Doug Casey on “The Donald” for President

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator 

Doug: Did you see that interview Donald Trump gave about running for president? Someone needs to debunk him – he’s dangerous.

L: No, I didn’t. I’ve never paid any attention to the man. But if not us, who? If not now, when?

Doug: I saw the interview with an important reporter from the Wall Street Journal, but it’s all over the Net now.

L: Wait, an important reporter? I didn’t think you believed such a thing was possible.

Doug: What?

L: You said, an “important reporter” – maybe you meant an “important interview?”

Doug: I don’t know what I said, but I couldn’t have said “important” and “reporter” in the same sentence. That would be ludicrous, like an “important talking head.”

L: I know – that’s why I asked. I was afraid the  "pod people" had grabbed you and left a mannequin in your place.

Doug: No, no, strike that. I couldn’t have somehow said “important reporter.” Let’s go to the tape. [Pause for a replay.] Damn. You’re right. I truly did misspeak. I wonder what Freud would have said about that...

Anyway, about Trump, I’ve got to say that, if nothing else, “The Donald” is certainly glib, and a skilled television performer. One of his main characteristics is the extreme certainty he projects about everything – mainly because he says it, and therefore believes it.

It’s disturbing that he might actually gain traction this time, for this very reason. In uncertain times, people want to believe in someone who is certain he knows what’s right and what should be done. At such times they also want a strong, aggressive leader, and based on everything he said, Trump would go beyond aggression to being an actively belligerent leader. He wants to be the alpha chimpanzee.

L: I’ve brought up an ABC interview on YouTube – he certainly sounds like a bully to me. Maybe that’s what it’s come to in what little is left of America; we need a bully in the White House to make ourselves feel strong again.

Doug: Sure. Jingoism plays well to an unhappy audience. One of the things that came up in the Wall Street Journal interview I saw was that the Chinese are taking “unfair advantage” of Americans by selling them inexpensive goods that improve their standard of living. To Trump, this is ripping us off, and he, as president, would make sure it doesn’t happen. He mentioned import tariffs, specifically. He also mentioned Colombia, among others, saying that although he believes in free trade, he also believes in “fair trade.” This, of course, is a contradiction; the moment you impose restrictions on trade for political reasons, no matter how “fair” some people think those constraints may be, it ceases to be free. I’m sure The Donald would come up with all manner of cockamamie schemes to make things suit his idea of “fair.”

L: It’s always astonishing to me the way people who would laugh at a girl who says she’s a “little pregnant” will, with a serious face, say that a “little” coercive government intervention makes markets work better.

Doug: That’s him; he thinks he’s a capitalist because he’s been a winner in the marketplace. But cutting deals with his banking and political buddies to make money in real estate, and using borrowed money while the property bubble was still inflating, is not like building a whole new business as Steven Jobs has done. And it doesn’t make him knowledgeable about economics. He believes in tariffs and quotas and all sorts of government interventions. He’s a classic fascist—

L: [Laughs]

Doug: I mean it, literally. Let’s clarify a few common words. People always bandy terms around without having more than a vague idea what they really mean.

Fascism is based on the economic theory that government and business should work together as “partners.” Fascism posits that both private goods and essentially all the means of production are privately owned – but they’re all controlled by the state. Fascism is associated with jackboots and uniforms, because of Hitler, but that’s by no means its essence. It’s essentially an economic system.

Idiotically, fascism is often conflated with capitalism, which is also a system where everything is privately owned – but also totally privately controlled. A true capitalist country doesn’t currently exist anywhere.

Socialism is a system where consumer goods – houses, cars, and the like – are privately owned (albeit regulated), but all of the means of production are state owned.

In communism everything is state owned.

Anyway, all the countries of the world today are either fascist or socialist. It’s a mistake to say the U.S. is a capitalist country; it’s fascist, and gives capitalism a bad name. If The Donald somehow became president, he would make the U.S. even more controlled, with an even stronger, more intrusive government. He’d be a disaster in every way possible.

L: [Snort] Public-private partnerships. We all know which partner has the guns and calls the shots – but also which one pays the bribes and profits from legally sanitized corruption.

Doug: Right. In practice, that tends to lead to strongmen at the top, but it starts with this economic idea, obscured by large volumes of political rhetoric. The capite censi, the booboisie, come to think they can get something for nothing from the magic cornucopia of the state.

In Trump’s case, a lot of the things he proposes will sound like good ideas to an economically miseducated population. Some of them may even work, because he does have experience in business – unlike almost everybody in government. So it’s not out of the question that he would propose a few things that make sense, assuming they cut back state power. But, because of his basic worldview and flawed economic premises, he’d be a disaster.

L: For instance…

Doug: He’s a huge fan of the military. He’d likely be using it everywhere, spending absurd amounts of money creating more orphans and widows and future enemies.

He said that going in to Libya for humanitarian purposes would be okay, but that you’d have to get in and out quickly – a surgical strike to cut out the cancer at the top. But this is ridiculous. If you’re going to sanction what amounts to regicide in Libya for the common good, you’d have to do the same in Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and so forth, and that’s just for starters. It would be equally logical to do the same in most of the countries in Africa and Central Asia, plus a few more in the Western Hemisphere. It’s as if The Donald watched South Park’s movie Team America: World Police, and thought it was a documentary, not a comedy.

L: Maybe the U.S. should launch multiple surgical strikes on itself to cut off the heads of our home-grown hydra. It could be for the common good.

Doug: [Chuckles] Hey, turnabout is fair play. Going to war for humanitarian purposes opens Pandora’s box; any government can say any other government is misbehaving and can then launch attacks, surgical or otherwise.

Look, Libya is in the news today, but why is it getting so much more attention than any of the other despotisms in the region? Of course Gaddafi’s a criminal – someone the planet would be better off without. But, as criminally idiotic kleptocrats go, he’s actually one of the better ones, from the point of view of the average man on the street – especially among the tyrants of Africa and the Arab world. But he spoke out, poked at the beast in Washington, and now he’s being made out to be the worst bête noir since the last enemy du jour. That’s the reality.

To his credit, The Donald says his only real interest in Libya is the oil. I thought that was refreshing candor. He says he’s got no great interest in Iraq, except that we should keep their oil – this would repay us for freeing them from their tyrant at the cost of the blood of American soldiers. If he had a sense of humor – something he appears to lack totally – he would simply have said, “What’s our oil doing under their sand?” This is the sort of fascist populism that’s really dangerous. Their blood doesn’t matter, but ours is sacred – never mind the lies about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify the Iraq debacle.

I have sympathy for those soldiers who get maimed, physically and psychologically, actualizing the foolish adventures some politician imagines. But they did volunteer, knowing they would be asked to go and kill people in their homes – people they know nothing about. That’s risky, because those people are going to defend themselves and their property. “You pays your money, you takes your chances.” U.S. soldiers aren’t heroes by virtue of wearing a uniform. They’re basically just government employees, a heavily armed version of the post office. Soldiering for a government is basically a job for thoughtless kids who have too much testosterone and not enough other options.

Trump also mentioned “keeping Iran out” as a reason to steal Iraqi oil. Not only is this attitude akin to throwing rocks at a hornet nest, it shows that he doesn’t understand that Iran is in a state of flux. The clique of old theocratic criminals who now run the place will soon join the ranks of the departed. Many – if not most – of the young people in Iran are pro-West. They get plenty of Western movies and videos, both on DVD and from the Internet. They’re tired of missing out on a good thing. There’s living memory in Iran of a more modern lifestyle, something many Iranians want. And because the U.S. hasn’t bombed them yet, they are not as anti-American as many Muslims are. Doing the wrong thing, The Donald could turn this around and create a fresh new wave of enemies for the U.S.

Anyway, the idiocy – and ethical paucity – of Trump's view that we should take other peoples' resources as virtuous plunder – justified by the price the U.S. paid intervening where it was not invited – is staggering. It’s essentially the theft of resources, just because you want them, and you can. The man appears to have a basically criminal personality. I’d never do business with him if I could avoid it. Fortunately, I can.

He thinks he’s a maven in foreign policy, but that’s exactly where he’d likely do the most damage.