Excellent article, Ed.  The republicans had an opportunity to let their anger at the establishment fuel a strong support for the libertarian-conservative wing, or the more traditional constitutional-conservative wing.  They didn't.  We've seen fairly strong runs by members of the religious right, like Santorum and Huckabee.  And they no longer draw much support - a good thing.  As the years go by, they have been combining religious political themes with populism.

And what we have now is a very ugly movement: this populist-nationalist-strong-man-outsider.

Trump is a con man who offers up a symbolic target for those seeking emotional sanctuary from their political frustrations.  Those who upon finding a satisfying emotional father-figure, use their minds just to generate denials, rationales, explanations, excuses and unfounded predictions... all in support of a utopia that they create in their mind and link to a Trump presidency.  What they illustrate very clearly is the divide between those who use reason to apply a set of principles to day to day concretes versus those who commit to an emotional response and use 'reason' to justify it. 

For this large segment of the population who are willing to follow emotions instead of reason, and utopic sound-bites over reasoned principles (a population which is found on the left and the right), there is a real drive to find something that works - no more talk, no more theory, just get the job done.  Just do it.  And that lends great strength to your call for a Freedom Party that might blend a promise of immediate, concrete action, reasoned theory, and an inspiring vision, and all starting from an outsider position.

-------------------

...appeal to young voters who are literally the future of the country. This might seem tough. So many Millennials are ignorant of basic economics and history. Many are infected with the entitlement mentality. And many resent the current corrupt, crony system, which they see helping rich elites at their expense.

I strongly agree with making the appeal to younger voters.  But they aren't just ignorant of economics and history... but also of political science.  What is needed is a rapid education on the basic principles. 

We hunger for a way to cut this Gordian knot of broken political parties and big government, but there is no fast solution.  I've looked at the idea of a professional, multi-year campaign for a set of constitutional amendments.... then given it up as not doable.  I've looked organized civil disobedience as a way to build a movement... can't see that working either.  I've considered state nullification.  Another non-starter.  And electing just the right people is also not going to work. 

There is only one solution.  Education.  A significant portion of the population must acquire an understanding of what Progressivism really is, what the nature of government really is, what human nature is, and what liberty would bring into existence - how it would change our world.  And that is why I'm writing my little series of books.  I'll have them written by the end of the summer (one is out now, and one will be out in about a month).  Then I'll put my attention to getting them mass marketed.

Ed,

On education, we can see how it ends up determining the quality (or lack thereof) of our representation in government.  A few generations of bad education and we find ourselves where we are today - getting the government the majority of the voters deserve.  Education sets the limits (left and right) on what is tolerated as politics.  Education in this fashion, with the passing of generations, shapes the consumption and judging of the media and entertainment.

But we have a chicken and egg situation here.  To pry government out of education, to get the unions out of K-12, and to get the kind of powerful popular demand needed to change the universities would require an educated public.  We have the freedom to start organizations for the purpose of education, we can publish... but we end up in competition with the existing government schools and the existing mass media.  How many young people in the next decade will find an educational path that leads to rational political views.... when compared to how many are turned out by the colleges and the universities where progressivism is becoming almost a religion.  One libertarian leaning person for 10,000 progressive leaning people? That's a problem.

People are voting based upon an absence of rational principles, voting on the basis of very little information - and most of it flawed, and voting on the basis of emotions, what we need is not the theoretical approach of libertarianism, nor the traditional anti-progressivism or religious approach of the conservatives.  Not even the more intelligent of the conservatives who argue elequently for constitutionality.  None of this has worked and I think we are just starting to see why.

I got started on my book on progressivism because I was startled to find out how much I didn't know about it.  And I came to realize the extraordinary degree that progressivism is based upon lies.  I came to see a great need for a straight-forward description of progressivism and to expose the many lies and massive deception.  That should act as a kind of intellectual immunization.  And when lies are revealed and they are extensive, it can collapse a system when it is the very heart and structure of that system.  It has the added benefit of leaving the progressives without credibility.  Tearing progressivism apart seems like the most urgent political need.  But it has to be followed up with the same kind of exposition of how to think about government in general.  What should it do?  what shouldn't it do? 

The book after that is on human nature and there are two purposes for that book.  One is to provide the foundation for the government book and for individual rights, but I also have my own ideas regarding human intelligence and the foundations of psychology that I'd like to get into print. It will follow the same non-academic approach.

The last book will be the hardest to write.  It will be about liberty and the task will be to show what doesn't exist now because we don't have liberty.  This is the one that needs to paint a picture that will fire people up with the exciting possibilities.  It will draw on each of the books that preceeded it.

I'm fairly well along on this scheme for getting the books written and published (sort of self-published on Amazon).  They will each be short (30 to 80 pages) since I'm giving a survey in the form of basic principles.  And they will each be available for $2.99. 

But here is what I don't know how to do.  How do I get the public to take a look at the books?  On these forums we tend to talk to those whose primary interest is theory and we are preaching to the choir.  Maybe what I need is an organization that raises the money to send the books out to high school senior classes.  I don't know... anyway, that's where I am now.  Getting ready to think about the marketing.

"Trump could well lose to Hillary Clinton this fall."

Not likely at all.  A number of factors favor Trump over Hillary in November.

In the first place, Hillary is a very much a Washington insider while Trump is not only an outsider, but is an outsider despised by many insiders.

Outsiders are favored in elections involving the change of a president which is why governors are much better presidential candidates than US Senators (insiders). Only 3 sitting US Senators – Harding, Kennedy and Obama – have actually been elected President. Obama won against another sitting Senator (McCain) and Kennedy won against a sitting Vice President – only 2 of them have been elected because they, too, are insiders.

In addition to the ‘outsider’ factor, Trump can run as an antiwar candidate. Hillary’s ‘husband’, as president, was the first one to accuse Saddam of having WMDs. He also made war on Serbia, solely to change its borders (violating the Westphalia accords in place since 1648), and created the narco/human trafficking state of Kosovo. Hillary voted for Iraq II as Senator and pushed the Libya war as Secretary of State, which included running weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels - and leading to Europe's refugee crisis. The voters are more fed up with war now than they were in 2006 when the Democrats won back the House.

And the problems with Obamacare keep getting worse. Hillary’s health care plan as First Lady in the early ’90s helped change Congress in ’94 – for the first time in 40 years. (The assault weapons ban also contributed to that).  At the beginning of November just before the election, it will be time for Americans to register for health care for 2017, and likely seeing steep prices increases – very bad timing unless Obama can delay it.

I won't be voting for either of them, but it's Trump by a landslide.

Ed's article is about "After Trump..."

It is too late to create a new party now, before the general election.  The only possibility this cycle is the Libertarian party since it already has a position on each state ballot.  It might get several times the votes that it has in the past, but that's not enough to succeed.  There might be a way to run some well-known white knight in place of Gary Johnson - effectively co-opting the Libertarian party structure.  But I don't know of a person who has the right principles, fame and personal power to make that an interesting proposition.  I can only imagine what it would take to start now and find a way to get included in the debates.  Can you imagine Trump and Hillary both saying, "Sure, we'll let this third person come on the stage and point our shortcoming out" - I don't think so.

So, we are back to the creation of a Freedom Party and it would be for the purpose of running someone in 4 years.  What are things going to look like then?
-------------

Working on the assumption that Trump loses, and that the Senate goes Democrat, and Hillary appoints the deciding vote on the Supreme Court, we would find ourselves in a very different political environment.  Hillary's approach is to work behind the scenes and nail down power.  She has never forgotten her political mentor, Saul Alinsky. 

Under those assumptions, I see the movement towards the Progressives' ideal government increase at an expotential pace and in ways that reflect Hillary's insider knowledge of how to create the effective structures to lock in the ever-increasing levels of power.   What is very important here is to recognize that as liberties have been lost, the rate at which they are lost increases.  That with each year the votering population includes more of the younger generation and fewer of the older generation and that is a slow, but certain conveyor belt of political change - in the wrong direction.

I can't stress too strongly the idea that political change is NOT going to be linear but instead will take exponential leaps toward totalitariansim.
---------------

So, what would we expect under these assumptions?

- First I would expect that there will be a very bold grab for control of the election mechanism itself.  A way to ensure that only those who are approved by the controlling elites will be able to get elected.  Progressivism and Hillary are both very much about cutting off the feet of their opponents.

- Another strong push will be to bring out the extremes of 'income inequality' as new laws and regulations... along with putting more of climate change into law and regulations.  These become the mechanism for implementing massive control of the economy.  Redistribution and social justice remain justifications, but the shift would be more and more towards rewarding supporters and building a political army than altruistic giving.  More about building, enriching, and empowering a shadow government and moving it into the system while demonizing and driving out opposition.

- Third will be the movement to bring the political correctness that has become a physical force on campus out into main street as the start of actual conversion of freedom of speech into selective prohibited speech.  This is more important to progressives than anything else - this stops opposition at the most important level: intellectual opposition.  It is a strong step towards making opposition illegal.

- There might be another severe downturn in the economy and it will be blamed on Wall Street, greedy businesses, failure to regulate the excesses, GOP collusion with special interest groups, and GOP obstructionism.
----------

So, against that, what would a political party need to put forth to win?  It would have to be very bold.  It would have to ridicule political correctness.  It would have to call out where the system is rigged (not surprisingly, these have been used very effectively by Trump).  It would have to have a call to action for each strongly emotional position (like the statements by this season's GOP candidates that they will tear up executive orders on day one, and that they will repeal ObamaCare, build a wall, etc. - but they have to more anti Democrat AND GOP politicians than about policy).  Proposed actions should be specific and believable and involve totally disrupting and replacing the old elites of both parties.  This party can't be just 'against' - it has to be 'for.'  There has to be a vision that excites people.  Reagan was good at creating the sense of a better America - part with his personality, part with explicit statements in his speeches. 

The sense of the strongly desired new state of things has to be seen as very doable.  I remember watching Arthur Laffer on a talk show and the guest was lamenting the state of things with all of these laws and regulations and being pessimistic that we would ever get rid of them.  Laffer just smiled and said, with great confidence, something like, "It isn't a problem.  It is very easy to have a bill that just says this law is hereby repealed in full."  That gives a feeling of hope... and remember that Obama got elected on "Hope" (and "Change").  I would try to make concrete and real how rich we all would be if government weren't hoarding all the money.  We are being oppressed by the politicians and there rigged system.  Talk about the per-capita expense of government with the cost of regulations, taxes, debt, policing the world, wars we didn't need to be in.  Both parties have sold our future and the future of our children and grandchildren just to struct about being powerful.  Every man and woman who wants to could step into a job paying twice what they make now if all the politicians, for all the decades, hadn't conned us into believing all that stuff they do with our money is needed or helpful.

--------------------

One thing to point out.  With the pace of Progressivism accelerating, time is limited.  Each year there are new constraints, new rules, new vigor in the negative attitudes towards any opposition.  The exercise of legal, administrative and regulatory actions against anyone opposing their new 'progress' will become stronger and more overt.  Look at the IRS, the EPA and the Justice Department under the Obama administration... and then don't make the mistake of thinking you understand what is coming by imagining something like that but increased by 10%.  It is better to imagine far larger increases to account for this exponential rate of change.  Maintaining a semblance of legality, of fairness, of respect for the constitution or traditions are all things that can - and will - be left behind very quickly.  Making it a bit scarier still, understand that attacks when launched on multiple fronts, repeatedly, and which are claimed to be justified, and which receieve spin and official sanctioning seem less important.  Too many bad deeds of too many kinds, at once and each one seems smaller than it is.  Too many continuing on and the onslaught seems unstoppable.

------------------

The new party would be able to capitalize on the angry attacks and demonization of the right and of the GOP and of conservatives by being neither right nor left.  Not liberal, progressive or conservative.  It should be about giving the country back to the citizens.  This has worked well for Bernie (because his followers don't know anything about socialism's actual treatment of the people) and it has worked well for Trump as a populists/nationalist/emotional-magnet.  The Freedom Party can have solid principles behind the sound-bytes.  The trick being to capture and attract supporters based upon the frustration and anger, but to follow through with sound principles. 

Well, those are my thoughts.

Well, I imagine that Gary Johnson will be the Libertarian candidate.  And I imagine that Trump and Clinton will work to keep him off of the debate stage (actually there might not even be a debate - Trump won't want to expose his ignorance of policy and history and Clinton doesn't want to deal with Trump's willingness to expose her seedy side and her scandle-rich past.)

I believe that we each own our own bodies, and have the right to use drugs... but anyone who wants to make drug legalization a key part of their campaign isn't someone I'd want to get behind - they have no political perspective.  And, I've always been disappointed that so many libertarians have adopted the progressive view of open borders.  A nation must control its borders - and then, legal immigration can be as wide open as makes sense for the good of the nation.  But immigration and drugs aside, I'd vote for Johnson in a heartbeat.  I probably will be voting for Johnson since I could never vote for Trump or Clinton.

This is a very bizarre election season.  How about a Libertarian campaign slogan like, "Make a Real Change - Say No to Crooked Hillary and Loose Cannon Donald" or "Take Back Our Country - Vote for Liberty"  or "Choose Liberty for Real Hope and Change"

Maybe Johnson will get lots of the Bernie vote just by not being Trump or Clinton and maybe all the sensible GOP (probably more than 40%) would vote Johnson over Trump.  Maybe a sizable portion of the independents would vote for Johnson.  Maybe many of the women and youth and Hispanics, who aren't excited about Hillary and actively dislike Trump, will vote Johnson.  Maybe Clinton will go down in flames with only blacks, older white women and dedicated leftists voting for her, and Trump going down in flames with only his die-hard supporters who can't see anything but a winner in The Donald.  Maybe pigs will fly.  But one of our jobs is to find SOME area in which to carve out some hope - guess I'll hope for flying pigs.

I agree, Ed.  The GOP's actual 'Big Tent' is the including of RINOs, NeoCons, constitutional conservatives, libertarian conservatives, populists, nationalists, the religious right, and establishment members.  That kind of big tent means trying to mash together conflicting principles - key principles.  Ayn Rand pointed out the problem the conservatives had was with the philosophic base they were trying to use to support Capitalism.  But it is even worse now, since they have too many voices in the tent that aren't even remotely supporting Capitalism.  They went from badly supporting the right system, to arguing about principles, to forget the principles - lets argue policy, and finally, they don't even want to talk policy when they can make childish ad hominem attacks.  They've hit the lowest common denominator - the GOP is just a tribe whose members can't get along and yell at either other to be loyal or else the other tribe will win.

And, you are right.  They won't have a leader since it is Trump that will be the focal point of the party blowing up.

Assuming that Trump loses, his supporters will go away unhappy (probably blaming everyone else for not supporting Trump).  The establisment will be fighting just to say employed.  It will be a perfect time to build a new party or to 'take over' the Libertarian Party.

(As a side note, Trump could win.  He was able to con his way into the nomination, maybe he can do the same thing in the general election.  Or, maybe the FBI will submit a request for the Justice Department to indict Hillary on felony charges.)

The focus of the new party should be on fighting political correctness, big brother, the rigged political structure, and fighting for liberty and free enterprise.  It should direct an appeal to everyone - democrat, republican, and libertarian - who does not support a welfare state, or socialism - and I agree that this kind of party should be able to pull in a large number of Democrats.  It should specifically try to divide the political world into big government with its cronys and special interests versus a free america with a vibrant economy and no more elites telling people what to think, what to do, and trying to divide us by race, sex, age, or wealth.

Mark,

I disagree with your take on Ed's article. 

He believes that the GOP has abandoned the concept of limited government.   He might have written a very similarly themed article if the nominee had been Huckabee.  That theme is what leads him to the suggestion that we need a new party - a Freedom Party. 

It is true that Ed takes a number of shots at Trump (something I do as well).   He believes, as do I, that Trump has struck a strong emotional chord with people.  A great many people are angry, frustrated, and/or fearful of where the nation seems to be going.  Many of us are feeling estranged in our own country.  Donald Trump is using those emotions, tapping into them.  I don't see that as wrong, per se, but I agree with Ed that it would be good to appeal to positive emotions and desires as well.  Failure to have a positive vision that is better articulated just increases the factionalism the progessives have brought to the table.

And I believe that politics must be based upon principles - individual rights to be specific - and Trump is a pragmatic populist which is nowhere near individual rights.  I believe Ed was saying that in the past the GOP had some principles that meshed with freedom, but now, with Trump, they don't.  In the long-term, if you don't have a princpled political party significantly driving the national elections, the nation will decline rapidly.  Pragmatism and populism are dead-ends.

Trump has a style that does appeal to the worst in some people - their xenophobia for example.  But that doesn't make them bad people.  In other words, Ed did NOT say that those who support Trump are rotten.  That was your take.

Progressives, anarchists, and some libertarians are strong supporters of open borders.  Many of them are good people.  But I think they are totally wrong and that having open borders is toxic for our nation.  As far as this political issue goes, I support Trump's stated objective of a secure border with an intelligent policy for guest workers and legal immigration.  But, just because I support that position does NOT mean I trust that Donald Trump will implement it.

I didn't read anywhere in Ed's article that he would prefer Hillary over Trump.  Did I miss that?  As to who would have the greatest chance to beat Hillary... that is pure speculation at this point.  Polls attempting to project general election results are very flawed this early in the season.  Kaisch had the highest rating against Hillary, and I wouldn't want him as the nominee, and I don't think that projection would hold true once the general election season began.  What we do know is that Trump has yet to make significant improvement in his favorable ratings with women or minorities and that is a major problem he must surmount.

You commented on Ed's mention of Silicon Valley-type entrepreneurs creating cutting-edge technologies.  Ed is one of the strongest supporters of technology and of liberty.  I'm guessing that he was talking about the spirit of inventiveness and NOT the politics of Zuckerberg, Gates and others.  At the worst, he was just speaking of his hopes for the future in which young, bright, inventive people might come to see the link between technology and freedom - a hope which might be born out, or might not. You appear to be attacking Ed because he isn't a Trump supporter.  If someone believes Trump has some serious character flaws and fails to hold political principles consonate with individual rights, why would they support him?

I've commented before on your ARIwatch web site being so strongly opposed to ARI that is like your hair is on fire and you are shrieking into the night.  There seems to be no attempt to separate out the good from the bad.... it is ARI, therefore you appear to see it all as bad.  Isn't that pretty much what your article on "Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump" does towards ARI?  Aren't you treating ARI exactly the same way you say they are treating Donald Trump?

I believe that Trump is a con-man - that he is telling people what they want to hear in order to get their vote even through what he is saying often isn't what he really believes.  Now that he is the presumptive nominee, I really, really hope I'm wrong.   I hope he can beat Hillary.   I hope that if he does, that he really will nominate Supreme Court justices from that list.   I hope that he does reduce taxes.   I hope that he reduces regulations.   I hope that he does work to stop the US from being world policeman.   I hope that he does secure the border.   I hope that he is stronger and more effective in fighting Islamic fundamentalism (without any nation building).   But, hope isn't fact, hope isn't reason, and hope isn't enough.