Right out of the gate, I need to point out that in no way do I support the policies of Trump – if any coherent policies exist. This post is about strategy not support of his agenda.
Before January 2009 there was a lot of anger over the multiple wars, drone bombings, and interventions. Post inauguration though, that anger went silent. While Bush was a monster bombing 4 countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia), Obama upped that to 7 (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria). Drone strikes increased and war crimes continued. What changed? Why was Obama let off the hook? Presumably the left thought his actions were legitimate, and their respect for him helped them acquiesce to disastrous US foreign policy.
Bernie might be better than Obama or Hillary, though with his support of the war in Afghanistan and the trillion dollars spent on the F35, I'm not convinced he's much better. Hillary, we know to be a hawk. For evidence of this, see Queen of Chaos. Hillary is part of the establishment and a "respectable" political figure. Her use of force would be just as accepted as Obama's. And it goes without saying there's no hope of Cruz and Rubio being non-interventionists.
But what happens if Trump becomes president? He's not "respectable", he doesn't have as many friends or people in his pocket as Hillary. He's not as connected as the other candidates to the DC machine. He's laughed at by the media; he's made fun of everywhere. But this is exactly how every anarchist wants a president to be treated: like a crank, a loser, someone who shouldn't be given power over 310 million people. This is the appropriate view of the presidency.
If Trump takes his belligerent rhetoric to the White House and into his policies, every media outlet, court, and legislator will be scrutinizing his actions. War without a declaration from congress might be called out as being unconstitutional. The same double-tap war crimes of the Obama administration might actually be called such under a Trump administration. Signing statements and executive orders might initiate the impeachment process. The system of checks and balances might actually be worth a damn under a Trump presidency.
There's also a chance that Trump might be the most noninterventionist candidate we have to choose from. While he's said one of the most despicable things a candidate's ever muttered: "We have to kill [the terrorists'] families" (which the administration does anyway, they just don't "man-up" to it), he has also said "they lied us into war" and wouldn't it be nice if we could just get along with other countries. These latter words are not uttered by any other candidate but should be!
So yes, I "support" Trump for president, because Trump becoming president is the best possible way to delegitimize the presidency and the ever expanding powers of the executive branch.
