Did Trump Betray and Double-Cross the L.P. Right-Wing by Failing to Appoint a Libertarian to His Cabinet?
Ever since the Libertarian Party national convention last May, L.P. chairperson Angela McArdle has been emphasizing the agreement that she negotiated with president-elect Donald Trump. Under the agreement, Trump agreed to do two things: (1) appoint a libertarian (or a Libertarian) to his Cabinet and (2) pardon libertarian Ross Ulbricht, who is serving a life sentence for a drug-war-related crime.
The agreement raised hopes within the members of the Libertarian Party right-wing, which dominates and controls the party, of being named “The One” — that is, the first Libertarian to serve the welfare-warfare state in the capacity of a cabinet member and, even better, in a Donald Trump Republican administration. There is little doubt that every single L.P. right-winger, including McArdle herself, has been quietly fantasizing over the possibility of being named The One and then traveling to L.P. state conventions over the next two years and being praised and glorified and given standing ovations for being the first L.P. cabinet member in history.
And then it happened. With every L.P. right-winger holding his breath and anxiously waiting to see which libertarian would be named The One, Trump finished announcing his cabinet appointments — but, alas, without mentioning a libertarian or a right-wing Libertarian. Yikes! At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there was considerable waling and gnashing of teeth among the Libertarian Party right-wing for what many of them considered to be a grave betrayal and double-cross on the part of Trump.
Moreover, there wasn’t even a hint of an explanation or an apology by Trump to McArdle and the L.P. What’s up with that? Doesn’t Trump know that the Libertarian Party is a powerful, prestigious right-wing-controlled political party to which the Republican Party is supposed to cater?
A libertarian or a Libertarian?
By “libertarian,” I am, of course, referring to a person who hews to libertarian principles, even if he is not a member of the Libertarian Party. By “Libertarian,” I am referring to a member of the Libertarian Party.
Part of the problem here is that while McArdle now prides herself on being a Master Negotiator and a Master Power Broker, she failed to clarify in her agreement with Trump whether he was obligating himself to appoint a “libertarian” or a “Libertarian” to his cabinet. Having failed to do that, McArdle and other L.P. right-wingers were left jumping back and forth with respect to what Trump had actually obligated himself to do.
For example, throughout the run-up to the election, some L.P. right-wingers, including McArdle, were saying that if Trump named a “liberty-leaning” Republican to his cabinet, that would fulfill his commitment. That’s because in the minds of the Libertarian Party right-wing, a “liberty-leaning” Republican is the same as a Libertarian Party right-winger. Coming to mind are Republicans like Tom Massie, Blake Masters, Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbott, Justin Amash, and Bill Weld. Thus, if Trump had appointed any one of them to his cabinet, many L.P. right-wingers would undoubtedly have been very happy and claimed that Trump had fulfilled his obligation to appoint a “libertarian” to his cabinet.
Other L.P. right-wingers, on the other hand, convinced themselves that Trump had obligated himself to appoint a Libertarian to his cabinet — that is, an actual member of the Libertarian Party. That’s what caused L.P. right-wingers, including no doubt McArdle herself, to fantasize about being named to be The One.
Coming to Trump’s defense to a charge that he breached his contract by failing to name a libertarian or a Libertarian to his cabinet, McArdle has claimed that he did, in fact, fulfill his commitment to her by appointing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to his cabinet.
How did she arrive at that conclusion? After all, some libertarians would argue that a big-government, welfare-state-loving, gun-grabbing Democrat-turned-Trumpster who actually praises communist Cuba’s healthcare program and communist China’s public-works program cannot possibly be considered a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.
McArdle responded that since Kennedy had made the required donation to the Libertarian Party that automatically made him a “lifetime member” of the Libertarian Party, that meant that Trump was, in fact, fulfilling his commitment to appoint a “Libertarian” (that is, a member of the Libertarian Party) to his cabinet. I think it’s safe to say that most libertarians and most Libertarians — and even some L.P. right-wing Libertarians — would find that conclusion to be ridiculous, even if Kennedy’s extreme anti-vax mindset does match that of the right-wing element that controls and dominates the Libertarian Party. After all, by that measure, if Democrats Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had also become members of the Libertarian Party, Trump would have fulfilled his commitment to appoint a Libertarian to his cabinet by appointing either of them to his cabinet.
The terms of the agreement
So, did Trump actually breach the commitment that he made in the contract into which he entered with McArdle? Did he really betray and double-cross McArdle and the Libertarian Party by failing to appoint a libertarian or a right-wing Libertarian to his cabinet? It depends on what the actual terms of the contract were.
In the run-up to the national convention, the assumption was that Trump made his two promises simply in return for the “privilege” of addressing the L.P. national convention. L.P. members were repeatedly told that since the Libertarian Party was now so powerful, so prominent, and so prestigious, Trump was actually willing to offer a cabinet post simply to have the privilege of addressing L.P. delegates to the national convention and seeking their support, notwithstanding the fact that they would be nominating their own presidential candidate to ostensibly run against Trump.
But as I have been arguing in my series of post-convention articles in this Substack column, that notion has never made much sense. In my opinion, there is no reasonable possibility whatsoever that Donald “Art of the Deal” Trump would settle for a speaking opportunity at the L.P. national convention in return for using a valuable cabinet appointment on a libertarian. As I have repeatedly emphasized and detailed in my articles, in my opinion he would necessarily have insisted — indeed, demanded — that in return for his two promises (i.e., a cabinet appointment and a pardon for libertarian Ulbricht), the Libertarian Party and its presidential and vice-presidential candidates would have to endorse his candidacy for president.
After all, as I have repeatedly emphasized, it would have made no sense for Trump to make those two commitments, only to have the Libertarian Party run a candidate against him who, presumably, would be attacking him and maybe costing him the election. That would have meant that Trump would still be obligated to appoint a libertarian (or a Libertarian) to his cabinet and to pardon Ulbricht even while the Libertarian Party and the L.P. presidential candidate were attacking him and possibly costing him the election.
A built-in support of Trump
Equally important, an inducement for Libertarians to support Trump was implicitly built into the agreement that McArdle negotiated. Isn’t that obvious? That’s because the only way that those two commitments, which were obviously important to McArdle, could be fulfilled would be by getting Trump elected. If he wasn’t elected, he couldn’t appoint a libertarian (or a Libertarian) to his cabinet and he couldn’t pardon Ulbricht. Duh!
L.P. chairperson McArdle had to realize that basic, important point when she extracted those two commitments from Trump as part of the agreement that she negotiated with him. As a Master Negotiator and a Master Power Broker, she had to know that she was bringing into existence two commitments that would necessarily depend on Trump’s being elected president.
That raises what I have repeatedly emphasized in my series of Substack articles is a very distinct possibility: That the deal that McArdle negotiated with Team Trump did not involve simply a commitment to let Trump address the national convention but instead involved a commitment to support Trump’s candidacy in the waning days of the campaign, at least in the battleground states, as a way to help Trump get elected.
The scenario would have played out in much the same way that circumstances ultimately played out — with members of the L.P. right-wing ultimately coming out in favor of Trump just prior to the election. If this is what McArdle negotiated, then in my opinion it would have been easy to induce the likely L.P. right-wing nominees for president and vice-president — Michael Rectenwald and Clint Russell — to throw their support to Trump, which both of them did anyway in the waning days of the campaign. At that point, under this possible scenario, McArdle would have announced in the run-up to the general election that Rectenwald, Russell, and the L.P. were all on board with supporting Trump, at least in the battleground states — which is precisely what Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who both McArdle and Rectenwald extol, did.
A tangled web
But two totally unexpected things happened to change this possible scenario: (1) The massive boo-fest to which Trump was subjected at the national convention, which Trump undoubtedly has never forgotten (and quite possibly never forgiven), and (2) the surprise election of Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat as the L.P. presidential and vice-presidential candidates, both of whom refused to throw their support to Trump.
Thus, if the possibility that I have detailed in my Substack articles is the correct one, then it was the L.P., not Trump, that breached the possible agreement to have the L.P. and the L.P. presidential and vice-presidential candidates throw their support to Trump. Of course, it would have been an unknowing breach to L.P. members given that McArdle would have kept the actual terms of the agreement secret from them.
If there was, in fact, a commitment by McArdle to throw the Libertarian Party’s support to Trump in exchange for his promise to appoint a Libertarian to his cabinet and to pardon Ulbricht, the election of Oliver obviously put her in a very awkward position — one in which she would steadfastly insist that she was supporting Oliver but, at the same time, engage in actions that appeared to be a sub silentio support of Trump.
For example, at times McArdle has accused Libertarians for wanting to see Ulbricht “rot in jail,” which would seem to be a call to support Trump. Other times, she would insist that she was supporting Oliver, a position that obviously indicted herself for wanting to see Ulbricht “rot in jail.” Oh what a tangled web we weave….
Moreover, one has to wonder whether McArdle’s manifest failure to openly and publicly endorse Trump in the waning days of the campaign, which many other L.P. right-wingers were doing, may have played a major role in Trump’s post-election decision not to appoint a libertarian (or a right-wing Libertarian) to his cabinet. McArdle’s refusal to openly and publicly express her loyalty to Trump would not have impressed a man like Trump, who values loyalty above everything else. It may well have caused him to think, “If she doesn’t have the courage to openly and publicly support me, why should I feel obligated to fulfill my commitment to appoint a libertarian to my cabinet?”
No L.P. right-wing speakers at Trump rallies
Moreover, it’s entirely possible that the experienced political operatives on Team Trump cleverly induced McArdle to place an exaggerated importance on the power, influence, and prestige of the Libertarian Party within the overall Republican Party structure. After all, throughout Trump’s campaign McArdle and other L.P. right-wingers failed to notice something important: In all of the thousands of Trump rallies, including that big one in Madison Square Garden, as far as I know not one single time did Trump invite any LP. right-winger to address any of his rallies. Why not? If the L.P. is so big, powerful, and prestigious within the Republican Party, as Team Trump made McArdle believe, why wouldn’t Trump invite McArdle or some other L.P. right-winger to address even just one of his many rallies?
My hunch: Trump and Team Trump were extremely concerned over what those L.P. right-wingers might say at his rallies. I think they were scared that an L.P. right-winger would say things that would cost Trump support and votes and even possibly garner him some embarrassing articles in the press. One can easily imagine, for example, a L.P. right-winger stating the following types of things at a Trump political rally:
1. While I am supporting Libertarian Chase Oliver for president, I want everyone here to know that I am also excited sub silentio about Donald Trump, who I am certain will make America great again.
2. I fully support Donald Trump’s immigration and deportation plan. In fact, we need to have all 50 states adopt border controls and border police states between each state and maybe even do the same with American cities.
3. We need to punish every government official and every physician who advised people to take the Covid vaccine, including by sending them to Gitmo, where they can be tortured, executed, or held for life without trials.
4. Every single American who took the Covid vaccine violated “libertarian” principles and is clearly a dumb dolt of the state.
5. Every American who wore a Covid mask at family gatherings and elsewhere should be condemned for “buying into the official Covid propaganda.”
6. We need to “gradually” eradicate and reform Social Security over the next 40 years.
7. We need to give young people the right to “opt out” of Social Security by forcing them to save their money in government-approved retirement accounts and also force them to continue “paying into the system” for the next 40 years in order to sustain it.
8. Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero.
9. If you don’t support a $6 million minimum wage, you’re antisemitic.
Can you see why Trump and Team Trump might be reluctant to have a L.P. right-winger speak at Trump’s rallies, notwithstanding the tremendous power and prestige that McArdle is convinced that the Libertarian Party has within the Republican Party?
The Ulbricht pardon
Of course, still left is Trump’s commitment to pardon Ross Ulbricht. My hunch is that he will go ahead and issue the pardon, assuming, of course, that the Deep State permits him to do it. After all, let’s not forget that during Trump’s first four years in office, he let both Ulbricht (and Julian Assange) rot in jail the entire time (and also left Edward Snowden marooned in Russia).
While obviously important to Ulbricht and clearly important to McArdle, especially given her wish to convert the Libertarian Party into a political party whose mission is simply to makes deals with Republicans, the Ulbricht pardon will be nothing more than a political bone insofar as Trump is concerned. He has to know that such a pardon will, once again, make him popular among the L.P. right-wing, which I think will forgive him for what they currently feel is a betrayal and a double-cross for failing to appoint a libertarian (or a Libertarian) to his cabinet. But there is no doubt that Trump will continue to wage the drug war with tremendous ferocity, with thousands of new victims either being killed or taking Ulbricht’s and other released drug-war victims’s places in federal penitentiaries.
Owing to the massive nationwide publicity that Master Negotiator and Master Power Broker McArdle, who I think may well have been played like a fiddle by Team Trump, garnered with Trump’s talk at the L.P. national convention — and owing to the many endorsements of Trump by L.P. right-wingers — and owing to the large number of L.P. right-wingers who were vying to become Trump’s cabinet pick or to be selected to serve him in some lower capacity — and owing to the reform-oriented, Republican-lite message that has come to define L.P. presidential campaigns, including the most recent one — the image that has been imprinted on the minds of the American people is that the Libertarian Party is nothing more than an appendage of the Republican Party and, even worse, one that now exists to serve Donald Trump. The question naturally arises: Is such a mental image indelible and, if not, what could ever be done to erase it from the minds of the American people?