I am disturbed by Mr. Trump’s personality, as many people are. However, I am also disturbed by Mrs. Clintons’ personality, for pretty much the same reason. In both cases, I see a closed circle of trust, as opposed to an open circle of trust.
Let me try to explain. Obviously, I am playing amateur psychiatrist here.
1. Someone with an open circle trust sees a world filled with potential partners. At some point, anybody out there could be able to offer some goods, services, information, or connections in a mutually beneficial exchange.
2. Someone with a closed circle of trust relies on loyal followers who have no important outside relationships. People outside the circle do not enjoy trust. Particularly if they have talent and ambition, they are at best threats and at worst enemies.
3. A President with a closed circle of trust poses a threat to the rule of law by choosing assistants who would follow their leader as opposed to following their consciences. In my lifetime, Richard Nixon comes to mind as the President who fit this pattern most closely. Next might be Lyndon Johnson, although he was aware that he had this trait, and the more aware you are of a trait the less likely it is to overwhelm you.
4. My instinct that Mr. Trump has a closed circle of trust comes in part from the way that he is treating the Republican establishment. He seems to me to be telling other Republicans that he wants their support and their money but not their input.
5. My instinct that Mrs. Clinton has a closed circle of trust comes from a variety of evidence, some of which I am likely to have forgotten. Consider the peculiar way that she and Ira Magaziner went about designing her health care reform. Consider her use of the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Finally, consider her email server. Any normal individual would have trusted the IT professionals at the State Department to provide email that met their needs. But for Mrs. Clinton, those professionals, with their loyalty to the institution of the State Department, were outside the circle of trust. It was inconceivable that they would be allowed to handle her email account.
On Sunday, the WaPo ran a banner headline story about people who fear/loathe one or both candidates. I went to the story on line, hit control-F “Johnson”, and got nothing.
The coalition of people who rightly fear/loathe Mr. Trump and/or Mrs. Clinton is really large. If Gary Johnson had access to that coalition through the media, I think he could win. But, so far, crickets.
UPDATE: Well, you schedule a post a couple days in advance, and events intervene. In this case, the Orlando terrorist massacre. One side says “Blame gun culture! Blame homophobia!” The other side says “Blame the failure to face up to Islamic radicalism!” Gary Johnson doesn’t take either side. Perfectly reasonable, but reasonable is not how you get attention.
5. She also made a list of people who sided with Obama last time around. That struck me as not only pretty myopic and pscyhopathic (political people always want to be on the winning side), but it also occurred to me that she was absolutely positive that she’d be in a future position of power to punish those people.
Trump seems to me to operate on a slightly different level of narcissism. He seems to believe that he will always be able to garner enough support to prevail over the allies he just alienated.
So, what would be the attention-grabbing approach for Gary Johnson? I’d like to see him come out strongly for concealed-carry. We obviously don’t have a “gun culture” when George Zimmerman gets attacked by The President. We have an anti-self-defense culture. But Johnson doesn’t have the temperament to go over the top with truth that may be unsettling, which is, as you say, he should be president, but probably can’t be until he can do that.
Nope. Gun laws are being loosened overall. In 1980 9 states had shall issue rules. Now 41 have them. 9 states now have constitutional carry laws. Also, have not checked recently but pretty sure that reciprocity among states of concealed carry has been increasing. Finally, last I counted we were down to just 18 staters having a duty to retreat law.
Steve
Yes, concealed-carry is making in-roads, but that is pretty new and kind of under the radar.
Actually, one side says, “face the fact that Islam is essentially evil.” This is a very, very, very common attitude in America, and it seems to me that it was at least implied in the attitude of the Republican candidates, along with all that insanity about Obama being soft on radical Islam because he’s a secret Muslim. I mean the outrage expressed by the ostensibly sane candidates when Obama visited a mosque was a clear expression of the mainstreaming of this attitude, and the examples of this sort of thing are just endless. You seem to be mistaking Obama’s recognition of the absolute necessity of pushing back against this insanity with some sort of naivete about the nature of Islamic radicalism. I’d say you’re dead wrong about this.
Anyway I’d never vote for a libertarian, but that’s just me.
“Anyway I’d never vote for a libertarian, but that’s just me.” [ad hominem remark removed] Gary Johnson is better qualified and better suited to be President than Clinton or Trump. That’s now. How much do you think libertarians might progress and how much worse might the Rs and Ds get? Realize you don’t know. Be informed that you should start warming up to the idea.
“Gary Johnson is better qualified and better suited to be President than Clinton or Trump.”
This is a tragically, laughably low hurdle to clear. This should not be the standard by which one selects a President.
We should have the option to leave the position of President vacant for four years, like in L. Neil Smith’s North American Confederacy series.
[deleted. this blog is not for flame wars]
He started it, right? I forget what I said, but it was just facts.
Oh yeah, his claim was Obama was a crusader against anti-muslim sentiment. I simply pointed out that he’s not, he’s a partisan. That isn’t what you said in half your recent posts? Just sayin’.
You should probably delete my comment above before the last one.
Obama’s first reaction is to defend muslims….Because the big risk is a conservative will go to a muslim club and shoot up the place.
It’s a joke. Feel free to delete it.
By the way, what is your plan if the blog becomes popular? I have some ideas. Up/Down voting and rating commenters and twistees to hide undesirables, etc. But if your comment section won’t have any technology, it is going to be hard to keep up with deleting them. And are you going to always delete the self-policing comments? We can agree to disagree whether it is the meanness of response that causes the original salvos. Again, feel free to delete.
I really, really like “crusader against anti-muslim sentiment.” Good job!
For better or worse, it seems the closed circle approach is a winning strategy. Any suggestions for reforms or tweaks to the system to put the open circle strategy on top?
The closed circle approach is a strong strategy for competition within the group (i.e., primaries), but not necessarily a strong strategy for competition between groups (i.e., the general). Since we currently have two closed circle candidates, it doesn’t necessarily hurt either one, but it’s also exceedingly evidence that an open circle candidate from a major party would be wiping the floor with either of these opponents.
I noticed the difference in Johnson’s response, too. I also noticed how the media did not.
One aspect I have wondered about is how much of Trump ‘trust’ and management style based on being a business so long. And avoid personality issues, why did Romney have such a hard to time translating his ideas to a voters. Additionally, I have wondered why neither Koch Brothers have seriously run for office.
1) In terms of business leaders, trust is not such a huge problem because most business leaders pay huge sums of money to trust circle. Business also benefits those ‘failed trust’ with golden parachutes and letters of recommendations. Politicians don’t have this luxury to do this and long term, most politician trust circles earn money post-position with tell all books.
2) I know the media is not focusing on Gary Johnson but beware of media attention here. Once somebody gets anywhere near the Presidency, every portion of their lives is investigated. Look what happened to Ben Carson whose ‘Early Scandals’ were a lot of meaningless exaggerated tales of youth and his bid wilted completely within a couple of weeks. Gary Johnson doesn’t have a lot skeltons but if he gets anywhere the media will push back. (Look at how many media stories are against HRC?)
In terms of conservative thought leaders today, the best paydays are not getting elected but doing a radio program. (On the left it is running a website.)
Vague platitudes about trust that mean nothing and have no actionable content + I’m going to take my ball and go home (vote Johnson).
FYI, we are pretty over the 2 party fallacy.
Libertarianism fails because its a completely incoherent ideology that has never had support from more then a tiny minority of the citizen body, not because of the “two party system.”
I’ll repost what I had before on the party of Gary Johnson. I don’t consider anyone at the convention different then run of the mill libertarians, just they went “full-autistic” and don’t even know to hide their nuttiness. You people don’t have power because you don’t deserve to have power, not because of any conspiracy.
—
James Weeks Strips at Libertarian Party National Convention Drops out of race for Chairman 5/29/16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d45x4OpMoow
Crazy Libertarian Rant at 2016 Libertarian Convention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgbFBlPOemE
Even Crazier Libertarian Rant at 2016 Libertarian Convention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_toYr_Hcdo
Consider: [Anti-virus tycoon John] McAfee — who fled his own Central American residential compound while under suspicion by the Belizean government for the murder of his neighbor; who openly admits that said compound featured a harem of teenage Belizean sex workers; who likes to talk about the time a 16-year-old Belizean prostitute tried to shoot him in the head at point blank range; who bounced around the hotel halls wearing a three-piece suit and a pair of Nikes like some kind of Mad Hatter on meth — had regularly polled in third place for the nomination in the lead-up to the convention and even seemed to have a puncher’s chance to win. Further consider: He was barely the weirdest candidate on the scene.
Polling second coming into the convention, just ahead of McAfee, was a guy named Austin Petersen. Petersen’s 35 and looks 14, but question if he’s seasoned enough and he’ll yelp, “Tell that to the Marquis de Lafayette.” His go-to applause line: “I want gay couples to defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic weapons.” Polling fourth, one slot behind McAfee, was a fellow named Darryl W. Perry, who accepts campaign donations only in the form of precious metals and cryptocurrency and who opted to have his nominating speech delivered by an “erotic services provider” who goes by the moniker “Starchild.” Perry’s most animated moment in the debate came when he slammed his fist against his lectern, forehead veins a-popping, as he insisted that 5-year-old children should have the legal right to inject heroin without adult supervision. [Libertarians Are Loons, By Seth Stevenson, May 31, 2016]
No. Libertarianism is a coherent and superior system.
And we have the most respectable ticket on the ballot.
In response to your anecdotes, I’ve been to a Libertarian national convention. It was great. I know that the primary corruption of the democrats won’t move you, but you should realize that the most promising Republicans are significantly libertarian.
Seriously, you don’t have to post those anecdotes again.
Do me a favor, what is the Republican ideology, or whatever it is you would like to call it? Give me a coherent outline.
The Republican party has been intellectually and spiritually dead for decades. It has no coherence. That’s why a blowhard clown was able to blow it up with ease.
Probably the closest thing to a coherent body of ideas I could point to is paleo-conservativism, which like any term I’m sure lots of people identifying with it have said lots of things I wouldn’t agree with.
Paleo-conservativism got kicked out of the Republican party so the party could get on with the important things, like the wild success of the GWB presidency or the farce of a Republican congress that has a 16% approval rating.
It’s pretty incoherent. They never came up with a coherent argument against gay marriage, for example. Maybe you’ve heard one, but I think I came up with a better argument than they ever did, and I don’t even care. And it seems like most of their arguments boil down to that we aren’t doing it yet. So, then when the left scores a victory it’s simply time to move on to the next rear-guard position. It seems like the conservative “ideology” is something that is more felt than easily articulated. What are they for or against? They’ll know it when they see it.
Libertarianism is coherent. Self-ownership. Plus appreciation of externalities if you care about that kind of thing and feel like increasing it past one hyphenated word. When you say incoherent, I think you mean something else.
The blog comment length reply to gay marriage is that most gays don’t want to get married, that the gay lifestyle is completely at odds with the values of marriage, and that many gay intellectuals and advocates actually have made that point many times before. It’s no surprise that now that they have gay marriage very few of them are actually seizing it.
Gay marriage is mostly about thumbing ones noes in the normies, which is why prosecuting Christian bakers was item number one the gay agenda.
Or if you prefer the pictures say 1,000 words counter:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/19ad231666cda314252538a95dd74fb39e2c1079/0_100_5184_3112/5184.jpg?w=1920&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=bd4136336b71dae157426ae04d4db162
Libertarianism thinks putting durkas’ and gays together was a good idea. It’s contradictions are so literal at times they actually explode.
You are going to blame the gay club shooting on Starchild? Come on man.
Complicating factors: Clinton had a reputation in the senate of being able to work with and win over republicans, and was able to build a close relationship with Obama after a contentious primary.
She doesn’t trust enemies, but she does seem willing to work with them for mutually beneficial exchange.
I keep hearing this. Do you have a source?
“2. Someone with a closed circle of trust relies on loyal followers who have no important outside relationships. People outside the circle do not enjoy trust. Particularly if they have talent and ambition, they are at best threats and at worst enemies.”
Good luck finding high-level politicians with an open circle of trust. It goes against their basic nature (where the first commandment is to reward loyal supporters and punish defectors and rivals). In Jane Jacobs underappreciated Systems of Survival. Trump and Hillary are clearly part of the ‘Guardian Syndrome’, which includes values like:
– Respect hierarchy
– Be loyal
– Take vengeance
– Deceive for the sake of the task
– Dispense largesse
– Be exclusive
Still, I’d agree that both Clinton and Trump seem like particularly pernicious examples of the type.
This doesn’t sound to me like a good description of either individual. Trump in his job as a real estate had to regularly make contacts, and make snap decisions based on limited information. Clinton in the state department had to meet and work with a wide variety of different individuals. In Congress, she was known for being very good at private negotiation for small ball legislation rather than headline grabbing work. This requires a good deal of flexibility with who you are willing to work with as well as what you’re willing to work on. It’s how she managed to build up so much party support. You’re describing traits that would have made it very difficult for them to succeedthe way they did in their careers. I would describe a closed-circle politician as someone like Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, or Bernie Sanders; politicians who succeeded by grabbing headlines with big idea views to stay afloat even as they burned bridges on the inside of the party.
#4. Not sure how Trump is supposed to treat the NeverTrumpers who seem to make up The Republican Establishment. And its really hard to know much about who is in the inner circle and who is not. I’ve read the ThinkProgress pieces put I’ve not seen anything else that would suggest Trump insiders are spilling on who has access. I get the impression that already low-profile individuals of great talent are advising him but not going out of their way to advertise it. For example, he seems to have F.H. Buckley from GMU Law School on board which suggests his circle of trust is not completely impermeable. http://spectator.org/trumps-revolution/ I’ve supported and donated to Johnson in the past and will again but if it looks neck-and-neck between Hillary and Donald in November, I might just black the box for The Donald if it looks like he has an actual shot at defeating her.
Yeah but,
“Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.
But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/
You guys would enjoy your life much more if you gave this real world thing a rest and stayed in your imaginary utopia. Enjoy the people that agree with you at your convention.
Indeed. I remember when I was young and thought of myself as libertarian I was a big fan of Singapore. Low taxes and always at the top of every business friendly study. Heck, they just appeared to be great at everything.
I’ve since learned that the “libertarian” view of the country is that its as a statist shithole and LKY is the reincarnation of Hitler. If Singapore isn’t libertarian enough, what country is?
America is mostly libertarian. The libertarian portion is what makes it the greatest country on earth. The non-libertarian portion is what is allowing other largely libertarian countries to catch up to the degree they are libertarian.
Nice when you can cherry pick the good parts and ignore the bad parts.
“Why are there no libertarian countries?”
There have been and still are to varying degrees. The Whigs/Liberals were a governing party in Britain for a very long time. The US Constitution is a profoundly libertarian document, containing, as it does, the bill of rights along with (what are supposed to be) strict limits on government powers. Some of this has been creatively ‘interpreted’ away, but much remains. And, in many ways, the US is more libertarian than it was in the mid 20th century. There is no longer a ‘Civil Aeronautics Board’ that dictates all routes and airfares. Something like Nixon’s wage and price controls would be unthinkable now (perhaps even among Sanders supporters). Discrimination against gays and minorities is much reduced which is something libertarians have long favored (the LP nominated John Hospers, an openly gay man, as its first presidential candidate). Home brewing was legalized and legal marijuana is well on the way in many states. And so on.
Progress for libertarians doesn’t consist of the Libertarian Party winning elections, but in trying to gradually move the Overton window in a libertarian direction.
The last paragraph above is well stated.
I hope that libertarians have an idea of how to link tactics and strategy to the objective of moving the Overton window.
It seems non-trivial in a country like the U.S. with first-past-the-post elections. Without “proportional representation” in legislatures, it’s not clear to me what the role of small parties is.
I suspect that many people who vote for small parties in the U.S. don’t understand Proportional Representation, nor the fact that some countries have it (but we in the USA do not).
Successful politicians exhibit both, closed to win elections and move up, and open to accomplish ends. Opponents always try painting their opposition as closed because they are trying to win elections. Less successful ones keep it up and as a result have nothing to show for it. Now if there was a closed politician in the race, it would have to be Cruz, so hated even among his party it was a joke.
Those who dislike Hillary are largely Republicans and Democrats are fairly unified. Those who dislike Trump are both and the Republicans are disarrayed. That makes it difficult for a third party.