John Stossel and the Libertarians

John Stossel’s column on Donald Trump’s address to the Libertarian National Convention provides some good examples of the shortcomings I discussed in the Libertarian Party. I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. I like John Stossel. I think he is smart and entertaining and I have watched him since he was the consumer affairs correspondent at 20/20. The problem with John Stossel is that he has become a doctrinaire libertarian. Mr. Stossel’s libertarianism put him several steps above the asinine leftism of most of his journalistic colleagues. Still, it does cause him to have a certain narrowness of vision common to libertarians. Having realized that the free market is a good thing, Stossel has decided that the free market is the only thing.

John Stossel

In any case, Mr. Stossel begins:

   Donald Trump recently spoke at the Libertarian National Convention.

   Good for him. It’s encouraging that he reached out to those of us who often disagree with him.

We libertarians put individual liberty first. We think government that governs least governs best.

That’s a reason we fear today’s Democrats. In their eagerness to tax and regulate, while throwing newly printed money at a thousand special interests, we fear they will destroy our future.

So, Trump won applause saying, “I have been indicted by the government on 91 different things. If I wasn’t a libertarian before, I sure as hell am a libertarian now!”

Trump promised to “put a libertarian in my cabinet.”

He said he’d commute the jail sentence of Ross Ulbricht, the entrepreneur who created Silk Road, an underground website that lets consenting adults buy things that most government officials don’t like.

Trump told the libertarians, “Our goal will be nothing less than the rebirth of fair equal and impartial justice under the Constitutional rule of law.”

Libertarians should like that. But when Trump spoke, he was mostly booed. Why?

Trump did do some pro-freedom things as president. He cut a few regulations (though not as many as he promised,) withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord and appointed Supreme Court judges who might keep government in check.

Trump demonstrates ignorance of the benefits of economic freedom. He bragged about helping politically connected businesses by imposing fat tariffs. Now he wants more, promising “stiff penalties on China and all other nations as they abuse us.”

“Screw us, and we screw you,” he smugly said.

But China selling us cheap stuff doesn’t screw us. It helps us.

Yes, Chinese subsidies destroy some American jobs when companies can’t compete with subsidized imports.

But the imports lower prices so much they create more jobs, thousands more. Trump’s tariffs hurt Americans, not just the other side.

Sadly, Biden has now increased Trump’s tariffs. And Trump wants to raise them still more?’

Free trade between nations is a wonderful thing in theory. In the real world, however, there are some problems. Free trade only really works between free nations. Free trade does not work so well when a free nation is trading with a totalitarian nation that sees trade as simply another means to achieve domination over other nations. A free company in a free nation trades to maximize profit. A state-owned or controlled company in an unfree nation trades to make its government more powerful. Subsidizing a belligerent, totalitarian dictatorship in East Asia is not necessarily to America’s advantage, no matter how many individual Americans benefit from cheaper goods.

Then too, it does America little good if our trade with China hollows out our manufacturing capabilities and impoverishes whole communities in America, even if many Americans can buy more cheap goods from China. It is not much comfort to tell a man who has lost his job that more jobs are being created elsewhere. It is not advantageous if a woman moves from a high-paying factory job to a barely above minimum wage job at Walmart stocking the shelves with Chinese goods.  It certainly does America no good if we lack the ability to replace military equipment lost in a potential conflict with China because we have offshored our manufacturing to China.

I agree to some extent with John Stossel’s next point.

America’s biggest problem may be the future of our retirement funds.

The Libertarian Party platform, wisely, points out that both Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable. They propose: “transition to a private voluntary system.”

That would be better. Retirees should decide for themselves how their pension money is invested. And your retirement funds would belong to you — not the government.

But tough-guy Trump, like most politicians, is a coward when it comes to admitting that Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt.

Trump is not being a coward. He is being realistic. Trying to privatize Social Security is political suicide. George W. Bush actually proposed a reform that allowed social security recipients to invest a small portion of their accounts as they saw fit. The Democrats immediately eviscerated Bush for endangering senior citizens’ benefits. They accused Bush of wanting to risk retirees’ saved earnings on the uncertain stock market just to benefit the wealthy. Any time a Republican notes that Social Security is close to bankruptcy and needs to be reformed, he is accused of wanting to cut Grandma’s benefits to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

At present, there is simply no political will to reform Social Security or Medicare. Trump, like most politicians, wants to win the election. Suggesting the privatization of retirement funds will cause him to lose the election. I wish matters were otherwise, but unless the Democrats stop demagoguing on this issue, Social Security will have to go broke until any changes are made.

The same thing could be said for federal spending in general.

   As president, he made the problem worse. He nearly doubled American spending, added almost 2 million jobs to the federal workforce.

Again, the problem is that there is no political will to cut spending. John Stossel and I could go over the entire federal budget and find many ineffective, obsolete, or wasteful programs. Entire government departments could easily be abolished without ill effect on the country. The problem is that each one of these programs benefits someone and that someone will squeal when the slop in his trough is cut off. Unless things change, cutting spending to any great degree is impossible.

At least John Stossel realizes that Joe Biden is worse.

  Not that Joe Biden would do better.

Most likely, he would do worse.

He didn’t dare even show up at the convention.

As I said, John Stossel is a smart guy. I hope he understands that a vote for the Libertarians is a wasted vote. Donald Trump may not be his idea of a perfect candidate. Donald Trump is not my idea of a perfect candidate. He is the better of the two viable candidates available.

The Trouble with the Libertarians

Recently, Donald Trump spoke at the Libertarian National Convention. From Reuters:

Presidential candidate Donald Trump was booed and heckled by many in a raucous audience at the Libertarian National Convention on Saturday night, a marked change from the adulation he receives at rallies from his fervently loyal supporters.
Libertarians, who believe in limited government and individual freedom, blame Trump, a Republican, for rushing through the creation of a COVID-19 vaccine when he was president and for not doing more to stop public health restrictions on the unvaccinated during the pandemic.

When Trump took to the stage in Washington, there were loud boos and jeers. A smaller section of the crowd, Trump supporters, cheered him.

At the Convention, Trump made the Libertarians an offer they should have accepted. He proposed a sort of coalition between the Libertarians and the Republicans. In exchange for their support, Trump would name at least one Libertarian to his cabinet, among other concessions. This proposal would give the Libertarians more access to political power than they could ever achieve on their own.

Naturally, the Libertarians rejected Trump’s offer and nominated Chase Oliver as their presidential nominee.

Chase Oliver is on the Left

This is one of the problems with the Libertarian Party. Who is Chase Oliver? Has anyone outside of Libertarian circles ever heard of him?  For that matter, does anyone know the name of any Libertarian candidate? Mr. Oliver lacks the name recognition necessary for a credible presidential run.

To be fair, the Libertarians do not have a deep bench of nationally famous politicians. At present, there is not a single Libertarian in either House of Congress. There is one Libertarian minor state officeholder in New Mexico and one state legislator in Vermont. On their own, the Libertarians have been unsuccessful at obtaining political office.

The problem is that the Libertarians do not seem interested in expanding their appeal. Many years ago, I happened to be listening to a late-night talk show. The host of the show was interviewing a Libertarian. I do not recall the names of either the host or the guest, but that is not important. The host made the point that while many Americans agreed with the Libertarians generally on the question of a smaller government, many Libertarian positions, particularly legalizing drugs were not popular with the public. The host suggested that the Libertarians drop their support for drug legalization. The Libertarian refused to consider it. He gave the standard answer that the government had no right to control what people put into their bodies. The host pointed out that taking a position rejected by ninety percent of the voters limited the appeal of a political party. The Libertarian didn’t care.

That is the problem with the Libertarians. They do not want to actually win any elections. They prefer to lose while keeping their high principles rather than win by compromising those principles. They prefer outright defeat over a partial victory that would, at least, permit them to put some of their ideas into effect. I suspect the Libertarians would just as soon not be in a position to make their theories into reality. They might then discover that it is a lot more difficult to enact policies in real life than formulating them in Libertarian think tanks.

Getting back to the issue of drug legalization. It is easy enough to envisage the concept of legalizing all drugs, even heroin or fentanyl. It is much harder to make that concept a reality. One must persuade the public that drug legalization is a good idea. I think that there is more acceptance of the idea of drug legalization today than there was when I listened to that radio show. Still, legalizing all drugs probably remains a hard sell. The Libertarians might have to be content with only part of what they want. Maybe the public will accept legalizing marijuana but not cocaine.

Then too, the policy proposals created by academics always work perfectly in their own minds. As long as their projects remain in the realm of the imagination, they do not have to deal with any unexpected and unintended real-world consequences. If the Libertarian dream of drug legalization is realized, the Libertarians would have to consider the possibility that the outcome might not be as they expect. There might be an increase in drug addiction with the consequent health and social problems. In the end, dealing with the negative aspects of increased drug use might necessitate a larger and more intrusive government.

I might be tempted to dismiss the Libertarians as harmless cranks, but in fact, they are not harmless. That three percent of the votes they get can do great harm. In American politics, the Republicans are generally considered the small government party while the Democrats are for big government. This means that the Libertarians will tend to take votes away from the Republicans to the advantage of the Democrats. It is not difficult to imagine cases in which the Libertarians take enough votes from the Republicans to allow a Democratic candidate to win with a minority of the votes cast. Thus, the Libertarians achieve the precise opposite of their intention. They allow the large government party to win.

This scenario is not imaginary. In the 2020 election, the Libertarian vote was greater than the difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in several swing states. If the Libertarians had voted for Donald Trump, he would have won those states. Because Donald Trump was not pure enough for the  Libertarians, Joe Biden, the big government candidate won those states, with the usual assistance of Democrat fraud.

This is the trouble with the Libertarians. They cannot win any elections. They do not really want to win any elections. They can only prevent the party that somewhat supports their ideas from winning against the party that utterly rejects them. The Libertarians are worse than useless. They are an active hindrance to the cause of American liberty.

The Verdict

I am not an attorney. I admit that I do not know much about criminal law or how criminal trials should proceed, especially in New York. I have not followed the legal proceedings very closely. I cannot tell of my own experience whether the recently concluded trial of Donald Trump was fair or rigged to make a guilty verdict inevitable. In my ignorance, I cannot help but notice some very odd things about the trial.

Donald Trump

It occurs to me, for instance, that a judge who had donated to the defendant’s political rival may not be as impartial as one might expect of a judge. A jury selected from a population that heavily favored that rival might, just possibly, have begun the trial with a preconceived notion of the defendant’s guilt. A prosecutor who campaigned on the promise of getting the defendant might be more interested in political considerations than in the impersonal pursuit of justice. I also have to wonder if it is usual to extend the statute of limitations by a year, to change misdemeanors into felonies, or to make noncriminal actions into crimes.

Actually, it does not matter if the trial was rigged or not. It does not even really matter if Donald Trump is guilty or not. The real problem with this trial is that it occurred at all. This trial was not an attempt to determine if Donald Trump was guilty of the accusations. This trial was an attempt to destroy Donald Trump. If Donald Trump were not the accused, there would not have been a trial at all. If he were only a real estate developer or even an ordinary politician in the same circumstances, no charges would have been brought against him. This trial and all the other indictments against Trump are not a matter of justice but of politics.

I wish the people cheering on the convictions would understand what the verdict means for America. I am not speaking of the Hilary Clintons or Joe Bidens. They know what they are doing. Ordinary people who regularly vote Democrat do not. For the first time in American history, the “winner” of an election is judicially persecuting the loser. The people in power are working to imprison their political opposition. That is not what America stands for. That is closer to the actions of a tinpot Third World dictator. Whether you love Trump or hate him, this trial is not a good sign for our future. We are entering into uncharted territory.

Meanwhile, the gaslighting has already begun. The day the verdict was announced, the mainstream media started publishing fact-checks on the trial Any suggestion that there was anything untoward about the Trump trial is denounced as “baseless” and “false”. Joe Biden has warned us that questioning the jury’s verdict is reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible.  Before long, questioning the verdict will be called justice denial and a threat to Our Democracy. Of course, Biden belongs to a party that routinely vilifies the American justice system as racist every time a jury acquits a cop who shoots a Black criminal in self-defense. But Oceania was always at war with Eurasia.

What happens next is anyone’s guess. Donald Trump is due to be sentenced on July 11. I understand that a first-time offender of a non-violent crime generally gets probation. Since Trump’s conviction has helped rather than harmed Trump, probation would be the safe and sane path. It would be best for everyone if this discreditable affair were put behind us and something like a normal political campaign began.

I expect the Democrats are not going to take the safe and sane path. The vision of Donald Trump sitting in a cell is going to be too much for them to resist. I expect Judge Merchan will be encouraged to sentence Trump to the maximum sentence. If it is legal, he will insist that Trump be incarcerated while the verdict is appealed. That, of course, will complete the Mandelazation of Donald Trump.

Not yet, but maybe soon

If the polling data and record levels of donations are any indication, Trump is headed for a landslide victory in November. At this point, the Democrats don’t dare allow Trump to reenter the White House. Even if Trump does not feel vindictive, he will have to seek retribution against the Democrats. Trump followed the rules in his first term. In his second term, for his own protection, he will have to be the dictator the left is accusing him of being. President Trump will have to order his Justice Department to pursue charges against the Democrats. If the Department of Justice attorneys refuse, Trump will have to replace them, even where it is not legal. I doubt many Republicans will quibble about legality after the Democrats have made legality a liability.

The Democrats will have to prevent Trump from becoming president again. They may try to keep him off the ballot in swing states on the grounds that a convicted felon ought not to be eligible to run for president. That is unlikely to be successful. If Trump wins the election, the Democrats in Congress may refuse to certify the election. A constitutional crisis is a small price to keep the left in power. I think that there is a high probability that someone will attempt to assassinate Trump. If Trump is incarcerated, he will likely “commit suicide” or “have a heart attack.”

I hope I am wrong about this. The assassination of a presidential candidate by the state to prevent him from taking office would be truly crossing the Rubicon. I see no way past that without a civil war. We are entering dark times for our Republic. May God save and protect us.