Reason’s Nick Gillespie – Is Trump Bad for Libertarianism?

 

Nick GillespieWhen it comes to tackling regulations (Title 9, Obamacare, small business, etc.) Trump has many Libertarians applauding. So why does Reason’s Nick Gillespie suggest Trump may be bad for the Libertarian cause? Nick is currently the Contributing Editor of Reason.com and the Editor-in-Chief at Reason.tv, the home of Free Minds and Free Markets. We discuss entitlements, Libertarianism as a governing body, limited government in the age of Trump and much more. You can (and should) find Nick on Twitter and Facebook. Special thanks to virtuoso pianist Hyperion Knight for his beautiful background music taped at the Freedom Fest Convention at the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas, NV.

Please subscribe to Whiskey Politics at YouTube and our audio podcasts at iTunesStitcher or GooglePlay where your 5-star rating would be appreciated! (iTunes especially!) In: Little Green Bag, George Baker Selection. Out: Everybody Wants to Rule the World, Tears for Fears. Produced by Praemonitus Communications, pictures by Thompson Clicks Photos.

There are 11 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Nick Gillespie is bad for libertarianism. His constant drum beat against the war against murdering Muslims helped obama get elected.  His pacifism, which was never part of libertarianism, was overwrought and usually put forward with trite arguments and misunderstood facts.

    Libertarianism is dead.  We’re now fighting for return of basic rights, and people with Nick destroyed any hope of advancing libertarianism, with the exception of pot being quasi legal in a few states.

    • #1
  2. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    I love Nick Gillespie even when I disagree with him. Really looking forward to this.

    • #2
  3. ZStone Inactive
    ZStone
    @ZStone

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I love Nick Gillespie even when I disagree with him. Really looking forward to this.

    Likewise. He finishes a close second behind our own Peter Robinson for my favorite interviewer.

    Skyler (View Comment):
    Nick Gillespie is bad for libertarianism. His constant drum beat against the war against murdering Muslims helped obama get elected. His pacifism, which was never part of libertarianism, was overwrought and usually put forward with trite arguments and misunderstood facts.

    I’m not 100% on board re: pacifism and libertarianism, however, I do think Gillespie et al are a useful counterweight to the Bill Kristol/AEI wing of the political right, who in general have never found a country they didn’t feel like bombing.

    Furthermore, whatever disagreements you may have with him, I think the Nick Gillespies and Kennedys of the world do a good job of getting the whippersnappers off of their video doo dads and faceboxes and thinking about politics. If your biggest complaint re: Gillespie is that he’s too dovish, then he’s really not so bad. Attributing any great responsibility for ’08 and ’12 gives short shrift to the fatal flaw in those campaigns—the candidates were BAD.

    • #3
  4. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Worthy talk.  Good man.

    • #4
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    ZStone (View Comment):
    If your biggest complaint re: Gillespie is that he’s too dovish, then he’s really not so bad.

    That’s the easy complaint against him.  My biggest complaint is that he rarely knows what he’s talking about, especially regarding the military.

    • #5
  6. Dave Sussman Contributor
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    ZStone (View Comment):
    Attributing any great responsibility for ’08 and ’12 gives short shrift to the fatal flaw in those campaigns—the candidates were BAD.

    Agreed, but not as bad as the Obama campaign was good at leveraging irrational and emotional/fear-based motivations ensuring their voters got off the couch… and the Left knows this. So, watch for Kamala Harris in 2020 or 2024 as the single issue demographic/identity vote is all they had, and will ever have.

    • #6
  7. ZStone Inactive
    ZStone
    @ZStone

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    So, watch for Kamala Harris in 2020 or 2024 as the single issue demographic/identity vote is all they had, and will ever have.

    She wants it so bad it hurts. She and Corey Booker may have to settle this in a no holds barred cage match. For what it’s worth, I think BLM has really changed the public’s view of identity politics. My impression is that that strategy just doesn’t have the same impact in 2017 as it did in 2008 or 2012, maybe I’m wrong.

    Anyway, I’m looking forward to this episode!

    • #7
  8. Dave Sussman Contributor
    Dave Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I love Nick Gillespie even when I disagree with him. Really looking forward to this.

    Jamie, further to our discussion at Stonehaus, I’m interested in what you’ll think of Nicks perspective.

    • #8
  9. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I love Nick Gillespie even when I disagree with him. Really looking forward to this.

    Jamie, further to our discussion at Stonehaus, I’m interested in what you’ll think of Nicks perspective.

    Of course, I’ll get around to it tomorrow though I have to finish my Q2 tax returns.

    • #9
  10. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen
    @DuaneOyen

    ZStone (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I love Nick Gillespie even when I disagree with him. Really looking forward to this.

    Likewise. He finishes a close second behind our own Peter Robinson for my favorite interviewer.

    Skyler (View Comment):
    Nick Gillespie is bad for libertarianism. His constant drum beat against the war against murdering Muslims helped obama get elected. His pacifism, which was never part of libertarianism, was overwrought and usually put forward with trite arguments and misunderstood facts.

    I’m not 100% on board re: pacifism and libertarianism, however, I do think Gillespie et al are a useful counterweight to the Bill Kristol/AEI wing of the political right, who in general have never found a country they didn’t feel like bombing.

    Furthermore, whatever disagreements you may have with him, I think the Nick Gillespies and Kennedys of the world do a good job of getting the whippersnappers off of their video doo dads and faceboxes and thinking about politics. If your biggest complaint re: Gillespie is that he’s too dovish, then he’s really not so bad. Attributing any great responsibility for ’08 and ’12 gives short shrift to the fatal flaw in those campaigns—the candidates were BAD.

    I see this as a difference between people who are militantly isolationist versus those who think about issues, reality, and human beings as they are.  The Reason crowd is the first group (fortunately, they are as marginal as the wacko lefties are, though they are smarter and more rational, just belong in the world of Jean Auel rather than the 21st century where there are billions of living humans), and the “Bill Kristol/AEI” (boy, talk about an ignorant characterization) crowd is the second.

    • #10
  11. ZStone Inactive
    ZStone
    @ZStone

    Duane Oyen (View Comment):
    boy, talk about an ignorant characterization

    Hyperbole aside, you don’t think Kristol has been prominently hawkish? I know this is the standard characterization he gets, but I have honestly found it to be true. Perhaps you can correct me, but as far as I’m aware the neocon camp really is the interventionist wing of the right.

    • #11

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.