
The intersection of white nationalism, the alt-right and the libertarianism - iamjeff
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/02/where-did-donald-trump-get-his-racialized-rhetoric-from-libertarians/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.c0577b53a113
======
todd8
This opinion piece is a political attack on Trump. It attempts to denigrate
modern libertarianism based on an article published 40 years ago in the
magazine Reason. The connection goes something like: 40 years ago an
antisemitic article appeared in an issue of Reason, therefore Reason magazine
is bad, therefore ideas espoused now in Reason magazine are bad, therefore
readers of Reason are bad, therefore libertarians are bad, therefore Trump's
libertarian leaning supporters are bad, therefore Trump is bad.

It seems to me, that when you slice the country in half politically, there
will be a large number of bad actors in each half. Dividing it up into a few
more pieces by considering the green party, the libertarians, etc. won't
completely eliminate sizable numbers of unpleasant people in each group.

It probably makes more sense to look at two things, the current Libertarian
Party platform [1] and compare that to the actual meaning of Fascism [2]. They
aren't the same thing.

[1] [https://www.lp.org/platform](https://www.lp.org/platform)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
You might be interested in a Libertarian take on some of the same history:

[http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/04/where-did-trump-
come-f...](http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/04/where-did-trump-come-from)

------
ZeroGravitas
As someone with a degree in economics, I've always had a soft spot for some of
the Libertarian ideas. Which makes me sad that they so often get abused and
co-opted.

I worry that it's appeal to young, white, single men is somewhat self-
reinforcing and has the potential to lead any political party based on its
principals rapidly to fascism.

Turns out, based on the history presented here, that my worry may have already
come to pass.

~~~
internaut
ZG, is it actually possible to represent that demographic segment you
mentioned: young, white, male, without it being called dangerously proto-
fascist or extremist?

~~~
r00fus
Sure, what is required is for the constituency to actually be inclusive of
those not in the in-group.

Examples like [1], combined with a lack of interest by the candidate or his
followers in correcting the situation make historical analogies seem
prescient.

Compare/contrast with other candidates' responses. Eg: Obama.

[1] [http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/12/donald-
trump-r...](http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/12/donald-trump-rally-
violence-vstan-orig-cws.cnn)

~~~
internaut
> Sure, what is required is for the constituency to actually be inclusive of
> those not in the in-group.

That does not make sense.

Seriously how is this not doublethink?

There exist no political groups representing interests outside of the
political group, it is a straight contradiction in terms.

> Examples like [1], combined with a lack of interest by the candidate or his
> followers in correcting the situation make historical analogies seem
> prescient.

These characters and the things they say are the obsessions of the media and I
don't share their enthusiasm.

Nothing they say or do in ten, twenty years has any substance. It is demotic
theatrics that distract us from anything that actually matters. Like how we're
continuing to plateau economically or the dire need of our government
institutions to be reformed.

------
trendia
What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters,
or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-
topic.

~~~
iamjeff
I concede that this is the sort of material that would probably garner
coverage on TV news channels. Frankly, I am unsure whether that is a good
thing or not. However, I find it quite fascinating.

I am far removed from what is happening in the 2016 USA presidential
elections. As someone that has seen first-hand the politics of
fear/hate/identity/class that has come to characterize this year’s campaigns,
I can relate to some of the rhetoric (to mean that I have heard similar
tangents, although in a more unsavory, vitriolic, and outright murderous
tone). But that really is not the point behind my submission of this story.

There is a clear disdain among the HN folk regarding the submission of
political stories due to the inherent risk of attracting trolls and eliciting
comment wars- this is supposed to be a civil community and, in my experience,
this continues to be the case. Indeed, as a young unlearned African man with a
libertarian streak- and one that has previously encountered this association
between racial and libertarian rhetoric, implicit and otherwise- I felt that
this may be the best community to have this sort of conversation. Does the
libertarian movement still provide refuge to the racialized aspirations of the
white supremacists and the alt-right? Are there points of convergence? Is the
marriage between the iconic libertarian Peter Thiel and the divisive Donald
Trump emblematic of this convergence?

I am in the formative stages of forming my own political identity and a
conversation along this line can benefit me greatly (and HN has, perhaps, some
of the most qualified people to weigh in on the matter). In fact, a lot of my
posts mirror my own developmental process as an individual, an aspiring
software programmer and entrepreneur, and an active member of my local civic
community (also, I love gathering information and I reckon that HN
conversations are the bee’s knees).

No malice was intended by submitting this post (as a long-time lurker here, I
deeply respect HN’s sense of community), but I totally understand if that is
how the submission came across.

~~~
trendia
Didn't want to imply that posting this was malicious!

However, there are several aspects of politics that make "logical debate"
rather difficult. The biggest aspect is that there is a LOT of money spent in
political campaigns to misrepresent the opponent. (I'm not talking just
Presidential politics but also state and local). Articles are not written to
be _factually correct_ but rather to influence your perception, whether that
be by fear or by disgust.

In addition, all sides of political debate are not equally represented. For
many subjects (e.g. fracking), there is much more money on one side of the
debate than the other. P.R. firms are able to put talking heads on television
with ease. The news organizations benefit because they are able to fill up the
24/7 news cycle, and the private interests benefit because they can push their
views that earn them money.

Most important, you will never see a private interest provide the _actual_
reason that they want something done. For instance, in the case of fracking,
they will not say, "Fracking is good because that's where I get my paycheck."
Instead, they will say, "My opponent says fracking causes earthquakes but this
is anti-science and a conspiracy theory." or "If fracking is eliminated, then
many jobs will be lost."

And this type of rhetoric only grows as the elections come closer. The posted
article _may_ be factually correct in some aspects, but it's actual purpose is
_not_ to educate you, nor to provide you with an improved sense of the world.
It is designed to influence your vote and to associate libertarianism with the
evils of the day.

Notice how they never bring up that libertarianism is inherently anti-war,
pro-drug-legalization or pro-immigration. If their goal was to improve your
worldview, that would be important information. Instead, they avoid it, so
they can taint your view of libertarianism.

And that's called a hit piece.

~~~
iamjeff
Yes, this has been my experience of American media coverage of political
stories: so many news organizations have ideological or political goals that I
have come to expect biased reporting. This problem is especially problematic
(in my opinion) in America where large sums are spent and entire (political,
financial, and personal) fortunes hinged on the ability to successfully convey
a (biased) message (Of course, special mention goes out to Russia, China &
Co., but I would argue that the problem there is largely one of state
propaganda). Here in Kenya, these problems are of a different nature: there
are no popular ideological camps or political narratives. Our politics are
personality and ethnic-driven. Only recently have American evangelical
organizations begun to polarize public sentiment and journalism around issues
such gay rights and abortion. In addition, the moneyed interests of the
private sector have deployed relatively large war chests with the purpose of
controlling media organizations and their messaging, especially to convince
the electorate that next year's general elections are apocalyptic. On a side
note, in many respects, the rhetoric of this year's American election (while
having, for example, real consequences for relations between minority
communities and government services such as policing) pales in comparison to
the impact of negative rhetoric in countries such as mine (often, all it takes
to ignite physical confrontations is inflammatory content; sadly, people here
go all in on these sort of things) which is why I have a burning desire to
find something that I can relate to.

Libertarianism's pro-immigration was my first point of contact and was
immediately endearing. I identify with minorities that suffer as a result of
racist nativism. However, I am still a little confused as to why exactly
libertarians are still unable to shake off the accusation of racism [0]. These
accusations can make this ideology seem rather unpalatable: I really need to
understand. Pointers?

[0] This from Salon.com (I know, not exactly neutral arbiters, but still...)
"Libertarianism is for white men: The ugly truth about the right’s favorite
movement"
([http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/why_libertarianism_is_so_pop...](http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/why_libertarianism_is_so_popular_on_the_right_its_the_last_bastion_of_white_male_dominance/))

Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?
([http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-
gary-...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-
taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/))

What is the libertarian view on racism? ([https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-
libertarian-view-on-racism](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-libertarian-
view-on-racism))

Question: Why do most libertarians seem racist?
([https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/3hi5...](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/3hi5nc/question_why_do_most_libertarians_seem_racist/))

~~~
trendia
Honestly, the perception of libertarianism as inherently racist is, to me,
more of a useful political tool than reality.

I have a hard time understanding reconciling that perceived view with actual
libertarian perceptions.

(And of course, racists are present in _all_ political parties.)

