The Libertarian War: Why the Orthodoxy Lost, and Why They Will Try to Remove Trump
I believe that the political orthodoxy will attempt to impeach or in some other way, depose president Trump, because he will harm the financial interests of political orthodoxy’s donors. The neo-conservative movement, and neo-liberal movement ideologies fundamentally rest on the axis of libertarianism, although it does not seem that way, and are really a uni-ideology. The reason for this is, because the uni-ideology, that I deem “the orthodoxy” is not full scale libertairianism, complete with unfettered personal freedom. Orthodox republican, and orthodox democrat ideologies are distinguished by relatively financially unimportant social issues, that do not matter to the donor class. The freedom granted by the current institutions is the freedom for the powerful donor class of the USA to make tremendous amounts of money, while exploiting cheap labor. It is not libertarianism in the sense of freedom to grow and smoke weed, drive without a license or insurance, or any of the other personal freedoms that the libertarian movement promises. It is libertarianism in the sense of complete and nearly unfettered capitalism. This is why, for example, orthodox republicans and orthodox democrats have done nothing to secure the border or, generally attempted to make a serious dent in illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants provide low wage work for the construction industry, the hotel industry, the restaurant industry, and big agri-business. The illegal workers who work in these industries are exploited for below minimum wage, are not accorded the rights normal Americans traditionally are by their bosses, and are propped up by birthright citizenship for their children and the social programs that the government uses to support those children, at great expense to the common tax payer. The libertarian ideology of the orthodoxy, also promotes the free negotiation of labor rates, and free trade. These ideas are fundamentally ideas that support monopolistic exploitation of cheap labor, which is currently propping up the major American corporations. In my opinion, the ideas of open borders for illegal labor, free trade for cheap foreign labor, and other visa programs that are permitted for cheap tech workers, are the primary causative factor behind the erosion of the middle class in the USA. When untempered by traditional notions of fairness, and left completely free, capitalism’s wheels spin off and crashes are sudden and hard. Evidence of this comes from the Great Depression, and many other crashes that occurred in times of great corporate exploitation. It is my belief, that not only is the public collective unconscious is aware that exploitative libertarian policies harmed them, but the election of Trump was a middle finger to the exploitative libertarian policies of the orthodox conservatives and orthodox liberals that occupied power in this country for the past 30 years. It is also why Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Gary Johnson, and generally, the orthodoxy lost. Clinton’s support for TPP, NAFTA, and illegal immigrant amnesty were simply deal breakers for hard left communists who wanted social justice, but would not get in bed with Wall st. and the Fortune 500. The democrats only hope to win was the real socialism offered by Bernie Sanders, and the Republicans only hope was the authoritarianism offered by Trump. Trump and Sander’s ideologies rejected the common notions of very serious libertarianism for American businesses, and supported, through different means, the creation of jobs for Americans in the USA by ending the exploitative labor practices of multinational corporations. In a sense, Sanders was an authoritarian too, just not for common Americans. Sanders would have oppressed multinationals, not average people. Both ideas are completely unacceptable to the political establishment of both parties, whose donations rest on their support of libertarian economic policy.
Consider the utter humiliations of Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Gary Johnson. These characters represented the libertarian ideas of the orthodoxy in the 2016 election. They all supported, in some form or fashion, amnesty or open borders, illegal immigration, a lack of censure for corporations exploiting foreign labor, NAFTA, and TPP. The reason that Jeb was utterly humiliated on stage by Trump is because it was transparent in the debates that Jeb was not interested in supporting the blue collar republican base, and his only concern was meeting his donors concerns for low taxes, and a continuation of an unregulated labor market. Reasonable people understood that Jeb could not support these policies, and support American workers at the same time. No amount of promises to end abortion, appeals to diverse voters, Christians, or A ratings by gun lobbies could fix this. When Trump belittled Jeb and mocked the donors and special interests who were seated in the debate audiences two things happened. First, Trump showed that he would disregard the libertarianism of the past, and was not beholden to the republican orthodoxy. Second, he signaled to the donors and special interests that their libertarianism would come to a halt if he were president, and a policy of “America First” would replace it. Voters liked this and the the orthodoxy hated it. So they slipped their establishment guy, Mike Pence into Mr. Trump’s administration as a fail safe.
Gary Johnson, who ended up humiliating himself, had no chance at winning the election, but offered a third party alternative to repellent Trump or duplicitous Hillary. Something magical happened when Johnson explained that he would support TPP and other free trade deals. His support dried up. I believe it was at this precise moment that voters realized that libertarian ideas were actually the same economic ideas as the orthodoxy, but wrapped in different packaging. The distinction between the libertarian party and the orthodoxy are the social policies that each brings to the table. For the American donor class, none of these ideologies is threatening. Here is where Johnson resigned to smoking marajuana non stop, and stopped seriously campaigning. His famous “What is Aleppo?!” quote did help. What it showed was that Johnson did not even consider foreign affairs, only the economic interests of major corporations who would exploit, and erase the middle class. Voters hated this and relegated Johnson and his libertariainism to the trash can.
Hillary and Bernie present the most curious case. Democrats faced a problem in 2016. How do we deal with someone who wants to upend the libertarian policies that our party supports because, the donors require us to? Sanders may have been more dangerous than Trump for major corporate donors. Sanders is a socialist and authoritarian on economic issues. His promises to jail Wall St. for causing the country’s economic problems would have come to fruition if he were elected. Various other policies that Sanders proposed, like tax increases on the ultra rich and multinational corporations, were another part of the framework that terrified democrat donors whose financial and liberty interests would have been severely negatively effected by Sanders. Obviously, he had to be deposed to keep the democrat donor base. Without limousine and latte liberals, the American left would have had to re-brand itself as a hard communist or socialist party, which would never seriously attract donors in the future. These latte liberals would never accept Sander’s radical reforms therefore, to retain the democrat donor base, Hillary needed to beat Sanders by any means necessary, while saving face. And beat, and cheat him she did.
Hillary was also humiliated. Trump mocked her health, stamina, and her corruption. She lost. But why? She lost for the same reasons as Bush and Johnson. She supported exploitative libertarian economic policies. Although, not well articulated by the left, many felt betrayed by Clinton, but could only say that she was in bed with Wall st.. They saw her as only another extension of the establishment who licks the boot of the Fortune 500. They were actually dead on. But what they missed, was the critique of ideology that needed to articulated. This is also why, so many democrats abstained from voting for her although they could not adequately explain why. Although she tried to play what Trump termed “the woman card” to trick blue collar leftists, and marginalized minorities in the democratic party into voting for her, Clinton’s economic policies would have clearly hurt this segment of the democratic base. Although she would have been the first woman president, she would have unequivocally supported the damaging policies that cost these people their jobs, saddled them with tremendous student loan debt, and prevented them from being able to attain the American dream. Sanders and Trump offered solutions, albeit different solutions, to the same issue. What is to be done with the exploitative libertarian policies that drove us into the current economic mess that we are in? Although Clinton addressed the social concerns of this minority and blue collar population, the economic ones were ignored in favor of Wall st. and the Fortune 500. That is why she lost. The orthodox libertarian position. The fact that she lost to a man who clearly appears unpresidental, coarse, and his only experience includes building buildings, dating and marrying drop dead beautiful women, being very rich, and being a reality TV star, only serves to rub salt in the wound. There is a repeated reprisal from the democrats is that Comey’s investigative report to congress in the final weeks defeated her, or that Russian hackers defeated her. This is a complete mendacity. No matter how much confirmation bias the media attempted to apply to the notion that Clinton had the election in the bag, and no matter what went on with Comey’s investigation, or Russian hackers, she would have lost because of her unpopular economic position.
Now, here’s the beef. Trump’s hyperthermic personality and relatively unchained and hostile attitude towards traditional institutions of presidential control, like notions of dignity, media criticism, and direction from special interests and donors make him extremely dangerous to the orthodoxy. Trump has already taken to twitter to begin the dismantling of the libertarian policies of the orthodoxy, by shaming corporations that take jobs out of the USA, and verbally, and diplomatically assaulting countries that take jobs from the USA. Corporate interests in China and Mexico are still in play, but my theory is that as the Trump presidency continues, hostility will build between these two nations and the USA to the point where business relations are completely untenable. Before this happens, the Republican party has three options to save their donors from losing tremendous profits due to the loss of cheap labor. First, they can remove Trump. Second, they can kill him. Third, they can undermine his presidency, by making him seem incompetent, and delusional, thereby forcing him to step down. The tension is palpable. I believe that Rince Preibus and the other orthodox republicans will never allow their donor’s precious pockets to be split open. The battle lines are being drawn as we speak by Bannon and Trump, who promote an all out attack on the mouthpiece of the orthodoxy, the mainstream media, the democrat orthodoxy, and the republican orthodoxy who have been reported as saying, in hushed tones, and behind closed doors, that Trump does not have the mental fitness or ability to be president. I do not believe that Trump lacks the mental fitness, or competency to be president. If he did, the executive orders and effective twitter diplomacy that he has already done would not manifest in a coherent policy. But, Trump is following the policy platform he articulated in his campaign, which is relatively sophisticated and is fixed to his ideological framework, indeed, it is a coherent policy. Part of this policy is a strike first attitude towards the press, who he knows are an arm of the political orthodoxy, and will do or say anything to undermine him. I do not believe any the press cares about Trump’s racism, xenophobia, or sexism. This is a purely economic issue. If Trump were in favor of the economic policies favored by the orthodoxy he would not be in favor of the wall, against illegal immigration, and against Wall St. and the Fortune 500’s exploitation of cheap foreign labor. To the media these notions are somehow “racist” when they merely promote the interests of American workers. Compare the media’s election coverage of the clearly racist, xenophobic, and sexist actions of the Clintons; supporting mass incarceration and mandatory minimum sentencing, invading Lybia, supporting the invasion of Iraq, and defending Bill Clinton against accusations of sexual misconduct which he was clearly guilty of by the common sexist trope of attacking the victim of sexual assault. These issues were completely ignored by the mainstream media. Constant accusations of racism, xenophobia, and bigotry accorded to Trump, really are just a bit of Clinton campaign re-packaged, and being sold to the blue collar left. The message is, Trump does not agree with your social views, so you should not support him, but the message completely ignores the economic implications of Trump’s policies that are positive for the American blue collar worker. The attempts at radical galvanization of the left, particularly the poor and marginalized left, to fight Trump will evaporate, because they miss the main point, and because Trump’s economic policy will greatly benefit these blue collar people, and their more affluent latte liberal friends. The point of this election was that economic, not social issues, are the controlling factor in whether a political ideology can gain support today. Reasonable Americans are too smart to be tricked into supporting a ruling class that undermines their interests, not matter how social politics are twisted, and no matter what the media says.
Now, because the reasonable American can see through the obfuscation by the media, it would be foolish for the orthodoxy to rely on these same reasonable Americans, who elected Trump, to remove him. They will take power into their own hands. It remains to be seen how Trump will be attacked, and how the orthodoxy will attempt to remove him. But make no mistake, once the donors profits begin to go down, the real fight for the dominance of the political establishment in the USA will begin. What will be very interesting, is what happens if the Republican orthodoxy fails to remove Trump, and how Trump will respond to being attacked. If it’s anything like the crippling and humiliating verbal beat downs that Clinton and Jeb could not withstand, buckle up. We are in for a wild ride.