Pro-Trump Libertarianism: An Explanation

[studiodekadent]

Well I haven't been here in over a year. Sorry, but the life of a PhD student can get busy (and I can get sidetracked with a lot of other things outside of the Objecto-sphere). But here's the latest article I've written; its an attempt to explain why some libertarians love Trump (and other libertarians hate him). Enjoy! Comments appreciated!

HOW TO EXPLAIN PRO-TRUMP LIBERTARIANS
The phenomenon of pro-Trump libertarianism is paradoxical; Trump certainly has only modest-at-best credentials from a small-government viewpoint and his embrace of nationalism has many worried that Trump represents a collectivist ethnonationalism rather than an individualism-compatible civic nationalism. How can we explain why some libertarians have embraced Trump?

First, we need to define what being "pro-Trump" constitutes; many people in US elections (including many ideological libertarians) vote on a "lesser of two evils" basis. Is reluctant "better than Hillary" support sufficient to constitute an embrace? 

Perhaps it does and perhaps it doesn't, but I'd rather focus on the "why." Why would a libertarian vote for a law-and-order protectionist big-spender candidate? Indeed, libertarians were strongly polarized by Trump with those who didn't embrace him loudly denouncing him; if ideology and policy were the key factor that drove libertarian voting we'd have expected a relatively uniform libertarian consensus. Instead we ended up with polarized responses.

I am going to argue the following; Trump's embrace by some libertarians is not fundamentally about policy per se. Rather, the polarized reaction to Trump really speaks to a dichotomy between two different styles of libertarian activism and self-positioning; one style of libertarian activism is centered around trying to build the presence of libertarian ideas within the powerful instutions of culture, media and the academy. Libertarians who pursue this strategy will often identify with these institutions, and whilst critical of the flaws of these institutions will approach fixing these flaws in a reformist fashion. We can call these people "libertarian mainstreamers" - those who believe that libertarian activism should be pursued through building a presence at the commanding heights of the cultural mainstream.

The other style of libertarian activism rejects the viability of building a mainstream presence; this style of libertarian activism generally sees the mainstream media and universities as so corrupt and dishonest that they are impossible to reform or even infiltrate. Libertarians who pursue this strategy believe that the universities and media are simply too entrenched with anti-liberty ideas; furthermore, many libertarians of this kind believe that the mainstream person is hostile to libertarian beliefs (due to either indoctrination or fear of freedom or Rational Irrationality). As such, trying to persuade the CNNs, BBCs, Harvards and Stanfords of this world that libertarian ideas represent a serious and compelling body of theory is a waste of time. Libertarians of this kind generally disidentify with the mainstream media and the academy and believe that these institutions cannot be reformed, but rather must be transformed or destroyed or circumvented and undermined. We can call these people "libertarian iconoclasts" - those who believe that libertarian activism should focus on attacking and discrediting institutions with entrenched unlibertarian biases, and replacing these institutions with competing ones.

Trump is not a libertarian but I would wager those libertarians who embraced Trump embrace libertarian iconoclasm; Trump was a vote against Political Correctness, against the prejudices of the progressive left, a rejection of the entire set of cultural norms and preferences that are both held by the kinds of people that disproportionately dominate most media and practiced daily on elite college campuses. In short, Trump is a symbolic attack against the commanding heights of our culture; an attack against the mainstream media, an attack on the academy, an attack on norms and practices seen as emblematic of these institutions. Those libertarians who embrace Trump, in other words, supported him as at attack on the cultural elite.

This is not the same thing as Populism vs. Elitism per se; libertarian ideas are not necessarily populist (although they are anti-elitist, which could be thought of as a 'soft' populism) and relatively consistent libertarianism is rare amongst the population (even though most people have a few libertarian sympathies). Nor is it necessarily anti-intellectualism; most libertarians see themselves as intellectuals and studies of IQ have shown that people holding classically liberal beliefs have higher IQ relative to those who hold left-liberal, progressive, or socially conservative beliefs. Rather, it is more of a rebuke to the reigning intelligentsia - those intellectuals whom control the powerful institutions within our culture - from members of an outsider intelligentsia that believe they are cheated, that the game is rigged, and that the progress of liberty can only be achieved through the demolition of corrupt institutions. 

THE LIBERTARIAN MAINSTREAMERS
Whilst some on the Reason Magazine comment sections like to call these people "Cosmotarians," libertarian mainstreamers are following a very traditional libertarian strategy that almost all libertarian organizations participate in to some degree; education and the dissemination of information. The goal for libertarian mainstreamers is for the libertarian perspective to become an accepted and established perspective within mainstream cultural institutions (this is distinct from the goal of seeing this perspective become part of mainstream culture per se). In short, this is the reformist, persuasion-based view which sees the mainstream media and the academy, and the audiences and students thereof, as reachable through reason. Reason Magazine is part of this group, as is the Niskanen Center, and to various extents Cato and the "Kochtopus" generally. 

An important feature of the libertarian mainstreamers is that their distaste for Trump is often partially due to his brashness, his coarseness, his ineloquence, his tacky hotels and bling-centric personal style, his general lack of refinement. These are cultural sympathies shared with the mainstream media and academy which mainstreamers identify with and are attempting to reform. In short, these libertarians (and yes, they are indeed libertarians) have embraced the cultural norms of the reigning intelligentsia in order to integrate with them (often Reason comment sections derisively describe this in terms of "fitting in at DC cocktail parties"). These libertarian mainstreamers are seeking access to the commanding heights of our culture; this presupposes a belief that access to these commanding heights is fairly open to anyone whom can make a compelling argument, and that access is not regulated in a biased fashion.

THE LIBERTARIAN ICONOCLASTS
Alternative Media, Wikileaks and such may not be always libertarian (although Julian Assange himself is), but they are contributing to the cause of libertarian iconoclasm. Libertarian iconoclasts reject the mainstreamers as being far too optimistic and argue that the mainstream media and the academy is beyond mere reform and needs to be replaced. Because they have no interest in integrating into the social milieu of mainstream media types or academics, they do not need to conform to those cultural norms; that said in practice they're more likely to be mocking, gleefully transgressing and criticizing said norms. 

The central proposition of the libertarian iconoclasts is that the most powerful cultural institutions are not merely biased but beyond reform and act systematically to exclude libertarian ideas and perspectives. Even if libertarians produced a perfect argument for their ideals, it would be silenced, ignored or strawmanned.

This is not a new argument; Robert Nozick argued that intellectuals are inherently biased against free market classical liberalism due to its lack of rewarding their talents to the extent intellectuals believe they are worthy. Adam Smith pointed out that rulers are going to be hostile to any advice which lessens their power; surely this explains the affinity of intellectuals for ideologies which let them become philosopher-kings. Public Choice Theory would advise us to expect that public universities are unlikely to embrace ideologies which advocate less public universities, and that public broadcasters are probably going to act similarly. Cato founder and Public Choice theorist Bill Niskanen pointed out how bureaucrats would always seek more power, more prestige, more money. Economist Bryan Caplan points out that people gain pleasure from having their view of the world confirmed and displeasure from having that view challenged; everyone is prone to "rational irrationality" where the costs of being wrong are outweighed by the joys of confirmation bias. Not to mention the fact that people are prone to self-serving beliefs in general. 

These people are not merely free from the cultural milieu surrounding our culture's hallowed institutions; these people hold that milieu in contempt (for its systematic intellectual dishonesty) and mock, criticize and spite that milieu. They gleefully break its rules and conventions; they offend its sensibilities with relish. This is both an act of defiance as well as a form of critique and activism; transgressing these norms deligitimizes these norms.

THE NORMS OF THE REIGNING INTELLIGENTSIA
The reigning intelligentsia are not merely professors (and not all professors are part of this reigning intelligentsia). They are journalists at mainstream publications, they are people with influence over cultural norms, they are those whom are (paraphrasing Hayek) second-hand dealers in ideas. In effect, these are people with platforms and people with influence on large numbers of others. 

In general, the reigning intelligentsia embraces third wave feminism and intersectional social justice ideology, both of which power a set of social norms known as political correctness. In culture, the reigning intelligentsia promotes a specific set of ideas as to what is cool/uncool, what is tasteful/tacky, what is polite/rude (this in particular overlaps with social justice ideology) and what is sophisticated/crude. These norms cover aesthetics and social protocols as well as political beliefs.

Trump offends practically every single one of these norms. Instead of carefully-crafted media-friendly calculatedly-inoffensive spin (sometimes equated with political correctness), he speaks carelessly, bluntly and in easily-uncharitably-interpreted ways; to the reigning intelligentsia this is evidence of crudeness, oppressiveness and stupidity, but to others it is evidence of honesty, authenticity and directness. His hotels are a rapper's idea of opulent; to the reigning intelligentsia this conveys a lack of taste and refinement, but to others it conveys a populist idea of luxury that is opulent in a way that lacks pretentiousness or elitism. He is willing to say things about PC-favored-groups which are sometimes easy to (mis?)interpret as racist; the reigning intelligentsia thinks this proves he plans on having death camps, but to other people it comes off as willing to say the hard things that other politicians won't tell you. All of this ultimately conveys that Trump is not part of the reigning intelligentsia, that he disregards those norms, that he fundamentally is not like them. 

When Trump criticizes the mainstream media (a media which has been proven not merely biased, but actively collaborating with one particular side, by Wikileaks), publications like Reason Magazine will take this as evidence of a threat to press freedom. This demonstrates how Reason writers identify with the MSM they one day wish to join; a libertarian iconoclast would say this wish is for the impossible and that Trump is criticizing not the press in principle, but the actually-existing press that coordinates with the Clinton campaign. And after all, Trump's criticism of CNN doesn't criticize Wikileaks, and Wikileaks are indisputably engaging in the activity of journalism. 

And thus, a libertarian iconoclast will be willing to at least tolerate Trump; the Giant Douche may indeed be the enema that Washington, the MSM and the academy are sorely in need of. He is the antithesis - ideologically and socially and aesthetically - to the reigning intelligentsia. He's the necessary antibiotics, the man likely to smash political correctness and the progressive-biased MSM. He may have an immense number of flaws, but essential medications can have negative side effects. And if the American body politic gets a terrible case of diarrhea, its a small price to pay to kill off the insanities of postmodernist academics, the unquestionable corruption of the Fourth Estate, the pretentious trash of hipsterism, the eternally-growing civil service and basically to every single subculture and institution which has fortified itself against libertarian thought. 

CONCLUSION
There are many rational reasons to be critical of Trump, and many rational reasons to think he will do at least some positive things. I do not write this in order to claim any particular position on Trump is "correct" from a libertarian perspective; my personal opinion is that this election was indeed Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich and that reasonable people can have different perspectives over which evil was the lesser one. Nor am I attempting to claim any particular type of libertarian is the "right" one; as I see it, we need both mainstreamers and iconoclasts, and that whilst there are some individuals in the MSM and the academy whom can be reached there is also substantial corruption too. In a post-Podesta-Emails world, no one can deny there is at least some legitimacy to the iconoclast case, but in a world where Jeffrey Miron can be a professor at Harvard there is at least some hope for some people at the commanding heights. This article is not about which is right or wrong; the issue is how libertarian activists relate to culturally powerful institutions. Pro-Trump libertarianism seems to be a manifestation of a desire to demolish them, whereas anti-Trump libertarianism seems focused on reforming them.

On a personal note, whilst I am ambivalent towards Trump, events like the Podesta Emails and protests against "oppressive" Halloween costumes at Yale make me immensely sympathetic to libertarian iconoclasm (not to mention my own personal cultural preferences render me outside the mainstream); there are reasons to think that the universities are beyond saving, that most academics will perpetually hold a grudge against liberty, that government bureaucrats will never accept that their departments are unnecessary, that most reporters have no desire to question their own political biases or put truth above the narrative. We Objectivists have been victims of attacks from the cultural elite as well; Ayn Rand herself and her ideas have consistently been the victim of media smear campaigns. The academy has, for the most part, gatekept against her ideas.

Libertarians are polarized on Trump; if policy were the driving factor behind reactions to Trump then you'd expect libertarians to have a more unified response. This leads me to argue it is not policy which is driving libertarian opinions toward Trump but rather Trump's positioning as an anti-establishment figure. Libertarians who aim for Libertarian integration into the establishment thus see Trump as counterproductive at best (and a dangerous threat at worst). Libertarians who believe the mainstream is a lost cause will be more likely to have a positive view of Trump, at the very least for "enemy of my enemy" reasons.