Friday, April 1, 2011

President Trump? Such a Bad Idea...


First, some Objectivist-minded people get all hot and bothered for Chris Christie as a presidential nominee, and now, Donald Trump?

From a thread at Objectivist Living: "President Trump? Maybe Not Such a Bad Idea"


Some "choice" quotes:


"He is far from perfect, but he is saying some things that no one else is saying--and doing so with eloquence and Reaganesque tenacity."


"He sounded very serious when I heard him on Hannity in January. He has two big plusses, personality and name recognition, and that he is not a middle of the road RINO like that bastard Romney."


"AND he has name recognition among libertarians..."


Cheesus H. Christ...I'm wondering how they would rationalize away this:


"We must have universal health care. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
"Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs."
-Donald Trump, July 2, 2002


Well, at least the site's owner has some sense about all this:


Trump is a mixed premises kind of pragmatist with a tough-guy charisma who leans in favor of business. I believe he would work out pretty well as a President if the recent President's are used as a standard. But I'm not comfortable with him. He plays the system too much. For instance, for him, bankruptcy is a business tool to be used like, say, issuing stock. Give a guy like that power where he isn't ruled by the bottom line and the temptations become like crack cocaine to an addict.

If only Rand's stance towards conservatives were taken more seriously, but no; on another thread, there are those who believe that the Right will get behind the upcoming Atlas Shrugged movie, and change their ways, leading this well-deserved smackdown from Jeff Riggenbach:
"Oh, yes, oh, yes, indeed. Nothing could be more important that getting a bunch of statists who shout libertarian slogans during election campaigns to get behind the Atlas Shrugged movie. What would we do without the invaluable contribution of these contemptible statists?"

It's not as if Rand didn't address all this in her "Anatomy of Compromise," but whatever, right? We've got to be practical, and pragmatic, and-oh, wait...These kinds of political compromises are what prompts Billy Beck to point out "just how abjectly useless Objectivism has been in this fight." Me, I call it "Uncle Tom" Objectivism.


Such endorsements of statist-would-be's just makes the Objectivist arguments for minarchy look like a joke. If politics is the solution, well, then, "make mine autarchy."

1 comment:

  1. I should add that, obviously, not everyone in the Objectivish communities out there endorses Trump, but the existence of the debate itself with them is bad enough. That said, I've come to expect this kind of nonsense from solopassion.com:

    WILL DONALD TRUMP BE THE NEXT RONALD REAGAN?"

    The person who started the thread goes on to say "that I don't know what his [Trump's] stated political views are, but at the moment you really need a president who is for cutting the deficit and regulation and will knock some heads together."


    Gee, wouldn't you think it a good idea to find out those stated views BEFORE you make such a claim? But then, Reagan wasn't the next Reagan, either, was he?

    ReplyDelete