Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Why should a "Libertarian Nationalist" support Donald Trump?

First off, for my definition of "Libertarian Nationalism," go HERE [link]. Now, why would that ideology lead me to support Trump? Before everybody shouts it at me, yes, I realize that Trump could be a phony. Yes, I realize that he's taking "liberal" positions in the past, and now repudiates them, and could be faking it. Of course, any candidate could be faking it, and maybe they all are. But taking Trump at his word, and assuming that he means what he says, here are my reasons, from a libertarian nationalist position, for supporting him.

1. Foreign policy. The neocon position on this, which is shared by just about all the other Republican candidates, is, frankly, belligerent, short-sighted, counterproductive, and self-destructive. And it seems more like a policy designed to prop up Israeli interests than ours. The best situation in the Middle East for the world in general and the US in particular is stability. The best way to have that is to have sensible, non-crazy strongmen in charge of most of the counties there, from Morocco to Pakistan — yes, I know that's a little broader than the "Middle East," but it includes the more important Islamic countries, both Arab and nonArab. The idea that any of those countries could ever be "democratic," in the American/West European sense is pure fantasy. The IQ, educational, and literacy levels are far too low for anything of the kind. If you doubt that, here's what Bob Wallace says [link].  Hillary, of course, is virtually indistinguishable from the neocons on this issue, and, if anything, she'd be more likely to waste more money and lives interfering in the area, to prove how tough she is.

And outside the Middle East, our policy should be that of any sensible country's — mind our own business, maintain cordial relations where possible, and recognize that other great powers have their spheres of influence that we should respect, and that we should insist on them respection ours. The only candidate that seems to look at the world this way is Trump. All the other Republicans, plus Hillary, seem to want to shove our noses into Russia's sphere, in Ukraine and the Baltics, just looking for trouble. To put all this simply, libertarian nationalists are nationalists. Trump is a nationalist. All the other candidates are globalists.

2. Trade. Only Trump seems to be even saying anything about it, and while I'm no expert, his position that we should be cutting the best deals possible in trade agreements seems sensible, and I've heard no actual arguments that refute it. All the opposition just points-and-sputters, and says such an attitude is crazy. I can't help thinking that their incentive is to cut deals that benefit their big donors rather than the American people as a whole.

3. Immigration. This one is obvious. Trump is, if anything, too moderate. I was just dealing with a young SJW on the net, asking him to tell me just what benefit the US would derive from inviting in millions of Muslim immigrants. His reply was that "it doesn't work that way," and said the burden was on me to prove that such immigration would be bad for us. And that sums it up. Trump really seems to understand that a country's immigration policy should be designed to benefit the country, not the immigrants. As a libertarian nationalist, of course, my position is the same. All other candidates tacitly assume that our only concern should be for the welfare of the immigrants, and it that damages the American people in any way, they should grin and bear it. It seems that their incentive is either some abstract self-sacrificing pathological altruism, or a desire to get lots of cheap labor for their big donors.

As for Muslim immigrants in particular, it's obvious to the non-brainwashed that it's suicidal for any nonMuslim country to permit it at all, let alone on large numbers. Again, Trump seems to understand that and emphasize it, while all other candidates are in deep denial and are excruciatingly politically correct in defiance of all reality and logic.

4.  Political correctness. Again Trump stands alone. The concept of political correctness is indeed anathema to a libertarian nationalist, as PC is nothing more than cultural marxism in sheep's clothing. Trump has said in so many word, "we don't have time for political correctness," while the other candidates, explicitly or implicitly celebrate the concept and seem to apply it to any and all issues, from transgender bathrooms to inviting immigration from the Earth's most dysfunctional.

5. Abortion. Trumps seems to have taking the pragmatic position of stating that he is pro-life and then moving on to issues he can actually do something about, which is pretty much where I stand, and, I'd assume, most libertarian nationalists do. The best thing he can do, of course, is to appoint sensible Supreme Court justices who will look at the issue sensibly, find nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion a sacred right, and kicking it back to the states to determine what kind of laws should exist regarding it. I have ambiguous feelings about the whole issue myself, being repulsed by the very idea of it, but also realizing that if it wasn't done, we'd have a lot more people walking the streets right now. Many would be perfectly good folks, but many would be of a more dysfunctional nature, if you know what I mean. It's a tough one.

6.  The economy. His position on trade makes sense — pure free trade between countries is of course metaphysically impossible — and reserving the authority to retaliate against bad behavior with taxes and tariffs seems prudent to me.

7. Civil rights. Trump seems to be neutral and pragmatic about race and sex and "rights," which is infinitely better than all the other candidates' pandering to BLM and any and all minority and feminist organizations. Trump's remarks about "roughing up" yahoos trying to disrupt his rallies are rather refreshing. Hillary thinks we'll all be horrified about that. She's wrong. What we're horrified about is the disturbing Hillary-Huma relationship. Woman, minorities, and White males will be better off with a little less fine-tuning in such matters.

8. Ideology. I put it this way because Trump has announced himself as a "conservative," but has tacitly  repudiated most of the tenets of neoconservatism. This should mean that he'll govern more or less as a traditional Goldwater-Coolidge-Cleveland conservative, and what more could we ask than that? I don't think of Trump as a guy who thinks like me. I think of him as a guy whose thinking is compatible with mine who is practical and pragmatic enough to know what to do to get the country pointed in the right direction for a change. He's not going to get all obsessed with trivialities, but will stick to the big picture. Trumpism, I hope, will be like Gaullism in France — a mode of thought dedicated to preserving the American nation, from its physical existence to its underlying cultural norms. And a bold-strokes proactive type like Trump is just the guy who can do it, I hope and believe.
--------------
Quibcags: Mostly sort of related to the post. The first, with the Eli Harman quote, is illustrated by Isis-Chan http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-return-of-isis-chan.html. The Bailey quote is illustrated by Amy and her friends from Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia). They're not Muslims, of course, but they are belly-dancers, and good at illustrating things like this. The PC girl is an oldie, and I don't know where I originally found her. Lastly, the pic on the Molyneux quote is Astrid from How to Train Your Dragon.

1 comment:

  1. 5. Abortion. Trumps seems to have taking the pragmatic position of stating that he is pro-life and then moving on to issues he can actually do something about, which is pretty much where I stand,
    When that issue came up, (and like Vox Day, I think he really blew it on that one) I mentioned that, in reality, the issue is a red herring.
    Not only can the President do almost nothing about it, even if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would have little effect, the issue would revert to State laws - and many states had legalized it prior to '73.

    ReplyDelete