Author

About the Author
Nolan is a senior at North Carolina State University who is studying Political Science. He is a member of the Student Senate within NC State as he serves in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences delegation. During his free time he enjoys playing golf and reading about history, politics, and culture.

No, Libertarians and Liberals Won’t Team Up To Overthrow Trump

There has been talk as of late about the possibility of libertarians and liberals uniting to ‘take down’ President Trump.

How this coup d’état occurs in the material world I’m not quite sure, but it is nonetheless an intriguing question.

Both sides have numerous qualms with the Trump agenda, some of which overlap.

The tightening of the immigration system, the travel ban, and a belief in the existence of authoritarian tendencies point to a teaming up of the administration’s foes.

However, the differences outweigh the similarities and I am far from convinced these two will form a successful resistance.

Libertarians pride themselves on individualism, abiding by the U.S. Constitution’s prescripts, and cherishing free market capitalism.

They support minimal taxation (if any) for all individuals and aim for a general disengagement between the government and the private lives of the people.

This includes very few economic regulations, a reduction to the welfare state, and a refrain from unnecessary international entanglements.

No limits to your speech and no antiquated social restraints.

Within Libertarianism is a codified system of beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, that aim to reduce the state apparatus and maximize the liberty of an individual to live as they wish, without inflicting harm on others.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is often considered one of the leading libertarian voices in the country. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

An ideological line can be drawn straight from principle to policy.

Liberals, on the other hand, fail to present a systematic worldview which applies to the plethora of modern questions.

The most vocal left-of-center Americans have turned all of their attention to protesting whatever Trump does.

And as Trump doesn’t adhere to a concrete vision of government’s role in society, liberals follow him deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole.

They were aroused by the zeal of Bernie-sized federal authority, but tremble in the streets now that it has fallen in the hands of he who shouldn’t be mentioned (‘Calexit’ is the type of irony satirists have a field day over, as highlighted by Edward Morrissey in his piece, “California Has Lost Its Mind”).

Instead of formulating a legislative response to fight Trump’s immigration orders they demand a ‘turn-the-other-cheek’ approach to the law.

Even though changing immigration law is a monumental task, proposing such a change would be a more respectable reaction than the emotional response to border walls and ICE raids.

Apply this to another area of the law and it unfolds quickly.

We all want police officers to follow the law when carrying out search warrants or routine traffic stops.

In what universe would it be suitable for them to neglect the law?

By suggesting that we only follow some laws, the law-abiding argument no longer holds up.

On the constitution, liberals love to cite it when fighting Trump but too often refuse to accept its other necessities.

Staging a sit-in is the first amendment at its finest but allowing a conservative speaker on campus is a bridge too far.

Perhaps the point of greatest separation from libertarians is the way the American left thinks in term of group identity.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is a leading American liberal. Photo Credit: Nick Fisher/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

This collectivist mindset erodes the focus on the individual which is essential in libertarianism.

Ask your average liberal – millennial or not – and they will most likely describe our current state as a battle between the marginalized and the majority, a society divided among the oppressed and the oppressors.

You are Black, White, Latinx, Muslim, Evangelical, Straight, Gay, Cis or non-Cis, etc.

It’s not you who matters, it’s the group that matters.

This way of thinking appoints all of its resources towards the ‘common good’, a utilitarian goal but one that can easily lead to a starvation for freedom.

The individual becomes relegated to serfdom, pleading for liberties to the group or the state.

I have a hard time believing libertarians and liberals can unite for a common purpose to stop Trump.

Their missions are polar opposites, at times antithetical to the very existence of the other.

It is commonly thought that liberals and libertarians are very similar in their political leanings, but libertarians are simply more frugal with money.

This is a complete understatement of the fundamental differences by which these sides view the world and societal order.

Even if, hypothetically, these two did join forces to take down the President, there aren’t many avenues go down.

Impeachment would lead to Vice President Mike Pence stepping in, someone who libertarians and liberals aren’t too fond of either, or a 2020 defeat, which leaves four years minus a few months left for Trump in the White House.

Some fantasized outcome other than these, as unimaginable as I think it is, would require a serious rebuilding period with the victors sharing the spoils.

As the famous axiom of former Secretary of State Colin Powell (And Pottery Barn) goes, “if you break it, you own it”.

Libertarians and liberals would have a nation-sized divorce on their hands.

As they would try to divide up the assets, their quarrels would become insurmountable.

Unless the Senate Republicans buy into the theory that Trump is a Russian puppet, the Donald is here to stay.

RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.

Photo Credit: Ted Eytan/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The DNC Is In An Impossible Situation

On Feb. 25, the Democratic National Committee chose former Labor Secretary Tom Perez to lead the party into the disarrayed, foggy wilderness of modern American politics.

As the Bernie Sanders-backed candidate Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) was denied the position, the bifurcation of the mainstay liberal party continues.

The DNC is in an impossible situation.

They are pitted against two raging participants, both with heads angry and fierce, who have vastly different visions of the party moving forward.

Questions surrounding how to combat the efforts of President Trump and how to regain what the Democratic party has lost in recent decades, most notably the populace squeezed between the liberal coasts, is stoking the inner frustrations.

Left-ward bound are the progressives, closely aligned with the ‘social justice warrior’ mindset who are diligent activists that have shaped a lot of the dialogue of the past election.

Their strategy is defined by identity politics, safe spaces and trigger warnings.

Their goals are post-national and rabidly unpatriotic.

They have come to dominate what hordes of Americans see as modern day liberalism.

There are hints of anarchic chaos in this camp as well.

When we watched the Berkeley anti-fascist protesters erupt into violence at the very thought of Milo opening his mouth, very few of us imagined the existence of a master plan.

There was no commanding officer directing deployments, only low-level infantry grasping at whatever could become a flaming projectile.

There is, coincidentally, a Trump-like element to their anti-Trump beliefs.

What unites them is the ultimate desire to just burn the whole thing to the ground.

This group aims to wholeheartedly refuse to work with President Trump on anything, as that would be shaking the metaphorical hand of a genocidal, Hitlerian ruler whose only wish is to inflict harm on non-white persons from any and all nations. This strategy won’t go over well in dispatched corners of Trump country.

The progressives on the left are fed up with the Democratic establishment just like the pro-Trump movement is fed up with the Republican establishment.

They did find some success when Sen. Bernie Sanders sounded the horn of economic populism, a core message used by both sides during the campaign cycle.

New DNC chair Tom Perez has an impossibly tough job ahead. Photo Credit: Maryland GovPics/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

As he talked of the harmful trade deals and low wages, millions found him to be speaking their long-awaited mother tongue.

On the other hand, there is the establishment end of the party.

A moderate, less-rebellious brand of liberal politics with the expectation of some compromise with those on the other side.

Tom Perez falls squarely in this camp, as does Hillary Clinton and similar figureheads in Democratic politics.

If there was a section of the Democratic party that was to undergo a serious self-reflection as to why 2016 became the year for the GOP, it would be from this end.

That is a big if, but for disaffected areas that saw promise in Trump, a steadied working-class approach by level-headed Democrats would entice them more than Antifa protests or an extra dose of virtue signaling.

The establishment’s main problem is, well, the fact that they are the establishment.

The big money, shadowy donors, corporatist leanings, the hawkish Democrats who resemble neocons instead of war-weary liberals.

There is the perceived rigging of the 2016 nomination in favor of Clinton over Sanders and the inside baseball we all characterize as a symptom, or possibly the definition, of the Washington machine.

Ultimately, they lack the intoxicant of change – the most potent reason to overlook them in the ballot box.

Upholding the status quo doesn’t feed the hungry masses, it doesn’t put people in the seats, nor does it fire people up to ‘make history’, even if it is to elect the first female President of the United States.

This is why Perez and the DNC have a virtually impossible challenge to overcome.

They must choose one side over the other, and both are undoubtedly flawed.

Can Democrats compete in parking lots like these all over America again? Photo Credit: Jimmy Jim Jim Shabadoo/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

The division won’t naturally melt away.

The progressives can unite the young, the energetic, and the squadrons of protestors at a Trump hotel or a dance-off outside of Vice President Mike Pence’s house.

However, they struggle to connect with ‘fly-over’ country.

The people who are concerned with overspending at Wal-Mart, not the amount of gender identities recognized in the legal code.

To people outside of major cities and college campuses, the progressives are consumed with trivial anger and idealistic revolutions the world has tried over and over again.

The establishment of the Democratic Party can show that they aren’t identical to the social justice warrior type.

If they, for example, promote a pro-business campaign that isn’t completely anti-gun, they could compete in some of these rural areas, places where American flags fly high but Main Street is all but abandoned.

But doing that will alienate the anti-capitalist, anti-establishment thread running through the party.

They would lose the progressives to the Jill Stein’s of the world, only to be inevitably shut out of the power structure again.

Choose the progressives, you lose those within the margin of persuasion.

Choose the moderates, and the hatred of the elites may sweep them further away from elected office.

Republicans have factions erupting as well, but with controlling so much power their movement isn’t in the same state as the left.

I’m not a Democrat so I don’t have skin in this game.

However, I can acknowledge that Tom Perez has very little room to work with.

He must walk on the edge of a razor blade.

Every move he makes will infuriate half of his party and embolden the rest.

RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.

Photo Credit: Lars Plougmann/flickr (CC by-SA 2.0)

Cover Photo Credit: Kim Love/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

Don’t Expect A Realignment Of Politics. Expect Something Much More Dramatic

As everyone can see, the world has undoubtedly changed in the past year or so.

From the Trump victory to Brexit to the resilience of right-wing parties in Europe, there remains a certain level of chaos in the world order.

There seems to be an aura of the past which we will never regain, for better or worse.

A space in time so close in a textbook but eons away from the society we inhabit today.

These sweeping changes to the status quo leave many of us asking, what’s next?

Lying ahead there must be some fundamental shift away from the political alignment of years past; a transformation that will reset our society after the obliteration of previous norms.

I’m not going to pretend that I know what type of realignment we can expect, nor am I advocating for any or all of those below.

Nonetheless, here are a few which I see, at least partially, as possible.

The first is the battle between big government and small government.

After a fiery American election cycle and two hotly contested primary challenges, the Democratic and Republican parties have taken a beating.

With civil strife bludgeoning both establishments we may see a revolt against the major parties and a new system of simple ideological differences emerging- not the traditional party labels being the great divide.

The new reality could be a more principled approach to worldviews instead of the patchwork we see in the main parties today.

A poll conducted in May of 2016 shows that only 13%  Americans surveyed believe the two party system works, and 38% say it is “seriously broken”.

One would imagine a rise in those who consider themselves Independents would be in order if that many seem fed up with the current system.

On the contrary, according to Gallup poll results which accumulated over the course of 2016, registration among Independents is at a six-year low.

To further complicate this entanglement between and within both parties, Republicans and Democrats see this divide in vastly different ways, according to Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins who describe their investigation into this question in their book Asymmetric Politics: Ideology Republicans and Group Interest Democrats.

They wrote about their theory in the Washington Post: 

“…the Republican Party defines itself in ideological terms as the vehicle of symbolic conservatism. The Democratic Party, in contrast, is organized as a social group coalition”.

However, their research finds that even Republican voters who consider themselves as having strong conservative principles depart from such “orthodoxy” on specific policy questions.

A more obvious example of this is in their support for then-candidate Donald Trump, someone who strays from ideological consistency much of the time.

For me, I see no clear direction for the conventional two-party system except to continue on in the confusing and muddied path it’s on now.

To suggest that an ideological realignment is likely to occur here, at least in American politics, would be inappropriate at this time.

The next is the continuation of the divide between the elites and everyone else.

In Europe and in America, disenchantment and the desire to throw out those in power are moving full speed ahead.

Concerns over immigration, political correctness, cultural ambiguity, and long-term economic prosperity are major factors in this anti-establishment wave the western world is currently riding.

People, on a large scale, no longer believe those in charge are inherently better at their jobs than people from completely outside of that system.

Photo Credit: Beshef/flickr (CC BY 2.0).

In comes the torch to burn it all down: voting.

This would be a different conversation if the United Kingdom had remained in the European Union and both candidacies of Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump had inevitably failed.

That would have put a scare into the old order but their influence would have braved the storm.

But they didn’t.

The anti-establishment movement has gained real power.

It could fail miserably, or it could provide the footing for this anger to wipe out every remaining piece of the old system for the near future.

Insert the electoral chances of right-wing parties in France, Germany, and the Netherlands — to name a few — and Europe then makes the Trump revolution look like a dress rehearsal.

Now, elections could forever be won by who we think hates the elite most, not policy differences.

We may, as many of us already do, watch press briefings and tally not the legislation being announced but the number of coded messages sent to the holders of power in Washington, New York, Brussels, and Paris.

A candidate’s success may be determined by how many CEOs, seasoned politicians, TV anchors, and university professors are forced to face those who feel forgotten on bended knee. Those isolated and cold from globalization in the Bible Belt, Rust Belt, and Stoke-on-Trent.

Recent events have shown us just how disconnected these people are.

They all told us none of these political movements would get off the ground, and we have seen very few self-reflections once they all realized they had been fooled by the very people they were supposed to understand.

As a 21-year old, this was the first time I saw this strong of a vilification of the politics-as-usual attitude.

These exchanges could be typical every few years as elections and referendums come around.

But for me, I can’t imagine these frustrations going away.

The battle lines may have forever been redrawn.

The final is the chasm between multiculturalism and assimilation.

This is the most politically charged of the realignments I see possible.

Multiculturalism is the existence and preservation of distinct cultures within a community or society-at-large.

Assimilation, on the other hand, is the adaptation and conforming of different groups into a unified culture in a given community.

As different groups have become scrambled together in the modern world, people are trying to decide which of these they believe is best for society.

An interesting phenomenon I noticed through the election cycle was the proud flying of other nation’s flags on the streets of America.

If you were to watch a nominal protest of then-candidate Donald Trump you would have seen Mexican flags next to Cuban flags slightly behind Palestinian flags, all whose holders desire a more multicultural society.

The interior of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. It features great works of literature and art from all around the world, symbolizing America’s welcoming spirit. Photo Credit: m01229/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

Many view this as a beautiful sign of toleration.

However, many others view this as one more stratification of American society.

Instead of coalescing under one banner, we all have different ones that make us take yet another step away from our neighbors.

The situation in Europe is slightly different than the one in America.

As a steady flow of migrants and asylum seekers from terror-stricken, war-torn areas of Africa and the Middle East have continued throughout 2016, this question revolves around the rapid changes to European culture and identity.

As the majority of refugees flee Muslim-majority nations, some European governments have welcomed them.

However, many Europeans are pessimistic about these changes.

Pew Research can help us understand this.

In a survey of 9 out of 10 European nations, at least half of individuals believe that Muslims want to maintain a “distinct” culture and not integrate into the customs of their new European communities.

A separate report shows that a majority of Europeans surveyed believe refugees increase the likelihood of terrorism, and no more than 4 out of 10 citizens in any EU country feel an increase in diversity is good for their country, compared to 58% of Americans who think diversity makes the U.S. a better place to live.

In Greece and Italy, a majority of citizens feel more diversity makes their country worse off.

Issues such as gender equality, acceptance of homosexuality, and secularism are a few instances where the two cultures just do not see eye to eye.

Right-wing European parties have become the vehicle for these frustrations.

Marine Le Pen, the head of the French National Front Party, is leading in the polls (as of the time of my writing this) to win the first round of the French Presidential race.

She also has more support from those aged 18-34 than any other candidate in France, which may come as a surprise to many.

The central issues which run through these populist, right-wing parties are immigration and a distaste for international agreements that reduce national sovereignty.

Many are calling for a total shutdown of Muslim immigration, something that an average of 55% of Europeans surveyed agree with, and making a Brexit-like move from the EU or other foreign obligations.

The multicultural attitude Europe is known for is being challenged strongly on many fronts.

As popular movements are seemingly rejecting the openness the continent has historically praised, the concept of assimilation seems to be a dire turn many are hoping to see.

As hordes of people around the globe chant for multiculturalism, for the elimination of border walls and even, in some cases, for the abolition of sovereign states completely, there is a powerful camp that believes different cultural groups living together is an ideal scenario.

On the other hand, there are millions of individuals who see a lack of a unified culture as a ticking-time bomb for social strife. People who feel the palpable modifications to their culture too large of a pill to swallow.

This possible realignment would be ugly, it would be a knock-down drag-out brawl of the most nativist sort, but it is undoubtedly an element that drove many to the polls in recent history.

In the end, no one really knows what will arise from this grinder the western political system has been thrown in.

Anyone that suggests they know for a certainty should be viewed with some degree of skepticism.

The possibilities I have just laid out are merely avenues our society may take as we move forward.

And only one thing is certain, whether we like it or not- we will experience this together.

RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.

Cover Photo Credit: Lorie Shaull/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

 

Political Correctness Could Be Making Millennials More Conservative Than They Want To Be

On the Jan. 27 episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the eponymous host burst into a montage of situations where celebrities were forced to apologize for comments and actions which were viewed as being culturally insensitive.

He began by saying, “Republicans apologize for nothing, Democrats for everything. Can’t we find a balance?”.

Maher is absolutely right.

Political correctness has gone awry in America.

What was once believed to be an instrument to bring us all together, to blanket our society in expressions that brought the marginalized into the fold has only deepened the divide among liberals and conservatives.

It is also apparent that the 2016 election was the battlefield on which this separation raged on.

The main problem is the restriction on language that follows the insistence on political correctness, and college campuses have become its overwhelming stomping ground.

Political correctness places rules and procedures on the way we communicate, which is only to lead to a skewed and incomplete form of dialogue.

Currently, there are things that you can say, and things that you can’t.

Unfortunately, the things you can’t say haven’t been deemed incomprehensible through debate.

No, they have been shut out completely in an attempt to eradicate them forever.

Instead of having individuals discuss opposing opinions, one view tends to be accepted as fact and the other is pushed underground because the surface is now inhospitable to a civil disagreement.

If some views are incomprehensible, shouldn’t it be simple to defeat it in debate?

If so, why the need to stop the conversation instead of using it to prove the point?

We all know what some of these disavowed ideas are.

Have a not-so-liberal opinion on the transgender bathroom issue?

You’re transphobic.

Want a tightened immigration system?

Don’t talk to me you xenophobe.

Are you a big believer in capitalism?

It sucks that you hate working class people.

It’s a perfectly democratic notion to disagree with someone on political issues because the very nature of these questions show a lack of consensus.

Their elimination from civil discourse is tyrannical.

These responses, or ones with similar sentiments, have succeeded on campuses for a number of years.

However, I believe it has come back to haunt the liberal cause.

These politically correct attitudes have backed people into a corner and micromanaged them into submission.

This leaves them no political escape other than doing exactly what they were told not to do.

Photo Credit: Pug50/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

We have all done things simply because we were warned against them and, at times, we have all wanted to be the person that is completely rebellious to a status quo we don’t like.

We listen to music that asserts no remorse for their honest lyrics, we watch movies in which recalcitrant characters are respected, and we look up to individuals who never change their resistance even with the strongest of winds in their face.

Yet, you may not express a politically incorrect opinion because you were told not to.

It’s quite obvious why our generation is splitting at the seams.

I can’t even count the amount of people I know that have rejected many a liberal cause not because they disagree with it, but because the way they felt forced into the belief.

Political correctness has stripped the human element from conversation.

Our conversations have become robotic, mechanical, hierarchical, something relegated to you at the permission of someone else.

People do not give their honest opinion because we have branded those that disagree with us as bigots, or ideologues, or fascists, or mentally ill.

This is where the difference Maher referred to becomes relevant. The two major parties differ on this topic in vast ways.

Donald Trump, whether you love him or think of him as an evil ruler, is clearly the antithesis to a politically correct way of speaking.

Other Republicans aren’t very cozy with it either.

To many average college students, the Democrats demand an apology before they seek safety for your family, a truthful media, or accountable governance.

To a rather aloof millennial, they very well may see Democrats as the party of political correctness.

Some of these young people found solace in a candidate like Trump. Not because they like him or his policies or what he speaks of, but because they saw the majority of elected Democrats and those running for office as the enforcers of this PC mindset they are disgusted by. A mindset that is omnipresent and affects them on a daily basis.

This drug was initially meant to numb the pain of the oppressed, which is an effort worth respect.

Unfortunately, it has done serious damage to the language we use to express ourselves.

Language is the waterway on which humans explore the unknown; it’s the mechanism from which society breathes.

The greatest conversations about life, religion, politics and love occur when, in that moment, our words have no filter.

It’s just your free flowing thoughts and emotion that unleash the truth.

People love Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” because it’s raw and unflinching.

We read Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum est” because it is bold and shakes us to the core.

Honestly, how can you describe the horrors of the First World War while using a filter? You can’t.

The truth is ugly.

It stings, it’s chaotic, and at times makes us writhe.

But we won’t solve anything if we refuse to listen to other arguments.

It is how we find the truth.

Without it, who knows where it will lead.

For the time being, this is an issue met with warm applause and visceral condemnation, sending many into the ballot box aiming to remove it from their lives entirely.

RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.

Cover Photo Credit: Nicolas Raymond/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Scroll to top