Writes Mike Holmes:

I was surprised and pleased to see you used my Deep State item in the LRC Political Theatre, I hope it stimulates some thinking on that. Thanks.

Today’s Matt Taibbi column linked from Rolling Stone was also interesting. I get a daily RS feed from them because several years ago (at least 5) I had a paid subscription. I guess I should be grateful though I have little interest in their usual subject matter.

While you characterized the Taibbi article as “anti-Trump”, compared to his prior Trump commentaries about the GOP primaries, it is almost pro-Trump. Taibbi has been of course extremely critical of all GOP candidates but Trump has sent him into fits of near incoherence. This current take is his most objective yet. I guess he’s finally accepting reality. Of course, his sneers about Trump backers in the hustings (gimme cap wearing farmers, etc.) is par for the course. Denigrating middle-class white people are still PC, in fact nearly required.

Taibbi is a somewhat smart guy, but his coverage of the Democrats is far less critical. He gives Sanders a fair shake (since Taibbi is mainly an “anti-Wall St.” guy) but his critiques of Hillary are far less savage than his attacks on the Republicans or Trump. He bites the Clintons but not too hard.

Of course, there is much to psychologize about Trump since his appeal is mostly just that. But what was Ronald Reagan but that? (Of course, he was California governor too.)

However, I think the best libertarian view is to have a “rooting interest” in Trump (as Murray used to describe his political favorites).

To me being pro-Trump at this point is like being pro-Gorbachev in the late 80s. For much the same reasons.