I figured with all the stuff about the Democrat and Republican parties both having some level of divide between establishment and anti-establishment, the difference in both parties being that the establishment sticks to non-controversial and socially normalized views and methods, I should say some kind of commentary like that not about any party but by my ideology: third-wing libertarian philosophy.
Saying this, I feel like breaking libertarian philosophy down into Establishment vs Anti-establishment, regardless of party affiliations.
Within libertarianism, particularly America’s 36 million libertarians [one American out of every nine], establishment libertarians are those like the Libertarian National Party and the paleolibertarian demographic who allow for compromise with Illiberal Progressives and with the Christian Right on social freedom, while avoiding positions on foreign policy [FP] and national security [NS] that are controversial or come off to left-leaning voters as harsh or feisty. Establishment libertarians are also those who will demonize such FP or NS positions as “Anti-libertarian” or “Non-libertarian”, and will always use faith and wishful thinking to back up their opposition to controversial positions on FP and NS. Establishment libertarians typically oppose working within either of the two major parties, Democrat or Republican, on libertarianism’s behalf. Some examples of establishment libertarians I can name are Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and supposedly Rand Paul; and as for Non-politician VIPs, among establishment libertarians, include Vince Vaughn, Clint Eastwood, Drew Carrey, supposedly Kelly Clarkson [believe it or not], and… I think that’s it.
Among the same 36 million Americans duly noted above, anti-establishment, or populist, libertarians are those who are not at all afraid to stick entirely to popular libertarian domestic policy of maximizing social freedom and economic freedom equally while being very not afraid of controversy over tough-love stances on FP and NS. Communities within this Populist libertarian brand include the Libertarian Defense Caucus and the neolibertarian demographic. The only politician I can name who fits populist libertarian branding is Wayne Root, whereas there are plenty of Non-political VIPs who fit this populist libertarian criteria. Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gene Simmons, Lady Gaga [believe it or not], supposedly David Draiman [singer of my favorite band Disturbed], and fellow Scientific Community person Michael Mealling are all populist libertarians. On the issues, populist libertarians take many stances on the issues that are popular among ordinary Americans but not among libertarian Americans, regardless of whether the popular stances to the ordinary are controversial or not, but do so without compromising on social freedom or on economic freedom. Populist libertarians mostly or always shy away from libertarian think tanks when seeking facts about foreign policy and national security, but seldom or never shy away when seeking facts about social policy or economic policy. This earns populist libertarians like myself the right to be called “populist” because most of our stances give us common ground with ordinary voters who have lives beyond politics, like me – I have a life beyond politics, therefore as a libertarian I identify more with the libertarian Populists than the libertarian Establishment. Populist libertarians will extensively use history and evidence when speaking for populist libertarian stances on foreign policy and national security.
I did this to explain establishment vs populist within a philosophy that is compatible with either major party in the Social Policy department. But unlike establishment vs populist in the parties, this conflict in the ideology strains from – in my view – wise vs wishful, rather than poor vs rich. Thank you all,