Supporters of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump like to present their preferred candidate as the polar opposite of the other, with Clinton supporters painting her as a lifelong public servant and Trump backers touting his status as a brilliant businessman and job creator.
But, Andrew Napolitano argues in a new column for Reason, the differences between the two major party nominees are superficial at best, and that “the most remarkable aspect of this presidential election is not how much the two principal candidates disagree with each other but how much they actually agree.”
What if they are both statists? What if they both believe that the government’s first duty is to take care of itself? What if they both believe in the primacy of the state over the individual?
What if, in clashes between the state and individuals, they both would use the power of the state to trample the rights of individuals?
What if the first priority of both is not to decrease the size and scope of government but to expand it? What if they both believe that the federal government may lawfully and constitutionally right any wrong, tax any behavior and regulate any event? What if they both want to add a few thousand new employees to the federal payroll, give them badges and guns and black shirts, and engage them as federal police to insulate the federal government further from the people and the states?