No Labels, and the Ideology of Post-Ideology

Why you should reach for your wallet whenever people near power claim to be post-political problem solvers

No Labels, that new Frumtastic assortment of purportedly post-ideological problem-solving political centrists who, like the imperious New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, just want to get stuff done, dammit, has been uniting all corners of the political spectrum in spontaneous derision. Some weekend hits from George Will:

Although the people promising to make No Labels into a national scold are dissatisfied with the tone of politics, they are pleased as punch with themselves. If self-approval were butter, they could spread it across America, if it were bread. [...]

Often in the year before the year before the year divisible by four, a few political people theatrically recoil from partisanship. Recently, this ritual has involved speculation about whether New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might squander a few of his billions to improve America by failing to be elected president.

And Frank Rich:

In its patronizing desire to instruct us on what is wrong with our politics, No Labels ends up being a damning indictment of just how alarmingly out of touch the mainstream political-media elite remains with the grievances that have driven Americans to cynicism and despair in the 21st century's Gilded Age. [...]

The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild America is childish magical thinking, and, worse, a mindless distraction from the real work before the nation.

Such criticism, of course, only proves they're onto something....

I find two interesting takeaways from the reaction to this latest not-very-interesting non-movement. First, the basic derision—and not just from Team Red/Team Blue partisans—suggests that maybe Americans are becoming increasingly sophisticated about their own political coloration (even while, perhaps paradoxically and perhaps not, defecting more and more from the two main political tribes), and as a result, are buying less and less of the long-peddled lie that civil, bipartisan, problem-solving political centrism is magically devoid of ideology. To pervert Frankie Goes to Hollywood, when two tribes go to peace, a point is all that you can score: against the PATRIOT Act, TARP, open-ended 9/14 authorizations, and the neverending War on Drugs.   

The ideology of the do-something center, permanently encoded as it is in the DNA of political lifers and View-From-Nowhere media institutions, is arguably the single most powerful ideological strain in today's body politic. This is in part because it sells itself as being beyond ideology—hence, more attractive to those who nurture a rational disgust for politicians—and then so readily adheres to the program of whoever is wielding power. Pragmatic problem-solving means almost never considering the possible benefits of getting the government out of the way of a given issue, since that would A) be yuckily ideological, and B) require walking away from the world's largest problem-solving tool. And it means never having to say you're sorry about unintended consequences, regulatory capture, or the broken eggs of individual injustice. After all, by the time those flaws make front-page news, there's always a new problem requiring urgent intervention.

And if said problem is big enough, some of these very same post-partisans—sorry, Citizen Leaders—will come right out and say that it doesn't even matter what the government does, so long as it does something, and big. Why, here's the imperial Mr. Bloomberg himself, in September 2008, as the country's do-something class was busy soiling itself over the financial crisis: "Nobody knows exactly what they should do, but anything is better than nothing." From where I sit, that's as ideological as it gets.

What's unintentionally funny about the "civility" crowd is that they sing an altogether different tune when a national crisis temporarily puts the wind in their sails; then it's all about routing what few heretics remain in the public square. Thus it is that in 2010 we are receiving lectures on political manners from the Bush-enabling No Labels Founding Leader David Frum, who in April 2003 was railing against anti-war conservatives as "unpatriotic," self-hating Americans who "have turned their backs on their country," thus forcing (and yes, he used that verb) the rest of us to "turn our backs on them." As Jesse Walker observed in his classic October 2009 piece on "The Paranoid Center,"

The most formidable eliminationists have always been in the American center, not on the margins. They aim to preserve or extend the existing social order, not to subvert it. And they have the most guns. [...]

It's comforting to imagine that violence and paranoia belong only to the far left and right, and that we can protect ourselves from their effects by quarantining the extremists and vigilantly expelling anyone who seems to be bringing their ideas into the mainstream. But the center has its own varieties of violence and paranoia. And it's far more dangerous than anyone on the fringe, even the armed fringe, will ever be.

This column started out as a happy observation of a welcome public trend rather than a glum roundup of the usual libertoid complaints, so I'd like to end on the cheerier note. We live in an era of niches upon niches, of Long Tail economics and infinite varieties/combinations of personal identities. It stands to reason that this is just as true, if not more so, when it comes to politics and ideology. As a country and civilization, we are evolving from the mythical "no-label" universality of mass, atomized culture, to a more robust and fluid collection of association-forming individuals with labels as promiscuous and variegated as tags on a blog post. Everybody is coming from somewhere, carrying some baggage, and we are right to reach for our skepticism (and our wallets!) when a group of people in or adjacent to power claim to be descending upon us with an ideological slate as clean as a baby's mind.

Barack Obama and John McCain both ran for president as post-ideological pragmatists. So did, in their own ways, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. It remains an attractive pose, and will always draw cheers from the indefatigable problem-solvers drawn to power like cowbirds to cattle. But though the results of pragmatic bipartisanship may feel bigger and more burdensome than ever—a federal government 60 percent more expensive than it was a decade ago, a fiscal status quo that even the statists in charge describe as "unsustainable"—the oxymorons behind it cannot long survive the age of transparency and speciation. "No labels" is less the herald of a new era of category-free politics and ideology-free interventionism than it is the last loud gasp of a slowly dying beast.

Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason magazine, and, along with Reason.com/ReasonTV Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie, author of the forthcoming The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America (Public Affairs).

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.

  • Corduroy||

    I would say that Obamacare is exactly what you get when you try to move "past" ideology.

    Instead of a rational argument between single-payer and a truly free market for health care, you get a massive regulatory scheme that is undecipherable and therefore inherently unfair and unjust.

  • ||

    ...not to mention that it combines the WORST aspects of government control, moral hazard, rent-seeking, "socialized risk and privatized profit", etc.

    I'm a free-market guy, but I really can't help but wondering whether "single-payer", bad as it is, would not be better than the system set up by the recently-passed bill. Yes, that may be like saying that I'd prefer to be hit by a compact car than run over by a freight train, but still...

  • DLM||

    ...wondering whether "single-payer", bad as it is, would not be better than the system set up by the recently-passed bill.

    I know what you mean. This wasn't even the result of the "Let's compromise and get the worst of both sides." that sometimes seems to be the result.

  • ||

    Single payer would definitely be cheaper.

    I had this really weird idea once that we could just buy insurance for the poor. I tried explaining this to a progressive. "If the goal is to help the poor, let's cut out all the crap and just pay the premiums for the poor"

    He was deeply offended, and came up with a bunch of spurious excuses. This led me to believe that the goal was not to help the poor, but free health care for himself.

  • West Texas||

    We already have something like that. It's called Medicaid.

    But middle class people vote too, so our political betters needed to come up with some way to make them think they were getting something for free, as well, without offending them and classifying them as poor. And VOILA! We have a rube goldberg shitstorm called "insurance".

  • ||

    Yup. Sure you're insurance premiums go up because the government will mandate coverage for services you don't care about. And yes, because insurance providers are limited to how much they can charge people with pre-existing conditions, those costs will be rolled into your rates. And don't forget those subsidies for the poor that come from tax revenues. But hey, at least you will no longer pay higher premiums to cover the cost of uncompensated care! See, congress was looking out for us after all.

  • ||

    Look, everyone has a RIGHT to choose their own $300/hour faith-healer. It's immoral for insurance not to cover it.

  • ||

    Isn't that what the healthcare law, or at least part of it does? Anyone who earns less than 4 times the poverty rate is going to get some or all of their insurance premiums subsidized.

    Maybe this thought is more in line with your point, if "must" make sure the poor have health insurance, why didn't the advocates of universal health insurance get together to create non-profit organizations to provide at least some minimal level of insurance to the poor?

  • Robert||

    But at least it seems to be better than Hillarycare, which was even more a product of all those with seats at the table.

  • Joe Pine||

    Eat shit you bible thumping, commie, warmongering, redistributionist bastards!

  • Morton Downey Jr.||

    Hey Joe, you should learn how to spell your name

  • Old Mexican||

  • Huh||

    His banner says "Forward." You know who else wants to lean forward? Yup. MSNBC. Because they are neutral too.

  • ||

    "Lean forward" makes me think of puking.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Thinking of MSNBC makes me puke. Full circle

  • juris imprudent||

    Or "bend over".

  • ||

    That's probably more accurate

  • Ted S.||

    We must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom!

  • Keith Olbermann||

    I lean forward. For Twinkies.

  • ||

    Isn't that prostitution?

  • Keith Olbermann||

    Not for the rich and powerful, little person.

  • DJF||

    This happens every time the Democratic Party looses some elections, the MSM then starts promoting that we should all get along and pass the Democratic Party agenda in the spirit of “Getting Things Done. They just change the name, sometimes its called Bi-Partisan, sometimes Non-Partisan, now they are calling it No Labels

  • Realist||

    Don't forget "Reaching across the aisle".

  • AlmightyJB||

    It was called "reality-based" ideology not that long ago.

  • ||

    "Reaching around the aisle" = "No reach around for taxpayers"

    No homo.

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    ...and the solution always presented by these forward-leaning third-wayers is always the coercive power of the State.

  • ||

    More like a reach-around, which is the best you can hope for if you get fucked.

  • ||

    True, it's just another relabeling. They called themselves "progressives" until that term became discredited after Woodrow Wilson. Then they stole the term "liberal" and used that until it became poison in the late '60s. Then it was back to "progressive" for a while, but Obama is pretty much destroying that term again. So what the heck, they'll say they're the No Labels label and see if they can rope in the voters that way. And all because they can't say "socialism" and get elected in the US.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I think the whole No Labels thing serves as more of an indoctrination campaign. It's not a movement in and of itself, it's more of a branding campaign to help the average American associate big govt powergrabs with centrism.

  • ||

    Exactly. Every time big government gets discredited, proponents try to rebrand it.

  • West Texas||

    Some of the most extreme leftists I know swear up and down that they're just reasonable centrists with big hearts. It never crosses their mind to think that they are advocating for the coercive power of the state, they simply just think that the best way to solve what they see as problems is for government to force people to act or think in a certain way.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    The Stewart/Colbert "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" is similar. Although there was nothing wrong with the stated message (can we all just get along?/be excellent to each other), the timing of the event told you all you needed to know about the intent of the rallies.

    There were large protests against Bush, and the rhetoric used against him, well, it was diverse. It ranged all the way from "overheated" to "obscene." During that time, however, Jon Stewart didn't believe there was a need to tell everyone to calm down and get along.

    But when people took to the streets to protest Barack Obama, however, then we all need to learn to take it down a notch and sing Kumbaya.

  • ||

    "(can we all just get along?/be excellent to each other)"

    Party on dudes!

  • ||

    But when people took to the streets to protest Barack Obama, however, then we all need to learn to take it down a notch and sing Kumbaya.

    When arguing with the typical leftist, it's always a reliable sign that you've won the point when they start hectoring you about your "tone."

  • West Texas||

    This is quite true.

  • alan||

    Or 'maturity'.

  • ||

    Kinda like the loud mouth in a bar carries on, until the much bigger guy stands up to ask him to repeat himself.

    "What's that? The conservatives are protesting? Right now? Huh. They're the ones with the guns, right? I see no need for everyone to get so upset and besides, I was just leaving anyway."

  • West Texas||

    A friend of mine was heavily involved in these Smug-America rallies for "sanity"...

    Then the day after the election she had the balls (metaphorically of course) to tell me to quit being so "derisive and condescending" in celebrating the losses of the leftists. When I pointed out the obvious hypocrisy she had been demonstrating just three days prior, she shut up pretty fast.

    Of course, I use the term "friend" loosely.

  • ||

    I'm sure she entered a period of quiet reflection after the 2008 elections.

  • ||

    Matt,

    Yours and Nick’s book should be good if this post represents one of the themes in it.

    I think the dominant ideology is not liberal, conservative, or progressive. It is technocracy, the rule of experts, and the No Labels crowd is immersed in technocracy. Their supposed virtue is that they’ll borrow any idea from any statist ideology as long as the government controls the situation to “solve” the problem. A new government bureaucracy will fix it, or a corporate bureaucracy pulling the strings for the government bureaucracy.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Technocracy would be an improvement over what these folks actually want. They don't want experts to rule; they want the credentialed to rule.

  • ||

    The credentialed and connected.

    It's the faculty-lounge-liberal version of the Chicago Way.

  • MJ||

    Yes, but those things equate to "expert" in their minds. They are not lying about what they want, they just have a bad defination of it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    *Ding, ding, ding*

    We have a winner!

  • ||

    Why you should reach for your wallet the tar and feathers whenever people near power claim to be post-political problem solvers

  • ||

    I agree with the Mayor. We should put no lables on our food and just let people eat whatever the hell they want.

  • ||

    If he does that, I'll learn to spell.

  • mr simple||

    But how will you know what's in the can if it's not labeled?

  • T||

    It'll be a delightful surprise, and everybody likes surprises! Is this can creamed corn or haggis? Spam or beans? Dinner becomes like the lottery, bringing joy and indigestion to hearts and stomachs across the land.

  • ||

    I am once again reminded of an old Monty Pyhon skit, "Whizzo Chocolates":

    What's this one, 'spring surprise'?

    Ah - now, that's our speciality - covered with darkest creamy chocolate. When you pop it in your mouth steel bolts spring out and plunge straight through both cheeks.

  • ||

    I prefer crunchy frog.

  • ||

    It takes a pretty obviously self serving and shallow idea to allow people as diverse as Rich and Will can score easy points ridiculing it.

  • ||

    I read Frank Rich Roger Elizabeth de Bris' angry NYT footy-stamp in re the "No Labels Party".

    I'd tell you what he said, but I could make neither heads nor tails of it.

  • ||

    This is just an extension of what the Democrats did in 2008. IN 2008 the Democrats perfected the "smart brand". Everyone who is smart and reasonable is part of our crowd and our brand. Everyone who isn't, is not.

    I went to a neighbor's birthday party this weekend. The entire neighborhood is made up of boomer liberal mid and high level bureaucrats. It was (gasp) a Washington cocktail party. And the subject of China came up. Several of the people there had traveled to China. And the love given the Chinese government and their central planning and huge growth was vomit inducing. I was a little more drunk than I planned to be. So, it wasn't one of my better moments. But, they all seemed to be in love with the idea that China has all these smart people running and planning things. I swear they seemed almost gleeful at the prospect of China passing the US. The point to this long story is, these are the kinds of people who will jump on the no labels bang wagon, especially now that Obama is unpopular.

  • Warty||

    I hope the story ends with you punching someone, or at least vomiting down some cleavage. Don't tell me you let such stupidity go unpunished.

  • ||

    I didn't punch anyone or vomit. But I was a little boorish I think. My wife was still mad at me this morning.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Then you did well. Kudos!

  • Ska||

    Or he was ogling someone else's wife for a little too long.

  • ||

    Sadly there wasn't anyone worth ogling. And my God you are a prude.

  • Ska||

    Hahaha - I wasn't chastising you; how would I know what your wife finds acceptable?? Some people have spouses that don't care so much about checking people out, and some have extremely jealous spouses that will make a huge deal about it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sadly there wasn't anyone worth ogling.

    That doesn't surprise me. I find that lefty women more often tend to be frumpy, dumpy and a little bit lumpy.

  • pancakes||

    I'll be in my bunk.

  • DLM||

    Or he was ogling someone else's wife for a little too long.

    Or doing something other than vomiting down that cleavage.

  • waffles||

    I'll be in my bunk.

  • Virginia||

    You didn't mention censorship, hyperinflation, or corruption, did you? Command/controllers hate that.

  • ||

    I mentioned all of that. And I also mentioned the Japanese real estate bubble and how the very same policies (a export based economy driven by an artificially low currency at the expense of domestic consumption) that caused Japan so much misery are being done in China today.

    It was hopeless. If there wasn't a China, these people would have to invent one.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    China is the biggest bubble ever. It will be hilarious when China(Autocracy) lovers are called upon to explain China's inevitable economic crisis as something besides the busting of central planning bubbles.

  • ||

    Ohhh..It'll be the US consumers' fault.

  • ||

    My wife was still mad at me this morning.

    Excellent. Welcome to my world.

  • creech||

    The attendees were, of course, our "smart people." Yet I wonder how many of them were divorced, had kids in trouble with drugs, had financial difficulties, and all sorts of other manifestations that they couldn't even run their own lives but would be happy to run ours?

  • Almanian||

    The kid and financial troubles are all caused by society - they in no way reflect upon the capability of the Best and Brightest™! All the more reason for them to fix the Others who create these troubles for Society®.

    Now, off to Save the World from itself.....

    *whooooooosh*

  • nekoxgirl||

    It makes sense China is so popular with that crowd. It has a totalitarian government that is partially capitalist. In other words, something the Left and the Right can agree on. Fascism is what it used to be called I think.

  • Warty||

    Were these people Tom Friedman fans? I hate to think it, but such a thing may exist.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Dude, Ween has put out over 5 albums. Some people are just sick.

  • Matt Welch||

    My favorite comment of the day. And I don't even hate Ween.

  • Trespassers W||

    MollymollymollymollymollymollyThomasFriedmanmollymollymollyChinamollymollymolly

  • ||

    More than ever, cocktail parties in DC are that retarded kid you made live in a shed in the backyard. You may think it's fine to hose him off once in a while and feed him mustard and biscuit three or four times a week, but eventually he'll catch the neighbor kid banging your wife in the kitchen and kill them both with a sling blade.

  • juris imprudent||

    A generation ago it was all about Japan, Inc. and their brilliant technocrats. If this migration west continues the next generation will go gaga over Kyrgizistan's central planners.

  • ||

    No, no.... Mongolia!!

  • ||

    Who says Obama is unpopular?

  • martin||

    The best part about political compromise is that you can always blame the other side when the program inevitably fails.

  • ||

    The best part is that if it is "bi-partisan" everyone gets the blame which has the same effect as no one getting the blame.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Actually, if this helps wake up some people to the fact that the differences between (R) & (D) is minuscule, that would be a very positive development.

  • ¢||

    If self-approval were butter, they could spread it across America, if it were bread.

    George Will just won a bet that he could shove the world's most syntactically awkward Hemingway allusion through copy intact.

    Take that, zombie Safire.

  • BakedPenguin||

    True, but "New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might squander a few of his billions to improve America by failing to be elected president" is gold.

  • Jeffersonian||

    The very fact that society is becoming more niche-oriented is a perfect reason to draw down the power of central bureaucricies, as their increasing remoteness cannot possibly serve everyone under its aegis in such a broad manner. The Central State has become a procrustean bed.

  • Matt Welch||

    This is the precisely the point (or, one of the points) that Nick & I are making in our book.

  • Nah||

    Problem is, concepts are not "niche-oriented." Murder, theft, fraud are not A-OK in some "niches." Reality (and the nature of man) does not change when you change your name. If by "the power of central bureaucracies" and "the Central State" you mean objectively defined law, then the alternative is non-objective, arbitrary law? Anarchy? And this would somehow be better? How? Biggest gang wins? I suppose you'd counter with something like, "The government is a gang!" But our government is a republic. "Of the people." Are you saying that your people (your "niche") would be better than our people? How? Why? Because they don't have "the Central State" looking over their shoulders? Because they can make up their own rules based on their own whims?

  • Spazmo||

    Go download The Machinery of Freedom. It's free.

  • ||

    "Are you saying that your people (your "niche") would be better than our people? How? Why?"

    Because all "people" are better than criminal "people". I'll remove my label when they get back within the confines of the Constitution. At least with Anarchy, we don't have to fund our daily beating. Why is it Anarchy anyway? Don't we have Local and State government?

  • ||

    I would say that Obamacare is exactly what you get when you try to move "past" ideology.

    If any single Act exemplifies the sort of "magical thinking" currently in vogue in Washington, that grandiose unread half-baked compilation of wishes, dreams and ten million metric tons of pony shit is that very thing.

  • ||

    Somebody trotted out one of those Two thirds of Americans Think the Country is ON THE WRONG TRAAAAAAAACK!!! opinion polls, yesterday.

    What these gibbering ninnies conveniently neglect to mention is that those people (perturbed as they may be) do not in any way agree as to the "right" track, and that they most definitely do not, in large numbers, agree with the sort of people who get paid millions of dollars to sit around a table on Sunday morning and speculate as to the content of the American Consciousness.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    The economy still sucks moose cock right now. If you answer that question with anything other than "wrong track," you are retarded, Barack Obama, fucking Barack Obama, or wishing to be fucked by Barack Obama.

  • Sarah Palin||

    Don't get down on the moose cock, it makes great hot dogs!

  • Sean W. Malone||

    +1

  • juris imprudent||

    So that explains why we haven't heard from Reinmoose in so long.

  • Old Mexican||

    "No labels" is less the herald of a new era of category-free politics and ideology-free interventionism than it is the last loud gasp of a slowly dying beast.

    Unfortunately, dying beasts still lash out, with their very last breath; from Hell's heart, they stab at thee...

  • sarcasmic||

    The 'No Labels' crowd needs a label.

    I suggest 'Statist'.

  • ||

    I suggest "Nanny-assed fuckwads".

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Generic Brand Tyrants

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Equal Opportunity Power Grabbers

  • juris imprudent||

    Instead of a label could they just please get tattoos of targets on their foreheads?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    NO LABELS
    Not Left
    Not Right
    Just Increased Size and Scope!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Great. A movement for the "don't just stand there, do something!" crowd. There are honestly some people who think we don't have enough of that as it is?

  • X||

    No Labels
    Not Left
    Not Right
    Centered
    Like Your Asshole

  • Old Mexican||

    +1e100

  • Old Mexican||

    No Labels

    No principles,
    No convictions,
    Just plenty of ass-kissing.

  • MJ||

    They do have principles and convictions, they just don't clearlystate them, as that would be divisive.

  • ||

    That is why you libertarians will always remain a minority in this country!

  • DLM||

    Labels are important. We can communicate the set of ideas, beliefs, etc., held by someone much more efficiently. Unfortunately, this lends itself to smearing with dishonest labels. Pay attention to how someone self-labels. Ignore (or take with a bag of salt) labels people assign to others.

  • T||

    This fails in practice. To use one of our favorite whipping boys, Bill Maher self-identifies as libertarian, yet no one here would recognize him as such.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: T,

    Bill Maher self-identifies as libertarian, yet no one here would recognize him as such.

    Well, even that labeling serves a purpose, as it unequivocally exposes Maher as a delusional schizophrenic.

  • Kodos||

    As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

  • ||

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

  • ||

    The 'No Labels' crowd needs a label.

    I suggest 'Statist'.

    For most of them, "Unelectable" seems to be pretty accurate.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Oddly enough, No Labels is the ultimate conservative movement. Not conservative in the sense of the fake free market think tanks, or the worthless pro-life movement, but conservative in the classical sense of "the people in power using power to stay in power and to make themselves richer".

  • Bloomberg for President||

    Lean forward, so I can jam this bipartisanship up your ass so hard your ears ring.

  • hank williams||

    The classic liberal and traditional conservative

    http://confederateunderground......ional.html

  • Paul||

    "No labels" is less the herald of a new era of category-free politics and ideology-free interventionism than it is the last loud gasp of a slowly dying beast.

    Excellent article, Matt, but I'm gonna have to disagree with ya here. They're stronger than ever.

  • Paul||

    Bad people, they always come as your friends, with smiles on their faces, solutions to your problems.

  • sarcasmic||

    And if you don't like their advice they turn it into legislation so they can force you to take it.

  • ||

    The whole "No Labels" thing reminds me of the most ridiculous political argument I ever got myself into, and shock of all shockers it wasn't even on the internet.

    The guy had this invisible boundary between what politics he would discuss and what he wouldn't. I would give specific information in attempt to refute his vague conspiratorial notions about politicians, he would say something like "Ohh, I don't talk politics. I prefer to take a more global view. Specifics are for small minds. etc." Whenever I came close to empirically challenging any of his loony beliefs, he would use that cop-out. He was completely adverse to any sort of mental organization, or maybe he was just used to people buying his BS. I don't know.

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    Are you serious? Are you serious?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Wow! You got to meet Glenn Beck! Lucky!

  • x,y||

    I would have punched him in the nads, right then and there, then refused to admit it because it's "too specific."

  • x,y||

    I would have punched him in the nads, right then and there, then refused to admit it because it's "too specific."

  • juris imprudent||

    I'm betting you only would've needed to do so once.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Wow! You got to meet Glenn Beck! Lucky!

  • juris imprudent||

    No blaming the squirrels - you screwed that one up all on your own.

  • El Duderino||

    The middle is the hole at the center part of the ass where all of the shit comes from.

    People who believe in "no labels" are fucking pussies without enough intelligence and conviction to stand up for anything they believe in.

    There are really only two directions for human society and this isn't because I say so, its because its the law of social gravity.

    The law of social gravity states that freedom requires effort, slavery only requires obedience and dependence, therefore people will choose freedom where freedom is available with the least amount of effort, but but since slavery is free and comes with a free slice of bread, they will choose this if they have never known freedom.

    There is a reason why society oscillates between freedom and oppression and it has to do with generational experience. Those who have experienced freedom die off without sufficiently explaining the value of freedom to their offspring. And their offspring therefore do not see the value in working for freedom so they end up in slavery.

    Being in the middle means you are not willing to commit one way or another. Look, if you are a communist, I think you are a douche bag, but at least you have the courage of your convictions. If you are in the middle, you are just keeping the door open to let the masters tempt you into their dungeon. In my mind, if you are a libertarian and believe in the tenants thereof, then you cannot be in the middle or those who make the laws will just walk all over you until you wake up in fucking France. On the other hand, if you are a progressive, or a communist, being a part of "no labels" just means you are the doorman letting in all of the communist flies.

  • MJ||

    "Not Left, not Right, but Forward".

    If you don't make clear what direction you are coming from, how do you know what direction forward is?

  • ||

    I disagree totally with you. Americans voters tend to be centrist and they dont like political warfare. The only ones benfitting from political warfare are the politicians,special interests, corporations, the radical right and the radical left. The middlegrounders like me have been forgotten. Good attempt to dissolve this honorable movement.

  • ||

    And what is wrong with Bloomberg? He has done a lot of good, is a billionaire and still has the can do attitude that is very much needed to solve the mess we are in.

  • ed hardy||

    good article

  • ed hardy||

    good article

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • discount mbt||

    perfect

  • topsbdunksale||

    perfect

  • Cheap adidas shoes||

    perfect

  • wubai||

    How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.

  • qiaofeng||

    outlet

  • xiaofeng||

    outlet

  • jiusuan||

    outlet

  • cajia||

    outlet

  • fantasy||

    impairment" that corresponds to a probability nike shox tl3 of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 are "impaired" in terms of those tests, oakely sunglasses but these people do not have a higher accident rate. Older people develop compensatory driving habits

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