I also know a lot of Republicans who discuss politics – and vote – as well as Democrats who are just as knowledgeable on the issues and just as committed to their votes. I also know a great number of libertarians (uppercase and lowercase “L”), who probably aren’t as eager to vote, knowing that for them it’s pissing into a hurricane, but are more knowledgeable on most issues. (I may be biased.)
I do not know any Republicans who are strongly for Trump. Nearly anyone I talk to about him, though, understands his appeal. For the most part, and I would expect that this holds true among many of his supporters, as well, he is favored in spite of many of the wild and idiotic things that he says, and not because of those things. They seem to feel, rightly or wrongly, that “at least he’s not an Establishment guy”, and that he will shake things up, presumably in ways that they favor. (This seems to hold true for fans of Bernie Sanders, too, who is perceived as an outsider not in the mold of those candidates – on both sides! – who quietly appeal to heavily moneyed interests, while talking a populist game. Trump is the first – nominal – Republican to appeal to a populist base, at least that I can recall. Reagan obviously had that appeal, but part of that appeal was a huge dissatisfaction with the sitting president that he first ran against, and later his proxy, the former Vice President, Mondale. So that’s the closest parallel I can point to in recent history.) I expect that he would do a lot to shake things up, but I’m not in favor of random change just for the sake of change. And I’m sure that he would not change the things that need to be changed the most, or if he did, he would make them worse. He also tends to speak in sound bytes and platitudes, which scares the hell out of me. Ditto Bernie.
The huge problems with Trump are apparent to anyone who wants to admit the truth about him: He seems to mouth whatever things will make him popular in the moment, without much regard to truth, achieveability, constitutionality or simple reason and logic. Ditto Bernie Sanders. But to their supporters the big draw is “He’s not one of them.” He’s not an insider, and he’s not part of the crowd who mucked things up this badly.
I can say that the libertarian position, by and large, is to scale back the US Federal government to that which is described by the Constitution. That means a great cutback in the Executive alphabet soup that runs so much of our economy. It means huge tax cuts for everyone (eventually), but for those on the bottom who pay little or no tax as it is that just seems to be “a tax cut for the rich”. Well, since they pay the bulk of the taxes – directly, anyway – that’s just the way tax cuts would work.
Since libertarians generally subscribe to what we call the Non-Aggression Principle (simply put: “no first strike”, the use of force is for defensive purposes only) Defense would also be scaled back greatly. (It could be reasonably argued by libertarians – and it is argued – that a globally based defensive force is still necessary to protect allies by treaty and vital trade routes, but I’m not going to get into that here. So whether we only have a continental defense force or a world-wide one is still an open question.)
But to get to the point you keep coming back to, @SQUEEKY2, yes, the rich would get richer – in general – because they are the ones taking risks in starting and expanding new businesses. I’m not envious of those who take those risks when they manage the risks and eventually reap the rewards. I am, and libertarians are in general, opposed to the kind of crony capitalism and corporatism that is what so many know-nothings believe to be “real capitalism”, including corporations who provide lobbyists to write the rules and regulations that stifle competition.
There is also a great debate among libertarians whether we should tightly seal the borders (not “build a wall”, but at least attempt to enforce existing immigration law), or whether we should enable a far more open and accepting immigration policy. None of these questions are cut-and-dried.
Finally, and this cannot be stressed enough, NOTHING will create Utopia. Trump can’t do it. Sanders cannot do it. Clinton certainly won’t. An angel from Heaven could not. And because of the huge deadweight of the current government and its un-elected bureaucracy, any significant change will be glacial. It’s the culture that needs to change more than anything.
Fortunately, the one thing that gives me some hope for the future is that the culture does seem to be leaning ever more gradually libertarian. I’m disappointed that the top-of-the-ticket 2016 election seems to be going in a different direction, but I have no doubt that Congress – nobody’s talking about Congress these days – will shift, however gradually, a bit more in that direction. States, too, in general. So there is hope.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
