'Let's save some criticism here for the Republican establishment'

Matt Welch talks to The Blaze's Dana Loesch about Donald Trump, political volatility, and the fragile resilience of the two-party system


Why is the politics this cycle so weird and unpredictable? Why are the two major parties still stubbornly refusing to implode despite the stress being applied by the supporters of outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? When will we experience "That blissful moment when we break everything apart"?

I discussed all of the above last night on The Blaze, with host Dana Loesch:

NEXT: Sanders and Trump Are Too Establishment on Syria

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.

  1. *unzips*

    1. I know right. Welch is wearing the HELL out of that suit.

        1. I see he ditched the fauxhawk.

          I has a disappoint.

  2. OT: In Spain, mocking hate-speech laws can get you arrested for hate speech. CW: New York Times


    1. French lawmakers toughened the penalties ? to up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of 75,000 euros (about $82,000), or up to seven years and a $110,000 fine if the statements were made online.

      Mon Dieu! How much if the online statements were CAPITALIZED?!

      1. Didn't I hear that the Europeans are so dreamy because they don't impose harsh sentences for victimless crimes?

        I must have misheard.

    2. "A puppet show at an open square in Madrid during Carnival festivities this month featured a policeman who tried to entrap a witch. The puppet officer held up a little sign to falsely accuse her,..."

      "...and the real police stepped in. They arrested two puppeteers, who could now face as much as seven years in prison on charges of glorifying terrorism and promoting hatred."

      "Paradoxically, the puppeteers say in their defense, the police proved their point: that Spain's antiterrorism laws are being misapplied, used for witch hunts."

      I think I remember that in most countries other than the US 'truth' is not a defense in cases like this.

      "...the arrests on Feb. 5 are part of a lengthening string of prosecutions, including two against a rap musician and a poet, that have fueled a debate over whether freedom of protest and speech are under threat in Spain and elsewhere in Europe..."

      There is a debate? Clearly Europeans don't know what the word 'threat' means.

      I am puzzled as to how the cultural, intellectual, and moral rot of cultural marxism, once universally recognized as evil, could take on so much life in the west. I blame the moral failings of the pre-60's counterculture.

      1. "Paradoxically, the puppeteers say in their defense, the police proved their point: that Spain's antiterrorism laws are being misapplied, used for witch hunts."

        Jesus, that is one hell of a silver lining. "I'm going to a rape cage for seven years, but i proved YOU wrong! Ha!"

      2. Yeah, it's definitely obviously the case that freedom of speech and freedom to protest are under threat.

      3. There appears to be a jacobin streak that always runs through western culture--if not human nature. Sometimes it's more pronounced, and other times it goes underground. What worries me about Trump is that he might well be just as much a jacobin as is Sanders and Clinton.

      4. including two against a rap musician and a poet

        So it's not all bad.

      5. cultural marxism

        Can we please strangle this neologism in its crib? "Postmodernism" or "Continental Philosophy" are perfectly cromulent terms, and they don't reek of zio-freemason-lizard people wack-a-loonness.

        1. I always took "cultural Marxism" to mean the introduction of Marxist ideas without obtaining control of the means of production. For example, viewing every issue through the lens of class conflict, or saying that religion is a bourgeois institution designed to placate the proletariat.

        2. Cultural Marxism is a bit like Cultural Revolution, no?

        3. A quick google shows a number of takes on CM but this definition sums it up nicely : Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as "multiculturalism" or, less formally, Political Correctness.

  3. Fuckin beetroot mama.

    1. Good Morning, A C!

      1. Hello, dear.

  4. After four years of Trump in the White House & Casino (losing Congress for the right in the intervening years), and then eight of the decaying corpse of Mrs. Clinton, the GOP will rebound with all kinds of establishmentness, its primary voters having learnt a tough lesson about engaging in Obamabot-quality cult-of-personalitying. By then, of course, Americans will already be collectively looking behind us wondering how we got so far down that slope without realizing it.

    1. I really would like to see an objective analysis of popular and media reaction to Obama and Trump comparing the cultishness of both groups of followers.

  5. Some good points, Matt. While I'm no Trump supporter, I do understand the pent up frustration that leads many to support him. But of course, there is Cruz and Rubio, as well. This whole presidential cycle--as you said--is about antiestablishmentarianism. It is interesting that the True Believers, on both the left and the right, are shitting their pants over either the Sanders or the Trump campaigns. Even among libertarians it's easy to establish which side of the political spectrum one clings to by the animosity they show toward the representative of the other. Many libertarians are not for either of these, they are just against the one on the other side (judging by the comments here at Reason).

    1. ...I do understand the pent up frustration that leads many to support him.

      I consider the Trumpeters analogous with a certain libertarian magazine who, in 2008, said the GOP must be punished and punished hard. So the punishment was a supermajority in Congress and a blank slate in the White House and the folly that followed. It didn't turn out so well.

      Blindly going for Trump is inexcusable. And blindly is the only way anyone is going for Trump.

      1. And there's the main flaw with the two party system. They can't both lose.

      2. The only person of whom I can reasonably predict the behavior, if elected, is myself, so I'm seriously considering writing in my own name from now on. I encourage others to do the same.

        1. I seriously did this the last two elections - "Almanian for President".

          It's,,,,futile, but kind of liberating.

          "You can't bitch if you didn't vote!" "Well, not that I agree with that, but I DID vote and NONE of my guys won. AGAIN."

        2. I've done that a lot in the past when there is no one I'm willing to vote for. Once I actually got two votes for some local office. I have no idea who else voted for me.

        3. But we don't know your real name.

      3. "And blindly is the only way anyone is going for Trump."

        People watch TV shows and movies. By doing so they form impressions about who the actors are as people. These impressions are completely inaccurate of course, but that is what they do. I see wrasslin' fans as the least sophisticated examples.

        A lot of people are pissed off at the ruling class. They want someone to go to Washington and kick some ass. They think Mr. 'You're fired' is that guy.

        It isnt blindness, it's more like a hallucination.

      4. Said magazine did no such thing. Said magazine published an article in which they asked several individuals, not even all libertarians, who they were going to vote for. Several of these individuals said they were going to vote for Obama as a vote against the Republicans.

        1. Pretty sure that quote comes from a current Reason writer. Just sayin.

    2. What really sucks is when you are strongly against *both*.

      1. ditto

      2. Because that means you're secretly in favor of both?

        1. No, because it means you disagree with just about everyone else. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with everyone else beyond the fact that you will never get your way and everyone else will always be forcing you to live in a way you cannot stand.

      3. ^This

        Every election comes down to reaching into a sack and choosing a turd with your bare hands. No matter how carefully we choose we end up gagging and with shit on ourselves.

        See the Chapman article from this morning: I am at a loss as to why so many choose the stinkiest, squishiest turds in the sack (usually the Dem). I know that idiot is going to vote Hillary.

  6. Also, I decided to get myself a memento of the stupidest, most-ludicrous, most-unbelievable election in my life, so I bought a red Trump hat. You know, "Make America Great Again". Yeah, I got one. Put it on my shelf. Every once in a while, when the news comes on and everyone starts bickering, I grab it, put it on, and intone, "WHERE MY COUNTRY GONE?!!!" My wife and kids think it's pretty funny....

    1. So you're feeling the Trump? /can't keep track of the slogans

    2. Does the hat ever talk to you? Does it tell you to do things?

      Also, good to see you on the board.

    3. Also, I decided to get myself a memento of the stupidest, most-ludicrous, most-unbelievable election in my life

      Hey, stay positive. I'm still hoping you'll be able to see what new low of monstrous imbecility American politics reaches in 2020.

  7. As a libertarian, there's not much to do with this election besides sit back and enjoy the frightening show with some popcorn. Or vote for John McAfee.

  8. Ok, these articles are getting silly.

    Of course the two parties are not serving a large contingent of their pissed off base. Good analysis there Reason. Now how about some deeper analysis.

    The angry, left out dissidents on the BLUE side, are people who want Free Shit, and have a deep hatred of Free Markets. And on the RED side, the angry, pissed off voters who want to overturn the status quo are deeply skeptical of Immigration and seem enamoured with a personality whose answer is to be the Top Man for every problem.

    How is this good news to Libertarians? Sure, the two parties are seeing a rebellion of two constituencies. But in a parliamentary system (or other system that supported more parties), Libertarians would still be getting 2% of the vote because the constituencies that are rebelling haven't a Libertarian bone in their bodies.

    If Reason staff were at least a bit honest with themselves, they'd spare a little time to fret that such large constituencies of the public are willing to bust up the system to support a Socialist and Nationalist Populist. But that means coming to terms with their (and our) failure to generate any love of Liberty in the populace.

    1. As has been said by others, economics is the root of everything. Without economic liberty, there is no liberty of any kind. And here at reason, there are RARELY any articles discussing economic, monetary, and fiscal issues, It's all about prostitutes and pot and shoot-first-cops. Those are important as well, but by far the largest issue set is economic/fiscal/monetary. I recall one very thin article about a month ago with some tiny, unreadable graphs. And so Bernie is seen more through a filter of social liberalism than economic, and if it is referenced it's "the math don't add up" without any real depth. I guess I accept Reason exists for the clicks and not to educate. But it would be nice if there was some balance.

      1. As far as I can tell, the "Outsiders" on both sides have planks that cut across both economic and social issues. Of course, many social issues- like Immigration- have economic consequences. But Trump isn't doing well because he is appealing to economic conservatives. He is stoking nationalist tendencies. His rise was not based on Imigration's economic disadvantages, but based on National Security ("Stop Muslim immigration") and public order ("They send racists and drug dealers").

        On the Blue side, there is certainly a lot of economic angst, so I will agree with you there.

        But all that said, my point stands. On one side of the rebellion you have people who are probably socially liberal but prioritize Socialist economic policy above everything. On the other side, you have people who are probably fiscally conservative, but are prioritizing Nationalism above anything else. For a Libertarian looking for good news, the current landscape is bleak.


    2. 1) This wasn't an article, it was a blog post whose many purpose was to display a video clip.
      2) In said video clip, I specifically spared a little time to fret that such large constituencies are supporting a Socialist and a Great-Man authoritarian. So therefore, my recommendation is
      3) Try consuming the content presented before accusing people of dishonesty.

    3. Perhaps because trumpmania shares embarrassingly too many similarities to the supposed enlightened independents. That's why we get the strange mix of "isn't the conflagration beautiful" and "gosh, these candidates are pretty bad, aren't they?"

    4. I agree with much of what you are saying. I especially like the fact that even if we had a parliamentary, multi-party system, things would be no different for libertarians (or Libertarians). I do believe there is room for libertarian thought in the two party system. It is just that not enough people in either party give it much respect. Though, I do believe that there is some libertarian-leaning folks in the GOP, I think they just tend to not extend it to its logical conclusion. (In other words, yes liberty, BUT ________ is just wrong). Whereas, most on the left are just plain hostile to liberty, except for abortion. I would say sex in general, but the prudishness of the new feminists is even crowding that out (positive consent, Swedish-style prostitution laws, porn is bad because patriarchy, etc.).

    5. Gillespie and Welch seem convinced that the liberty living constituency in the electorate is large but depressed by party politics. Ungortunately, I think this is largely a rose colored glasses interpretation of what is actually happening.

      1. On balance it seems to be more the authoritarians whose particip'n is depressed by the party system.

  9. Sexy shoes, Dana. I love your name too.

    1. Way to tackle the big issues.

  10. I thought this was a pretty good run-down by Welch et. al. I was fearing a "See? Libertarian moment!" discussion but I pretty much agreed with everything he said. Well done.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.