Monday, May 23, 2016

Government Interventionism Created Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Richard Ebeling emails:

Dear Bob,

I have a new article on the Future of Freedom Foundation website on, “Government Interventionism Created Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.”

This year’s American presidential election cycle has caused confusion and concern that the choice the country faces is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. How could the voting electorate in both major political parties have selected these two individuals as their nominees?

Yet, both are the product of one common denominator: the interventionist-welfare state. The “insider” Democratic Party political machine has rigged the nomination process to ward off a revolt from the more radical left offered by Bernie Sanders. Hillary epitomizes the “ideal type” of the perfect candidate using rhetoric and changing policy proposals to be all things to all interest groups to assure that the regulatory and redistributive political elite in Washington can retain and gain more power. Hillary captures the essence of the unprincipled power luster to lead the “establishment” Democratic Party plunderers.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, represents the “outsider” who is at the same time the master “insider” who knows how the political game is played. He promises revenge for all those conservative Republicans who feel betrayed by their party establishment elite who played them for suckers by using them for power to follow their own side of the Washington plunder game. And at the same time, Trump says he will fulfill the gab bag of inconsistent and contradictory promises of less government without having to cut the big government redistributive programs that many in the conservative electorate say they hate but in fact do not want to lose, either.

The end result is that regardless of which of these two candidates ends up in the White House the interventionist-welfare state will continue to prevail, and the classical liberal ideal of individual liberty, free markets, and constitutionally limited government is likely to recede further in the rearview mirror of the political process.



  1. Great piece by Ebeling; the section on the desire of a "strongman" reminds me of something an anarchist said to me awhile back; "Socialism's most guaranteed achievement is creating fascist movements that promise to "fend" them off"

  2. Richard is on-point, as always.