lucid than the clueless Raimondo, addresses the true line of influence here:

http://rare.us/story/ron-and-rand-paul-are-still-reshaping-the-republican-foreign-policy-debate/

Another stupid pro-trump thread by an RPF mod. This place smells funny.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[AuH20]

I never hated Trump until so many supporters came around insisting he was worthy of support. In fact I never gave a $#@! about him. But there is nothing about him that ties with liberty. He is a authoritarian.

If that is your guiding principle in selecting candidates, then you will sorely disappointed on this planet. Even Gary Johnson is an authoritarian of sorts.

[William Tell]

What is libertarian about hating Trump?


Because he is almost the opposite of a Libertarian -Ron Paul
That

[FindLiberty]

But if Bob Barr was a billionaire while running as the LP's candidate then...

lol

[Origanalist]

If that is your guiding principle in selecting candidates, then you will sorely disappointed on this planet. Even Gary Johnson is an authoritarian of sorts.

I wont vote for or support him either. Seriously, is not supporting a authoritarian now considered strange here?

[Peace&Freedom]

I wont vote for or support him either. Seriously, is not supporting a authoritarian now considered strange here?

No, but it is strange to see the insane and relentless levels of vitriol directed against authoritarian aspects of Trump's personality, versus no similar contempt leveled at Johnson, who on many actual positions is far more authoritarian.


Why do you answer a question with a question?

I'm not sure how to answer your question because, first of all, I don't hate Trump. I don't like what he stands for, however. I agree with Ron Paul that Donald Trump is an authoritarian; therefore, I don't think there's anything "libertarian" about him.

Because your question has been answered several dozen times over the months on this forum, so I took it to be a rhetorical question. I focus again on the fevered nature of opposition to Trump, the converting of so many threads (whether the topic is the campaign or not) into anti-Trump screeds, and so on. What is libertarian about exclusively expressing so much vitriol, so often, against Trump?

Trump's campaign and outsider trend has been thematically and strategically beneficial to liberty on a number of fronts, and its key aspects (prioritizing America first and cultural issues over internationalism and foreign intervention, opposition to globalist trade deals, aggressively confronting establishment obstacles to liberty, etc) are far more consequential to reducing authoritarianism and statism.

When Paul declares Trump is authoritarian, he is addressing his positions, without reference to the themes or strategic progress the outsider trend represents. Indeed, when I have asked people to set Trump aside, and at least address the benefits of that trend, all I got was the sound of crickets. So I can only conclude that the opposition to Trump is mainly personality driven, and personality fixated.

[Origanalist]

No, but it is strange to see the insane and relentless levels of vitriol directed against authoritarian aspects of Trump's personality, versus no similar contempt leveled at Johnson, who on many actual positions is far more authoritarian.



Because your question has been answered several dozen times over the months on this forum, so I took it to be a rhetorical question. I focus again on the fevered nature of opposition to Trump, the converting of so many threads (whether the topic is the campaign or not) into anti-Trump screeds, and so on. What is libertarian about exclusively expressing so much vitriol, so often, against Trump?

Trump's campaign and outsider trend has been thematically and strategically beneficial to liberty on a number of fronts, and its key aspects (prioritizing America first and cultural issues over internationalism and foreign intervention, opposition to globalist trade deals, aggressively confronting establishment obstacles to liberty, etc) are far more consequential to reducing authoritarianism and statism.

When Paul declares Trump is authoritarian, he is addressing his positions, without reference to the themes or strategic progress the outsider trend represents. Indeed, when I have asked people to set Trump aside, and at least address the benefits of that trend, all I got was the sound of crickets. So I can only conclude that the opposition to Trump is mainly personality driven, and personality fixated.

There are plenty of posts denouncing Johnson, I would submit that only the ones denouncing Trump get your attention because of your strange desire to defend him.

That plus the fact that this site is over run by threads that attemt to spin the Donald in a good light so of course there will be more anti Trump posts in rebuttal.

[kahless]

People can blame it on Trump entering the race last year but if Rand had the fire in his belly and did not come off as Mr. Establishment he may have matched or even beat Trump. Trump was blowing it and people were looking for a polished anti-establishment candidate which would have naturally been Rand but there wasn't one. Rand rather became the defender of the RINO establishment. The wing of the party the voters despise.

If you watched any of Rand's events online last year it seemed pretty clear he had no intention of winning and was just running an educational campaign. People were worried about the economy, jobs, trade, immigration and yet Rand was going around making speeches focusing solely on police abuse issues. A subject that only a small minority concerned themselves with or limited to Progressive left that would never vote for him in the first place.

Rand seemed like he was running solely to capture the Colbert viewers which defies logic considering you cannot just with a small fraction of young voters on the left.

[JK/SEA]

i predict hillary will win by 50 votes....

[Origanalist]

People can blame it on Trump entering the race last year but if Rand had the fire in his belly and did not come off as Mr. Establishment he may have matched or even beat Trump. Trump was blowing it and people were looking for a polished anti-establishment candidate which would have naturally been Rand but there wasn't one. Rand rather became the defender of the RINO establishment. The wing of the party the voters despise.

If you watched any of Rand's events online last year it seemed pretty clear he had no intention of winning and was just running an educational campaign. People were worried about the economy, jobs, trade, immigration and yet Rand was going around making speeches focusing solely on police abuse issues. A subject that only a small minority concerned themselves with or limited to Progressive left that would never vote for him in the first place.

Rand seemed like he was running solely to capture the Colbert viewers which defies logic considering you cannot just with a small fraction of young voters on the left.

I can't disagree.

[undergroundrr]

When Paul declares Trump is authoritarian, he is addressing his positions, without reference to the themes or strategic progress the outsider trend represents. Indeed, when I have asked people to set Trump aside, and at least address the benefits of that trend, all I got was the sound of crickets. So I can only conclude that the opposition to Trump is mainly personality driven, and personality fixated.

Crickets? You got the sound of people pointing out that trump in no way represents an outsider trend. He represents the long-term cementing of the establishment with Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions, a raft of CFR foreign advisors etc. etc. at the helm.

The further success of arch-insider trump's campaign represents the (maybe orchestrated) end run blockade of true outsiders, preventing them from having any voice whatsoever for a long, long, long time.

You've drawn a different conclusion. The same one the media has been feeding the sheeple. We get that.

[Peace&Freedom]

There are plenty of posts denouncing Johnson, I would submit that only the ones denouncing Trump get your attention because of your strange desire to defend him.

That plus the fact that this site is over run by threads that attemt to spin the Donald in a good light so of course there will be more anti Trump posts in rebuttal.

There are thousands of anti-Trump posts on RPF, mainly by the same six or so people, compared to the dozens critical of Johnson. I was even away for a week last month where didn't read or post at all, and upon returning still found far more attack threads and posts on Trump than defenses. And to repeat, I have asked the denouncers about discussing the implications of the outsider trend for liberty WITHOUT Trump, but still found no takers.


Crickets? You got the sound of people pointing out that trump in no way represents an outsider trend. He represents the long-term cementing of the establishment with Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions, a raft of CFR foreign advisors etc. etc. at the helm.

The further success of arch-insider trump's campaign represents the (maybe orchestrated) end run blockade of true outsiders, preventing them from having any voice whatsoever for a long, long, long time.

No one saw the outsider trend coming, including Trump, so your point is unfounded. And I got the sound of none of the critics willing to talk about the trend when offered to leave Trump out of the issue, i.e., crickets.

[Smitty]

Calm down, now. Everybody just calm down. Glenn Beck is working on the situation as we speak.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Brian4Liberty]

Raimondo has a very selective memory. trump took this @!#@#% line from Rand Paul.

From June 2014:

http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-iraq-obama-cheney-bush-iran-2014-6

Jack Hunter, considerably more lucid than the clueless Raimondo, addresses the true line of influence here:

http://rare.us/story/ron-and-rand-paul-are-still-reshaping-the-republican-foreign-policy-debate/

Another stupid pro-trump thread by an RPF mod. This place smells funny.

Raimondo was talking there specifically about the Rand campaign leading up to the first primary. The neoconservatives and especially the teocons had worked tirelessly to paint Rand as an establishment toady, most specifically of McConnell. Rand was rapidly losing the mantle of outsider, and it seemed that nothing could fix that. They knew they could marginalize Rand with Ron supporters by maneuvering him to appear to agree with the neocons in some instances, and then they could turn around and pound him again if he appeared to side with McConnell and the Chamber. At the same time, they pumped up Rubio and Cruz. It was blatant, most typified by pundits like Levin and Hannity, along with all of the usual neocon online pundits.

As you just said, Trump was stealing thunder from Ron and Rand by using some of their anti-interventionism rhetoric, which most recently (past decade) was popularized solely by Ron. Is it so hard to imagine that Raimondo from anti-war.com would find some small amount of satisfaction when Trump seems to be taking his side on anti-interventionism, even though it might not be sincere? Most voters are completely ignorant of anything other than the surface level, and if Trump can make anti-interventionism slightly more popular with them, is it possible that this opens the door wider for Raimondo?

As far as this being a "pro-Trump" thread, sorry, that is not the intent.

[Smitty]

Jack Hunter, considerably more lucid than the clueless Raimondo, addresses the true line of influence here:



Jack Hunter is helping Glenn Beck work on the situation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLSo5o4lql4

[NewRightLibertarian]

People need to snap out of it and realize that Rand needs to do some serious soul-searching and re-evaluating before his next Presidential run. He messed up very badly and must change course. No need to get butthurt every time someone with clout (such as the great Justin Raimondo) points out the obvious reality of the situation.

[Origanalist]

Calm down, now. Everybody just calm down. Glenn Beck is working on the situation as we speak.

:D

[Peace&Freedom]

As you just said, Trump was stealing thunder from Ron and Rand by using some of their anti-interventionism rhetoric, which most recently was popularized solely by Ron. Is it so hard to imagine that Raimondo from anti-war.com would find some small amount of satisfaction when Trump seems to be taking his side on anti-interventionism, even though it might not be sincere? Most voters are completely ignorant of anything other than the surface level, and if Trump can make anti-interventionism slightly more popular with them, is it possible that this opens the door wider for Raimondo?


MUCH more popular, not just slightly. Raimondo has long expressed that the GOP could not recapture the White House until they ran a candidate who repudiated the US invasion of Iraq. Not just "regretted" what happened later, or thought "mistakes were made," but somebody who rejected the decision to go in, and the people associated with advocating for it. At this point, the typical Republican brand is associated with only being serious when it comes to invading or overthrowing more nations in the Mideast, while caving on, or putting on the backburner issues on every other front, be they fiscal or social.

So by this dynamic the only people who could get elected, given the Republican field, were Rand and Trump. More crucially, Trump found the way to make non-intervention more sellable to the majority via 1) revising an America first emphasis (a concept more voters can positively and emotionally support than being "antiwar"), 2) using Jacksonian "peace through strength" rally rhetoric to assure voters he was "strong" on defense, and 3) openly blasting those who pushed for the Iraq war as liars and losers.

The mild and dryly intellectual rhetoric Rand used, which was overly respectful to the hawks whose wars have killed millions, and wasted billions was never going to be enough to gain the voters needed. So Trump didn't steal the anti-intervention vote, he won it by presenting it in the best way for the purposes of engaging a larger bloc of voters. Raimondo and other libertarians have the right to notice this, and its usefulness to getting a net more liberty policy put into effect, without being called a sellout, as declared by others earlier in this thread.

[Ender]

MUCH more popular, not just slightly. Raimondo has long expressed that the GOP could not recapture the White House until they ran a candidate who repudiated the US invasion of Iraq. Not just "regretted" what happened later, or thought "mistakes were made," but somebody who rejected the decision to go in, and the people associated with advocating for it. At this point, the typical Republican brand is associated with only being serious when it comes to invading or overthrowing more nations in the Mideast, while caving on, or putting on the backburner issues on every other front, be they fiscal or social.

So by this dynamic the only people who could get elected, given the Republican field, were Rand and Trump. More crucially, Trump found the way to make non-intervention more sellable to the majority via 1) revising an America first emphasis (a concept more voters can positively and emotionally support than being "antiwar"), 2) using Jacksonian "peace through strength" rally rhetoric to assure voters he was "strong" on defense, and 3) openly blasting those who pushed for the Iraq war as liars and losers.

The mild and dryly intellectual rhetoric Rand used, which was overly respectful to the hawks whose wars have killed millions, and wasted billions was never going to be enough to gain the voters needed. So Trump didn't steal the anti-intervention vote, he won it by presenting it in the best way for the purposes of engaging a larger bloc of voters. Raimondo and other libertarians have the right to notice this, and its usefulness to getting a net more liberty policy put into effect, without being called a sellout, as declared by others earlier in this thread.

Trump thought Iraq was a great idea and a success.

[AuH20]

MUCH more popular, not just slightly. Raimondo has long expressed that the GOP could not recapture the White House until they ran a candidate who repudiated the US invasion of Iraq. Not just "regretted" what happened later, or thought "mistakes were made," but somebody who rejected the decision to go in, and the people associated with advocating for it. At this point, the typical Republican brand is associated with only being serious when it comes to invading or overthrowing more nations in the Mideast, while caving on, or putting on the backburner issues on every other front, be they fiscal or social.

So by this dynamic the only people who could get elected, given the Republican field, were Rand and Trump. More crucially, Trump found the way to make non-intervention more sellable to the majority via 1) revising an America first emphasis (a concept more voters can positively and emotionally support than being "antiwar"), 2) using Jacksonian "peace through strength" rally rhetoric to assure voters he was "strong" on defense, and 3) openly blasting those who pushed for the Iraq war as liars and losers.

The mild and dryly intellectual rhetoric Rand used, which was overly respectful to the hawks whose wars have killed millions, and wasted billions was never going to be enough to gain the voters needed. So Trump didn't steal the anti-intervention vote, he won it by presenting it in the best way for the purposes of engaging a larger bloc of voters. Raimondo and other libertarians have the right to notice this, and its usefulness to getting a net more liberty policy put into effect, without being called a sellout, as declared by others earlier in this thread.

Trump has taken anti-interventionism mainstream after Ron Paul took it out of the shadows.

[CPUd]

Trump has taken anti-interventionism mainstream after Ron Paul took it out of the shadows.

What part of bombing the shit out of them and taking the oil is anti-interventionist?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySdhGyqGCZk

[surf]

There is not a doubt that if Trump had decided to run as a Libertarian right from the start, he would be the Libertarian candidate today...
bite me.

it's not the easiest task defending Johnson for us libertarians, but what you've written is what republicrats would define as "hate speech"
:confused:

[BV2]

People need to snap out of it and realize that Rand needs to do some serious soul-searching and re-evaluating before his next Presidential run. He messed up very badly and must change course. No need to get butthurt every time someone with clout (such as the great Justin Raimondo) points out the obvious reality of the situation.

But it doesn't work like that. He abandoned the consistency that, more than anything, made is father so dear to liberty minded individuals. He can never regain that consistency, his word will always be suspect.

I like Rand Paul. His filibuster won me, made me believe that he was still authentic and just playing the media's game of veneers.

Trump is a waste if perfectly reasonable outrage. I wish Ron would have run again, thats all I can say-because he actually was on the side of the little guy- Then I could at least vote. Though ill be writing his name in anyways.

I'm not voting for Trump because I have ben taught:, by life, by a philosophy I share with Dr. Paul, and my time on this very forum, not to betray my honestly held political principles. You know, be "consistent."


Edit: and I am really disappointed that so many of the people here, and in 08 and 12, seem willig to abandon the consistency, like just another plebian fad.

[CPUd]

But it doesn't work like that. He abandoned the consistency that, more than anything, made is father so dear to liberty minded individuals. He can never regain that consistency, his word will always be suspect.

I like Rand Paul. His filibuster won me, made me believe that he was still authentic and just playing the media's game of veneers.

Trump is a waste if perfectly reasonable outrage. I wish Ron would have run again, thats all I can say-because he actually was on the side of the little guy- Then I could at least vote. Though ill be writing his name in anyways.

I'm not voting for Trump because I have ben taught:, by life, by a philosophy I share with Dr. Paul, and my time on this very forum, not to betray my honestly held political principles. You know, be "consistent."


Edit: and I am really disappointed that so many of the people here, and in 08 and 12, seem willig to abandon the consistency, like just another plebian fad.

Rand was too trusting that people would look at his voting record over rhetoric.

[Origanalist]

There are thousands of posts on RPF, mainly by the same six or so people, compared to the dozens critical of Johnson. I was even away for a week last month where didn't read or post at all, and upon returning still found far more attack threads and posts on Trump than defenses. And to repeat, I have asked the denouncers about discussing the implications of the outsider trend for liberty WITHOUT Trump, but still found no takers.



No one saw the outsider trend coming, including Trump, so your point is unfounded. And I got the sound of none of the critics willing to talk about the trend when offered to leave Trump out of the issue, i.e., crickets.

So what is your point? What conclusions are you drawing from the lack of interest in discussing Trumps perceived outsider status?

[Origanalist]

Trump thought Iraq was a great idea and a success.

See? Thats why the neo cons hate him so much.

[Ender]

See? Thats why the neo cons hate him so much.

Must be. Whodda thunk?

[RonPaulMall]

Q: Who's the Libertarian now?
A: Nobody running for POTUS.

Castle is pretty good. If I were to rate the candidates in terms of "Libertariansim" it would be:

1. Castle

(then a huge gap down to)

2. Trump
3. Johnson

(then another huge gap)


4. Stein
5. Clinton.

[Brian4Liberty]

bite me.

it's not the easiest task defending Johnson for us libertarians, but what you've written is what republicrats would define as "hate speech"
:confused:

Lol. You don't have to tell me.

Best results come from just pushing the third party access angle. And in solid Red or Blue states, tell the minority party people that their vote won't matter anyway, so might as well protest vote for the Libertarian Party.

[Peace&Freedom]

So what is your point? What conclusions are you drawing from the lack of interest in discussing Trumps perceived outsider status?

I suggest many here do not want to grow the liberty movement by applying any of the lessons learned over the last eight years and three defeats, or any of the lessons learned from the anti-establishment trend about exactly how to fight the elite, or any of the lessons learned about how to build the coalitions needed to win the nomination and the election. They just want another Paul-style candidate who runs an educational campaign for the 5-10% liberty base and politely engages the MSM, instead one who engages the voting blocs needed to build to 51%, while smashing the elite.

I have no objection to running such educational campaigns within the LP universe, where the expectation of winning elections is low. I do find it a problem when done within the major party universe, where the objective is supposed to be winning elections and changing policy. But it appears they seem to believe a 5% alternative candidate can reach 51%, without making a serious appeal to voters beyond the base, and without confronting a totally resistant establishment, because they think simply running within the GOP primaries, all by itself, makes the concept feasible.


Trump thought Iraq was a great idea and a success.

Trump (as a then non-politician) is not on public record as to clearly opposing the Iraq war until 2004, so before that point no one definitively can say either way. The salient point is he is on record as questioning or objecting to the war for the last 12 years, and clearly repudiates it and its promoters in the current campaign (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/17/trump_on_iraq_how_could_we_have_been_so_stupid_one _of_the_worst_decisions_in_the_history_of_the_coun try.html):


We should have never been there. Somebody says, oh, that's not good to criticize? I say criticize? It's one of the worst decisions in the history of the country. We have totally destabilized the Middle East. We spent $2 trillion... Could have rebuilt our country. We could have done so much with that money. And instead, we're worse in the Middle East than we were 15 years ago. Right now, it's a disaster.

[NewRightLibertarian]

But it doesn't work like that. He abandoned the consistency that, more than anything, made is father so dear to liberty minded individuals. He can never regain that consistency, his word will always be suspect.

I like Rand Paul. His filibuster won me, made me believe that he was still authentic and just playing the media's game of veneers.

Trump is a waste if perfectly reasonable outrage. I wish Ron would have run again, thats all I can say-because he actually was on the side of the little guy- Then I could at least vote. Though ill be writing his name in anyways.

I'm not voting for Trump because I have ben taught:, by life, by a philosophy I share with Dr. Paul, and my time on this very forum, not to betray my honestly held political principles. You know, be "consistent."


Edit: and I am really disappointed that so many of the people here, and in 08 and 12, seem willig to abandon the consistency, like just another plebian fad.

I'm not ready to throw the towel in on Rand quite yet. He has made some mistakes, but he can correct them and be stronger in future Presidential runs.

The people who want to bury their heads in the sand and double-down on Rand's failed approach are the ones who are holding the liberty movement back from success right now. I fear that the movement will be lost if Rand shows up in 2020 or whenever and lays another egg again, and that's exactly what will happen if no soul-searching is done.

[Brian4Liberty]

...The neoconservatives and especially the teocons had worked tirelessly to paint Rand as an establishment toady, most specifically of McConnell. Rand was rapidly losing the mantle of outsider, and it seemed that nothing could fix that. They knew they could marginalize Rand with Ron supporters by maneuvering him to appear to agree with the neocons in some instances, and then they could turn around and pound him again if he appeared to side with McConnell and the Chamber. At the same time, they pumped up Rubio and Cruz. It was blatant, most typified by pundits like Levin and Hannity, along with all of the usual neocon online pundits.
...

And Levin went ahead and made his case again today. He talked about a story with only one purpose, to call out Rand for siding with the RINO establishment and Democrats. He read through the entire rollcall, with special emphasis when he got to Rand. This has been going on for years.

Link to the story if anyone is interested:


Thanks to a GOP Senator, Obama’s ‘Far Left’ Pick Confirmed to Head Library of Congress
http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/13/senate-confirms-obamas-far-left-pick-to-head-library-of-congress-in-rushed-vote/