Common Sense with Paul Jacob

On May 3, Paul wrote about the then-upcoming appearance of former President (and current candidate) Donald Trump before the Libertarian Party quadrennial presidential nominating convention, amusingly and perhaps tellingly given the motto “Become Ungovernable.”

Much has been made of the invitation. The same invitation was also extended to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (who, like Trump, accepted) and to President Joe Biden (who did not accept). A typical reaction to Trump’s scheduled appearance at the convention can be gleaned merely by reading the title of a recent Washington Post op-ed by Peter Goettler, President of Cato Institute: “Trump is hardly libertarian. But neither is today’s Libertarian Party” (May 23, 2024).

Well, the horror and dark thoughts about the appearance can now be judged by the facts, not speculations. The event happened. On Friday, RFK spoke, and was mostly courteously received. On Saturday — yesterday — Trump gave a perhaps too-long but mostly rational case for why Libertarians at the convention should endorse him, or at least, as citizens, vote for him. He also promised to place a libertarian in his cabinet. Additionally, Trump pledged to commute Ross Ulbricht’s sentence “on day one” if elected. It was an extraordinary occasion. But the crowd was restless, and there were a lot of boos.

Most truthful statement? “This is the first time in U.S. history that a presidential candidate of a rival party will address the convention of a party that is presumably gathering to nominate its own candidate.”

Juiciest statement? “[T]he Libertarians want to vote for me, and most of them will.”

But is it true? Will libertarians vote en masse — or even as a majority — for Trump?

Today the Libertarians vote among their candidates for the presidency and vice presidency to choose the party’s 2024 presidential ticket. Which will presumably garner the mere (?) 3 percent of the vote that Trump mocked them for.

Here at Common Sense the subject of Oregon’s “red” county secession movement — to move the border to form a “Greater Idaho” — has been addressed several times. Such movements being slow creatures, the advances move along andante. Perhaps Andante con moto.

The story was in the news again this week. For example, Tim Pool brought it up and mused again about the new “civil war” possibility:

But it is also in the papers. Newsweek, for example:

On Tuesday, Crook County in Oregon became the 13th county to approve a proposal to secede from the state and join neighboring Idaho by 53.5 percent of the vote against 46.5 percent, as part of what supporters are calling the “Greater Idaho” project.

Backers of the plan argue the more conservative areas of eastern and central Oregon are currently dominated by liberal-leaning cities such as Portland and Salem and argue their interests would be better represented in traditionally Republican Idaho.

James Bickerton, “Oregon Counties Voting to Join ‘Greater Idaho,’” Newsweek, May 23, 2024.

Talk of secession shouldn’t automatically conjure up “civil war” fears. The American experience in 1860 is the exception: usually secession is the peaceful alternative to unrest, avoiding civil conflict.