A Vote Against Government

Understanding the midterm elections

If you're not angry, you haven't been paying attention. I first saw that astute proverb on a bumper sticker in the days when directing anger at your government was still a principled calling, dissent was patriotic, and Rumsfelds roamed the earth.

Across the country, the electorate laid down a resounding angry vote against activist government. And, mind you, no one had to wrestle with any ambiguity about the objectives of the Republicans. Democrats helpfully hammered home the newfound libertarian extremism of the GOP, and Republicans typically embraced the label.

Exit polls showed that this election was a rejection of the progressive agenda of "stimulus," of Obamacare, of cap and trade. Exit polls showed that there was great anger with government—not government that didn't work or government that didn't do enough, but government that didn't know its place. Some Senate seats that Republicans lost were to Democrats who sounded more conservative than their opponents.

Smart people will almost certainly pontificate about the end of the purist days when public servants were respected and government was creating jobs. All, of course, imagined. They will lament the irrational angst. They couldn't help themselves but to continue to mock and deride their ideological opponents.

The right wing—and I learned this from much of the news coverage—came out in droves with a predisposed aversion to change; it was paranoid, suspicious, uneasy, and unhinged, or in other words, it had the appropriate attitude for the times. This, laments the enlightened man, means gridlock exactly when we need government most—which, let's face it, according to the left, is always.

But now there's hope.

Typically, victorious candidates will talk about how they look forward to working with the other party for the benefit of America. Harrumph. This time around, newly elected senators told the body to "Deliberate on this!"—to pound sand until they respect "limited constitutional government." Sounds right, at least for a night.

Impressive victories by Marco Rubio and Rand Paul—added to others, such as that of Chris Christie—are going to make life far more difficult for Democrats than the pliable get-along types Democrats were used to dealing with in years past. They may even keep their words.

Then again, I'm no Pollyanna. No election is as significant as the victors would like to believe. And, as W.C. Fields once said, "hell, I never vote for anybody; I always vote against."

Everyone remembers that only two years ago, the world looked dramatically different. The Obama cult was just kicking into gear. Forever majorities were being solidified. And two years from now, chances are that we may be similarly surprised and disappointed.

In many ways, in fact, 2012 portends to be a more consequential year, in which either the country continues to trend in the direction of limited government ideals or the massive bureaucratic institutions built in the past two years will be cemented for the long run.

No matter what happens, for now, we can look forward to two glorious years of hyper-partisan, acrimonious gridlock—Washington's most moral and productive state.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Patriot Mike||

    One more point - here in Ohio, the Libertarians finally had their party affiliation next to their names on the ballot. Why has the media never questioned why only the two major parties had their party names on the ballots? That's step one. Next, getting all candidates for President included in the debates.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I think we should work toward the opposite goal on that one though. No candidate should be allowed to have the name of some private club on the ballot, just so that fans/members of that club know to vote for them.

  • 1st Amendment||

    I'm going to have to say I disagree, but I like the idea.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    There is a first ammendment right to put club affiliation next to your name on a ballot? I just don't see that.

    If I want my name on the ballot to say that I'm in the Rotary Club, and the state says no, they have violated my first ammendment rights? What If I want to note that I'm a Republican, even if I didn't win the Republican nomination?

  • ||

    I's not just a private club. It's a literal monopoly where the vast majority of campaign finance is forced into these 'clubs'. Fortunately Citizens United broke that monopoly to some extent but they be sure they will try work around CU.

  • ||

    Though I have qualms about the LP as it is right now, I was glad to have the opportunity to vote for L's for what I believe were the top five statewide offices: Gov./Lt. Gov., AG, Sec'y of State, Treasurer and Auditor (IIRC). Particularly didn't like either D or R choice for Gov. or AG.

  • ||

    I voted for the libertarian for senate. The GoP candidate was gonna win anyway, was a refreshing opportunity to vote my conscience as opposed to tactically.

  • jacob||

    First?!

  • -||

    You suck at this.

  • jacob||

    Hey...I was off by a minute

  • -||

    On the intertubes, a minute is an eternity.

  • ||

    Nope.

  • C'mon man||

    We need more bipartisanship. We need the Prez to "focus" on the economy. We need our government to solve our problems.

    Fucking nightmare.

  • re-defiler||

    Its a very good thing that Captain Hope and Team Donk has been politically neutered. He's been focusing on the economy, its just that the "Prez" is not very good with "numberz".

    Who expects a junior lawyer (*cough* political activist junior administrator) to handle a budget? It's not in his limited credentials. He didn't get A.A.'d thru accounting at Harvard School ya know.

  • John Boehner, Speaker||

    The American People want blah blah blah and The American People blah blah because The American People blah blah blah.

  • Old Mexican||

    The American People have thus spoken!

    Really?

  • John Boehner, Speaker||

    The American People are not individuals but a herd, and must be addressed accordingly. Furthermore, The American People. And in closing, The American People.

  • T||

    Where does the weeping fit in to this?

  • Barack H Obama||

    Mr B, I look forward to your help with my agenda.

  • ||

    Bring lawyers guns and money, the shit has hit the fan.

  • ||

    Find and crank your old copy of The Who's "Won't get Fooled Again". I do it on the way to the polls every election day.

    After I converse with my attorney, count my ammo and review my bank account.

  • Raven Nation||

    Hell, & I didn't even get to go home with the waitress

  • ||

    You had a bit of luck there, she was with the Russians.

  • Raven Nation||

    Nice thread continuation.

  • ||

    A Warren Zevon fan.But, how true.

  • Joe M||

    In 2012, there will be 21 Dems plus 2 independents who are basically Dems up for re-election, vs only 10 GOPers. I don't see the Dems gaining back much ground, even if things somehow turn back in their favor. The Republicans, on the other hand, could pick up another 5-10 seats.

    In fact, we could easily go all the way back to one-party rule in the opposite direction from 2008. My hope, however, would be that there is a massive fissure between Tea Partiers and the GOP establishment, and we get some real party fragmentation.

  • 0x90||

    My hope, however, would be that I invent a transporter and beam DC to the face of the moon.

  • Joe M||

    Gross.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Why do you hate the moon?

    What did it ever do to you to deserve such treatment?

  • Austin Powers||

    President: I got nukes out the yin-yang! Can't I just use 'em?

    Random General: Mr. President, are you seriously asking us to blow up the Moon?

    President: Why? Would you miss it?

    Me: Not if it meant wiping DC off the fucking map!

  • Fisherman||

    We need the tides. Could we do a tsunami instead ?

  • re-defiler||

    We just need a top level predator with a taste for R & D.

    Imagine how good for America those Alien face-suckers would be on politicians. Obama speeches would start making sense 'ack ggrrppbbb arrr pppbbbllggg'.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The GOP has picked up a lot of state legislatures who will engage in a lot of redistricting.

    That will make it harder for the Jack Ass party for some time to come.

  • Fisherman||

    Hopefully the 2010 census will wipe the most gerrymandered dist. off the map. the 4th MA .Bye bye Barney. The census has to be good for something. Never thought I would want my state to lose delegates, but my country comes first.

  • Rhywun||

    That's nothing. I came across this peach yesterday.

  • ||

    That's not what it looks like anymore.

    http://nationalatlas.gov/print.....08_110.gif

  • ||

    Barack Obama - Career Politician
    Harry Reid - Career Politician
    John Boehner - Career Politician

    Looks like the same old government to me.

  • Lone Wookie||

    Rand Paul - ophthalmologist.

  • ||

    An exception that only proves the rule.

  • Lone Wookie||

    Rick Scott - businessman.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Ron Johnson - businessman

  • Ragnar||

    Rand Paul - the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

  • ||

    LMAO! Did you think of that yourself?

  • Xeones||

    I doubt it. He probably learned it from one of the intellectual giants at the Stewart/Colbert rally.

  • I ♥ Jon||

    GIVE PEAS A CHANCE!

  • I do, too||

    For the last time, he's not from Peas, he's from Hawaii!! That's so juvenile!

  • ||

    Haha yeah, those guys. Paul is an upstanding anti-government kill the middle class guy except when Medicare payments to eye doctors need to be increased.

  • BloodandAlGore||

    Ragnar - writer for Comedy Central.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "No matter what happens, for now, we can look forward to two glorious years of hyper-partisan, acrimonious gridlock—Washington's most moral and productive state."

    What we can look forward to is the Obama administration doing everything it can to continue advancing it's agenda administrativley through all the govt agency beauracracy sinced they've been blocked on the legislative front.

    The EPA will continue with it's plans to enforce carbon emmission regulation. The labor dept will continue to try and implement union card check by administrative decree, etc.

  • ||

    Why are so many libertarians so averse to winning? A major party is starting to show signs of adopting libertarian principles and political views (although, I will concede that this has happened before and Republicans typically do win when they adopt more libertarian positions). Shouldn't that be a good thing? There was a national election in which the public proved somewhat receptive to those views. Isn't that something libertarians should celebrate?

  • ||

    Denying a woman's right to choose. Government telling gays they can't marry. Telling Muslims they can't build mosques. OH YEAH! THOSE ARE REAL LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES!

  • Unborn Woman||

    What the fuck about my rights???

  • Americans of 2020||

    And us!

    We won't be born for another 10 years, but we got our rights, constarnit!

  • ||

    Except even those supporting these positions aren't making them the centerpiece of their agenda. I mean let's face it, social conservatism has been the back alley of the Republicans' platform this go-around.

  • ||

    Anyone who does not want to privitize the lighthouses is a NAZI! Case closed.

  • ||

    Ummm....Republicans sued to repeal DADT and won--and the Democrat controlled government forced it to continue.

    Some republicans and/or conservatives said don't build this particular mosque in this particular place because of the implications, but most of those freely admitted that the mosque had every legal right to go up.

    And who has done a damned thing about abortion recently?

    Are you actually paying attention?

  • Mike the Grouch||

    Bwahahaha! Republicans sued! And they got an activist judge to do what they wanted. Meanwhile every other Log Cabin republican in the country is busy trying to figure out how to take away any rights the gays have gotten since the 80s.

    Have you been paying attention? The massive decreases in civil liberties that came as part of first the drug war and then the war on terra were initiated and pushed by Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. Clinton didn't have a chance to roll any of that back because of the Contract on America.

    You and Harsyani make the same mistake: thinking a bunch of theocratic corporatist Republicans have any serious "libertarian" sensibilities.

  • Mike the Grouch||

    "Meanwhile every other Log Cabin republican" should read "Meanwhile every other NON-Log Cabin Republican"

  • ||

    Government shouldn't be in the marriage business period.

    And as a pro choice libertarian I have to concede the abortion issue is a bit more complex and less black and white than a simpleton like you can grasp.

  • re-defiler||

    Muslims can't build mosques. They outsource the design to infidels with architecture know-how.

    Islam tells gays and women they can't breathe, and still teach (even the moderate forms) that killing/maiming women and gays is an acceptable path to heaven.

    Your ideology does not compute... which means you either live in an ivory tower or on the head of a pin.

  • BloodandAlGore||

    Dude, you have no Quran!

  • Lone Wookie||

    "Libertarians" are not happy when they're not bitching.

  • ||

    No. You're thinking of the Feminist Left and the Religious Right.

  • Lone Wookie||

    Actually, I was thinking of Dear Jacket.

  • cynical||

    Yes, libertarians prefer to be snarky and aloof.

  • T||

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Somebody tell the nice wookie what he's won.

  • Lone Wookie||

    I hope it's a nice pair of slacks.

  • Tony||

    You gonna buy their "hate government" rhetoric as genuine this time? You do realize it's nothing but a political ploy. They love government, otherwise why would they bother to run to be a part of it? Their corporate puppeteers love government too when it's doing their bidding.

  • ||

    As opposed to folks like you who openly fetishize government power. Tell me, Tony, is it some sort of BD/SM thing that I don't want to know about?

  • Tony||

    Not being an anti-government extremist idiot is not the same thing as loving government power for its own sake.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Not being an anti-government extremist idiot is not the same thing as loving government power for its own sake.

    So you love government power for your sake? Or who's sake?

    Want some sake?

  • ||

    Sorry Tony, you love govt power because you intend to use it. Or in reality you love govt power because you've been duped into thinking it will be used for you.

    You're right about the GoP though. This time though there's a lot of people paying attention. If the GoP goes back to their big government roots they will lose everything just they gained and more.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    They love government, otherwise why would they bother to run to be a part of it? Their corporate puppeteers love government too when it's doing their bidding.

    But, you love government.

  • Realist||

    How bored are you, that you can't find something more enlightening to do?

  • ||

    Are you kidding? Poking sticks at statists is fun. The laundry I should be doing, not that is boring.

  • marlok||

    We're all glad you're around to tell us what a "genuine" limited government advocate looks like.

    "They love government, otherwise why would they bother to run to be a part of it?" Something to do with taxes and spending, maybe?
    I've heard this lame argument from so many liberal friends. Who is disseminating this idiotic line?

  • Tony||

    For the record I think all talk of "limited government" is utterly stupid bumper sticker bullshit, that, if it means anything, means letting corporations commit more wrongs against the people while getting away with it more.

  • ||

    For the record I think all talk of "limited government" is utterly stupid bumper sticker bullshit

    Tony doesn't love government for its own sake. He just wants unlimited government.

  • College Know-It-All Hippie||

    Yeah man, you know, like those evil corporations being like all evil and like, like selling stuff, people buying it..... corporations like...evil..like you know, corporations and stuff

  • ||

    Are you seriously saying corporations commit more wrongs than governments?? Or that corporations could commit wrongs as much as they do without government?

    One of your many cognitive flaws is the inability to understand one of the main reasons we want limited government is because we don't like corporations (including Unions) using government power.

    If the power is available it will be bought and sold. You think you can avoid this reality, you can't. But if you could things would be even worse.

    Health care is a perfect example of money (Pharma, Insurance companies, AMA, Hospitals) buying market protection from government which in turn breaks the market.

    Freidman warned the AMA decades ago if they kept up this monopolistic driving up of prices the inevitable result would be socialized health care.

  • Tony||

    So your solution, faithkills, is to simply remove the necessity of corporations to bother with buying protection from government. If corporations benefit soo much from a strong government, then why are they behind all the "limited government" rhetoric? Why are their stooges in government the ones calling for less oversight, tort reform, etc.?

    Reducing the scope of government power with regard to regulating business leaves a vacuum to be filled, it doesn't make abuse just go away. All I believe is that if anyone, including a business, is abusing people, government's job is to prevent it or rectify it.

  • Tony, corrupt-government shill||

  • Cytotoxic||

    why are they behind all the "limited government" rhetoric?

    Citation needed

  • ||

    Yeah I already called him on that. One must wonder does he actually believe that?

  • ||

    So your solution, faithkills, is to simply remove the necessity of corporations to bother with buying protection from government

    Bother? They love it. They invented it in America. That's the whole point of the progressive movement.

    I don't want it there to buy at all. I want them to have to compete fairly. If your competitor is more efficient than you too bad, you don't get a subsidy or a tariff or a regulation, all of which the consumer pays for. Regulation is just corporate welfare and you won't find a bigger opponent to corporate welfare than me.

    then why are they behind all the "limited government" rhetoric

    Oh that is sort of a good question, because it gets to the heart of the problem, your premise.

    They aren't behind limited government rhetoric, if they were why would they contribute more to democrats? What limited government rhetoric have you heard out of big oil(especially BP), or PHARMA, or the AMA, or GE, or IBM, or Microsoft, or GS, AIG, etc etc?

    Looks like all the big money is behind big government doesn't it?

    It's only small business and small (unconnected) players who espouse limited government.

    Reducing the scope of government power with regard to regulating business leaves a vacuum to be filled, it doesn't make abuse just go away

    Bankruptcy and tort is the regulation you need. You know when a judge's decision is crooked, but it's much harder for people to parse that they've been assraped by some piece of regulatory regulation, and much harder to undue.

  • CJ||

    Other than pollution, what wrongs would you say corporations can commit that doesn't involve the assistance of government?

  • ||

    Locking employees in the building overnight. Threatening to kill the families of workers for not doing their bidding. Buying insurance policies on workers who incidentally have a high mortality rate. Not doing proper upkeep because it's cheaper to let workers die. Colluding to keep salaries down. Colluding to keep standards down. Colluding to prevent workers from being able to organize...What?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "utterly stupid bumper sticker bullshit"

    *ahem* Hope and Change

  • Tony||

    "Hope and Change" was MEANT to be a bumper sticker. "Limited government" is supposed to be policy. At least I think so. I don't see anything much more specific from the GOP.

  • ||

    Because libertarians don't think any politician can do "good." We think that the best to which elected officials can aspire is "fuck things up the least." So we don't celebrate electing a bunch of people who will fuck things up less. Yippee.

  • ||

    Like celebrating that you got a less lethal and aggressive form of cancer-- As in "Didya hear? I've got skin cancer!! Time to PAR-TAY!"

  • marlok||

    It might be most appropriate to think of Democrats as metastatic cancer, while Republicans are less aggressive tumors that go into remission (as in 2008) after treatment.

  • ||

    I can kind of buy into what you're saying. I'll be the first to agree that having any hope of faith in a politician is a pretty clear indication of insanity. However, I see no reason not to celebrate or take some hope in the fact that libertarian ideas are even part of the debate at this point. I mean, it strikes me that libertarian arguments are in the best position they've been in to gain wider acceptance in twenty years or more. And the most I hear from too many libertarians is the notion that they really don't like the customers.

  • ||

    No, thinking about running for office is the clear indication of insanity. Anyone who runs for office is basically a narcissitic sociopath. And for libertarians, government is the problem, so if you're elected you're part of the problem and therefore pretty much not libertarian. (and also mentally insane.)So everyone who has been elected espousing liberatarian ideals is basically lying to me because those narcissists love themselves and their titles and power,and will throw anything they promised during the election out their windows. So to use Obama's car analogy, I have to give the car keys to a bunch of pathological liars who will drive the car into a ditch-- and the only thing I get to choose is which set of lies I like better.

  • ||

    And you don't see this as in the least bit self-defeating? "Anyone who wants to actually implement the ideas we espouse can't possibly espouse them"?

  • ||

    That's always been the problem with small government candidates. They can't stand up in front of the people and say "I'm useless and I promise to do absolutely nothing if I'm elected." But in the end, when the government and economy implodes, we'll all be libertarian by default. Libertarianism really isn't a normative political theory--about what should or shouldn't be. It's more like Newtonian physics--it's true or not true. You can be anti-newtonian all you want, but it doesn't change the laws of physics (Let's not get into quantum mechanics and the other laws that go beyond the Newtonian--OK?) If it goes up, it's coming down. You can be as Republican or Democratic as you want, it's not going to change mathematics and economics. And politics in a democracy is not about economics and math; it's a popularity contest. So good luck in electing true libertarians who will say, I'm not giving you any more free shit" over "Here everybody--free money!" statists.

  • Whappan?||

    With all due respect, I think you're describing anarchism, not libertarianism. Although I don't have all this sorted out to my own satisfaction, at the moment I think anarchism is the logical endpoint of libertarian philosophy. Having said that, none of the candidates really even espoused libertarianism, much less anarchism. Just some kind of vague "limited government, reduced spending" rhetoric.

  • ||

    Well as you just said "this has happened before" perhaps we should wait until the New Congress actually takes power and starts doing things. Then depending on the policies they pursue perhaps we will celebrate. Until then the only newly elected officials that I'm cautiously optimistic about are Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Justin Amash.

  • ||

    Sort of the same response as above. Why shouldn't libertarians celebrate the momentum of their ideas?

  • ||

    "momentum of their ideas"

    What ideas have recieved momentum? Balancing the Budget? Everybody agrees we should balance the budget, it's about how we balance it. Substantial cuts to spending across the board is not really an idea endorsed by the GOP. Only a few like Paul Ryan have endorsed that idea and even he leaves "defense" spending intact. I haven't seen a new appreciation for civil liberties, nor have I seen a real re-embrace of a Realpoltik foreign policy or non-interventionism. Repeal of ObamaCare is good, but are the "defends of Medicare" really gonna even attempt to reform entitlements? Are we gonna see a rollback of executive power? Are Joe Lieberman and John McCain still the faces of Republican Foreign Policy? How about a re-attempt at Social Security Reform?


    Cautious optimism is what's called for in this situation. Celebrating the fact that the GOP used libertarianesque rhetoric to win the elections, means nothing until we see "actual" actions.

  • ||

    *"defenders of Medicare"

  • ||

    Jezebel says farewell to Pelosi. No, seriously, they actually love her, just for being female. That'll show Amy Alkon & the mens.

  • Lone Wookie||

    Nobody has seen her since last night. Did somebody throw a bucket of water at her?

  • Warty||

    HOW DARE YOU SAY I MUST BE ATTRACTIVE TO MAKE MEN LOVE ME??? SHRIEK SHRIEK SHRIEK

  • ||

    The best part was that it was double dumb: the Alkon piece was all "laydeez, put on lipgloss so men will luv u", and the Jezebel chorus was like "blargh patriarchy!!!" But somehow I doubt a little lipgloss could solve their man-getting problems.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Well, some guy married Andrea Dworkin, so there's that.

  • Lone Wookie||

    Rachel Maddow is wearing more eye shadow than usual.
    This is getting scary.

  • Cruz||

    Rachel Maddow has the sex appeal of a school bus fire.

  • Zeke Hyle||

    I don't know about you, but that gets me going...

  • hehe||

    Are you sure? I thought that was Wil Wheaton.

  • marlok||

    I like how they reference someone who called her "Lyndon Johnson in a skirt".

    I agree with that comparison on MULTIPLE levels.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Yeah, I was wondering how that could possibly be a compliment.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Can someone give me a conclusive, no bullshit answer to this question: Does Rand Paul wear a toupee?

    Until someone told me recently that his hair was a toupee, I just thought his eccentric hairstyle was him just being a hipster.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Googling this only brings up a bunch of liberal comics who have run out of things to criticize Paul about, so now they're attacking his hair.

  • Warty||

    The word 'hipster' is fast becoming meaningless, just like 'fascist', 'neocon', or 'Steve Smith', because of people like you. Stop misusing it; it's perfectly cromulent word.

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH ALWAYS MEAN SAME THING. STEVE SMITH IS STEVE SMITH! GRR! WHY WARTY HATE LAW OF IDENTITY? GRR!

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Actually, I though Paul was just imitating the hair style of the greatest singer of all time...Fred Schneider, circa Cosmic Thing.

  • Brett L||

    What? I thought that was the same 'doo Kinky Friedman used to call his "Lyle Lovett starter kit".

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    I think he mentioned something about somebody yanking on his hair to see if it was a hairpiece. I wasn't or it was sewn on.

  • Stretchy||

    Let's not mistake this as a rousing endorsement of Republicans. This is a repudiation of idiot Democrats. Just like 2006 and 2008 was not an endorsement of Democrats...

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Don't you mean "refudiation"?

  • Socrates||

    You're absolutely right that this is not an endorsement of Republicans. In the absence of meaningful choice, people will tend to choose "the other guy" if hate their incumbent. It doesn't meant they like the other guy.

    This whipsaw saw hordes of Democrats in 2008, hordes of Republicans in 2010, and for all we know could see another horde of Democrats in 2012. It all depends on what boneheaded things Republicans do in the interim.

    Here's why the Republicans need to treat lightly: http://solutionproblem.wordpre.....publicans/

  • Max||

    How about the occupied West Bank, David? Think we could do something about that now that we've gridlocked things here? Or is gridlock what you want there too?

  • Is Bismarck a Herring||

    You mean the "Palestinian" theft of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with the help of the Norwegians and their continued illegal occupation of Israel, and their fight for the right to keep people from building houses on the basis of their religion.

  • Juice||

    The building of houses doesn't usually happen on empty land. "Building settlements" sounds so innocuous, but what it really means is "kicking people out of their homes, demolishing the houses, and then building your neighborhood in their place."

  • re-defiler||

    Well you make it sound like the previous occupants owned the land, and just didn't wander in, start squatting, then start using violence when they were told to leave the land belonging to others.

    Such a fine line between land developer and settler in the international press lingo of 'Israel hate'. Next thing you know, Israeli fast food patrons will be baby killers because they didn't buy food for somebody somewhere. Idiot.

  • ||

    + a bunch

  • marlok||

    You're absolutely right, Max. Your mention of the West Bank really brings home the necessity of a one-party state.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    *yawn*

    Did Max just make some bullshit comment? I wasn't paying attention.

  • Max The Jew-hater||

    Max is letting his "I Hate the Jew" flag fly. Next we'll get some Holocaust denial.

  • ||

    I thought you guys were all about not bullying the rest of the world with our military-industrial complex?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Doesn't mean we have to spew Jew-hatin', does it?

  • ||

    Problem with this theory: With the legislative branch in "gridlock", that means that the legislative mistakes of the first two years of the Obama will be more difficult, if not impossible, to undo. In order to repeal Obamacare the Republicans needed a decisive win in both houses.

    It's a poor consolation prize to know that more awful bills will not be passed in the next two years when you consider there's almost no hope of getting rid of Obamacare.

  • Xeones||

    You sound almost like you believe either party would possibly consider getting rid of such a juicy entitlement.

    Keep in mind that Mitt Romney wrote the first draft of health care reform. The Republicans as a party have no credibility on repealing it as long as he remains untarred, featherless, and a member of the GOP.

  • marlok||

    You're right that repeal will never happen. That's why it was so important to oppose its passage in the first place.

    Who cares about a series of Republican presidents who said they were for "reforming entitlements"? The important thing would have been to stop the passage of Medicare during LBJ's term.

  • Cruz||

    You got it all wrong. Things like Obamacare and Social Security are good. Eventually the Authority Monetary Policy will collapse and Bam! Instant Reset. Who wants to save this horrendous mess we have now. I'd rather be free of the Fed, The Deficit, The Huge Regime. Give us nationalized socialized communitized anything.

  • Socrates||

    Cruz, I get where you're going, but I doubt that this will be a quick process. The state can limp along for decades, even centuries, before any real change takes place. Chances are, we'll be dead by the time the next revolution happens. In the meantime, some semblance of freedom is still salvageable.

  • re-defiler||

    Cruz, you need a high velocity re-acquiantence with a fellow named Charles Darwin. He poops on your socialist jibjab from beyond the grave. Not even Marx could manage such a feat, although he was apparently really good at never having a job, having his parents/friends pay for everything, and wetting himself. Why are the progressive (diet socialist) heros always such embarrassing morons?

    Next time, select a better ideology.

  • Banjos Kick Ass!||

    Nullification!

  • Xeones||

    Somehow pretty much every commentator i've seen has totally convinced themselves that independent support for Republicans this go-round means that people want to see the parties working together.

    Nope. 2008 was a referendum on Bush, and by reflection his party. The Democrats could have run anybody short of Zombie Hitler and won. But for some reason they thought Obama's landslide was a mandate to put into action all the shit they'd wanted to do for decades, when really the only mandate they had was to not be Bush. With the continuation of wars and wiretaps, and doubling down on Bush's economic interventionism, they're failing miserably at that. So they got stomped, deservedly.

    I'm not sure the Republicans have spent long enough in the wilderness to have learned anything, since the Democrats fucked up so big and so fast. At least we can hope for that gridlock.

  • Juice||

    Nah, John Kerry would have lost in 2008 too.

  • ||

    Yeah, but John Kerry would have lost to Zombie Hitler.

  • ||

    Zombie Hitler promised all those brains. I thought he was talking about education, not, you know, actual brains to eat.

  • ||

    Vampire Stalin takes Zombie Hitler 3 of 5. Werewolf Mao is a push.

  • re-defiler||

    Madisonstein would destroy all those guys.

  • ||

    Funniest thing I've read in awhile.

  • COINTELPRO||

    Gridlock is all fine and good until you realize the Fed now has an incentive to further intervene in the marketplace. If the government can't push economic intervention through Congress, they'll just get the Fed.

  • Juice||

    With Rand Paul in the Senate now, are the chances of auditing the Fed better?

  • Ass of Catalonia||

    Doubt it. At least Ron Paul will now chair the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology so we'll get to see helicopter ben stonewall some decent questions.

  • Ass of Catalonia||

    Also, the FOMC announcement just came out. QE2 will be at least 600 billion more in securities purchases through 2011Q2. If you include securities purchases using principal payments it's 900 billion.

    Basically we're looking at 110 billion/month in POMO from now on.

    ruh, roh

  • Spiny Norman||

    According to Wikipedia, 37 Representatives retired this year, leaving 398 incumbents to run for reelection. Four were defeated in the primaries and 27 yesterday. 367 were reelected, giving a 92.2% reelection rate.

    According to Steve Chapman's article of a few days ago, the House has had a reelection rate of 96% for the last five elections.

    So we're down 3.8% percentage points. Viva la revolucion!

  • Dave||

    I like that the Republicans won the House, but not the Senate. A split Congress is a good thing for America, because having either party with the upper hand overall has proven to be bad. The majority of Americans are center-right, but the majority of the politicians in Washington are wingnuts (either left or right, still a wingnut) who, when they get too much power, start trying to push through legislation that most Americans don't want. So now, if Washington wants to accomplish anything, they'll have to work together and come up with something that doesn't just represent a wingnut minority, but instead finds a common ground. If they can't play nice together, that's okay too. We don't necessarily benefit from Congressmen cranking out legislation like grist from a mill, they just do it because it's their "job" and they need to look as if they're doing their "job" to get re-elected. With a split Congress, both the Dems and the GOP can blame the other side of the aisle for the reason none of their whacked-out legislation is getting through - it's a win-win for everybody.

  • cynical||

    Which reminds me: why can't we be allowed to vote against a candidate on the ballot, instead of just voting for one?

  • Dave||

    A brilliant idea. In some countries, that's exactly how it works. First, you have an election to determine if you want to keep the incumbent or not. Then if you don't, you have another election to pick his/her successor. Granted, you're still voting "for" someone in the end, but you first have to vote "against" the incumbent.

  • ||

    David,

    It seems to me here in Colorado, most of our measures that passed were votes FOR government (keeping high vehicle fees, increasing term limits, restricting MMJ, allowing the state to borrow without voter approval, etc.).

  • Cruz||

    Yah Colorado is doomed.

  • ||

    The author must have overlooked California. Our election was a complete cluster fuck.

  • California Nut Jobs||

    Their brains have been fried by too much sun, moonbeams and LSD.

  • Pelosi Jet||

    How will Nancy live without HER jet?

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    Here's my advice.

    Day 1 of the new Congress, the House should pass the following one-sentence bill:

    "This bill repeals ALL provisions of the PPACA Act of 2010, in their entirety."

    Send it to the Senate, where it will be rejected. Within no more than five minutes, the House passes it again, and sends it to the Senate. Keep doing this until the Senate gives up and sends it to the President, who will veto it. Repeat as many times as possible until 2012. Then:

    "The Republicans in the House tried 47 times to build a bi-partisan coalition to repeal ObamaCare, but the Dems in the Senate and the President won't work with us. Who is 'the part of NO'?"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If/when Dems lose the presidency and the majority, they'll be The Party of "No" faster, harder, and with less kissing than the Republicans have been.

    And sensible people will cheer it on. Gridlock is our only salvation, no matter which Team is in power.

  • mbt shoe||

    up[

  • mbt shoe||

    hgp

  • ugg classic boots||

    g

  • asics shoes||

    gflp

  • coach outlet||

    g;

  • coach outlet||

    jkh'

  • ugg classic boots||

    foop[

  • nfl jerseys||

    one

  • Existential Realist||

    Lulzwut? I was wondering when the ad spambots wouls arrive in force...

  • ||

    TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets…..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER.

  • ||

    Repost this if you agree,Bilderberger influence , IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// 1. .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

    2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

    3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece? 4, The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.
    5. "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."the commander

    ,TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT�..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets�..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

    2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

    3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?

  • ||

    Repost this if you agree,Bilderberger influence , IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// 1. .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

    2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

    3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece? 4, The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.
    5. "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."the commander

  • ||

    THANK YOU TO ALL VETERANS , THE COMMANDER ------NOV.11 ,2010

  • ugg boots||

    to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."the commander

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement