An Austrian Economist and Gary Johnson Supporter on Rothbard and Trump

In a post on Facebook, a well-known Austrian economist and supporter of Gary Johnson speculated that Murray Rothbard would have supported Donald Trump in the current election. His post generated considerable discussion, and I append  a few of the comments on it below:

Peter G. Klein Sheeh, talk about a straw man. Murray didn’t think Buchanan was a wonderful individual, he thought that the Buchanan movement was good for liberty, compared to the Bushist and Clintonian alternatives, and he gave detailed reasons for thinking so (mainly related to Buchanan’s far less interventionist foreign policy). People can certainly disagree with this judgment, but they ought to give some reasons. I agree . . . that Murray would likely have thought Trump is far less bad than Hillary (as I do) and that the Trump movement can be a net positive for liberty. Given that Mises made similar practical judgments about realistic alternatives — for example, his infamous remark that Mussolini was less bad than the Italian communists — I wouldn’t be so sure that he would support Hillary, as you apparently do.

Peter G. Klein I think reasonable libertarians can disagree about whether Trump or Hillary is the lesser of evils, whether it makes sense from a tactical perspective to support Johnson, and a host of related issues. It’s the hysterical anti-Trump libertarians who seem not to think so.

 

.David Gordon Mises and Hayek were much more right wing than many people think. Mises in 1934 joined the Patriotic Front, in support of the Dollfuss government in Austria. Dollfuss, also ardently defended by the great Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand, is generally classed as a clerical fascist. Later, Mises was on the advisory board for American Opinion, published by Robert Welch of the John Birch Society, and wrote for the magazine. Hayek was sympathetic to the Pinochet government in Chile.

 

 

Joseph T. Salerno  I think you’re right that Rothbard would have probably supported Trump. But I disagree that Murray had “extremely bad practical judgment when it came to politics.” After all he supported the peaceful coexistence candidate Adlai Stevenson over the cold warrior Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson over the crazed anti-Communist Goldwater, and Ross Perot over the war-mongering neocons Bush and Clinton. And in light of what David Gordon pointed out in his comment above, Mises and Hayek would have been arm-in-arm with Rothbard supporting Trump.

 

The great historian of classical liberalism Ralph Raico had this comment  on the post: “the real question is, who knew more about American politics, Mises and Hayek or Murray?”

Share

6:25 pm on July 22, 2016