It’s time to end the never-ending libertarian support for Trump
Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy, the rule of law, and to basic rights and human decency. It is hard to see how anyone could deny this. Trump encouraged violence and fraud to remain in power after he lost the 2020 election. He continues to insist that he won the election, despite losing in court over and over, even in front of judges that he appointed. In his campaign for re-election, he has emphasized revenge against his political enemies and threatened to politicize the justice department, and he may do the same with the military. He has vilified immigrants and threatens mass roundups and deportations. He sows religious division. He uses dehumanizing language and celebrates authoritarianism, both at home and abroad. He claims the President has absolute immunity. Ominously, people associated with his campaign are no longer denying that he means what he says: they want us to take him literally as well as seriously. For an excellent bill of particulars, see this piece by Radley Balko.
But both sides do it . . .
Libertarians and classical liberals claim to be strong supporters of basic liberties and the rule of law – conditions that are always at risk, and that are most secure in representative democracies. Yet many downplay the threat that Donald Trump poses to democracy and freedom, or they acknowledge that Trump is a threat but engage in “both sides do it” excuse-making for Trump.
I can’t easily prove to you that libertarians downplay Trump’s authoritarianism. Many of them mention it occasionally, and there is no accepted standard for how many warnings about Trump’s authoritarianism are appropriate under present circumstances, and exactly how urgent these warnings should be. If you doubt my claim that libertarians downplay Trump’s authoritarianism, you can look at some of my previous posts on this issue, or you can scroll through libertarian websites and decide for yourself.
But I can give you many examples of libertarians downplaying Trump’s authoritarianism by claiming that “both sides do it”.
Here Donald Boudreaux links to a WSJ piece on “the left’s war on the rule of law.” Here he links to a WSJ piece acknowledging that Trump disregards the rule of law but asserting that “Joe Biden is no better”. Another piece by Boudreaux:
. . . The leading populist on the right, of course, is Trump. And his ring is now being kissed by many supplicants who, I assume, pant for the prospect of exercising some of the power that he’ll obtain if he’s re-elected to the presidency.
But populists prominently populate also the left. Biden rules as one, and Congress has no shortage of ‘progressive’ populists to assist him in his appalling disregard of both the rule of law and the laws of economics. While I have my own opinion about what ‘should’ be the outcome of the depressing likely rematch of Biden vs. Trump, I recognize that reasonable classical liberals can (and do) disagree over this matter. I feel as though it’s again 2016 and American voters once more face the choice of being garroted or burned alive.
In this post Boudreaux appears to suggest that Biden is preferable to Trump, but this conclusion rests on highly contestable Rube Goldberg reasoning: electing Trump would lead to a backlash against Republicans and thus ultimately to the adoption of more “left-wing policies”. If a right-wing reader finds this reasoning doubtful, the lesson is clear: vote for Trump to get the tax cuts and deregulation.
Is Biden really as bad as Trump?
Of course, it is possible that Biden is just as bad as Trump from the point of view of preserving democracy, the rule of law, and basic rights. But what exactly has Biden done that constitutes a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law?
Let’s take a look at some examples that George Will claims show that Biden is an “authoritarian recidivist”, in columns cited approvingly by Boudreaux.
One purported outrage cited by Will is the fact that Julie Su, who was previously confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Labor, is now serving as Acting Secretary of Labor despite not being confirmed by the Senate for that role. I have not researched this issue carefully, but according to this legal opinion by the GAO, Su’s position as Acting Secretary is proper because federal law provides that the Deputy Labor Secretary will perform the duties of the Secretary until a successor is in place. This opinion seems plausible on its face. Of course, there is a lot of partisan sniping over Su because of her policy positions, and it is conceivable that the Supreme Court could disagree with the Biden administration’s interpretation of the relevant statutes or even hold that these statutes violate the constitution. But this hardly shows contempt for the rule of law, much less a penchant for authoritarian rule equivalent to Trump’s. Struggling with a dysfunctional Congress over appointments is not the same thing as, say, fomenting election violence or using the Department of Justice to target your political opponents.
Will also points to the vaccine mandate and student debt relief proposals of the Biden administration as evidence of Biden’s recidivist authoritarianism. This dog won’t hunt; it won’t even drag its sorry ass out of bed. It is true that both the vaccine mandate and the debt cancelation plan were struck down by the Supreme Court. However, the bare fact that the Supreme Court struck down these administrative actions, standing alone, does not provide any reason to think that the administration was acting illegally, unless you also believe that 1) the Supreme Court is infallible at legal interpretation, so that its ruling definitively establishes that the administration’s position is wrong on the merits, and 2) that the meaning of our constitution and the relevant statutes is so clear that the administration must have known – before the Supreme Court weighed in – that its positions were illegal. Both of these claims are preposterous: legal interpretation is far from an exact science, and the Supreme Court is far from infallible. Will may believe that the Court reached the correct decision in these cases, but that does not show that the administration’s position in either case was unreasonable, much less that the administration acted in a deliberately illegal or unconstitutional manner.
(After the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s debt relief plan, the administration has continued to look for ways to get relief to some deserving borrowers. The WSJ claims that the Biden administration is defying the Court, just like Andrew Jackson (but unlike Trump). This would indeed raise serious questions about the administration’s commitment to the rule of law, if it were true, but . . . it’s not true. The administration is acting under different statutory authority.)
In short, these charges of authoritarianism against Biden are just a Gish Gallop of nonsense, false equivalence on steroids. And certainly none of the executive branch wrongdoing alleged in these cases is remotely equivalent to what Trump did on January 6, 2021, or to his threat to weaponize the justice department or take revenge on his political opponents.
Why it matters . . .
The failure of libertarian thinkers to clearly and repeatedly warn of the threat that Trump poses to democracy is unfortunate because some of their followers are undoubtedly struggling to decide if they should support Trump to achieve their right-wing economic policy goals, or if they should support Biden to protect American democracy. If it turns out that Biden is just as big a threat to democracy as Trump is, then this becomes an easy choice: go for the tax cuts and deregulation.
The refusal of libertarians and classical liberals to speak up is especially troubling because many of them work for think tanks that are supported by politically active Republican billionaires whose money may play a decisive role in a close election. Presumably these very rich libertarians have some respect for the opinions of people who work for the think tanks that they fund. We know that some of these billionaires are troubled by Trump’s behavior. Peter Theil has decided to sit out the election. The Koch network has so far backed Nikki Haley, and it is unclear if Koch will ultimately support Trump, Biden, or simply focus on state and congressional races. Perhaps Theil, Koch, and others can be persuaded to support Biden. Or at least they can be persuaded to withhold support from Trump.
It is time for libertarians and classical liberals to speak up.
Trump’s Tax Cut Fueled Investment but Did Not Pay for Itself, Study Finds
NY Times – just in
On the other hand, here’s an interesting assertion.
Libertarians elected Biden
The Hill – Nov 28, 2021
(By not voting for Trump. If Libertarians had voted for Trump in 2020, instead of their own candidate, he would have won. Or so it it is asserted, in a slightly muddled way.)
first
the objections that Biden is “too” defying the law are so trivial they…well they tell you someting about the intelligence of libertarians in general and George Will. but we have known that for a long time.
on the other hand, george and the libertarians may be smarter than you think: they have always been republicans playing on the Libertarian fantasy of “free forever to do just what i want with no one to stop me.”
now, i like that idea fine, for me but not for you.
which is why i don’t understand the author of this post saying “it’s time for libertarians and classic liberals to speak up.” actually it’s time for libertarians and classical liberals to grow up. as if.
I’ve put up several invisible comments about L*i*b*e*r*t*a*r*i*a*n*s casting votes for their own candidate and thus helping to get Biden the win back in 2020.
i am sure that was not their intent. but if they are afraid of Trump they are smarter than i thought.
Meanwhile we appear to have “progressives” who will not vote for Biden because he is too old. or fighting Russia. or supporting Israel. They may not be smarter than I thought.
Republicans smoking pot
Y’know the absolute immunity gambit stems from the GOP notion of the Unitary Executive, which was promulgated during Geo Bush Jr’s presidency.
Unitary Executive theory
It’s said to be in the Constitution. Presidents are immune from prosecution for anything they do, but they can be impeached, by the House, and if convicted by the Senate, then justice is done.
@Fred,
I don’t see any logical connection between Article II and the absolute immunity claim of Trump. Article II refers specifically to the executive power of the president, it doesn’t say that every act the president performs is ipso facto an exercise of constitutional executive power.
Of course, the Constitution only means what the SCOTUS says it means, which, as we have seen, is a moving target.
But the Unitary Executive theory is exactly on rock solid ground, either:
“Is the unitary executive theory sound? In addition to pointing to the text of Article II, jurists and scholars who promote the theory make historical and functional arguments. They often cite Federalist No. 70, in which Alexander Hamilton pointed to “unity” of the Executive as a key to achieving the “energy in the Executive” needed for government to operate effectively.
“Yet Federalist 70 can take us only so far. For one thing, Hamilton favored a stronger executive branch than did virtually any of the Constitution’s other framers. A more balanced picture comes into focus if one examines a wider range of views.
“Moreover, even Hamilton did not believe in the unitary executive theory. As Treasury Secretary, Hamilton proposed, Congress enacted, and President George Washington signed legislation creating what we would now call an independent agency (the Sinking Fund Commission) with authority to purchase federal debt. As Professor Christine Chabot observes in a 2020 law review article, its “independent structure marks a deliberate and important decision not to entrust a single elected President with absolute control over the execution of federal laws.””
https://verdict.justia.com/2023/06/19/the-misguided-unitary-executive-theory-gains-ground
apparently George Washington did not believe in the unitary executive theory. which is why he is the father of our country. i think the Framers xpected the executive to have no other power than enfocing the laws made by Congress. As things evolved that proved to be impractical too. or as Ben Franklin said, ” …a republic if you can keep it.”
The Constitution seems to be kind of sketchy in too many places.
As for Geo Washington, it seems that the idea of the Unitary Executive doesn’t seemed to have appeared until 2008. (I could be wrong about that.) But those who favor it these days (like Trump) would have us believe that everything he does was covered, and the theory says that the only punishment available is impeachment. That doesn’t work on Trump.
In any case, SCOTUS seems to accept the notion that the events of Jan 6, 2021 were while Trump was still president, and so his activities that day were therefore official. And his 2nd impeachment, where he again escaped conviction by the Senate, happened a month later.
Dobbs
exactly, the unitary executive idea did not appear until bush-cheney, so wahshington could not have believed in it. because it’s not in the constitution.
as for sketchy…that’s the whole point. you cannot…not even I can..think of everything. so the Constitution left a few things out, but they were smart enough to include a few elastic clauses, we need to be smart enough to use them for situations they could not have foreseen, or even if they did, doesn’tmean they got it right. as it turns out amending the constitution is too late when the insurrection has already happened. nevr was all that good at getting done when the need arose.
Sure, except we have reached a point in our history where it is impossible to modify the Constitution to correct what now seem to be faults. Mainly because those states with smaller populations have disproportionate power, in that they have two senators no matter how small, and intend to keep it that way. For a related reason they have extra electoral votes, but that only gives them extra power in presidential elections – so, no big deal there.
Sure, the founders allowed for Amendments, right away even, but also created a system that now does not permit change, by empowering small states.
“but that only gives them extra power in presidential elections – so, no big deal there.”
So you think it’s no big deal if Trump wins in 2024?
Dick Cheney was a big fan, all the way back to the Nixon administration
“If Donald Trump returns to the White House, he plans years of sweeping change.
He wants to fire swaths of civil servants and replace them with his political appointees. He aims to round up and deport millions of undocumented immigrants. He has floated using the Department of Justice to take down political opponents. He has threatened to encourage Russia to invade NATO members that don’t spend enough on defence. He is reportedly mulling further anti-abortion measures.”
““It’s difficult to find any candidates anywhere in the world after World War Two who have been so open about their authoritarian plans,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist and co-author of the book How Democracies Die. “He had authoritarian instincts in his first term but no plan. This time, he’s read the playbook.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-donald-trump-republican-nomination-biden/
This is the real story and if one reads the article it reveals the shocking truth of the rest of his plan which most people are missing.
Prior to Trump, it was perhaps a quaint assumption that basically all federal officials were honorable people, with consiences.
You could say that that Nixon was so ashamed by Watergate & what it did to his standing with the people of this country, Dems & GOP alike, left him no choice but to resign. Probably with an understanding that he would be pardoned. That’s honorable, more or less.
You can’t say that about Trump.
Dobbs
yes. i have been thinking something similar. I think Ike was the last President with character. Even Nixon had something like character. but a look at the Congress today shws no sign of character whatsoever, and in some cases either flagrant insanity or damned liars.
Eisenhower was a protege of Douglas MacArthur, and clearly surpassed him in military expertise. Ike allowed that it was very difficult to serve under MacArthur, as he did for many years.
MacArthur, who was eventually fired by Truman over Korea, who had desperately wanted to become president, would perhaps have been much like Trump.
https://www.ausa.org/articles/eisenhower-and-macarthur-toil-trouble-and-turbulence-philippines
Nixon’s mother was a Quaker. That would have embued him with something like character.
‘Hannah Elizabeth Milhous Nixon was the mother of U.S. president Richard Nixon. … (who) described his mother as “a Quaker saint”.’ – Wikipedia
Trump’s Conquest of the Republican Party Matters to Every American
NY Times editorial – this morning
On a Bright Night for His Campaign, Trump Again Conjures a Dark Vision
NY Times – last night, late
Biden releases statement following Super Tuesday wins
Trump gave a dark, rambling rant after his Super Tuesday wins.
MSNBC broadcast much of it, and left their panel disturbed.
Biden put out a confident, uplifting statement.
Nikki Haley is expected to withdraw this morning, though winning Vermont.
Nikki Haley suspends presidential bid, clearing path for Donald Trump
Boston Globe – 2 hours ago
Republican voters embrace a disgrace in Trump
Boston Globe – this morning
Liz Cheney announces her latest plan to keep Trump out of White House
Abe Lincoln was the first GOP president. Perhaps Donald Trump will already have been the last.