The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Cato Institute President Peter Goettler on Why Trump is no Libertarian
He also explains how the same is true of the current leadership of the Libertarian Party.

In a recent Washington Post op ed, Cato Institute President Peter Goettler (the head of the nation's leading libertarian think tank) explains why Donald Trump is no libertarian. Much of this should be obvious, but many people (including some libertarians) tend to ignore it:
It will be the first time in U.S. history that a presidential candidate of a rival party will address the convention of a party that is presumably gathering to nominate its own candidate. And this strange turn of events has many libertarians scratching their heads…
[T]he list of Trump policies and postures that libertarians oppose is long and dangerous. He allowed government spending and debt to continue to spiral upward, increasing the national debt by $8.4 trillion. Federal outlays soared from $4 trillion his first year (2017) to $6.8 trillion in his last year. He persists in railing against immigration and free trade, supports further expansion of presidential power and seeks to crack down on political enemies….
Of course, both the Republican and Democratic parties share an addiction to executive power. And neither is above using extralegal means to accomplish policy objectives, as demonstrated by President Biden's brazen efforts to cancel student loan debt. And, of course, the supreme example is the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021, a tragic event that celebrated a total disregard for the peaceful transfer of power and constitutional order. Libertarians know that the Constitution and the rule of law are essential elements in keeping government power constrained.
This list of Trump's anti-libertarian policies could easily be extended. For example, he advocates imposing the death penalty on drug dealers, and wants to transform the War on Drugs into a real war by attacking Mexico. Few issues define libertarianism so clearly as opposition to the War on Drugs.
As Goettler also points out, the current leadership of the Libertarian Party (which invited Trump to address their convention) isn't libertarian, either:
[T]oday's party leadership has been taken over by a faction that places it well outside the bounds of libertarianism altogether and appears comfortable with right-wing authoritarianism. Some tweets issued from state libertarian parties and other libertarian operators can only be described as shockingly racist or antisemitic — the Libertarian Party of Michigan, for instance, posted a cartoon portraying Jews as puppet masters of the Democratic and Republican parties — and would be more welcome on the alt-right than among true libertarians.
This situation arose because in 2022, the Party was taken over by the right-wing populist "Mises Caucus," which effectively exploited flaws in party rules. Many members and donors have fled the party since then, bringing it to its weakest state in decades.
The Libertarian Party has never represented more than a minority of American libertarians. Many stayed away because of factional ideological disputes or because they believed third party politics is likely to be ineffective in an electoral system heavily tilted towards the two major parties. I myself was skeptical of the LP for a combination of both those reasons. But the right-wing populist takeover has alienated the Party from most of the broader libertarian community far more than was ever the case previously.
I don't agree with every point in Goettler's article. For example, I think he is probably overoptimistic about trends in public opinion. While it is moving in a more libertarian direction on some issues, the opposite is true on many others. I also do not believe libertarians should support a broad reduction in the nation's involvement in "foreign affairs." Doing so would, I think, increase the influence of authoritarian states like China and Russia, thereby actually weakening prospects for liberty in much of the world. This is a longstanding divergence between my views and that of many other libertarians.
Be that as it may, Goettler does an excellent job of outlining Trump's flaws and those of the current Libertarian Party leadership. Neither deserves the support of people with any genuine commitment to liberty.
NOTE: As my bio at this site states, I am the Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, as well as a professor at George Mason University. If readers believe I am biased in favor of Peter Goettler's views because of this connection, they are welcome to do so. But everything said above is consistent with views I have expressed for many years, including long before I became the Simon Chair at Cato in late 2022.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
To my observation, many American so-called libertarians are better described as asymmetrical libertarians - favouring libertarianism for themselves but quite content to impose authoritarian policies on "those people" and others. Hence they are happy to support Trump.
Sadly, this seems to be too true. Far too many people believe their own liberty should supersede the liberty of others.
It's scarcely shocking that Trump isn't a Libertarian, since he HAS been elected President at least once, and America hasn't had any libertarian Presidents at all.
Nor is it any news to anybody who had been paying attention that he's not a libertarian.
"But the right-wing populist takeover has alienated the Party from most of the broader libertarian community far more than was ever the case previously."
I suspect it would be more accurate to say that it has alienated the Party from the left-libertarian community. Just as the prior leadership were alienating it from the right-libertarian community, which didn't bother you, because, guess which community you're a member of?
As you note, the LP represents a tiny fraction of the American political universe, and a much smaller fraction than it was before we imported tens of millions of people from countries far less libertarian than our own, fueling our nation's evolution away from any libertarian tendencies it had.
This means that the only hope the LP has of influence on the actual government anymore is allying with winning politicians who aren't Libertarians. Policies you approve of brought us to this, have the decency to remember that.
This "right-libertarian" community you're speaking of is almost indistinguishable from the MAGA community. I'm "right-libertarian", and MAGA does not represent me in almost any way.
I guess this true as far as it goes, but has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
That’s not a rhetorical question. While Trump supporters have made any number of delusional claims about him, I don’t recall seeing this one before.
I think some have fallen into the seductive trap he punches the other side enjoyably hard, to hell with whatever he does or believes.
Not that a massive cabal with innumerable initiatives to legally get a political opponent before an election knows anything about that.
Whee! America, fuck yeah!
Actually, what I like about him is that he mostly leaves me alone. (Aside from a massive number of fund raising emails that go straight to my spam folder.) He didn't try to kill American energy production, he didn't try to outlaw ICE cars, he didn't send pallet loads of cash to enemy states, he didn't go on a crusade against private gun ownership, he didn't flood the country with millions of illegal aliens or illegally try to put me on the hook for other people's student loans. He just didn't do a lot of things I disapprove of.
He did indeed do some things I disapprove of, which he has in common with every guy elected President ever. But he nailed the key "don't"s.
It's a very imperfect world, I don't get the chance to vote for people I actually like very often, and never where they have a chance of winning. But voting for people who aren't out to ruin my life is kinda refreshing, even if it's not the same thing.
So your argument is Trump may not be a libertarian, but when it comes to you personally he'll not do anything that constrains your plans.
"He's pro-freedom because I'm one of the ones that the one that the law protects and does not restrain!"
The worst libertarian.
It's profoundly conserative though, protecting his comfortable, priveleged niche, and he believes dysfunction and incompetence and an openly venal and corrupt populist politician is what will protect him best, while flattering himself that this is the same thing as 'governing least.'
My comfortable niche is most of the country. And it’s not ‘privileged’ by any sane definition of privilege. Not having the government trying hard to make your life worse isn’t privilege, everybody should get to enjoy it.
My comfortable niche is most of the country.
Not based on your income, education level, or economic politics!
Tbf to Brett, it is a near certainty that anything he’s said about any of those topics is bullshit.
Only if you think people like you count as 'most of the country' and everyone else doesn't.
'Not having the government trying hard to make your life worse isn’t privilege'
Unless it's rounding people up and putting them in camps and passing laws aganst trangender people and talking away abortion rights, and possibly contraception. Also you unequivocally support the most violent and costly and unaccountable civil arm of government enforcement - the cops.
My comfortable niche is most of the country.
Even if this were true, that's still a lot of people who you're willing to throw to the wolves in order to protect your own comfortable niche.
To be a true Somin Libertarian, you have to be in favor of building a housing complex in your residential neighborhood, loading it up with illegal aliens, and making excuses when they rape your daughter.
Right, Trump is not a Libertarian.
Somin's is whitewashing Goettler's article: the thesis of the latter was not that Trump is not a libertarian (that was just the major part of his evidence), but that the Libertarian Party is not libertarian. Which is a bit more controversial than Somin's headline would indicate.
Being pro-homelessness as a policy is an odd choice.
No libertarian would oppose someone building a housing complex in their neighborhood on their property with their money. Libertarians respect property rights.
Generally, libertarians would like to see the US return its immigration policies to the first 100 years of its history -- when there was no immigration requirement.
No libertarian would defend the violation of a person's body, as its their property.
The Libertarian Party convention committee invited Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Robert Kennedy Jr. to speak at its convention. This is admittedly without precedent, and is not immune to fair criticism. It is not fair criticism, though, to ignore the invitations to Biden (who declined) and Kennedy (who accepted and will also be speaking). Omitting that, and telling the reader only that Trump had been invited, is at best a half-truth, at worst misleading.
I have been unable to point out that half-truth on Goettler's WaPo article, or on David Boaz's promo of it on the Cato site. So I will have to thank Reason, as always, for allowing free comment.
For those interested, I later wrote this up on my blog:
https://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.com/2024/05/cato-ceo-says-libertarian-party-no.html
Somin didn't claim that.
Where is this claim in Goettler's article?
Somin didn't claim *what*? Where is *what* claim in Somin's article? What are you asking about?
In case you do not want to read this silly article about Libertarianism in an anti-Libertarian newspaper (Wash. Post), here are the enumerated issues.
free speech (Trump much better than Biden)
tax cuts (Trump favored, Biden opposed)
foreign policy (Trump much better)
federal spending (Trump bad, Biden worse)
abuse of power (Biden tried to cancel student debt)
jail political enemies (Biden is doing this, Trump did not)
war on drugs (about the same)
Jewish issues (?)
immigration (LP view depends on whether you belong to the Mises Caucus)
trade (Biden has maintained Trump's policies)
Never mind that your evaluations are terrible, how did "Jewish issues" end up in there? What does that even mean?
The article said: "the Libertarian Party of Michigan, for instance, posted a cartoon portraying Jews as puppet masters of the Democratic and Republican parties".
That was an example of them being terrible people, it wasn't part of the evaluation criteria for them being good libertarians.
I couldn’t help but noticing that cracking down on political enemies came last on the list, after deficit spending, tarriffs, etc.
The priorities this suggests strike me as rather interesting. It suggests that for the right economic and tax policies, a few concentration camps and secret police here and there can be overlooked.
Uh, no sh^t? Who ever said he was Libertarian?
Do the words, "the most libertarian president ever!" ring a bell?
"I also do believe libertarians should support a broad reduction in the nation's involvement in 'foreign affairs.' Doing so would, I think, increase the influence of authoritarian states like China and Russia, thereby actually weakening prospects for liberty in much of the world. This is a longstanding divergence between my views and that of many other libertarians."
Not sure I follow this. Why would libertarians want to increase China and Russia's influence and weaken prospects for liberty?
Either they have since edited the article to supply the missing "not", or you have misquoted it...
I'm no Libertarian either. I did start out that way in the late 70s, but not much past that. While there are some good points to Libertarianism, it's not THE answer. Nor is any political party THE answer.
Maturity should produce radical concepts, such as, compromising to reason and reasonableness, whatever those are. There is no one-size-fits-all political mantra precisely because people are different - no shit.
However, compromising is a good way to proceed, and it does require maturity, and it does require responsibility - these factors are and have been absent from any society to date. A new page is needed for the next chapter in humanity's continuing struggle for survival. Until some sort of rational compromising is realized between people, between what is wanted and what can be obtained to where the results satisfy all, in a reasonable fashion, there will not be improvement nor peace.
Such is one way verses that which has come before. So, a question could be "More of the same, Or not ?" So far the maturity level has been rather flat in all of these past and modern day economic / political systems. None are good for anyone's future.
Competition is good, but can be over done.
re: Trump is no libertarian because "[h]e persists in railing against immigration..."
Bullshit.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2006/12/libertarianism-one-country-john-derbyshire/
You ever stop to check out the authors you're quoting? lmao
You ever stop complaining that somebody linked to someone you disagree with?
"White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group."
Ed links to VDARE and Derbyshire. Both white nationalist sources.
Yes, that's something to be pointed out and shamed!!
And no, it's not something for you to defend with 'well, racial equality is just your opinion, man."
Playing the Derbyshire card?
Somebody needs to have "The Talk" with you
Frank
"but I don’t see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.”"
Seems empirically true, just as a matter of history. It didn't have to be that way.
If you’re Eurocentric, while at the same time ignoring huge chunks of European history, of course it is! It helped that while running their ‘fair and stable’ societies they went around fucking up everyone else’s, for fun and profit. Since they are also responsible for two of the worst tyrannies in human history, and the worst crimes against humanity in human history, I’d say the conclusion is flawed, at best.
But of course, if you suggest that slavery in the US and a lot of what followed was done by and for the benefit of white people, that's racist.
It is not empirically true, Brett! Colonialism and slavery are not fair and stable societies!
And then pointing to societies Europe fucked over and noting how unstable they are is also not a good take.
Scratch Brett, find a white nationalist. We are all shocked.
Well, I was shocked the first time you cited 'Camp of Saints' as prophetic about 5 years ago. Not so shocked now.
re: Trump is no libertarian because he "seeks to crack down on political enemies."
???
He was president for four years. Who did he "crack down on"?! Meanwhile, the guy he's running against is using the Justice Department as his personal hit-squad (against Trump and his associates). How come Mr. Goettler has nothing to say about that?!
It's an inter-faction fight in the LP. As noted above, there's no complaint about Biden or Kennedy being invited to speak, and are their libertarian credentials any better?
The LP made overtures to the left, unwisely, and got largely taken over by a left-wing faction. The Von Mises people rather impressively undid that, about the only case I know of the left's march through the institutions having a set back.
Somin is a left-libertiarian, so he doesn't like that.
I'll remind Somin that the most recent LP candidate for President said people MUST be "anti-racist". They also lionized an antifa member who was part of a mob surrounding a car and beating on it before the guy inside blessed the world and aerated his skull.
I'll remind you that what you are talking about is why the Mises Caucus took over the national party.
As they should have.
"They also lionized an antifa member who was part of a mob surrounding a car and beating on it before the guy inside blessed the world and aerated his skull."
Also known as the case where a gun owner exercising his 2nd Amendment rights and seeking only to protect others was murdered by a bloodthirsty racist who was convicted by a jury and then pardoned by a governor as a sop to other racists and their fellow travellers.
You remember, the multiple bullshit charges, trials, investigations, hearings Hillary Rodman had to endure.
He cracked down on the Clinton family. Or at least, he tried to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/us/politics/fbi-clinton-foundation.html
"the Libertarian Party of Michigan, for instance, posted a cartoon portraying Jews as puppet masters of the Democratic and Republican parties — and would be more welcome on the alt-right than among true libertarians."
The Left seems to have more of an issue with the hatred of Jewish folks than the Right. Far more of an issue.
Seems like it to you, maybe. That's a bad source to use.
It's a problem on both sides. One side is riven by this issue.
The right, though, is happy to ignore their problem and just keep looking to the left.
You know, like you just did here.
Seems like it to me also. Maybe peoples not in "the Tribe" shouldn't opine on "Tribal" ish-yews. Do we try to tell you WASP's when to wear Linen?
Frank
.
Yes, it is “a problem on both sides,” though I’d say it’s much more entrenched on the Left.
Does the Right ignore their problem? I sure don’t:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/02/thursday-open-thread-189/?comments=true#comment-10543756
(And I’ve seen plenty of other people on the Right denounce antisemitism on the Right.)
How do the literal followers of an extremist religion somehow become "left"? Religious extremists are about as right-wing as you can get!
Cato must be desperate for attention if they are spending time telling us that Trump isn't a libertarian. Shocking news, that.
I think I agree with Michael Malice in his view of what Cato has become.
The real question is "Is Trump more libertarian than Biden?"
Followed by "Was the USA more libertarian under Trump, or Biden?"
I would say that the USA was more libertarian under Trump, as we had more free speech, more right to use our own money, make our own medical decisions, etc. But to Somin and Cato who think that the Libertarian Party is not libertarian anymore, I don't know.
Interestingly, the USA was more libertarian under Trump, because since then, GOP governors, legislatures, and judges have been banning books, banning medical procedures, banning medicines, banning travel, banning discussion topics, even banning hairstyles, and then retaliating against anyone who complains.
Does Trump claim to be Libertarian? I'm asking because I don't know. Or are others making that claim?
The "No true Scotsman" argument really only works if he lays claim to the title.
Ironic because his mother was Scottish.