Which of course totally misunderstands Cyrus. The biblical Cyrus is a model of morality and tolerance. His only sin was that he wasn’t Jewish, and even this wasn’t a sin because Jews don’t expect gentiles to be Jewish. Trump is the polar opposite, he claims to be Christian but acts entirely opposite to all of Christs teachings, exuding nothing but immorality and hatred.
ETA: Simulpost with Chronos.
Maybe Trump is like Miley Cyrus, in that he comes in like a wrecking ball?
I think Trump comes in like this.
Which is why it appeals to criminals, and not to victims.
Perhaps I haven’t read this thread carefully enough, but I wasn’t aware or had forgotten that the Libertarian Party was subjected to a successful hostile takeover by a group calling itself the Mises Caucus. Mass resignations followed. One of their first acts was to delete a nearly 50-year-old platform plank condemning bigotry as “irrational and repugnant.” They maintained that the Libertarian Party of 4 years ago was too woke. Now in power, they express anti-Semitism in pretty overt ways.
Donald Trump will be headline speaker at their upcoming convention.
Thanks for that link; I hadn’t heard about that at all. Wild stuff.
I wasn’t aware of this either but it completely fits with what I’ve seen happened to libertarians over there last decade, who almost to a man (and they are all men) have gone from “free thinking independents who aren’t tied to any party doctrine” to card carrying MAGAts.
Me either. Once upon a time I was very sympathetic to the Libertarian cause, and even gave support to a couple of their guys, but that was before all of that bullshit. I didn’t realize how bad things got over there.
I read about this group on their Wikipedia page:
From that description, it sounds like they make the Freedom Caucus look like moderates.
Also, regarding their chairwoman
McArdle is a noted Russophile, giving an op-ed to Newsweek claiming that Russian forces were not committing a genocide in Ukraine, retorting that Ukrainians are committing war crimes against the Russian population of the Donbas, as well as saying that the United States forced Russia, and Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.
Trump unsuccessfully tried to pack his speaking room with MAGA supporters, some apparently unaffiliated with the Libertarian Party (eg Young Republicans). So Trump gave his speech in front of a mixed crowd and was booed fairly relentlessly.
Meidastouch reports on the pandemonium. (13 min).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gkY1k-Fz0
Even allowing for selective picking of bad moments it looks like Trump had a rough time.
Six second version at Twitter-X:
https://x.com/BidensWins/status/1794533264473965033
Politico: ‘Panderer’: Libertarians jeer Trump at their convention.
In response, the Washington Hilton ballroom erupted in boos. Trump was met with a chant to “debate” Libertarian candidates, and every time Trump fans in the room tried to start a “We want Trump” chant, libertarians yelled “End the Fed,” referring to the Federal Reserve.
AP: “One person who held up a sign reading “No wannabe dictators!” was dragged away by security.”
Those for and against Trump even clashed over seating arrangements. About two hours before the former president’s arrival, Libertarian organizers asked Trump supporters in the crowd to vacate the first four rows. They wanted convention delegates — many of whom said they’d traveled from around the country and bought expensive tickets to the proceedings — could sit close enough to hear the speech.
Even though I’m a leftist, I did have some respect for libertarians in the past due to their views on social issues and opposition to the War on Terror. Libertarians today are nothing like them.
Perhaps another example of “I didn’t leave the Party; the Party left me.”
Seems to be the story of whatever the totalitarian Right touches.
I wonder where the “real” Libertarians went after the Mises crowd ran them out of their own party?
Libertarians today are nothing like they claimed to be back then. I wouldn’t take their old self-descriptions too seriously (especially their denials that they were not conservative), without some serious longitudinal studies. Conservatives today claim long time skepticism about the Iraq War after all.
Along the same lines, libertarians are a minuscule portion of the population so I can’t assume that they all phonies either. I’m saying that given the 180 degree flip in conservative stated belief in 2016, it would be wrong to take their words seriously, without evaluating behavior.
Finally, paleolibertarians of the 1990s have a lot of continuity with Trumpism, so that extremist fraction of a faction can be said to have stable beliefs, notwithstanding their long time barking about freedom.
Trump is nothing like he claims to be, either. They should get along swimmingly.
The 1990s were way too far along in the history of libertarianism to be described as “paleo,” regardless of what they choose to call that particular sect of themselves, the Libertarian Party of the United States was founded in 1971. But the Libertarians have always had problems with being what they actually described themselves as or thought of themselves as. Witness Libertarian claims of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism as being a core part of their beliefs. And what were Ayn’s feelings about Libertarians holding her up as their idol?
Of libertarians, Rand said:
They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers. […] Most of them are my enemies. […] I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given.[18]
In a 1981 interview, Rand described libertarians as “a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people” who “plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose”.[18]
Responding to a question about the Libertarian Party of the United States in 1976, Rand said:
The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and call themselves libertarians and run for office.
This of course hasn’t stopped Libertarians as claiming Rand as one of their own ever since, her utter disgust with everything they stood/stand for notwithstanding.
To be fair, Ayn Rand hated everybody. I don’t see why she’d make an exception for the libertarians.
Indeed, check out this essay from Michael Shermer.
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-unlikeliest-cult-in-history/
From Shermer’s essay:
The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics.
Objectivism shares the idea that final truths are attainable through reason, with Lyndon LaRouche’s followers and the Austrian School of Economics. The opposing philosophy is empiricism; the opposing practice is science. Karl Popper attacked anti-empiricism in The Open Society and Its Enemies.
Hell, Ayn Rand’s demand for a rational connection between tobacco smoking and cancer and scoffing at all the empirical evidence only to die of lung cancer is almost enough to prove there is an interventionist Creator who has a wicked sense of humor.
I mean, a lot of truths can be reached through reason. Just, not very many political truths.