Let me start by dodging the NAP-violating rotten tomatoes. I have, as of a few days ago, officially joined the Trump campaign. It was probably somewhat inevitable. I had grown to like him and boost him on my own page in the waning days of Scott Walkers campaign. However, I wanted to see how polls panned out after Walker left and the second debate settled in. It soon became clear that Trump was not going to be sunk. And now, three to four months into his lead, there really isnt any case for any other candidate at this point. He clearly is not a one month wonder; he IS the front runner. Who can pose a challenge to him? Jeb Bush was the frontrunner, but hes sunk into obscurity. No one else has their stuff together, as much as Carly Fiorina boosters claim otherwise.

For some reason, Trump really infuriates libertarians. Almost everyone I talk to really really is frustrated and unnerved by him and his rise. Even Rand Paul lost his cool a few times after the first debate, which led to him getting smacked around a bit in the second.  He tried desperately to pull down Trump, and just slipped and fell himself. It took me awhile to figure out why this feeling is so prevalent, but I think Ive figured it out. Libertarians have struggled for years to present logical arguments and win minds and elections, at least within the Republican Party, and gotten nowhere. Meanwhile, a guy who wined and dined with Democrats for the past decade and a half, abused every privilege in the book afforded by the government, and has said some things that arent conservative, let alone libertarian, has suddenly risen to the top of the polls just by saying some words and getting on TV. Libertarians feel that they deserve better: at least some support, but even after Ron Paul was at 20-25% in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2012, thats all gone now.

The feeling that one deserves better regardless of what the market of ideas rules sounds amusingly unlibertarian, something you hear more on the left. Intellectuals (as libertarians are) often find themselves frustrated that logic does not carry with most people. I dare say that even libertarians are strongly subject to emotional plays, and not logic. The thing is that even what seems an appeal to emotion does have a certain logic to it. We live in a system that has a welfare state and elections to divide resources. Considering that, it would be prudent to seal the borders against those who vote for welfare and against liberty. But, many libertarians sacrifice all that and say that open borders are more important. Most people rightly see this as insane, so libertarianism never takes off because it has no self-defense mechanism and it has no way to sustain itself. Its too pure and dry and cold. People want something live and active. Just compare chanting “End the Fed!” at a Ron Paul rally vs the blah demeanor of Rand (Does Rand even have any mantras? Stand with Rand?) and you can see why one was more successful than the other.

I still have not made the case for Trump, and I have my own personal reasons for supporting him, namely the immigration issue, but also I like his leadership demeanor. We need what some parts of the internet would call “the alpha male”. We also need an alternative to the very dangerous and concerning cult of Putin. In any case, libertarians, just months ago, were ridiculously wishing for a Bush vs Clinton matchup in the absurd hopes that it would make everyone so antigovernment that they would all go home and Google Ron Paul. I said at the time that this was like saying Jews and everyone should vote for Hitler because that would show how bad antisemitism and government could be. Six plus twelve million dead be damned. Now, those same libertarians dont see a similar opportunity with Trump. Trump is such a troll and an absurd candidate that if anyone has the potential to show the problems with the institution of government, its him. I dont really believe that he would be a monumental clusterfuck, but the case can be made considering opinions of him.

More seriously speaking, his plans regarding immigration WOULD safeguard liberty more than any other candidate. Yes, there is nothing wrong with building a fence and millions of landscapers and farmers from socialist countries who have more children than you do not make strengthen liberty. Yes, they often have little internal agorist communities, but they still use up your tax money and dont invite you to their party. Additionally, while I havent read it, Ive heard his tax plan is more libertarian than Rand Pauls, at least if you arent a hedge fund manager. No, he does not support socialist universal healthcare; he said at the first debate that it should be a private system with regulations reduced. He has yet to offer a policy paper on this issue, but his others havent really disappointed.

Most importantly, the president does not really set policy; Congress does. Congress negotiated and passed Obamacare. Obama actually took a literal hands off approach, which he was criticized for on both sides. The President just signs bills, appoints officials, and executes law. In fact, he doesnt really do that either. His appointees do more, and even they dont do much. The bureaucracy is where the real power lies, and that is what should scare almost everyone. This vast unelected, unchanging machine that remains while public faces come and go. Trump is probably the one who could do something about this, restructuring Washington, because he owes nothing to anyone and makes his own rules. He also isnt afraid to fire people.

The President does not really do anything at all except represent the nation, and Trump would do a lot better at that than almost anyone else. This is why Jeffrey Tucker is more popular than the dry Nigel Ashford. Tucker is more animated and interesting despite being a social justice warrior and other discomforting things. Humans want to be led and not led by a stiff, yes, even libertarians want to be led. Unless you hate America, which I know some libertarians do, and they are fools, you want us to be represented well and respected.

I know I have previously made vague and bizarre endorsements of other candidates that dont seem libertarian at all, but the case can be made for each example. We are not going to get ideal candidates for the presidency ever. It will probably be abolished as a post before then. Now, I am not saying go out and vote if you are a nonvoter. By all means, continue to do so. If you are open to campaigning, then this may be the one for you. In the end, its mostly like rooting for a sports team: whatever you do, it wont affect the result. But you can still get enjoyment out of it and feel a part of a winning team. Is this empty logic? Absolutely, but we need reasons to live and things to fill our day.

As for those upset about Rand, he is young and deserves to remain in the Senate. 2020 and 2024 will be opportunities for him. Just the same, Walker will be back again. Trump aside, the Republican Party has a practice of waiting in line for each candidate to have a turn. McCain lost in 2000 and came back in 2008. Romney lost in 2008 and came back in 2012. If Ron Paul were a bit younger, he might actually have a chance this time. For now, its time to get used to hearing about President Trump and the Trump Administration. It probably wont be so bad, considering the alternatives.