Say It Ain't So Joe: the LvMI's Joe Salerno Now Pumping Trump

[fcreature]

1. They could believe that Rand is no longer a viable candidate because of his botched campaign. Trump is second best of the GOP candidates, so with Rand out (by their reckoning), the support flows to him
2. They could be looking at the bigger picture. Irrespective of who may be the better Libertarian candidate for President, there is no question Trump is taking a stronger stand in fighting Political Correctness and they may view that as a far more important battle in the long run than who happens to occupy the White House for the next 4 years.
3. They could genuinely believe that Trump is better on the issues. He's clearly better than Rand on immigration. He's been more forceful in his anti-war rhetoric. Their tax plans are basically the same. Rand's only clear advantage is in the area of Civil Liberties.

If they honestly believe any of the 3 possibilities you've outlined above, then they certainly qualify for points both a and b

(a) They're idiots
(b) They no longer believe in libertarianism

 

[erowe1]

When people like Lew cheer on Trump, it's not about policy. It's because they hate the Republican party, and rightly so.

For them actually to back a candidate, that candidate would have to be Ron Paul's equal, which Rand isn't.

 

[fcreature]

When people like Lew cheer on Trump, it's not about policy. It's because they hate the Republican party, and rightly so..

I hope that isn't the case because it is incredibly naive. Trump is quite possibly more dangerous to the Republic than all the other candidates and for them to show any level of support for him is a disservice to our movement.

Are you saying that they are part of that subset that believe the country needs to be destroyed first before liberty can prevail? If they are, you can count me out of that.

 

[Krugminator2]

3. They could genuinely believe that Trump is better on the issues. He's clearly better than Rand on immigration. He's been more forceful in his anti-war rhetoric. Their tax plans are basically the same. Rand's only clear advantage is in the area of Civil Liberties.

Trump is a European style socialist. Rand is a defender of free enterprise These people are supposed to be upholding the ideas of Ludwig Von Mises, not Noam Chomsky. He attacks Paul Ryan for his budgets and his daring to even touch entitlements, among the 50 other things that he is terrible on.

It is laughable saying he is more forceful on the war issue. And immigration? What???? Here is what Ludwig Von Mises said about immigration "There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor."

 

[Cutlerzzz]

I just wish the Mises Institute would rename itself "Some 21st century Rothbardians Institute".

 

[Brandywine]

It's really starting to annoy me that those like Woods, who I do love and who I think has a great show, seem to be so outrageously disappointed that Rand wasn't perfect, that they have decided to ignore his existence. I have heard sentences like this one on Wood's show, where they say something to the effect of "not one of the candidates... etc" and it always is something that Rand has always been about but they just pretend he isn't there. Just because he isn't all they dreamed of, they completely ignore the fact he is by far the most limited government libertarian option up there. If he wasn't a Paul, and their expectations weren't so high to begin with, they'd be loving him.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

It's really starting to annoy me that those like Woods, who I do love and who I think has a great show, seem to be so outrageously disappointed that Rand wasn't perfect, that they have decided to ignore his existence. I have heard sentences like this one on Wood's show, where they say something to the effect of "not one of the candidates... etc" and it always is something that Rand has always been about but they just pretend he isn't there. Just because he isn't all they dreamed of, they completely ignore the fact he is by far the most limited government libertarian option up there. If he wasn't a Paul, and their expectations weren't so high to begin with, they'd be loving him.

Would it help Rand to have them pumping and promoting him? Would that be a boon to him and his strategy? I rather think it wouldn't.

Look, Rand has chosen his strategy, and it does not involve having controversial people endorse him. He is not going to go on the Alex Jones Show or the Tom Woods Show. Lew Rockwell blogging about how great he is would be the last thing that his strategy would call for. That would be totally uncalled-for, totally unwanted. He'd then have to disavow them, and hope that people would buy the disavowal, which they wouldn't. He'd be stained. It would be like Stormfront endorsing him. Tom Woods is an anarchist. He was a member of League of the South. He has episodes about how poor people are (gasp) largely responsible for their own problems, how Section 8 is lousy and destructive, how Social Security should be repealed, even about how Alcoholics Anonymous is a scam. There's something to offend everyone! You want Rand to be saddled with all of that? He sure doesn't. He made his choice.

We all want to think that Rand really agrees with us a lot more than he lets on, and that he is playing some hyper-brilliant, hyper-complex game of 10-dimensional chess. OK, fine. So just think of the lack of support from radical (kooky!) libertarians as part of that 10-dimensional chess strategy. Maybe he and Lew and Tom all got together beforehand and he got them to agree to pretend to be against him. Now I don't think that really happened, but the end result is the same. Public support from anti-government extremists (Alex Jones), outright anarchists (Tom Woods, Joe Salerno), and people who can be smeared as racist (the Southern Avenger, and actually every single one of these guys) is simply NOT part of Rand's game plan. He doesn't need that. He doesn't want that.