President Blunderbuss

 | 

I have a confession to make. Some of our readers won’t like it. In other quarters, it might lose me friends. But even though I didn’t vote for Donald Trump — in fact, I argued in these pages for a Libertarian vote — I’m glad he won.

On election day, I was downcast. All the self-proclaimed experts predicted a big win for Hillary Clinton. Under the current and blessedly soon-to-be-past Democratic administration, my financial prospects lurched from bad to worse. I wasn’t sure where I’d be after four to eight years of the Queen Presumptive’s rule.

Then came that rollercoaster evening of election returns. As more and more of the mainstream media’s pundits beat their breasts and wept, my mourning turned to gladness. Or, at the very least, to relief. The lesser of two evils may indeed, as the maxim says, still be an evil. But unlike the evil of a Hillary Clinton presidency, this one is unlikely to destroy our country.

On Facebook, I am happy to have many libertarian friends. Some, like me, are happy that Trump will be the next president. Others thunder that they warned us not to sully ourselves by voting, and that even rooting from the sidelines for either of the contending “Republicrats” gave aid and comfort to aggression. That being a thing to which any good libertarian must, by ironclad principle, stand opposed.

Well, I frankly disagree. In fact, I think these folks would do well to reexamine our cherished nonaggression principle in the cold light of present reality. Certainly it opposes the initiation of force against others. But it accords us every right to self-defense.

Do I want thugs to break into my house and brutalize and rob me? That’s what the Democrats have done for the past eight years. It’s what they would undoubtedly have continued to do, if the coronation of Hillary Clinton had gone on according to plan.

By every sane interpretation of the nonaggression principle, if I am sitting peacefully in my living room recliner, and thugs break through my door, I have every right to grab my gun. Now, my weapon of choice happens to be a Lady Smith .357 Magnum. But that particular Lady didn’t happen to run for president this year.

The weapon that ran, and won, is more of a blunderbuss. Donald Trump is noisy, crude, and uncouth. His buckshot singes the whiskers of everybody near him — friend as well as foe. When he takes aim, though he usually hits his target, it’s seldom with great precision. But in a pinch, when our backs are against the wall and our enemies are closing in, a blunderbuss is a mighty good thing to have handy.




Share This

Comments

Luther Jett

"...when our backs are against the wall and our enemies are closing in, a blunderbuss is a mighty good thing to have handy."

Ms. Heine, I am curious to know who you define as our enemies and why you are so assured that Trump defines those enemies the same way you do. Or if not, are you concerned at all about collateral damage from the blunderbuss?

Michael Morrison

Lori Heine is one good writer, and a lady I am proud to know.
In this essay, she says pretty much what I think, too, though I couldn't have phrased it so well.
As I have said repeatedly, Trump was the second-worst of all the many 2016 presidential candidates -- five just here in California -- but he beat the first worst.
I don't exactly rejoice. I wanted Gary Johnson, and would have been happier with at least two others than Trump or Clinton.
But Clinton represented nearly pure evil.
Trump? I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, he will be a disaster. After all, he is from one of the two old parties, and he does believe in government.
But he is still very likely to do far less damage than Clinton would have.

Jon Harrison

So the Democrats have been brutalizing and robbing you for the past eight years, with the implication being that the Republicans didn't do the same in the eight years prior. In reality, there's not much difference between the two. The main thing I'd point to is that we've had far fewer combat deaths under Obama than under Bush-Cheney.

Domestically, it's hard to see how government changes much from one administration to another. Under which administration was No Child Left Behind passed? Or Medicare Part D? Who started warrantless wiretapping, unlimited detention, and water-boarding?

Of course Trump is sure to be a friend of limited government, civil liberties, and the nonaggression principle (except when it comes to "self-defense," of course). Perhaps you even believe that. This little essay is so slanted, it ought to be accompanied by the heading "Columnist Clueless" rather than President Blunderbuss.

Charles Barr

How can you call Lori Heine “Columnist Clueless” after writing your July 23 column, “The Trump Campaign: A Pre-Mortem”? Among other things, you said:

“And in November Trump will go down, possibly in a landslide.”

“Yet it seems clear that he has no more chance of stopping Hillary than Merlin had of stopping King Arthur’s marriage to Guinevere.”

“It’s simply a fact, Trumpites. Your guy is going to lose on November 8.”

“There is tragedy also in the fact that Trump’s candidacy ensures the election of Hillary.”

Lori Heine

"Columnist Clueless" now has to fork over $400 a year in fines to the government because she cannot afford Obamacare.

She doesn't want to do that anymore--and cannot afford to, if she wants to go on eating and keep a roof over her head.

Perhaps "Clueless Columnist" isn't the one in this picture who is clueless.

Jon Harrison

Somehow the 3,000 dead and thousands more maimed in Iraq, the transformation of a balanced budget into enormous deficits, and the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens— all of which Bush-Cheney were and are responsible for — concerns me more than your $400 in fines. Try developing a little insight into the difference between tragedy and the (admittedly irksome) pinpricks that inconvenience your daily life.

Visitor

Have you been asleep for eight years? Do you give the latest, lying narcissist a pass? This level of cognitive dissonance is despicable, but probably not surprising since you also turn a blind eye to the war-mongering loser of the election who never saw a bombing she didn't like. Thousands of U.S. soldiers dead under Obama's watch, and tens of thousands of lives ruined (euphemistic collateral damage) from both the trigger finger of subjects using eye-scopes to their flying robots. The U.S. has been at war longer under Obama than under the previous administration — both evil king-wannabes, both immoral, both weak, both murderous. Then again, I should be happy Barack received his ironic Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't quite match Bush's tally so perhaps the prize tempered his own killing spree; otherwise, he may have eked out the win on most dead.

Assigning moral superiority over videogame-like scoring of casualties is not only a collectivist paradigm but absent any human morality. However, if you really want to walk that road, you can feel good that W and Obama were pikers next to Johnson and Nixon. The impending, foolhardy, White House Occupier has his work cut out for him in the body count, but hell, there's a chance — he's been counted out before.

Bill Merritt

It seems to me that the $400/yr may be the most important statistic here. “It’s just a pinprick” is the way those in power justify exploiting us eggs whenever some favored interest group wants to make an omelet.

Johnimo

Oh, I'm so pleased you have the Lady S&W .357 magnum. That's a good one that will get the job done. Thanks again for your insight; it's quite a show isn't it?

Richard

Lori, the more I read your postings the more I realize we must be related in some way. I have voted Libertarian since Ed Clark and dearly wish for a Libertarian country but I agree it was a relief when Trump beat the Hildabeast. At least now we may have a fighting chance.

© Copyright 2016 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.