Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, King James Only, Dispensational
Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Monday, December 8, 2025
Sunday, December 7, 2025
Saturday, December 6, 2025
What is Christian Neolibertarianism?
The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.
In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense.
The NAP is considered by some to be a defining principle of natural-rights libertarianism. It is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, (classical) liberalism, libertarianism and minarchism.
Neo-libertarians support the core libertarian principle called the Non-aggression principle, which states that anything that infringes on another persons rights (rights as those God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty and property), is considered to be morally wrong. Libertarians also staunchly support the ideas of liberty and privacy, with many neo-libertarians, including those in the Libertarian Party, calling for an end to the War on Drugs.
Neolibertarians reject the traditional or paleolibertarian understanding of the non-aggression principle with respect to national defense. They do so not because they favor aggression but because the principle, in its standard interpretation, is a non-action principle. It would not allow a preemptive attack on an antagonistic state that is armed, capable of striking us at any time, and known to be contemplating a strike. Neolibertarians, in other words, tend toward hawkishness when it comes to national defense.
Neolibertarians also tend toward a hawkish stance on legitimate crime. We also reject the idea that the press should be allowed to print whatever information it may obtain about America’s defense forces, plans, and operation. We understand that liberty and the prosperity it brings are unattainable in a lawless, defenseless society.
Neolibertarians are unsympathetic to “political correctness,” arguing that government must not do anything to quell impolite speech or to compensate blacks, women, etc., for the past behavior of those who discriminated against them, because to do so penalizes persons now living who are innocent of discrimination. But more than that, Neolibertarians would give individuals and businesses broad latitude in their affairs, penalizing only acts traditionally understood as harmful (e.g., murder, rape, and theft).
Equality and Fairness for All but Property Owners
https://mises.org/mises-wire/equality-and-fairness-all-property-owners
The grossly misnamed Equality Act is a government attack on the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract. According to the official summary of bill (H.R.5):
This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.
The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.
The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.
Not surprisingly, the Equality Act is supported by the usual left-wing suspects like the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, the AARP, and the National Organization for Women, the American Federation of Teachers, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the American Psychological Association, and LGBTQ rights groups. But it is also supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many of America’s largest companies, including Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, eBay, Starbucks, Kellogg’s, and Johnson & Johnson. It even has the support of some religious denominations and groups, including the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Interfaith Alliance.
The Equality Act has been languishing in the U.S. Senate since March 1 of this year. It was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on February 18 and passed just a week later by a vote of 224–206. Every Democrat in the House voted in favor of the bill, but only three Republicans did. Although as of this writing, the Senate has not yet acted on it, the bill has a good chance of passing in the second session of the 117th Congress when Democrats see the handwriting on the wall that spells out “Republican landslide” in the 2022 midterm elections. The Republican alternative to the Equality Act, the equally misnamed Fairness for All Act, is no alternative at all if property rights mean anything.
Background
To understand the Equality Act, we must begin with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It claimed to be:
An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
The Civil Rights Act was divided into 11 titles. Relevant to the subject of discrimination are Titles II, “Injunctive relief against discrimination in places of public accommodation,” and VII, “Equal employment opportunity.”
Title II of the Civil Rights Act addresses state and local government overreach:
All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
This is all well and good. Every citizen should be treated equally under the law by government of any type and at any level. But, unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act did not stop there. It further mandated regarding private businesses:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
“Public accommodations” was then defined as basically any establishment that served the public: hotels, motels, restaurants, gas stations, cafeterias, soda fountains, theaters, concert halls, arenas, stadiums, or other places of exhibition or entertainment.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment.
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer —
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII also established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce anti-discrimination laws relating to employment.
The Civil Rights Act has been supplemented over the years by various laws designed to prohibit even more forms of discrimination in employment like age, pregnancy, and disability. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 instituted the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit discriminatory acts regarding the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, and national origin. It was later amended to include discrimination based on sex (1974) and disability or familial status (1988).
In 2013, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA (S.815), passed the Senate with the help of 10 Republicans. It differed from all earlier anti-discrimination legislation in that it was designed “to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” The bill was never voted on in the House.
After several years of failure to pass the Equality Act in the House when it was controlled by Republicans, Democrats, who regained control of the House in the 2018 election, passed the legislation (H.R.5) by a vote of 236–173 on May 17, 2019. Only eight Republicans voted in favor of it. A similar bill (S.788) that was earlier introduced in the Republican-controlled Senate was never voted on. Like the current version of the Equality Act, it was designed “to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes” by amending the Civil Rights Act to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation and expand the Civil Rights Act’s categories of public accommodations.
The purpose of the Equality Act is “to expand as well as clarify, confirm and create greater consistency in the protections and remedies against discrimination on the basis of all covered characteristics and to provide guidance and notice to individuals, organizations, corporations, and agencies regarding their obligations under the law.” This is because for several years now, federal agencies and courts have been split on the issue of whether “sex” in the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Most recently, the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 6–3 in the case of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity (together with two other like cases) that discrimination in employment on the basis of sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court concluded: “In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.” But at most, this decision protects LGBTQ “rights” in employment matters only.
Fairness for All Act
The Republican alternative to the Equality Act is the Fairness for All Act. It was introduced in the 116th Congress (H.R.5331) on December 6, 2019, and referred to various committees, but was never voted on. It was then reintroduced in the 117th Congress (H.R.1440) on February 26, 2021, referred to various committees, and is currently languishing in the House. Like the Equality Act, it would prohibit “discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity,” but at the same time protect “the free exercise of religion” by providing “certain benefits and exemptions to religious providers.” The bill would likewise expand “the definition of public accommodation to which sex discrimination laws apply.” However, exempted are
- any building or collection of buildings that is used primarily as a denominational headquarters, church administrative office, or church conference center;
- a place of worship, such as a church, synagogue, mosque, chapel, and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes;
- a religious educational institution and its appurtenant properties used primarily for religious purposes;
- in connection with a religious celebration or exercise: a facility that is supervised by a priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, or minister of any faith, or religious certifying body, and that is principally engaged in providing food and beverages in compliance with religious dietary requirements; or
- any online operations or activities of an organization exempt under this section.
The legislation also “exempts a church or religious organization from claims of employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity under specified circumstances.”
The Fairness for All Act is supported by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the Mormon Church. Its sponsor, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), patterned the legislation after similar legislation enacted in his home state that bans discrimination against LGBTQ individuals—except when it is done by “qualified” religious organizations. Supporters of the Fairness for All Act, like Mormon Church official Jack Gerard, argue that “the time has come for people of faith to acknowledge reality and seek a resolution that protects both LGBT civil rights and religious liberty.” The Fairness for All Act “is a serious effort to reach a sustainable and balanced resolution while there’s still time.”
Naturally, activist organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign, oppose the Fairness for All Act because it provides “substandard protections for LGBTQ people” and has “massive loopholes” that upend “critical federal programs.” But they are not alone. Conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family also oppose the legislation. According to the Family Research Council, the Fairness for All Act “is an ill-advised and poorly drafted bill that does not achieve its goal.” Rather, “it further complicates the issue,” “invites litigation,” and “does not adequately protect religious liberty or, for that matter, women’s rights, women’s privacy, women’s safety, children, parental rights, the medical profession, or even the LGBT community.” According to the Heritage Foundation, the Fairness for All Act “would force individuals and institutions to bow to transgender ideology, threatening privacy, safety, and fairness for women and girls.” In a letter to members of Congress, a group of conservative leaders expressed strong opposition to the Fairness for All Act “because it shares many of the dangerous characteristics of the Equality Act.” Because it elevates “sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to the level of protected classes in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA), this bill would codify a radical gender ideology and empower the federal government to punish citizens who believe sex is rooted in biology and that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
The Fatal Flaw
The Equality Act and the Fairness for All Act both suffer from the same fatal flaw: the attempt to provide equality and fairness for all but property owners. Supporters and opponents of both Acts all agree on one central idea: The federal government should seek to prohibit discrimination in “public accommodations” based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, or national origin. They only differ regarding whether sex should include sexual orientation and gender identity. Both groups believe that the Civil Rights Act in its entirety was good and necessary legislation. Both groups believe that “public accommodations” law trumps property rights. Both groups believe that government should punish acts of discrimination in the interest of equality and fairness. Both groups consider discrimination to be morally wrong (although in the case of the Fairness for All Act, if discrimination is immoral, then it doesn’t suddenly become moral just because it is based on some religious conviction). Both groups believe that government should decide whether acts of discrimination are reasonable, logical, rational, necessary, justified, or permitted (the government forces most employers to use E-Verify to confirm the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States and discriminate against “illegals” or “undocumented”). Both groups believe that government should limit freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract in the name of fighting discrimination.
Property ownership is defined primarily by control. Ownership is the right to the exclusive use of property. Government anti-discrimination laws directly violate property rights by reducing the control a business owner has over the operation of his business. These laws, as other government regulations on businesses, are a form of theft because of how they dilute owners’ property rights. They are akin to someone stealing a percentage of the profits of a business.
Refusing to sell a product, provide a service, or rent a dwelling has everything to do with property rights. Since no potential customer has a claim on the property of any business owner, he has no legal recourse if the owner of the property refuses to do business with him. “Public accommodations” are still private businesses. Just because they serve the public by offering to sell them goods or services doesn’t mean that they should be regarded the same as government agencies that have to service all members of the public. If a property owner cannot restrict whom he employs, whom he engages in commerce with, whom he rents or sells to, whom he admits or excludes, and whom he associates or contracts with, then he has no property rights.
Why is it that customers can legally discriminate against businesses but businesses cannot legally discriminate against customers? Why is it that workers can legally discriminate against employers but employers cannot legally discriminate against workers? Why is it that tenants can legally discriminate against landlords but landlords cannot legally discriminate against tenants? Why is it that borrowers can legally discriminate against lenders but lenders cannot legally discriminate against borrowers? Although acts of discrimination may be arbitrary or unjustified, this doesn’t change the fact that no one has the right to any particular job, membership, residence, good, or service. In a free society, the practice of discrimination must be an option for buyers and sellers as well as property owners and patrons.
In a free society, the right to discriminate is essential and absolute. A free society must include the freedom to discriminate against any individual or group for any reason and on any basis. A free society may or may not be free of discrimination, but it must be free of discrimination laws. By their very nature, the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract include the right to discriminate. But not only are anti-discrimination laws an attack on these things, they are also an attack on freedom of thought. In a free society, everyone has the natural right to think whatever he wants—good or ill—about any individual or group and to choose to associate or not associate, in a personal or business capacity, with any individual or group on the basis of those thoughts. His thoughts may be erroneous, irrational, or illogical, and his opinions may be based on stereotypes, prejudice, or bigotry—but in a free society everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions.
Since discrimination in any form is not aggression, force, coercion, violence, or threat, insofar as the law is concerned, it should never be considered a crime. And neither should it matter, insofar as the law is concerned, on what basis the discrimination takes place, the reason why the discrimination occurs, or what any individual or group thinks about it. Therefore, insofar as the law is concerned, the government should not proscribe it, seek to prevent it, or punish those who do it.
This article was originally published in the December 2021 edition of Future of Freedom.
Libertarianism and Value Judgments
https://mises.org/power-market/libertarianism-and-value-judgments
The nonaggression principle
The guiding principle undergirding the libertarian philosophy is what is known as the nonaggression principle. As explained by the great libertarian economist and theorist Murray Rothbard (1926–1995):
The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.
The creed of libertarianism is nonaggression: freedom from aggression and violence against person and property as long as one respects the person and property of others. Aggression is the nonconsensual initiation of violence, the threat of violence, coercion, theft, or fraud. The nonconsensual initiation of aggression against the person or property of others is always wrong — even when done by government actors. The use of force is justified only in self-defense or retaliation, must be proportional, but is neither essential nor required. And the use of force is only defensible against actual aggression, not because there is a theoretical possibility that someone might commit an aggressive act. Libertarians reject individual and especially government aggression against a nonaggressive individual’s person or property in order to prevent an action from occurring, effect a change in thinking or behavior, compel virtue or charity, achieve some desired end, or punish some peaceful action that is occurring or has already occurred.
Libertarianism
Libertarianism, therefore, as explained by Rothbard “is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.” Libertarianism “is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” Thus, in a libertarian society, that is, a free society,
People are free to pursue happiness in their own way, provided that they don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others.
People are free to live their lives any way they choose as long as their conduct is peaceful — even if their choices are deemed by others to be harmful, unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, sinful, financially ruinous, destructive, or irresponsible.
People are free to participate in any activity as long as their activities are non-violent, non-disorderly, non-disruptive, non-threatening, and non-coercive.
The voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults is none of the government’s business.
Freedom of voluntary association, discrimination, and conscience are absolute.
Individuals, not society or the government, are the ones who decide what behaviors they want to practice and what risks they are willing to take.
Because there are no such things as nebulous crimes against nature, society, or the state; because vices, immoral actions, dangerous activities, sin, self-harm, and financial irresponsibility should never be considered crimes; and because every crime needs a tangible and identifiable victim who has suffered measurable harm to his person or measurable damages to his property, the functions of government in a free society should be strictly limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property by prosecuting and exacting restitution only from those individuals who initiate violence against, commit fraud against, coerce, or violate the property rights of others. This means that the government should not transfer our wealth in the name of social justice, fairness, or equality; tax us to fund its boondoggles, military adventures, or programs that compete with the free market; force us to be charitable; compel us to be virtuous; or punish us for doing things that are not aggression, force, coercion, compulsion, threat, or violence.
So, regardless of what many liberals, socialists, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, moderates, centrists, and populists may think about libertarianism, libertarianism is not about libertinism, utilitarianism, rebellion, indifference, greed, materialism, selfishness, revolution, anarchy, skepticism, atheism, nihilism, moral relativism, moral skepticism, egalitarianism, antinomianism, hedonism, or licentiousness. Libertarianism is not “every man for himself,” “anything goes,” “situation ethics,” “survival of the fittest,” “freedom from all constraints,” “dog eat dog,” “rugged individualism,” or “unfettered capitalism.”
But neither is libertarianism about one’s lifestyle, tastes, sexual proclivities, school of aesthetics, social attitudes, tolerances, values, morals, habits, diet, vices, or personal preferences. There is nothing about libertarianism that is inherently inimical to organized religion, the family, community, an ordered society, tradition, custom, shared values, cultural norms, objective standards of right and wrong, cooperation and collaboration between individuals, the natural law, social institutions, patriotism, the rule of law, or Judeo-Christian ethics. And it is an overly simplistic mischaracterization of libertarianism for libertarians or anyone else to say that libertarians are “economically conservative and socially liberal.” These are things that most nonlibertarians and even some libertarians don’t seem to get, hence the need for this article.
It is only by treating libertarianism as a moral instead of a political philosophy that libertarianism can be said to be an immoral philosophy. But even then, there is nothing inherently immoral about libertarianism, and, in fact, it is impossible for it to be so since libertarianism has no positive precepts or obligatory duties, and makes no assertions about God, religion, human nature, sin, or the afterlife. How could there be something immoral about abstaining from aggression, the nonconsensual initiation of violence, the threat of violence, coercion, theft, or fraud, and wanting others and the government to do likewise? In fact, it is violating the tenets of libertarianism that is immoral.
Why are not liberals, socialists, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, moderates, centrists, and populists accused of being immoral when they advocate the government forcing some Americans to pay for the education, food, and health care of other Americans? Why do members of these groups not think it immoral for the government to lock people in cages for possessing too much of a plant the government doesn’t approve of? Libertarianism celebrates things such as individual liberty, private property, peaceful activity, voluntary interaction, laissez faire, personal freedom, financial privacy, individual responsibility, free enterprise, free markets, free speech, free thought, and a free society. There is nothing inherently immoral about any of these things.
Libertarian positions
Like liberalism, conservatism, and the rest, libertarianism is neutral on whether one buys organic produce, whether one wears a bicycle or motorcycle helmet, whether one recycles, whether one eats red meat, whether one supports local businesses, whether one wears a seatbelt, whether one takes vitamins, whether one is a vegetarian or vegan, or whether one avoids high fructose corn syrup.
But neither does libertarianism take a position on whether one believes in God, whether one attends church, whether one donates to charity, whether one is religious, whether one believes in life after death, whether one believes in a last judgment, whether one celebrates diversity, whether one votes, whether one salutes the flag, or whether one believes the Bible is the word of God. This lack of positive assertions bothers many who are not libertarians, and especially conservatives. The fact that libertarianism commits its followers to one simple proposition — it is wrong for anyone to initiate violence against anyone else, directly or via the government — is not enough for them.
What really bothers others, again, mainly conservatives, is that libertarianism has no position on things that are considered to be “bad.” Libertarianism takes no position on whether one plays the lottery, whether one gambles at a casino, whether one smokes tobacco or marijuana, whether one commits fornication or adultery, whether one uses profanity, whether one tells racial jokes, whether one reads a horoscope, whether one views pornography, whether one discriminates, or whether one is a homosexual. This doesn’t mean that libertarians don’t think that some of these practices are bad or even immoral. It just means that they believe it is not the proper function of government to interfere with the voluntary, private, peaceful activity of consenting adults, “bad” as it may be, as long as they don’t threaten or initiate violence against the person or property of others. Critics of libertarianism — and even some libertarians — have made libertarianism more complex or more expansive than it is.
This is no more evident than when it comes to the subject of value judgments. Most liberals and conservatives complain that libertarians don’t make value judgments while some libertarians complain when they do. In order to understand why this is so, we must first look at economic value theory.
Donald Trump Is No Grover Cleveland
https://mises.org/power-market/donald-trump-no-grover-cleveland
Beginning with George Washington, who took the oath of office for the first time in 1789, a total of 45 men have held the title of president of the United States of America. Less than half of them were elected to a second term: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. (It should be noted that T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Johnson were vice presidents who became president the first time after the death of the president they served under.) Franklin Roosevelt was elected to four terms, but he died three months into his fourth term. The Twenty-Second Amendment limits the president to two four-year terms. It was proposed in 1947 and approved by the requisite number of states in 1951.
Grover Cleveland — the first Democratic president after the Civil War — was both the 22nd and the 24th president. He was first elected to the presidency in 1884, winning both the popular and Electoral College vote. However, in the 1888 election against Benjamin Harrison, although he narrowly won the popular vote, lost the electoral vote 233–168. But in the next election of 1892, Cleveland defeated Harrison, winning both the popular and electoral college vote, and returned to the White House as the first of only two presidents elected to two nonconsecutive terms.
Donald Trump was both the forty-fifth and forty-seventh president. He was first elected to the presidency in 2016, when he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton but won the electoral vote 304–227. However, in the 2020 election against Joe Biden, he lost both votes. But in the next election of 2024, Trump defeated Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris, decisively winning both the popular and electoral college vote, and became only the second president elected to two nonconsecutive terms.
Although Cleveland and Trump share the distinction of being the only American presidents elected to two nonconsecutive terms, Trump is no Grover Cleveland, who has been called “the last good Democrat” (Thomas J. DiLorenzo), “the last Jeffersonian (Ryan S. Walters), and “the last good president from a classical-liberal perspective” (John V. Denson).
Grover Cleveland
Stephen Grover Cleveland (1837–1908) was born in New Jersey during the presidency of Martin Van Buren, but moved to New York as a child. He was the fifth of nine children of a Presbyterian minister. He neither attended college nor served in the military. After being admitted to the New York bar and working as a lawyer, Cleveland entered public service in New York, first as assistant district attorney of Erie County, then as the sheriff of Erie County, then as the mayor of Buffalo, and finally as the governor of New York, which office he left after winning the presidency. He was the only man to serve as mayor of a major city, governor of a major state, and president of the United States, all in a four-year period.
Cleveland has been described by sympathetic historians as unyielding and principled, upright and trustworthy, compassionate and courageous, honest and virtuous, and having integrity and rugged strength of character, a powerful and attractive personality, and common sense and Christian faith. He was a highly intelligent, effective communicator who abhorred self-aggrandizement. This is all well and good, but what we are really interested in is Cleveland’s commitment to constitutional and libertarian principles.
Cleveland venerated the Constitution and was one of the most libertarian presidents America has ever had. He believed in a strict construction of the Constitution; a limited federal government; federalism; a free-market economy; sound money, the gold standard, and the separation of banking from the government; and low government spending and low taxes. Cleveland opposed war with Spain over the Cuban question, saying, “There will be no war with Spain over Cuba while I am President.” He later expressed opposition to the American annexation of Hawaii, saying, “I regarded, and still regard, the proposed annexation of these islands as not only opposed to our national policy, but as a perversion of our national mission. The mission of our nation is to build up and make a greater country out of what we have, instead of annexing islands.” Cleveland opposed the protective tariff, sought to improve the quality of life for American Indians, and believed that education of the black man would lead “to the proper solution of the race question in the South.”
In between his two stints as president, Cleveland spoke to the members of the Young Men’s Democratic Association of Philadelphia in 1891. His address was on “The Principles of True Democracy.” Echoing Thomas Jefferson, Cleveland described these principles as:
Equal and exact justice to all men, peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliance with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor; a jealous care of the right of election by the people; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expenses; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; the encouragement of agriculture, and commerce as its handmaid, and freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of the person.
It is right that every man should enjoy the result of his labor to the fullest extent consistent with his membership in civilized community. It is right that our government should be but the instrument of the people’s will, and that its cost should be limited within the lines of strict economy. It is right that the influence of the government should be known in every humble home as the guardian of frugal comfort and content, and a defense against unjust exactions, and the unearned tribute persistently coveted by the selfish and designing. It is right that efficiency and honesty in public service should not be sacrificed to partisan greed; and it is right that the suffrage of our people should be pure and free.
He maintained that “economy in the public expense is an important article in the true Democratic faith.”
Cleveland was so committed to the Constitution that he vetoed more bills per year than any other president. Although Franklin Roosevelt vetoed a total of 635 bills, he was president for three full terms and part of a fourth. Cleveland vetoed 414 bills in his first term — more than twice as many as all of his presidential predecessors combined — and 170 bills in his second term. His most famous veto, which occurred in 1887, supremely illustrated his commitment to a philosophy of limited government. Congress passed the Texas Seed Bill to appropriate $10,000 for the purchase of seed grain for some farmers in certain Texas counties who had lost their crops due to a drought. Cleveland stated in his veto message:
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.
During Cleveland’s presidency, the federal government’s revenue came primarily from two sources: (1) internal excise taxes on certain items, most notably tobacco and whiskey, and (2) tariffs on imports, which accounted for about 60 percent of total revenue. The only tariff Cleveland supported was a revenue tariff, not a tariff for the protection of industry. But he also favored lowering the tariff rates to “relieve the people of unnecessary taxation” and argued that high tariffs raised prices and resulted in retaliation by other countries. After his second term ended, Cleveland accused the protectionist Republicans of acting like “merchants of treachery” when they passed the Dingley Tariff of 1897, which raised tariff rates substantially.
Although Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were decent as far as presidents go, they did not have the commitment to classical liberalism that Cleveland did. He was the last true “liberal” president in the original sense of the term.
Donald Trump
Donald John Trump (b. 1946) was born in the New York borough of Queens to a real estate developer. He attended private schools before enrolling in Fordham University and then transferring to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in economics. He joined the family real estate business and later expanded The Trump Organization’s holdings to casinos, airlines, beauty pageants, clubs, football teams, and television shows, but along the way had several bankruptcies. His net worth was estimated by Forbes in 2024 to be $2.3 billion.
Trump’s contrasts are endless. In 2024, he became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony, but he was also named Time magazine’s “person of the year.” As president, he was impeached by the House twice but acquitted by the Senate both times. He is also all over the map politically, registering throughout his life as a Republican, a member of the Independence Party, the Reform Party, a Democrat, and unaffiliated. He was elected to the presidency without ever serving in the military or holding a government office on any level.
Trump has been criticized from the left as being a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, and a homophobe who is a fascist with dictatorial ambitions. But even from the right, his critics — like David Stockman, President Reagan’s OMB director — have said: “He is a blatantly narcissistic loudmouth who has zero charisma and personal appeal as a candidate. Neither has Trump offered even a semblance of a coherent program to remediate the acute economic and fiscal challenges facing the nation at home and the utter disarray of the American Empire abroad.” But like President Cleveland, what we are really interested in is Trump’s commitment to constitutional and libertarian principles. The problem is, unlike Cleveland, Trump doesn’t really have any such commitment.
The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have anything to do with health care, retirement, welfare, education, foreign aid, or drugs. Yet, Trump supports the federal government having a role in every one of these areas.
Trump is not only a drug warrior but believes that the penalties for drug dealing should be “very, very severe,” and he has even talked about the death penalty for drug dealers.
Trump has been a vocal critic of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) but not because the federal government shouldn’t have anything to do with health care or health insurance. Trump wants to replace Obamacare with his own government health care plan that includes price controls and government mandates to ensure that “Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.”
Trump has vowed to not cut a single penny from Social Security or Medicare and protect these socialistic and unconstitutional programs for seniors. Yet, these are the two largest mandatory spending programs of the federal government. The federal budget cannot be cut in any meaningful way without making cuts to these programs.
When Trump took office the first time, there were about 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, utility subsidies, medical care, and social services to poor, disabled, and lower-income Americans on the basis of the beneficiary’s income or assets. When Trump left office, the United States still had about 80 means-tested welfare programs.
Although Trump has talked about abolishing the Department of Education, he has also proposed expanding eligibility for Pell Grants, continuing the National School Lunch Program, and increasing funding for child care and early learning. He has advocated cutting “federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.” But what about schools that don’t push such things? Separating education from the state as a matter of constitutional or libertarian principles is not the basis of anything that Trump has said regarding education.
Trump has criticized foreign aid but included foreign aid spending in his budgets when he was president the first time. He has no philosophical objection to foreign aid spending as long as it is not given to “shithole” countries or countries that “do nothing for us.”
One of the main issues that sets Trump firmly apart from Cleveland is tariffs. Whereas Cleveland deplored protective tariffs and sought a reduction in tariff rates even though there was no income tax, Trump champions protective tariffs in addition to the income tax. He has said that because free trade is not “fair,” America has been taken to the cleaners by her trading partners, America has been ripped off by the world, American jobs have been stolen, and American wealth has been plundered. He believes that trade deficits are the root of all evil. Trump — despite his degree in economics — completely misunderstands the nature of trade. Trade is not a national game in which some countries win and others lose. Trade does not take place between countries but rather between individuals and businesses and between producers and consumers. It is never a zero-sum game in which one side gains at the expense of the other. Trade is always a win-win proposition. In every exchange, each party gives up something it values less for something it values more. Each party anticipates a gain from an exchange, or it wouldn’t engage in commerce with the other party. When it comes to the subject of trade, Trump is an ignorant protectionist and incoherent economic nationalist. He claims that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” although it is American consumers who will ultimately be paying his tariffs.
When he was president the first time, Trump did nothing to rein in federal spending even though he had Republican majorities in both houses of Congress for the first two years of his presidency. Under Trump, the federal budget deficit increased by almost 50 percent, and the U.S. national debt increased by almost 40 percent. Trump only vetoed only a pathetic ten bills in the four years he was president. Because Trump is averse to cutting the three most expensive things in the federal budget (Social Security, Medicare, and defense), any recommendations to cut waste, fraud, and abuse made by his unofficial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) won’t result in any significant decrease in the federal budget — if they are even implemented.
Conclusion
The conclusion is inescapable: Donald Trump is no Grover Cleveland. In historical rankings by political scientists and presidential scholars, Trump always appears in the bottom five and is often ranked dead last. I agree with Trump supporters that much of this is political bias. However, Cleveland never makes the top 10 and rarely makes the top 20. Until Trump was elected to a second nonconsecutive term, Cleveland was generally known for being the only president ever elected to two nonconsecutive terms — and that’s it. Now that Trump has also accomplished such a feat, we can only hope that perhaps Americans will be prompted to take a closer look at the first president to do so. Cleveland’s commitment to constitutional and libertarian principles should be a model for Trump and all future presidents to pattern their administrations after.
This article was originally published in the March 2025 issue of Future of Freedom.