Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Rise Shows That Immigrants Are Not the Big Threat to Limited Government

If Hispanic immigrants had backed a strongman, conservatives would have declared them a threat to freedom.

|

Given the love affair that many Americans are having with Donald Trump, conservatives need to retire the notion

Donald Trump
Todd Krainin

that America needs to clamp down on Hispanic immigration because Hispanics are welfare queens who erode America's commitment to limited government principles. Trump's stunning popularity shows that native-born Americans are perfectly capable of selling out these very principles on their own — without any help from immigrants.

Polls show that Hispanics are much more likely than non-Hispanics to say that the government should do more to improve standards of living for the needy (39 percent to 26 percent). They are also 12 percentage points more likely than non-Hispanics to say the government gives "too little assistance to the poor" (74 percent to 62 percent). Conversely, Hispanics are far less likely to support tax increases over spending cuts in welfare programs to balance the budget.

Conservative restrictionists such as Rush Limbaugh, National Review writers, and Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald have seized on such attitudes to argue that more Hispanics means more voters for tax-and-spend Democrats and more government. But Trump's rise should forever put to bed the notion that without Hispanics, America would remain a mecca of free enterprise and individual self-reliance. Trump himself very clearly wants to massively expand the government — and his ethno-nationalist supporters seem downright eager to let him do it.

Trump's promise to round up and eject 11 million undocumented immigrants would require a massive expansion of the police state. And similarly, much of the rest of his plan to Make America Great Again requires bending private businesses and foreign governments to his will.

Trump harrumphs that America is going down the tubes because American companies are leaving. "We don't make anything anymore in this country," he froths. Demonizing companies such as Nabisco and Ford for moving their operations to Mexico and allegedly killing American jobs has become a ritual sport with him.

But what exactly is his plan to stop them from relocating besides "never eating another Oreo again"?

The answer is punitive taxes.

He has threatened to slap Ford with a 35 percent tax on all cars and auto parts imported from Mexico — and he hasn't ruled out a cookie tax on Nabisco! In other words, he'd use the strong arm of the government not only to prevent foreigners from coming in, but also American companies from moving out, never mind how much this might undermine their global competitiveness or raise prices for American consumers.

Likewise, he has threatened retaliatory tariffs to the tune of 45 percent against China for allegedly devaluing its currency to boost exports even if it means a trade war beggaring both sides. "I don't mind trade wars," he smirks. That makes sense for a man who retweets quotes by Italian fascist and warmonger Benito Mussolini.

But what's truly frightening is Trump's contempt for constitutional checks and balances — even as he (hilariously) lambasts President Obama for overusing his executive authority. It is widely known that he has no problem with government playing reverse-Robin Hood and using its eminent domain powers to take away property from poor owners and give it to rich developers like himself. However, recently he has even threatened to "open up libel laws" and apparently make it easier for miffed politicos like himself to sue news organizations that criticize them.

So long as the First Amendment exists, he'd never get away with that. But that's not the point. The point is that this is the kind of blustery authoritarianism that passes for leadership in backward Third World countries, not an advanced civilization with 200-plus years of democracy under its belt. Yet half of GOP primary voters are ready to follow Trump's lead and

Trump is their man not despite his authoritarian streak, but because of it. University of Massachusetts's Matthew MacWilliams has discovered that the biggest predictor of support for Trump isn't income, education, age, religion, or even party identification. It's voter score on the authoritarianism scale.

Clearly, pockets of the American polity have an innate need to believe in strongmen with magical powers to defy the laws of economics and make everything better. If Hispanics had been backing a strongman promising to use the muscle of the state to give them free goodies, conservatives would have declared them unfit for democracy. So the added irony here is that by trying to minimize the dangers that immigrants pose to limited government ideals, the conservative commentariat may have maximized the danger that Americans themselves pose. It has stirred up populist fears and pushed Americans into the arms of an autocrat who has only disdain for their ideals.

But if Trump loses in the general election, it will be in no small part because Hispanics will vote against him — and save America from "real" Americans.

 A version of this column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Super Tuesday 2, Paul Ryan vs. Donald Trump, Sanders Struggles On

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. Trump rise is Americans taking back their democracy from the establishment and special interests. Most democratic thing to happen in US in many years.

    1. I like people like you who are too stupid to realize that you ARE a special interest. Every person in America belongs to a special interest of some kind.

      Whining about special interests is a way for morons to pretend they’re free from the evil biases afflicting everyone else.

      1. I’m not special!
        My mother told me so.

    2. I’m an American. Trump does not represent me taking back anything. Fuck off.

      1. suck my dick bitch

        1. You are such a pathetic person.

        2. Get help.

          1. By “get help” I hope you mean “paint the wall with your brain.” That’s the only solution for derp that strong.

        3. Isn’t that “NeoReactionary Moment”?

    3. Screw all those Americans who desired a republic. Democracy, fuck yeah! We’ll show the Greeks!

      1. Democracy, like Socialism, just hasn’t been done right. Once we vote in the right Top. Man. you’ll see how awesome it is.

        You;ll get so tired of winning all the time, everything will be great! Believe me!

  2. This (and Gillespie’s pathetic rantings) are why I let by subscription retire, after 29 years. (That’s pre-Postrel!)

    1. Yep.

      Legal Pot, unhindered Immigration – really important.

      Free Speech, Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Association – meh.

      1. So you’re into freedom of association, but also immigration restrictions? How does that work?

        1. What immigration restrictions wouldn’t infringe on your freedom of association?

          I’m genuinely curious. I see open borders arguments that are based on what seem like absolute principles, with no limitations, but the open borders folks always say they want some border controls. Which seems inconsistent, to me.

          How do you square the circle between your freedom of association, and border controls that prevent you from associating with people who have communicable diseases, or a criminal history?

          1. My idea is a treaty with Mexico. Mexico develops a reliable system of identification so that we can verify that people coming across our checkpoints aren’t convicted felons, have certain immunizations, etc., and then the people coming across the border for work aren’t sneaking through the desert providing cover for cartels, smugglers, et. al. anymore. They’re just showing ID and walking across the border.

            That treaty is a freedom maximizing mechanism, not a restriction on our freedom, and the interests at stake, protecting Americans from convicted felons and communicable diseases, is a legitimate function of government–if protecting the rights of Americans from criminals and foreign threats is a legitimate function of government.

            1. We’re still barring you from associating with foreign criminals and the diseased. Doesn’t that infringe your rights?

              1. The infringement is on the felon or person who refuses to be vaccinated, not other people.

                Barring felons from associating with other people is what we do to convicted felons here in the U.S., too, when American citizens are sent to prison.

                I’m saying that juries determine that convicted felons have willingly forfeited their right to associate with other people through mens rea. That can be true for foreigners convicted in foreign countries, too

                We all have a legal obligation to respect the rights of other people. There are legal consequences when someone doesn’t abide by that obligation. The government has a legitimate function in protecting our rights from people who have willingly foregone the right to come here by willfully violating other people’s rights. If you want to go to Mexico to associate with such people, you should be free to do so.

                Mexican citizens who refuse to be vaccinated against certain diseases, likewise, would be willingly forfeiting the right to come here under such a treaty. The prohibition against association, if there is one, isn’t on you–it’s on the convicted felon or person who refuses to be vaccinated.

          2. ….the open borders folks always say they want some border controls.

            Um, what?

            Let’s apply free market principles to governments. C’mon, it’ll be fun. How do you know you won’t like it, if you don’t try it?

          3. I see open borders arguments that are based on what seem like absolute principles, with no limitations, but the open borders folks always say they want some border controls.

            I don’t.

        2. Right now immigration is a government program, not freedom of association. Get rid of welfare, government schools, government roads, etc then you can say immigration is about freedom of association.

          But right now the government decides who can or cannot enter the country. How is that freedom of association? And what if a store doesn’t want to serve immigrants ? They’re Racists!! And then come the lawsuits. Don’t want to pay for their schooling…too bad. Their healthcare…too bad.

          Since we live in a statist society, immigration today is the opposite of freedom of association. The govenment decides who to let in (or not to throw out), makes current citizens pay for their education and their welfare benefits and healthcare. If you run a business you have to deal with them, or if you live in a community you can’t keep them out. (Not saying that’s a good thing, just that you don’t have that option.)

        3. The libertarian immigration restrictions consist of an end to federal welfare of all and every type with deportation for non-citizens convicted of any felony .

        4. Really, Nikki? You can’t conceive that freedom of association applies to everyone in the club (U.S. citizens), but that not everyone gets to be in the club? Or else it ceases to be a club.

          1. What a shitty club, when you can’t invite whoever you want to your property.

          2. You’d have a really good point if rights were some sort of privilege that comes from the government. But they aren’t, so you don’t.

            1. I’m as libertarian (more so) than anyone I know, and even I can’t conceive of a society not checking to see whether those who want to join, are buying in to the necessary principles. It’s societal suicide to just open the gates willy-nilly. Even complete freedom (which of course we don’t have, but hypothetically) must be guarded carefully ? especially complete freedom.

              1. My point is that you imply that you get rights by being a US citizen, and if you aren’t part of the citizen club, no rights for you!

                That’s kind of antithetical to the founding principles of our country. You get rights from being. Full stop.

                You can argue that you like the trade off where the government picks some people and tramples their rights, or you can argue that freedom of association isn’t actually a right you care about, but I’m not sure you want to make either of those arguments directly. You are just dancing around them.

                1. I’ve never considered freedom of association to be an extraterritorial right. That just doesn’t make any sense to me. While the right doesn’t derive from the government, it has to be administered in the context of government(s). Otherwise, anyone in the world is free to come on in and associate with us in the U.S. Including the billions of people who have no concept of natural rights or absolute freedoms or anything else you think you are protecting by wiping away borders. Feels like you are advocating a version of “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Destroying freedom in our society to save an abstract worldwide “freedom of association,” is no victory at all,.

        5. Just,

          Just accept the idea of a constitutional republic. Not libertarian; arguably with some libertarian ideas in the Constitution. As former rebels, the Founders wanted to enable those resembling themselves-citizens working against tyrants. Thus: Assemble away, folks! Take that to today: Assemble with a wanted criminal, you may well be detained, as all principles in reality have to compromise with other principles.

          Your desire to assemble with illegal aliens, for instance, may be so strong that you feel that the constitutional right for the Feds to protect our borders from illegal immigration crossing violates your desired assembly rights. Of course it does. As noted in para one, one must now see how to reasonably compromise between these conflicting concepts. Most Americans agree on the concept of borders, illegal aliens, and the whole deportation idea. A plurality agrees with an idea you might agree with, abolishing all border controls and deportation policies.

          At one time, a minority disapproved of slavery and the majority accepted it. We now mostly agree with that past plurality, and condemn any who agree with that past majority. So in the future, you may be seen as right. For now, try to explain to unskilled Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder that they should vote to accept poorer, harder working competitors for the jobs available to the unskilled. Of course, those Americans may be of less importance to you than illegal aliens.

      2. Hey, we finally got one article critiquing the welfare state this week. What do you want, an egg in your beer?

    2. “This (and Gillespie’s pathetic rantings) are why I let by subscription retire, after 29 years. (That’s pre-Postrel!)”

      According to the rules of the Reason Drinking Game, we’re supposed to take two drinks for this one, right?

  3. Americans Really Don’t Like Immigration, New Survey Finds

    A.T. Kearney gave Bloomberg Businessweek an exclusive first look at the results of the survey, which covers 2,590 respondents and is part of an America@250 study that’s intended to gauge the nation’s direction with 10 years to go before its 250th birthday. The study, which will be posted online later this month, was conducted last October and November by NPD Group.

    The political climate may help account for Americans’ immigration fears, says Paul Laudicina, chairman of the Global Business Policy Council, which is a unit of A.T. Kearney. “Given what’s going on in the national discourse and the desperate state of national politics … it makes people vulnerable to jingoistic sloganeering,” he said in an interview.

    A belief that immigration jeopardizes the U.S. was common across age groups, although highest among baby boomers (65 percent) and lowest among millennials (55 percent). By education, it was highest among those with just a high school education or some college (65 percent), and by region it was highest in the South, including Texas (66 percent).

    ruining the narrative one post at a time 😉

    1. The truth is that its not really immigration that is causing the problem, its the multiculturalism and non-assimilation movements that are making immigration be a problem. I speak neither German or Norwegian, my connection to the culture of my Immigrant great and great-great grandparents is to the idea of them coming here and becoming American, not coming here and remaining foreign.

      People in this country committed to being American are what has made this country great. Encouraging people to be occupiers who just live here has been a very bad idea.

      1. I agree with this. I think actual immigrants do assimilate, but what many people are upset about is the government’s cavalier attitude and identity politics games they play.

        There may also be simply too many – that some large amount of immigration creates anxiety or worry among people where lower levels would not.

        I think there probably is a compromise somewhere to be had, but no one likes those.

    2. And part of the reason may be that you cannot have the effectively open border and a welfare state at the same time:

      Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

      Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

    3. ruining the narrative one post at a time 😉

      Merci beaucoup.

  4. please enter this thread one at a time in an orderly fashion & insert 200-300 comments RE: how gillespie et al are secret liberals, nativist conspiracy theorizing & lambastic treatises on how tariffs & government regulation of hiring is the essence of libertarianism. that would just be grrrrreeeeat.

    1. Don’t forget to complain that Reason should be writing more articles exposing the evils of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, because that would be such news to their readership.

      1. Well, it’s not exactly news to Reason’s readership that Trump is an evil dickbag, either.

      1. You are mixing up Lumberg with Mackey.

    2. how gillespie et al are secret liberals

      Is the Progressitarian turn of Reason in the last couple of years supposed to be a secret?

  5. What does the Trump phenomena say about Americans? Nothing. At least not yet.

    Good try, Shikha, at trying to spread the blame around. Trump is indeed winning, but it’s among the Republican electorate that he is winning. Try to be accurate and eliminate Independents and Democrats from your castigation, at least for the moment. It’s your beloved GOP who deserves the blame.

    So what does it say about the fitness of democracy in America? Nothing. What does it say about the fitness of democracy in the GOP? I guess lots.

    1. Shorter JackassAce: Go team blue!!! Progressives are the _real_ libertarians.

      1. Progressitarianism Uber Alles!

    2. So the title gets changed from questioning American’s fitness for democracy. Smart move.

      1. Would you like some cake, tiny dancer?

        1. I hate Elton John. At least give me a moniker from Dylan.

          Juggler? Clown?

          1. You’ve got it, Rocket Man.

            1. Crap.

            2. But my tears are crocodile tears.

              1. You have just outed yourself as an Elton John fan.

                1. That’s a low blow Crusty.

          2. Juggler? Clown?

            Cock Juggler or Ass Clown. Pick one.

            1. I larfed. Cock Juggling Ass Clown it is!

          3. Will you settle for “Idiot Wind”?

      2. I certainly question you patriotism Jackass. You are clearly a progtarded traitor. To your very core.

    3. Except for the great masses of lefties pulling the lever for a national socialist who also supports limiting immigration, the blue-collar Dems crossing over to pull the lever for Trump, and the reliably Democratic union voters who have always opposed immigration.

      And while we’re not mentioning glaring flaws in the narrative, we’ll leave aside the fact that the 60+% of the GOP adamantly opposes this clown, a good chunk of those are nowhere near as inflamed on the subject as Trump’s voters, and (by the way) this is a libertarian website.

      1. Got any stats of how many Independents and Democrats have voted for Trump? A curious public wants to know.

        Want to know how many states Trump has gotten the GOP voters to win for him? 12. And counting.

        But we’ll wait for your analysis that it was someone else’s fault.

        1. I notice you fail to acknowledge the great masses of lefties pulling the lever for a national socialist who also supports limiting immigration. Being short make you stupid, son?

          1. Hopefully he has a better analysis than that. And who you calling son?

            1. You may be short, but you’re still standing.

              1. I cherish freedom when in Philadelphia, though.

        2. “Got any stats of how many Independents and Democrats have voted for Trump?”

          Is Jack and Ace familiar with the concept of a closed primary?

          There’s no way that’s joe. I disagreed with joe, but joe was knowledgeable.

          1. So tell us, Ken, how many Democrats and Independents crossed over to vote for Trump, or Cruz, or anyone else in those open primaries. You must know. I’m sure you’re not taking a wild guess.

            1. http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…..atic_party

              Meanwhile, 6% of the people who voted in the Republican primary in Virginia were registered Democrats, which means about 60,000 people. It’s reasonable to think they voted for Trump disproportionately.

              In Nevada, we even saw Latino Republicans break for Trump in a big way.

              Traditionally Democrat demographics breaking for Trump over his rivals is the consistent explanation for Trump doing well all over the country. And if he can break off a sizable chunk of registered Democrats that way, then doing well with independents should be easy.

              Actually, he should do much better with Democrats in the general election than he did in open primaries. Take Sanders away from disaffected Democrats, and they won’t all break for Hillary.

                1. Please stop.

                  In Mass., Trump got 311,000 votes. Your article states that 20,000 Docrats left the party, and of that number 3500 joined the GOP.

                  And that is your analysis how Trump is a Democrat phenomena not a Republican one?

                  Yikes. Try again.

                2. By the way, Trump beat his closest rival there by about 200k. Those are nearly all Republicans my friend.

              1. That is a likely event. Especially given that Hillary will probably be far more damaged by November. Between espionage charges, accepting bribes, and possibly Bill’s antics at Pedo Island. Maybe other shit. It looks like that closet can only hold so many skeletons before hey start falling out in a big messy pile.

          1. Funny how the author wanted to particularly check on the results from this past Saturday. And what happened? Trump won two states. And both had closed primaries.

            Yeah, it’s the democrats fault.

            1. You could also say he lost 2 out of 4 closed primaries this Saturday. Statistically insignificant sample sizes, but there does appear to be a general trend emerging of Trump doing better in states with open primaries.

              Whether that’s because Democrats are crossing over to vote for him because they really like his brainfarts, or because they’re trying to sabotage the Republican nominating process because they believe Shrillary will be able to walk all over him in the general is anybody’s guess. Probably a combination of both.

              But I don’t expect a TEAM BLUE tardo to understand any of this.

              1. Their kind are incapable of independent thought. And Jackass has been a fine drone for the collective.

        3. Want to know how many states Trump has gotten the GOP voters to win for him? 12. And counting.

          Maybe things have changed recently, but what I recall hearing is that Trump has won few closed primaries – you know, where only republicans can vote. He’s been much more effective in the open primaries.

    4. It’s your beloved GOP who deserves the blame.

      So, I’m a little confused here, is Shika a secret progtard pretending to be a libertarian, or a TEAM RED shill? I guess the answer depends on one’s own TEAM-TARD orientation.

      1. Secret Progtard? IS that like a modern version of Secret Squirrel? What would be the equivalent to Morocco Mole?

    5. it’s among the Republican electorate that he is winning

      With a lot of help from crossover voters, don’t forget.

  6. Something goofed up the formatting.

  7. It’s somewhat entertaining the guess the author based on the title these days.

    1. Guess wrong: drink.
      Guess right: drink.

  8. Clearly, pockets of the American polity have an innate need to believe in strongmen with magical powers to defy the laws of economics and make everything better.

    Trump’s biggest support comes from shithole parts of America that the R’s and D’s ignore (or just want to throw more welfare money at). His solutions are of course wrong but let’s not pretend that people aren’t relatively suffering or hand-wave it away with “oh that just authoritarianism”.

    1. *oh they just want authoritarianism

      1. They just want authoritarianism that works for them. To bad that never really worked our for anyone anywhere at anytime.

        1. The failure of the GOP to put forward a hypothesis that is believable to the people who are voting for Trump is enormous. They’ve kept saying they’ll decrease the size of government and have not done anything about it. They haven’t done anything to help those people hurt by Obamacare’s mandate, or tied that mandate back to even the New Deal programs that hurt those same people just as much. It’s pathetic that the GOP can’t make a case that they need to have the presidency in order to help those people by getting out of their way, since that hasn’t been the GOP’s governance style whenever they’re in power.

    2. I would suggest that mindset also applies to supporters of Clinton and Sanders.

      1. You could add most if not all of the Republicans to that mix.

        My point is that “they just want authoritarianism” is a bullshit explanation of Trump’s popularity – I don’t care what “research” she’s trotting out.

        1. I’d say that, contra libertarians, most Americans have recognized that Big Goverrnment isn’t going anywhere, so rather than contest that inevitability they’ve decided if they have to put up with Big Government, they at least want it working in their interests.

          Seriously, when has government ever gotten any smaller? You might as well demand that the sun stops rising in the morning.

          1. I’d say that, contra libertarians, most Americans have recognized that Big Goverrnment isn’t going anywhere, so rather than contest that inevitability they’ve decided if they have to put up with Big Government, they at least want it working in their interests.

            It’s never worked before, but I’m sure this time it’ll be different.

          2. they’ve decided if they have to put up with Big Government, they at least want it working in their interests.

            Yep. If it’s a fight at the feeding trough, you gotta fight for some for you and yours. And you *should*.

            One way armistice is surrender.
            One way rule of law is subjugation.

    3. some needs to correlate the sales of per rocks with trump votes by zip-code .

  9. You could read commenter whines, or you could watch a sexy woman whine.

      1. That is the last time I try to step into HM’s shoes.

        1. Why? That was fantastic. Although it was difficult watching that while standing on my head.

        2. Don’t worry, the real reason there aren’t any is that they’re too busy twerking

  10. … conservatives would have declared them unfit for democracy…

    By definition, democracy is a logical fallacy.

    1. I thought it was two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

      1. I thought it was two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

        Which illustrates “appeal[ing] to popularity”…

  11. That makes sense for a man who retweets quotes by Italian fascist and warmonger Benito Mussolini.

    Way to play on team establishment/partisan, Reason.

    It was a setup, a prank, and that’s all. I don’t even think the quote was originated by Mussolini, merely repeated by him, maybe?

    The quote at issue:

    ‘It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep,’

    Does it really matter who may have repeated it? It seems pretty unexceptional to me, and actually has a distinctly libertarian flavor, shorn of any other context (as it was when he retweeted it).

    1. But it was a quote Mussolini said one time! Who cares if the quote itself is completely uncontroversial and didn’t even originate with Mussolini?

      It’s something he once said, therefore saying it makes you just like Mussolini.

      1. You know who else occasionally said uncontroversial things

        1. Hitler liked animals!

          If you like animals, that’s like something Hitler did!

          1. I hear Hitler wiped his ass when he took a shit. Ass wiping is fascist.

          2. And was a vegetarian, right? Also probably complained if the trains weren’t on time.

            1. You know who else wore pants?

              Down with pants!

              1. Down they go!

                What now?

    2. It was a setup, a prank, and that’s all.

      A setup that worked, because Trump is a moron who isn’t even able to identify quotes misattributed to himself. How does it not make him look bad that he believed the Mussolini quote was his own quote?

      1. Yeah, but they chose Mussolini specifically to be like “hurr durr, he quoted a fascist!”

        And Dalmia didn’t bring this up in order to say he’s dumb for not vetting the quote, she brought it up to try and draw a connection between Trump and Mussolini.

        1. I’m guessing it wouldn’t be too hard to put up quotes from the Nazis regarding the wonders of socialism and seeing a bunch of leftys approve of them without knowing the attribution.

          1. Or quotes from Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc.

            Of course, the Left still idolizes them anyway. Mass murder is okey dokey, as long as it’s for the Proles and not the Volk.

        2. Let’s just look at the quote, and tell me what is wrong with it?

          I see nothing. You may as well call anyone who orders beer at lunch Hitler, because I bet Hitler ordered beer at lunch once.

          This kind of spittle-flecked journolisty partisan pile-on should be beneath Reason, but apparently not.

          I’m thinking my donation to the fund drive this year may go missing if they don’t get a grip on themselves.

          1. Let’s just look at the quote, and tell me what is wrong with it?

            Well, for one thing, it isn’t a Donald Trump quote, and he’s some combination of moron and fraud for repeating it as such.

            Also he RTs accounts called “IlDuce2016” so…more moron?

            1. But its not being punted about by Dalmia and other journolisty water-carriers as a failure of vetting or just not very bright.

              Its not “Donald fell for a prank”, which is legit and fairly harmless, really. Its “DONALD QUOTED MUSSOLINI!! OMG”, without even bothering to mention the rather unexceptional quote.

            2. There’s another explanation: it could just be that he really does fancy himself to be a modern day American Mussolini, and doesn’t give a shit who knows it.

              1. Entirely possible, but not really supported by falling for a prank.

            3. Well, for one thing, it isn’t a Donald Trump quote, and he’s some combination of moron and fraud for repeating it as such.

              That’s actually part of his genius.

              He routinely serves up softball “call me Hitler” pitches, and when they bite and go apeshit, people look at it, and conclude that Trump is right, and the media is full of shit.

              And spare me the claims that this means he is pandering to white supremacists. He’s helping the media, and his political opponents, make fools of themselves. And they just can’t stop themselves.

          2. Hitler tried to start a rising from a Lowenbrau beer hall, so, yeah he was probably drinking beer at the time.

        3. He got a few days of media coverage from that alone.

          1 tiny click = 3 days of controversy with Trump in the news and not Rubio or Cruz.

          I suspect it was deliberate.

      2. A setup that worked, because Trump is a moron who isn’t even able to identify quotes misattributed to himself. How does it not make him look bad that he believed the Mussolini quote was his own quote?

        Different interpretation: it doesn’t matter to him; it can’t harm him; he doesn’t need to be careful; that doesn’t make him look bad. (I dislike him, by the way.) Tell me, does it fall under “fragile masculinity”?

  12. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for anyone… Start working for three to eight hr a day and get from $5000-$12000 each month…Ht Regular weekly payments… You Try Must……

    — W?W?W.A?l?p?h?a-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.C?O?M

  13. Because Trump is a populist, we shouldn’t worry about a growing base for socialism?

    Because Trump’s populism found a receptive audience, we shouldn’t complain about welfare queens?

    Does not compute.

    I know Dalmia means well, but these are the kinds of articles that fan the flames of Trump’s popularity.

    You can’t be disdainful of people who might vote for Trump–and appeal to them, as well. Might as well call them stupid, ignorant, and un-American, too. Let the beatings continue until morale improves!

    Trump’s most important support comes from the demographic we used to call “Reagan Democrats”–blue collar, white, middle class people, who’ve been neglected by the Democratic Party’s focus on the extremely poor, minorities, illegal immigrants, and others.

    Notice the differences in the message between Reagan and Trump, however. Trump is selling protectionism and deportation. Reagan said the iron curtain was an embargo against American manufactured goods. Where Trump is selling an end to immigration, Reagan sold a path to American citizenship.

    Bashing Trump’s supporters won’t work to dissuade would-be Trump supporters; rather, it drives blue collar, middle class voters into The Donald’s open arms. Find ways to show these people that Trump’s solutions are the problem, and the real problem is a lack of economic growth and opportunity–like Reagan did–and there’s a good chance we’ll make headway with this demographic–like Reagan did.

    1. Meanwhile, the Democrats are selling class war and the Republicans are selling culture war. Is it any fucking wonder that a huge chunk of America is tired of that shit?

      1. The Democrats are NOT selling culture war? You think the SHE’s are playing defense?

        1. *SJWs

        2. “You think the SHE’s are playing defense?”

          They do not yet realize how badly they’re overplaying their hand.

          Again, Trump’s success is as much about the Democrats abandoning the white, blue collar, middle class as it is about anything happening in the Republican Party. When the SJWs are excoriating the white, blue collar, middle class for being racist and ignorant, the’re excoriating the Democrats own base of support, too.

          The Democrats may need to lose an election before they really grok the problem, but selling out their base for gay rights, Black Lives Matter, and illegal immigrants can’t be without consequence. And I believe the same forces that are driving blue collar, whites in the Republican Party to support Trump will do the same thing to the same demographic within the Democratic Party.

          1. They do not yet realize how badly they’re overplaying their hand.

            So far, there has been one (1) SJW non-fratricidal casualty (Melissa Click), to offset against a number of victories.

            It remains to be seen if they are overplaying their hand, and how much of what they have gained they will be able to hold.

            1. Yeah, I hope they’ve overplayed there hand, but I have my doubts. Or at least, doubts if they matter. If they take 10 steps forward, and then have to take 2 steps back, I don’t think that can be considered much of a loss normally, only getting 80% of what you want.

              That’s what I think is going to happen here though: they take some licks, but they amount to no more than inconveniences in the grand scheme of things.

        3. Of course they are. Democrats thrive on division and envy, They encourage their drones to covet what they don’t have. Then promise to steal it for them.

    2. I know Dalmia means well, but these are the kinds of articles that fan the flames of Trump’s popularity.

      Every hysterical pants shitting media article on Trump is another bit of evidence that the media is full of shit, and by comparison, Trump isn’t so bad.

      He’s been baiting them into discrediting themselves for months, and they just never get it.

  14. Reason.com Trump de Trump. Trump de Trumpity Trumpy Trump. Until one day, the Trumpa Trumpa TrumpaTrump. Trump de Trump. Da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Reason.com is Da Trump Dee Trump Da Teetley Trumpee Trumpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

    Yes, we get it: Donald Trump is a vile disgusting waste of life who should fuck off and die in a fire already. Agreed. Can we talk about something, anything, else?

    1. No, because Trump is obviously the ONLY vile disgusting waste of life who should fuck off and die in a fire already who’s running for President.

      1. Exactly, disgusting wastes of life who should fuck off and die in a fire already are all that’s left in the shit shows of the two main parties. And probably most of the 3rd party options as well. Yet reason is focusing on only one.

        I don’t mind the occasional “get a load of what this shithead said now” Trump stories, but how about some more analysis of what some of the other turds are saying/ doing too?

    2. There’s a primary in Michigan today, and that’s Dalmia’s old haunt. What do you expect her to write about–driverless cars?

      Meanwhile, if we get more than one free speech on campus thread from Robby today, I’m gonna scream.

      1. I like those campus threads because each one is crazier – and more indicative of our country’s impending doom – than the last.

        1. It isn’t indicative of impending doom.

          If campus radicals are indicative of impending doom, then impending doom has been indicated since 1964.

          1. ‘impending’ not ‘hasty’

        2. They’re good for lulz and the retarded sno-flakes in those stories don’t have any power outside of their campus “safe spaces” … yet.

          And really, if those whiny crybaby bitches are all the proggie youth have to offer, then when the house of cards finally does fall, I don’t think we have to worry too much about those idiots. They’re a bunch of pussies.

    3. Can we talk about something, anything, else?

      Nope.

      Somewhere in a smoke filled room, Reason.com decided OPEN BORDERZ is the hill to die on. Maybe between Trump and OPEN BORDERZ, they figured that they could transition to the Progressitarian HuffPo.

  15. Having respect for constitutional checks and balances means having respect for the rule of law and procedure. These are things the open borders crowd gleefully throws to the curb when a lol like Obama ignores existing immigration law, so complaining that Trump would do the same In the other direction rings a bit hollow.

    1. Yes, I expect the Iron Laws will be getting quite a workout in the months to come:

      Me today, you tomorrow.

      1. Nope.

        Me yesterday, you tomorrow.

  16. “Drumpf’s stunning popularity shows that native-born Americans are perfectly capable of selling out these very principles on their own”

    That assumes that native-born Americans actually believed in these principles to begin with. There is zero evidence (beyond a small electorally-insignificant minority) that they ever did. The “less government” folks got into power by appealing to a larger share of electorate by promising a BIGGER government (restrictions on certain medical procedures, restrictions on marriage arrangements, a bigger military budget, a more robust foreign policy, Medicare protection/expansion, getting tough on “lawbreakers”, etc.).

    1. Marriage restriction strikes me as a restriction on an entitlement, not an increase in anything, except perhaps inequality under the law. An increased supply of armed govt agents is not needed to monitor and prevent govt clerks from issuing you govt documents allowing you to transfer other govt entitlements to someone else. They can just… not do it.

      Also I think the problem with limited govt is more that everyone wants their own version with limits in different areas, and the union of the parts they want bigger is what ends up with a bigger govt.

  17. The fact that A is a threat to be government does not mean that B is not also a threat. Headline is big logic fail.

    1. Headline says “the Big Threat,” singling out one threat as bigger than others. The logic holds up.

    2. Big logic fail, thy name is Shikha.

      Shikha, when the walls fell!

  18. I like the way Shikha contests the idea that Hispanics are pro-welfare by linking to studies showing that, why, yes, they are indeed pro-welfare.

    1. Guys, it’s Shikha-town, logic isn’t really relevant here.

  19. Woo, another pro open borders welfare state article from Shikha.

  20. What is the point of this article?

  21. What is this stupid writer drinking? Nobody ever claimed the problem with illegal imigrants was that they
    would vote in a dictator, although the Hispanics have a long habit of doing just that. Mexico must have gone thru 20 constitutions over the past couple centuries. In case you haven’t noticed, Hispanics are God-awful at self government. They stink . The reason Dems welcome illegals is because they will vote for authoritarians like the democrats,welfare and all. If these folks were loyal Republicans, the Obama folks would have machine guns stationed every two feet of the border. But these folks are stealing jobs, specificaly Black jobs and legal Hispanic jobs. This is a situation tailor made to split the Blacks from the immigrant hungry Dems. I’m astounded that these political “experts” haven’t pointed this out. Of course, most are Dems.

    1. What is this stupid writer drinking?

  22. Feel the Johnson 2016!

    1. Vote the Johnson with Big Hands 2016!
      Vote the Johnson with Small Hands 2016!
      Vote Vagina 2016!

      I’ve been having this strange idea lately that people might actually vote for Gary Johnson.

      Billionaire Vulgarian. Career Government Criminal. Or popular two term Governor in the Year of Hating the Establishment.

      Is it really so crazy? I know he can’t, and yet it feels like he can.

  23. “America needs to clamp down on Hispanic immigration because Hispanics are welfare queens who erode America’s commitment to limited government principles.”

    I believe the argument is more about people illegally immigrating.

    Why build a wall to stop legal immigration?

  24. This is such nonsense.

    Hispanics have a long and demonstrable history of voting for the welfare state and empowering an authoritative government if it claims to serve the public interest or equality (any nonsense that’s going on at college campuses have Latino support of some degree). Most of them hail from socialist nations and their worldview is a perfect fit for the democrat party. Asians are the fastest growing demographic in the country and they overwhelmingly favor the welfare state.

    Pick out any item (other than culture war issues) on the laundry list of libertarian agenda, and it’s guaranteed to have more white support than immigrants’. That includes Trump voters. This country would be halfway to Venezuela if most of the whites left for somewhere else.

    The country is still majority white, and Trump is getting support from a noisy but small segment. This guy’s not a universal hit even among white conservatives. This is not some historic rise that meaningfully compares to the Obama coalition which essentially gave birth to the biggest growth of government in American history and further chaos overseas.

    Who gave rise to all the headline grabbing incidents across the country? Who affoded the police ironclad union protection? What explains the nail salon fiasco? Net decrease in Latino immigration? No one votes against their interest as slavishly and consistently as immigrants. They’re (usually) NOT well informed voters.

    1. You don’t even have to count how they vote in Mexico, just look at their voting record in the US.

      PEW Resarch – Latino Voters in the 2012 Election

      It’s about a 2 to 1 democrat advantage going back to 1980.

  25. Donald Trump’s Rise Shows That Immigrants Are Not the Big Threat to Limited Government
    If Hispanic immigrants had backed a strongman, conservatives would have declared them a threat to freedom.

    Faulty. Illogical. Trump’s rise shows nothing of that. And all, Trump, Sanders, and Hispanic immigrants can be big threats to limited government. Which is the biggest?

    Saying that conservatives’ fear of immigrants drove people to Trump is an exaggeration. Other conservative candidates have a “strong” position on illegal immigration as well. Furthermore, the anti-PC + anti-establishment hypotheses are more convincing.

    Still, appreciate the interpretation.

  26. The title assumes that conservatives are for liberty from the start. As we have seen, conservatives just want a strongman who talks like they do. Can any serious libertarian say with a straight face that conservatives will get rid of the welfare, warfare and national security states? You would have a better chance at winning powerball. Real liberty doesn’t interest them because that requires for them to leave their outgroups alone, who like the left love it when the state and it’s thugs harass them. Sadly some just see the conservative flag waving and think thats liberty when its actually deeper than that.

  27. Dalmia……people like you are the true enemies to the USA with your lies and word games..

    many writers, retired INS and studies have dropped the decade old 11-12 million illegal alien LIE!

    there are 30-60 million illegal aliens that occupy the USA……………………………………..

    for REASON to post your garbage is a disgrace…

    THEY ARE INVADERS AND NOT IMMIGRANTS…………

    Rich

  28. If Hispanic immigrants had backed a strongman

    If illegal immigrants were backing a strongman to power, they would be an invading army, and we should call out our armed forces to destroy them.

    In fact Chuck Norris made that movie – Invasion USA.

  29. Given the love affair that many Americans are having with Donald Trump, conservatives need to retire the notion Donald Trump that America needs to clamp down on Hispanic immigration because Hispanics are welfare queens who erode America’s commitment to limited government principles. Trump’s stunning popularity shows that native-born Americans are perfectly capable of selling out these very principles on their own ? without any help from immigrants

    Shikha, when the walls fell! Her inability to follow the bouncing ball strikes again.

    That Americans can sell out these principles on their own is the problem which makes open borderz to even more people opposed to freedom even more untenable.

    In a secure Libertopia, populated by clones of Thomas Paine, there would be no need to worry about a few millions votes for statism – they couldn’t gain power.

    But that’s not the case now. We live in a nation teetering on the edge of a permanent statist majority, largely enabled by decades of statist imports. Open borders would make that statist majority a permanent feature of the US.

    1. “We live in a nation teetering on the edge of a permanent statist majority, largely enabled by decades of statist imports.”

      Agreed. One basic rule of thumb has served me well in politics. If the far left is just dying to have it, there must be something very, VERY wrong hidden somewhere.

      I’ve heard arguments from staunch libertarians that Mexican illegal immigration is a net boost to our GDP. Unfortunately the best evidence presented to me touts a one tenth of one percent boost. That is nowhere near adequate to negate the endless streams of statist liberal democrats these people will elect. The damage will far outweigh any gains.

  30. “Trump himself very clearly wants to massively expand the government ? and his ethno-nationalist supporters seem downright eager to let him do it.”

    B.S. They’re taking the good with the bad. All of the candidates [say they] want to expand government and Trump is the only one who is serious about enforcing immigration laws. If they could have border enforcement AND shrinking government, they would be happy to take it. But, you can’t have a perfect candidate and ever hope to get them elected.

    I personally don’t believe these candidates, Trump included, are really going to do these extreme things they’re pushing during the campaign.

  31. Nick’s not too bright. Immigrants are going to vote Democratic – that’s why the Dems are so eager to get them into voting booths. If they were Republicans, Obama would have machine guns on the border every two feet.
    Point 2 : Dems are against limited govt. Conclusion : immigrants will have an enormous impact against limited govt unless they are deported. Now, that wasn’t hard, now was it, Nick?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.