/linked/2017/10/24/boot-trump

Comments

Enhance!:
Today, on RINOs we can do without, we have Max "Give 'em the" Boot.
11:26 pm — Tuesday, 24 October 2017
The Academy Welcomes You:
Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Max.

A surprisingly large number of people don't understand where American's foreign policy came from, including some professionals. That's because they never heard the "real" story behind the policy, they just heard what Acheson & Co wanted them to know.

It's like the 5 monkeys and the ladder story: sometimes people forget the goal and believe in the tactics needed to get to that goal for their own sake.

The plastic nature of American society means that the "real goals" never get formally communicated, and eventually are forgotten.

Do you know why trade liberalism has been a core tenet of US foreign policy since post WW2? It wasn't a misunderstanding of the causes of the great depression; the myth of a trade war causing the great depression was known even back then. It was instead a reaction to the revolutions of 1848, and a somewhat sober look at how the events leading up to 1848 trickled down and caused WW2.


Free trade has a rationale behind it, but most people today couldn't tell you what it was. "Free trade is good." "Why?" "Because it's good."


It goes to show how good those guys back then were; their ideas became dogma, and nobody questions dogma.


The downside is that when the reasons for those policies is no longer extant, those policies don't go away...because they're dogma. Nobody questions dogma.


So here we are. Is Trump's foreign policy dangerous? It depends. If you believe FP is designed to preserve the status quo and minimize disruption to the various regimes in-place then yes, Trump's foreign policy is frightening. The various trade and financial regimes have worked relatively well since WW2. However, if you believe FP's goal is to advance your country's interests then Trump is doing great.


The US has invested a tremendous amount of money and capital in the current postwar regimes, and has done many, many things that benefitted the world at America's expense. And to what end? Peace in our time?


Any regime built on the idea that nations work against their own self-interest in perpetuity is destined to fail. This was an interesting experiment and it had a good run, but it was never expected to last forever. That's what change is about; you can only hack around problems for so long.


Hanging on to a system that's already dead is ridiculous.
1:01 am — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
anonymous:
What Max fails to see is that there's plenty of traffic in the other direction: over the last decade, the Democrats have ceased to be a national party. And as they double-down on extreme, absolutist positions, they are alienating more and more of their core supporters. Lingering loyalty did not keep Max Boot voting Republicans; and it won't keep a large number of working class and middle class Democrats voting for their traditional party.
1:20 am — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
toolshed:
"The Academy Welcomes You" - you really have no idea how interconnected the world's economy is, do you? There's no such thing as a nation's economy anymore, but you'd rather sound like a crank spouting gibberish on a street corner than have even the vaguest clue about how anything is actually done.
4:06 am — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
anonymous:
national economies have always been interconnected and interdependent. that's what trade is.

that this dissolves the national economy and nation is just the kind of globalist nonsense he's ridiculing.
7:07 am — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
anonymous:
there's never been a war that max boot didn't like. though i suppose his bloodlust and deranged chickenhawk foreign policy doesn't preclude him having sound judgement on trump.

though the hissy fit he had on tucker carlson (easily found on youtube) suggests he's not a well man.
7:13 am — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
jimothy:
Max Boot suggests a terrible strategy for the disillusioned Republican. May I suggest a different strategy if you're disappointed with the GOP: Vote Libertarian (here, I do mean "Big L" Libertarian, as in the Libertarian Party).

I know you're objection: You're throwing your vote away; there's no way you'll ever get a Libertarian elected! Fair enough, you may be right.

But the problem with Boot's strategy is that it may work: the candidates you vote for may get elected. Does the disillusioned Republican really want more Democrats in office?

Let's think about why a Republican may be fed up with the part. They're disappointed with Republicans unwillingness or inability to actually reduce budgets, taxes, and deficits. They're let down by their lip service to smaller government and freer markets, while they deliver expanded budgets, more regulation, and growing power of federal agencies. They're frustrated that the rhetoric and reality of the party are so far apart from each other.

So I agree with Max Boot that they no longer deserve your vote. But are you going to get those things from the Democrats? Heck no! At least, you may tell yourself, the Democrats are honest about what they want: Higher taxes, more regulations, more handouts, less individual autonomy and responsibility, and more control over people's lives. What comfort is honesty when they're honestly proposing policies you oppose?

So maybe voting for Libertarian candidates has little chance of getting Libertarians elected. Maybe doing so, by taking votes away from Republicans, will get Democrats elected. If so, it's no worse than Boot's strategy. But sometimes, at the local level, it does work. And maybe, if we can dream, the Republicans will see that they're losing votes to Libertarians and realize they need to take a more pro-liberty, pro-free market, pro-limited government stance.

On the other hand, if you take Boot's advice, and vote Democrat, the Republican party, if they learn anything at all, may take the message that they better emulate the Democrats and promise even more free goodies and increase the size, scope, and spending of government even more. (Actually, I fear that's already the approach they've adopted).

My strategy may have little chance of success, I admit that. But, in terms of meeting the goals of disillusions Republicans, Max Boot's advice is certain to fail.

Perhaps if you live in a state with open primaries, this strategy could have merit: If the Republican candidate is running unopposed, or if there are no Republican limited government candidates, perhaps a moderate Democrat deserves your vote. But if the Democrat candidates are of Sanders, Pelosi, Schumer, or Warren sort, I don't see what a disillusioned Republican has to gain from their election.

Two closing thoughts: I think it's a mistake to look to government for solutions to problems, particularly problems caused by government, and there is plenty I object to when it comes to the Libertarian Party. However, to the extent that voting is party of your political strategy—which is what Max Boot is suggesting—then I think voting for the only pro-limited government party is a more viable strategy than voting for an openly anti-limited government party (the Democrats) or a more covertly anti-limited government party (the Republicans).
12:25 pm — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
GTFO Max. RINO indeed.

No, the better strategy is to elect better Republicans, not vote Democrat.
1:58 pm — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
fake adam smith:
why is DFWC populated almost entirely by libertarian alt-right economic nationalists?

WHY
10:28 pm — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
cluetard:
tl, dr.
11:04 pm — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
cluetard:
tl, dr.
11:04 pm — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
ano:
techno libertarians are a stereotype. why would you be surprised?
11:26 pm — Wednesday, 25 October 2017
anonymous:
"libertarian alt-right economic nationalists" aka most Democrats before 2005.
12:46 am — Thursday, 26 October 2017
jimothy:
"libertarian alt-right economic nationalists?"

A "libertarian…nationalist" is an oxymoron. If I were a nationalist, particularly an economic nationalist, I'd be all on board with Trump. If I were all on board with Trump, I would not be a libertarian.

Meanwhile, who, in addition to Trump, is an economic nationalist? Good ol' Bernie Sanders.
1:18 pm — Thursday, 26 October 2017
Stalin Mao-Gruber:
>libertarian alt-right economic nationalists

Are you really this stupid?
5:39 pm — Saturday, 28 October 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!