Donald Trump is not a “bad person,” but an honest politician

 

Can there be any doubt now that Donald Trump is a fascist?

 

Apparently there is doubt at Reason Mag that virtually all current mainstream politicians are fascists at heart. This despite their love for aggressive wars, imperialistic foreign policy, centralized economic policies that especially benefit big corporations and other special interests, a love for more and more surveillance of the population and a militaristic police state, cult-of-personality level president-worship, a desire to disarm the population, an ever-growing state apparatus in general, and other clear indicators. And this goes for virtually all mainstream politicians, because virtually all of them, left and right, support the above.

The only difference between them and Trump is that Trump dares to focus on the group of people that, by and large, spawns most terrorists and therefore national security threats. It is certainly generalistic, and collectivistic of Trump to cast doubt on the whole muslim community for what an extremist minority of them do. But at least he is not avoiding the elephant in the room entirely out of political correctness like the rest of them do. How stupid can you be, or how despicably hypocritical, to generate a continuous stream of muslim terrorists by waging endless wars on the Middle East and bombing people, after decades of propping up and supporting oppressive puppet regimes, and with unwavering, uncritical support for Israel, and then to pretend that there is no threat to be expected from people who adhere to the islamic religion?

This is not bigotry. This is a realistic assessment. What makes politicians despicable is not that they are ‘bigoted’ if they make such assessments, but that it is politicians themselves whom have largely created this problem, and continue to exacerbate it, with their foreign policy past and present.

It is easy to call Donald Trump a “bad person” based on some of the evidence used in the Reason piece. But as usual with Reason Magazine, this is simply a bunch of hypocritical bullshit disguised as a reasonable and ‘factual’ piece from a ‘libertarian point of view.’ It is sin by omission.

Because, from a libertarian point of view, a politician is by very definition a bad person, for the endless stream of lies, dishonesty, moral corruption, law-sanctioned criminality (aka criminal behavior that is law-sanctioned because the behavior is exhibited by government personnel), pro-fascist domestic policies, and other disreputable characteristics. Donald Trump would be no exception to any of this.

What he does seem to be an exception to, is that at least he is honest about all the shitty things he would want to do.

I understand, between the lines, from the likes of Peter Suderman, that politicians are kinder, nicer, more morally acceptable people if only they cover their immoral lard with sprinkles of dishonest sugar dust. Apparently he likes shit sandwiches so long as they look and smell like donuts.

After all, we can call the likes of Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama “civil” in comparison to Trump. But how many people are now DEAD because of the three current or previous presidents? How many civil and especially libertarian rights have they wiped their asses with? How many more did they wish they could violate (the second amendment being one example)? How many bombs have they dropped? How about torture? The Patriot Act? Rendition? Warrantless searches? No knock raids? The war on drugs? Executive decision making on executions without so much as a trial? The list goes on and on eternally of the various policies, agendas and rights violations that presidents – and politicians in general – impose on the people. That’s what they do. That’s why we’re libertarians.

But hey, they’re nice about it, aren’t they? They smile at you. They listen to you as if they care about your opinion. They shake your hands and kiss your babies.

And then they turn around and screw you. Because they’re politicians. Because they’re government. They’re the state. Because they get away with it.

There have been all kinds of soft or hard ways in which governments have always been bigoted to specific sets of people, mostly through laws. Whether it was women, blacks, gays, or simply freedom-loving individuals in general. Leftist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for right-wing people, and Rightist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for left-wing people. Both camps refuse to hide their contempt for libertarians. In the culture war, white heterosexual men are often talked about as one step up from Nazi’s by virtually all the groups that are somehow “oppressed” even today as a black man is president and a woman is one of the two main candidates for the next presidency, and as anyone on college campus who so much as sneezes politically incorrect is pressured and intimidated out of his position.

So is a bigoted politician really anything new? No. But an honest one may be. Trump simply says what he really thinks. He is refusing to don the mask that politicians usually wear to hide their contempt for societal groups, and to hide their fascistic fantasies.

I would never vote for someone like Trump, because a powermad statist is a powermad statist. But call me a fool: i have at least more respect and more admiration for an honest scumbag than for a lying and deceitful scumbag, who pretends he is making love to you when he is really sodomizing you.

Reason magazine is simply showing off its preference for meaningless and deceitful social justice platitudes out of the mouth of people no less evil, as proven by their votes and actions, than Trump.

Because social justice platitudes matter to politically correct, progressive faux-libertarians such as those at Reason.

Reason’s Peter Suderman: Establishment Stooge

Love Donald Trump or hate him, for libertarians it ought not to mean that you act as a pimp for the professional whore-class of Washington. But Peter Suderman, writing for ‘libertarian’ publication Reason Magazine, sees his problems with Trump as reason to regard the usual way of doing things in Washington not only as unavoidable, but preferable, as can obviously be gleaned between the lines from his contempt for those who prefer politicians that actually say what they want to hear.

 

“And that brings me to my final point, which is that Trump’s success reveals not only the gaps between the GOP base and the party elite, but between the GOP base and the rest of the country.”

Of course, differences in world-view notwithstanding, the same could just as easily be said about, say, Ron Paul, or ANY libertarian candidate. Is there not a severe gap between what libertarians want and what the rest of the country wants? Does Suderman suggest that libertarians too, are drunk and need to go home if they won’t vote for ‘professional politicians’ dedicated to ramming the status quo down everybody’s throat eternally?

 

“For his fans in the GOP base, Trump an outsider-savior who might be able to cut through the awfulness of national politics and make drastic changes. For others, he comes across as an inexperienced reality show buffoon. “

Replace “inexperienced reality show buffoon” with the words commonly used for libertarians like Ron Paul (‘cook’, ‘crazy uncle’ etc.) and you can once again see the point Suderman is trying to make. Apparently, to him, it is of vital importance that you support someone that those who disagree with you find somehow acceptable. In other words, Suderman implicitly supports the duopoly; the phenomenon of a party system where REAL differences are few and far between, so that any candidate will be palatable to both sides. In reality, of course, we know what kind of politics, and what kind of politicians, we would get. (See next quote)

“Yes, a party’s base often views its candidates differently than the nation at large, but the disagreement over Trump seems pointedly different to me: It is not the same as the disagreements over candidates like Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, or Bob Dole. While many people were deeply hostile to all of those candidates, most people recognized that each had a degree of legitimate political experience and were, in a broad sense, essentially qualified to be president. The same cannot be said with Donald Trump”

Note here how Suderman is acting the pimp for horrendous business-as-usual professional politicians like Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore and others. Suderman is, after all, not merely trying to state what he thinks is a fact, but also letting you know exactly how he feels about those who put their lot behind Trump. He truly believe people should abandon support for Trump, and instead support people from the usual line up of those who have nothing but contempt for the average joe. People too chickenshit to actually change anything of substance.

The others were “essentially qualified” to be president according to Suderman. This makes clear what he thinks a “qualified” president should be like, which can only speak volumes about his libertarian credentials. For a libertarian, NO ONE is ‘essentially qualified’ to be a president, and most certainly not the type that has made America what it is today.

It is also, by the way, a big laugh if Suderman actually believes that idealistic opponents of Trump really give a rat’s ass about his lack of experience, so much as they do about his views in combination with his popularity. Do you think his opponents would mind his inexperience if he gave them an agenda they agreed with 100 percent? The ‘professional class’ might, but let’s be honest; the professional class minds only because their own fiefdom is running the risk of being taken away from their clutches. The notion that someone could get elected without playing footsie with the movers, shakers, advisers and lobbyists in D.C. is an affront to them. That is way too independent. The only thing they really care about is their own positions and influence. If they cared about the public, they wouldn’t be the ‘professional class’ in the first place.

 

“Trump still may not win the GOP nomination, but his sustained success this election (and, to a lesser extent, the related success his Trump’s current Iowa nemesis, neurosurgeon Ben Carson) reflects all too clearly on the state of the contemporary GOP. It is not very concerned with conservatism or with policy at all…”

There is not a single GOP candidate that is very concerned with conservatism or policy in the sense that it should mean anything. And there hasn’t been for a long time. Does Suderman think any of the ‘professional class’ Republicans is a true conservative? And cares about making policy that actually makes sense to the general public? Do you call America’s foreign policy conservative? Do you call the endless racking up of debt and the increasing of spending conservative? Do you call increasing the size and scope of government conservative?

Donald Trump is not any less a conservative than any of the other candidates. That is, if you are experienced enough to cut through all the vapid rhetoric that Republicans always spout about small government and free markets.

 

“…save for vague anti-immigration fantasies; it is attracted to bullying, often intentionally offensive rhetoric and politicians who promise what is obviously impossible;”

Contrary to the kind of voter Suderman prefers, that supports the status quo; obediently votes for the establishment and then shuts up for 4 years; that tries to hold hands and keep everyone a friend at the expense of honesty and real change, and is attracted to politicians who do what is ‘possible’ precisely because that kind of policy has been indoctrinated into the average mind as not only acceptable, but preferable.

You know what is also “impossible” if we use Suderman’s logic? Libertarianism; small government; a peaceful foreign policy; a society built on self-sufficiency instead of the welfare state. Let’s not support any candidates that promotes such ridiculous concepts because they are “impossible.”

The thing about offensive rhetoric…Lord have mercy on my unfeeling soul. How many kindly, politically correct politicians have we had? Yet everyone knows how many foreigners have been bombed by them; how many minorities are locked up in jail for non-violent drug offenses; how the police can basically still get away with brutalizing citizens of all colors including ethnic minorities. Yes, rhetoric means so much more than the actual intent behind the gentlemanly facade. Progressives are so sweet and gentle for minorities, yet after all the ‘professional class’ liberal Democrat presidents virtually nothing has improved in any substantial way.

 

“…and it is not only frustrated with the political process but almost entirely detached from it, to the point where the party base is alienated even from its own professional class.”

I would say: wonderful. Who wouldn’t want a GOP party base alienated from the likes of Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove, John Bolton and other professional Republican asshats? Suderman obviously would not. He sees this detachment from the professional whores within the GOP as a bad thing.

 

“At this point, Trump is best viewed as a sort of human encapsulation of the Republican party’s problems, an encapsulation of its ailments and neuroses—the avatar of its increasingly dominant id.”

Suderman going all Freud on the people leaving the professional plantation.

What Suderman is saying is this: Trump is best viewed as a sort of human encapsulation of a desire of a growing number of people to vote for someone who is honest, cuts through PC bullshit, doesn’t play the establishment’s games, and actually wants to CHANGE things; a desire to abandon those that have had ample opportunity to prove they can be trusted and have failed miserably time and time again; a desire to let the professional elite stew, and to raise the middle finger to politics as usual. Regardless of whether Trump’s changes are a good thing or not, Suderman clearly hints that a desire for any real change out of the status quo’s rigid limits, and support for anyone that is not part of the “professional” class of charlatans means that you are a neurotic fruitcake. Get back in line, rabble, and vote for the type of slimebags you’ve always voted for. That’s how real democracy is supposed to work. You’re not supposed to support someone you actually agree with; you’re supposed to support someone your ideological opponent finds nominally acceptable, so you can pretend to have real democracy while nothing of importance ever changes. So the professional class can keep lining their pockets, the beltway can keep offering hope for influence and money for the likes of Peter Suderman, and the country can be kept on the same track toward oblivion.

Hear that, libertarians?