Donald Trump

Suggestions for My Liberal Friends on How to Play Defense Against Trump

Federalism is your friend, as is non-hysterical specificity in combating authoritarianism

|

Defend the paint, is what I'm saying. ||| BlackPast.org
BlackPast.org

There has been so much howling in the wind among my fellow non-Donald Trump voters over the last eight days that it's been damn near impossible to hear any good news among the din. But good news there has been, even for hardcore Democrats, such as the bouncing of more than a half-dozen problematic law enforcement types by criminal justice reformers.

I write about that as my lead example in an L.A. Times column today devoted to helping wound-licking Californians strategize defense against Trumpian authoritarianism. Here is an excerpt from a piece that channels and quotes from this great post-election post by Ken "Popehat" White:

From speed limits to school tests to health insurance rules, the federal government spends too much time and money imposing one-size-fits-all frameworks onto state and local governments. This places way too much emphasis on the political values of whichever team holds temporary power in Washington.

So don't just go looking for creative workarounds, like legalizing recreational marijuana or applying even stricter guidelines than the Environmental Protection Agency (if that's your bag). Think about taking the next step, and severing unnecessary bonds between Sacramento and Washington. We've nationalized too much of American life and could stand to run more local experiments.

2) Be prepared to make ad hoc coalitions with people you might not otherwise like. Part of playing defense is working on an issue-by-issue basis with whoever is willing. You may not fancy Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), but he is the most influential voice in Congress opposing the nominations of John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani to secretary of State.

Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: Will Senate Democrats filibuster Trump's SCOTUS nominee?

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. They never listen

    1. Yes, i’m going to wait until later this afternoon when i can read the bile-spewing-reaction-comments as well as Matt’s (likely very good) piece.

  2. “My liberal friends”

    ^That’s your problem, right there.

    1. Real libertarians don’t have friends.

      1. I never took you for a Stefan Molyneux cultist fan, CJ.

        1. Are you insulting my Leader?!?!

        2. It’s like when new neighbors move in to the neighborhood, and you never really get around to giving them a welcome basket, that they have the right, TO BLOW UP YOUR HOUSE?!

          Disassembled with high explosives.

        3. Crusty will defoo all of you if you keep insulting his universally preferable behavior.

      2. I have friends. they are just not my friends.

        1. Anyone with friends is no friend of mine.

          1. I have no friends, which means i must be your friend, which means i have a friend, which means i’m no friend of your’n, which means…

            1. “I have no friends, which means i must be your friend”

              Does not necessarily follow.

              1. Denying the antecedent FTL

        2. Are they banging on the cellar door right now?

          1. Only because they want their smoke break.

            Not really, I was riffing on this.

            http://tinyurl.com/glrnvbq

          2. Man, these euphemisms…

    2. Wonder Woman | Play Now | http://bit.ly/2fmxypv
      Visit For More Movie : http://hdmovielist.tk

  3. Liberals need to learn the concept of strategic retreat.

    If they were smart, the first thing they would do is walk away from Obamacare. Let the Republicans repeal it. Give the Republicans whatever they want. Obamcare has done more damage to the Democratic party than any single act has ever done to a political party in this country. Let the Republicans repeal it and get the albatross off their necks. Then let the Republicans own the results of the repeal and have to answer to the problems with the health care system for once.

    Beyond that, I got nothing. The problem the Democrats have is that all of the things they could do to win back middle class voters run counter to the big donors and powerful people in their party. When Democrats were the party of the middle class, they embraced things like protectionism of American workers from foreign competition, anti trust law, big public works programs, worker health and safety protections and a progressive tax system. We already have the most progressive tax system in the world and even the lowest information voter realizes the marginal benefit to more health and safety regulations is low. You can’t embrace public works projects without also rejecting the Green movement who will sue to prevent any such projects. And you can’t talk about trade and anti-trust without offending the Wall Street and Tech barons who more or less fund and own the party.

    So basically, they are fucked.

    1. You know what would be such a simple solution to what to put in place after repealing oCare? Give *individuals* the same tax break for medical insurance expenditures we’ve been giving employers since the Great Depression – this means that you delink health insurance from employers, while leaving the individual no worse off. Then, maintain a certain level of subsidy for those at the lower end who’d have otherwise chosen to risk not having health insurance.

      That’s it. Don’t try to meddle directly with insurance plans or insurers and stop meddling with individuals.

      But then again, its amazing how many problems in our lives could be fixed if the government stopped trying to fix other things.

      1. subsidy?

        No thanks. I will take care of me and my own, I don’t want to have anyone pay for me, or me for them. If it is charity or welfare, just do that directly – “subsidy”…nope.

        1. Subsidy is what you’re going to have to put up with to get rid of all the worse stuff. Fact of life, once people get free shit they don’t want to let go. The subsidy helps grease up their chubby little fists..

          1. INCREASE THE DOLE!

            *shakes fist at Praetor Urbanus*

      2. Pretty much. Obamacare is so bad and has caused so much harm, that it is going to be hard for even the GOP to pass a repeal that doesn’t make things significantly better. Don’t get me wrong, they will fuck it up and pass a bad bill to replace it. It is just that Obamacare has set the bar so low, even the usual GOP screw up will be an improvement and a significant one.

        1. “We’ve successfully removed the tumor, and replaced it with a different tumor.”

      3. Give *individuals* the same tax break for medical insurance expenditures we’ve been giving employers since the Great Depression – this means that you delink health insurance from employers, while leaving the individual no worse off.

        While that would be good, I think the best solution is counter-intuitively its opposite. End the tax break completely.

        So long as the tax break exists, the government gets to regulate what qualifies as a plan that is worthy of the tax break. It gives them latitude to make mandates or prohibitions that affect the entire population.

        1. The best – long term – solution is *always* end whatever government policy you’re talking about.

          Its pretty much never achievable in one bold stroke.

          1. Yes. It’s utterly unimplementable; the number of people who get their health insurance through their employment and would thus face a massive tax increase would form a voting block that is almost impossible to overcome.

      4. This would do nothing to stop the major cause of distortion in the market – all those Medicaid dollars driving things ever upward (cf. student loans and the price of college.)

        But, it might help raise awareness of the problem.

        1. It would, at the very least, put the onus on being aware on the people who can actually do something about it – the guy *actually* paying the bill.

        2. Should have said Medicare, not Medicaid. Although as the morbidity from chronic illnesses continues to grow in the sub 65 population, and things like $90k treatments for Hep C continue to appear there will come a day when Medicaid becomes the bigger driver.

          1. $90k for a one shot treatment that cures Hep C costs $90k because the palliative care options like liver transplants are between 2 and 10 times more expensive. Curing people with Hep C before they need $3000/day hospital stays or $250k transplants seems like a pretty good allocation of money.

      5. The other big change would be to open up insurers across state lines to competition. This is what the commerce clause was for, but insurers like their little bubbles where they can extort their customers because there are few enough of them that competition is stagnant.

        Let the market take care of this. Stop distorting things with taxation and make them fight.

        1. Wouldn’t that just end up like Delaware and credit card companies, where they all just end up in whatever state gives them widest latitude to screw people?

          1. And if they are screwing people, they would get clubbed by their competition.

    2. the first thing they would do is walk away from Obamacare.

      Oh, I think from their *own* point of view, they already have. They disowned it while simultaneously blaming republicans for Obstructing its natural-development. Its failures weren’t baked-in; its failures were a consequence of the context and its childhood development. The goal all along was single-payer! And you wouldn’t let them have it, would you, so really this thing is all your fault.

      If that doesn’t make sense to you, don’t worry, it makes sense to them.

      As for your anti-trade comments….

      When Democrats were the party of the middle class, they embraced things like protectionism of American workers from foreign competition, anti trust law, big public works programs, worker health and safety protections and a progressive tax system.

      uh…. Bill Clinton? NAFTA., welfare reform, open to privatization of government services…

      you’d have to go back to the 1960s to find your theoretical-democrats.

      1. you’d have to go back to the 1960s to find your theoretical-democrats.

        I am aware of that. The Democrats stopped being the party of the middle class in the 1970s. It just took the middle class a while to figure that out and there was a 8 year break where Bill Clinton pretended to be like an old school Democrat while also passing NAFTA and deregulating the banks.

        My point is that Democrats are now the party of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, academia and government employees. I can’t see how they ever appeal to the middle class without jettisoning one of those groups, which they can’t do.

        I think what is likely to happen is a gradual realignment. The Democrats are going to become what the Republican Party was in the 30, a small party with regional appeal but with a very strong hold on the large institutions and establishments. The Republicans will be what the Democrats were back then the party of the middle class and in national majority by a large margin. As the Democrats cement their status as the party of the elite, you will see a good number of the GOP establishment move over and become Democrats. You already seeing that with the various Neocons and beltway journalists who supported Hillary. As they realize they are not getting control of the GOP back, they will move left and become Democrats.

  4. I don’t think you guys *understand* this mindset. They’re not going to combat authoritarianism – they’re all for authoritarianism. They’re not going to support Federalism. They’ve been fighting Federalism since . . . since Progressivism was a thing.

    We already had all that stuff – they worked hard to destroy it. These are people who will not let you alone to do your own thing, they don’t even want to you have a different opinion.

    There is no *alliance* possible with the left (unlike the tentative and minimalistic alliance we’ve made with the right in the past) because there’s no common ground at all with these people. They’re not for *human* rights, they’re for ‘protected classes’.

    The best you can hope for is to try to convince some of them that Progressivism isn’t all that its cracked up to be and get them on the edges of the libertarian plantation, but you’re not going to convince the *core* of that group that letting people alone, that reigning in government power because your ideological enemies always get control at some point (even if they’ll lose it later) are desirable.

    Because doing that stuff? That will end the Progressive agenda right fucking quick. Where would they be if they didn’t have the power of the Federal government as a cudgel to push ‘bathroom rights’? Or Title IX? Or the ADA? There might be *whole states* in this country where gay nazis couldn’t get a pink swastika cake!

    1. Even if they wanted to object to authoritarianism, they have been so vocal in their support of it under Obama they no longer have the intellectual credibility to do so.

      1. This is my experience with my progressive friends. It’s all about getting the “right” people to wield the club.

      2. Do you think anyone who listens to them cares about intellectual credibility? Do you think they have a memory as long as a (proverbial) goldfish?

        1. They have no shame and will no doubt pretend otherwise. That, however, will not mean everyone else will. They will continue to preach to the converted and no one else.

          1. I think their strategy is to preach to the converted and to those who don’t pay attention/remember. Which is to say, their strategy works quite well.

    2. There might be *whole states* in this country where gay nazis couldn’t get a pink swastika cake!

      No, you don’t mean that.

    3. That’s a fantastic rant. Bravo.

  5. Harris County Judge Says Arrests of Poor People Good For Job Security

    The driving infractions and fines had piled up on Robin Clearey, who stood before Magistrate Joe Licata after she got ticketed for not having taillights, for driving without a license and with expired registration.

    She had been through this many times before, she told the judge, and at that very moment she also had a criminal case pending for driving with an invalid license, for which she would stay in jail unless she paid a $3,500 bond. Licata warned her that, if she didn’t pay the fines for these tickets and renew her license after paying surcharges to the Department of Public Safety, “then you’re gonna get arrested every time you get pulled over.”

    That was nothing to her, Clearey responded ? because she had already become trapped in a cycle of arrests.

    “It’s nothing to me either,” Licata told her. “It’s job security.”

    At least he’s honest.

    1. He knows that whether he has a trial every hour or one trial a week, judges get paid the same, right?

  6. Be prepared to make ad hoc coalitions with people you might not otherwise like.

    Sorry, but anyone who disagrees with me, even in minutiae, does so due to racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, transphobia, islamophobia, etc…

    /progderp

    1. Suppose for a moment that they followed Welch’s advice and made coalitions with Republicans and conservatives where it was possible. That is in isolation a sensible idea. The problem is that Liberals have in the age of Obama based their entire political brand and appeal on the idea that Republicans are hopelessly racist. It is going to be a bit difficult to continue to claim that and then make common cause with said racists. Worse still, Trump’s appeal to the white working class would be, absent the raw racial identity politics played by the Democrats, be just as appealing to the black and Hispanic working class. The only thing keeping the Democratic party alive right now is the belief by a large section of the Hispanic community and nearly all of the black community that Republicans are racist and hate them. If a significant portion of either community stopped believing that, the Democrats would be doomed.

      1. Yea, it’s almost like Democrats would lose power if minorities thought they were being fairly and equally treated and Democrats would have a vested interest in trying to convince minorities that inequality and racism still ran rampant.

        1. Ever notice how the media perpetuates the utterly racist stereotype that only white people work in factories? It is as if no black person ever got his hands dirty or worked in an oil field or a steel mill. Whenever the media talks about the conflict between some liberal sacred cow like environmentalism or foreign trade and the American workers harmed by such things, the conflict is always portrayed as “the white working class” versus everyone else as if no black person ever lost their job due to environmental regulations or because it was moved overseas.

          Black people apparently all live in the ghetto and sell drugs or something. One of these days that dog is going to stop hunting.

          1. A lot of them are employed by the government, but point taken.

            1. So are a lot of white people.

          2. Voter ID law opposition stems from the same reasoning; the Racism of lower expectations.

            “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with
            us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!”

            -Douglass, Frederick

          3. Ever notice how the media perpetuates the utterly racist stereotype that only white people work in factories?

            So robots are considered white? Or are they more like “white Hispanic”?

            1. The media thinks only robots work in factories?

          4. Ever notice how the media perpetuates the utterly racist stereotype that only white people work in factories?

            Yes, freddie deboer was hammering this point in his twitter last week. He basically says that the left’s demonization of “white working class” is really more a class-elitism which purposely ignores that millions of those “working class” people they’ve shunned are actually black and hispanic.

            The Onion is also making his points for him =


            The Onion @TheOnion

            DNC Aiming To Reconnect With Working-Class Americans With New ‘Hamilton’-Inspired Lena Dunham Web Series
            http://trib.al/V9fuRaH

            1. And on cue, Dalmia does just that in reason. she calls Trump’s commitment to protectionism “a handout to his white base” because we all know only white people work in industry.

      2. This fact animates much of the current freakout.

        The Republicans control both houses and the presidency. Like it or not some Democrats are going to cut deals, if only with the more big government/statist friendly aspects of the dominant party.

        Doing deals with the Devil is a circle that will prove hard to square within the Democrat party.

        1. They are in a tough spot. If they do nothing and just try to obstruct, the Republicans just get rid of the filibuster and do what they want anyway and then take credit for it leaving the Democrats nothing to run on. If They work with Republicans and make deals, they get achievements to run on but lose the ability to call the Republicans evil and deplorable. They will have to pick their poison.

          1. Never underestimate progressive doublethink, or the ability for their 0-IQ base to glibly believe whatever thing is currently being said regardless of yesterdays reality.

            1. The problem is the Progressives are nuts and actually think that Hillary didn’t win because she wasn’t left enough. As bad as Hillary was, she really was the best candidate they had. Its like Bloomburg. Bloomburg was terrible but if you ever talked to people who knew anything about New York City politics, they would all tell you that compared to the rest of the Democratic politicians in New York, Bloomburg was great. Sure enough we have found out with DiBlasio, they were right.

              What is likely to happen is the Progs will purge any remaining sanity left in the party and run a first class lunatic lefty in 2020, someone like DiBlasio, and they will wind up losing 40+ states and being even further in the wilderness. That is why everyone should hope Trump does at least a not disastrous job as President. If he doesn’t and the country votes Democrat as a way to punish the Republicans, we are going to get someone much worse than Hillary or Obama ever dreamed of being.

          2. So much of their support depends on social identity and enforced groupthink. The moment they stop characterizing any opposition as evil and deplorable they open the door for all sorts of free thinking.

            Cant. Have. That.

          3. If they do nothing and just try to obstruct, the Republicans just get rid of the filibuster and do what they want anyway and then take credit for it leaving the Democrats nothing to run on.

            As if results matter!!

            Starting Jan 20 you will see hundreds – no, thousands of stories of the homeless, the poor, the abandoned children, the old folks eating dogfood, and everyone dying of starvation. The unemployment rate will suddenly and continuously rise to 7 or 8%, and the number of people on food stamps will explode. Count on it. Pay special attention to NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc who will have these stories on page 1 with full color photographs for the next four years.

            Haha! Results matter. Good one!

            1. Speaking of the unemployment rate, it always seemed odd how it got into the high nines but never crossed the 10% threshold. Never did the Brian Williams or Diane Sawyer have to say that unemployment had gone into “double digits”.

        2. The Republicans control both houses and the presidency.

          Moreover, they occupy 33 governorships and, if I’m not mistaken, are one state house away from having numeric majorities in 3/4 of legislatures. And Welch is trying to appeal to a party that will make Progressive Caucus stalwart Keith Ellison its new chair. Because they’ve not progged enough.

  7. Be prepared to make ad hoc coalitions with people you might not otherwise like.

    If libertarians took this advice themselves, they might get somewhere in electoral politics.

    1. It’s so much more viscerally satisfying to call one group “the evil party” and the other group “the stupid party” though…

  8. Wonder Woman | Play Now | http://bit.ly/2fmxypv
    Visit For More Movie : http://hdmovielist.tk
    Looks Good

  9. Waaaayy too rational an article for progressive, Matt. Unless the more reasonable outnumber the unhinged; which I’m not so sure is the case these days.

    Other than that…you made an appearance in a dream the other day.

    1. progressives.

  10. Federalism? That’s, like, for slavery and stuff.

    1. Yes. The liberals have effectively demonized the word. They can’t walk back from that now.

  11. RE: Suggestions for My Liberal Friends on How to Play Defense Against Trump
    Federalism is your friend, as is non-hysterical specificity in combating authoritarianism

    Here’s a suggestion for all my liberal friends.
    Urge your congressman (or woman) and two senators to legalize drugs.
    Urge your congressman (or woman)to reduce or eliminate the corporate tax.
    Urge your congressman (or woman) to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax of 1%.
    I’ll wait.

    1. I’m not a liberal, and I’m not your friend, but I’m going to use my circumstance to illustrate the flaw in this suggestion.

      Urge your congressman (or woman) and two senators to legalize drugs.
      Urge your congressman (or woman)to reduce or eliminate the corporate tax.
      Urge your congressman (or woman) to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax of 1%.

      My Congressman is Paul “Taxin” Tonko and the senators are Chucky “Camera Whore” Schumer and Kirsten “Ditto” Gillibrand. “Taxin Tonko” got his nickname for a reason. You might have heard of Chucky and his gender-swapped counterpart. None of them will do anything to move in that direction, regardless of how many people try to contact them. Fun fact – I once tried to reach Schumer’s office, but he made it so difficult to find a point of contact that I ended up giving up.

      1. UnCivilServant

        Thanks for the info.
        I was directing my suggestions to liberals. Since they are so “enlightened and educated” so much more than us, then I would’ve thought they would be wise enough to see the social and economic benefits of my suggestions. I am not really surprised you couldn’t get a hold of Schumer’s office. You probably didn’t give him a “campaign contribution” at election time. A whore won’t perform unless paid.

  12. “Be prepared to make ad hoc coalitions with people you might not otherwise like. Part of playing defense is working on an issue-by-issue basis with whoever is willing.”

    Like how the LP allied with the SoCons over the issue of religious freedom?

    Physician, heal thyself.

    /sarc

    1. That is the most dead horse ever.

      1. Why?

        Because Trump, being an archconservative, is going to restore full First Amendment rights and freedom of association?

        He’s a New York City Democrat. He probably figures the SoCons have nowhere else to go. They can’t go to the libertarians, they can’t go to the Democrats.

        Why would Trump take the heat for protecting religious liberty?

      2. Maybe it will rise on the third day.

      3. That is true Crusty. But if Libertarians wouldn’t keep killing that poor horse and living down to every expectation on the issue, people like Eddie wouldn’t keep beating it.

        1. The election proved to be the test of Johnson’s allegedly “pragmatic” strategy of kissing up to the left and the Sanders crowd.

          Before the election we heard a lot of discussion of his pragmatism versus the “purity tests” of those who wanted him to defend the freedom of businesses to make their own policies re sexuality.

          Now just as we’re seeing the results of this pragmatism, it suddenly becomes a non-issue?

          1. Johnson learned that Fascist Leftists aren’t very dependable Libertarian voters….

            1. I am pretty sure I read somewhere that the exit polls showed that Johnson hurt Trump more than Hillary. And the Democrats don’t seem to be in much of a mood to reach out to Libertarians as a way of fixing their problems.

  13. I think the Democrats have screwed themselves royally. They have effectively radicalized their base to the point that they cannot be rational and expect their base’s support.

    Are you going to get the NEA to back off? Are you going to get the millenials to adjust their worldview anytime soon? Are you going to get the federal bureaucracy to change?

    These are very steep hills to climb.

    1. Agreed. They’ve been sowing the same hysteria so loud for so long that they actually believe it now.

    2. the millenials will adjust by that phenomenon known as maturity and the realization that all these good and great and well-intentioned ideas 1) do not work and 2) are being paid for by you. Then the next generation of young idealists will take over.

      1. The longer they are kept as little “snowflakes”, the longer it will take for them to mature, and that delay may be enough for the evil party to vote themselves into a permanent majority.

    3. They (Dems) have effectively radicalized their base to the point that they cannot be rational and expect their base’s support.

      Yes.

      This is also partly why Trump won the nomination, imo.

      The rest of the GOP opened up a can of worms by rabble-rousing about immigration around the mid-2000s (*think Lou Dobbs and his tirades against Mexicans Importing Leprosy), then failing to deliver anything

      They turned their voters into a single-issue mob. then the ‘immigration reform’ scraps they offered weren’t nearly good enough.

      But as for Dems – yes, they’ve used identity politics as a weapon for so long that unless their candidates echo their batshit sentiments, they will be seen as betrayers. They’re basically setting themselves up for national defeat for a while, because you can’t win the whole country while also pleasing the social-justice-twitter-mobs

  14. An effective defense is not screaming racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. at every policy or action you don’t agree with. Play defense by advocating better ideas and supporting those who will work to implement those ideas. Don’t be hypocritical about the use of government. Don’t demand that government get out of one issue, like say abortion, but be fully involved in another similar issue, like say health care/insurance. Play defense, but by all means don’t be one of those people who lament what team X does just to have you cheer on that same action when your team does it.

  15. We all know what’s coming. The progressives aren’t going to reject presidential power. They’re not going to curtail the role of the federal government. They’re not going to lessen their support for activist government. They’re going to move to weaken things for this president and this president only. I’ve tried to raise the issue to some of my progressive acquaintances while they’re ranting about how tyrannical life is going to be under Donnie the Terrible. All I get in response is awkward silence.

  16. Will we be getting a fully-staffed* 5th column podcast today? or am i going to have to cry and throw my food on the floor?

    (*by which i mean mike and kmele)

    1. Record tonight, post either late-night or first thing AM.

        1. *picks up Crusty’s pitchfork*

          Could come in handy.

          1. The hay bales are on a flatbed by the barn – we need them up in the loft. You’ll get paid by the bale moved.

            1. In gruel?

          2. These euphemisms…

  17. One thing the Progressive reaction to Hillary’s loss has taught me is that the Progressive were ready to drive everyone not on board with ALL of their ideas and beliefs to total destruction.

    They’re so pissed because they won’t be able to send us to camps to be re-educated….

  18. Unless honest liberals rid themselves of a leadership that aggressively hates the very people whose support the Democrats need to succeed, they will continue to fail more.

    You want to see something truly AMAZING?

    Here’s Boxxy, yeah, the “Hi! My name is Boxxy” chick–even she’s putting out videos trying to understand why social justice warriors are spewing so much hate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6E3gL4lhkI

    You cannot hope to mount a successful defense of your causes if your progressive/social justice warrior leadership is still enthusiastic about spewing contempt at the very people whose support you need to succeed.

    And the Democrats have a lot to live down!

    1. Listen, Ken. The SJWs can’t help it that the people who don’t agree with them are old, uneducated morons that just want to hang on to bigotry and hatred. They have no desire to work with those people, those people are what’s wrong with the world. It would be better if those people could be put somewhere where they could no longer contribute to the destruction of the world.

      1. Well, they’ll listen to me, but maybe they’ll listen to Boxxy.

        Everybody loves Boxxy!

        . . . well, everyone except for one person: The Anti-Boxxy.

        Dick Cheney is the Anti-Boxxy.

  19. At one point, the Democrats were cheering because they were forcing Catholic nuns to pay for birth control.

    They were demonizing nuns!

    They were committing the same sins as the social conservatives on the right. There were a lot of people who opposed gay marriage–who didn’t want to see gay people demonized. There are a lot of people who oppose illegal immigration–who don’t want to see illegal aliens demonized. There are a lot of people who supported ObamaCare–who didn’t want to see nuns demonized.

    Once you get a reputation for demonizing people, you lose a significant amount of support for your cause–even from people who support the cause itself.

    There are a lot of white, blue collar, middle class people who are against racism, ignorance, and selfishness–who don’t want to see white, blue collar middle class people demonized.

    If the Democrats don’t figure that out, it doesn’t matter what else they do–they’ll continue to lose more.

    1. Yep, Progressives got huge support from Libertarians for gay marriage, because other people shouldn’t have been involved in the business of gay people.

      Then after getting that right secured, Progressives knifed Libertarians in the back by attacking the free association rights of anyone not hyper-enthusiastically supporting gay marriage….

      1. Exactly. This is a prime example of why I think libertarians should approach such alliances with great caution. Dems and Repubs might seem to be on the same side of a given issue as we are, but their motivations are different and their most important principle is “the good of the Party comes first”.

      2. I don’t think Progressives knifed Libertarians in the back. They knifed them in the front. Progressives never made any secret of their desire to use gay marriage as a way to destroy freedom of association and religion. Indeed, conservatives told Libertarians what was going to happen. And Libertarians refused to listen.

        I don’t see how Libertarians can claim to have been stabbed in the back or be surprised by the results of gay marriage. Both Progressives and Conservatives made it clear that was what was going to happen. Libertarians just pretended not to listen.

      3. Then after getting that right secured, Progressives knifed Libertarians in the back by attacking the free association rights of anyone not hyper-enthusiastically supporting gay marriage

        So gay marriage was….

        [adjusts sunglasses]

        …a Trojan horse!

    2. “They were committing the same sins as the social conservatives on the right.”

      I’d like to see some examples of *actual laws and policies* which are distinctly SoCon and which are equivalent in badness to the laws and policies pushed by the progs.

      I don’t mean “Reverend so and so Tweeted that God’s judgment will be on the fags,” or whatever, I mean *actual* laws and policies.

      And I know I can’t stop you from saying “drug war,” but William F. Buckley was a SoCon and opposed it, and the other day when someone linked to the so-called SoCon drug warriors in California, I looked and found it was some pediatricians, a Kennedy, and others who kept chanting “science!” and didn’t even mention how God hated the evil weed.

      1. Two examples off the top of my head: Prop 187 and Prop 8.

        Proposition 187 made it illegal for illegal aliens or their children to receive public services. It would have made it illegal, for instance, for the illegal alien children to go to elementary school.

        Proposition 187 passed, but because the Republicans and officials who passed it became so tainted by having supported it, that the only Republican who’s been successful in getting to state wide office since was himself an immigrant.

        Proposition 8 passed in California. It made gay marriage illegal in California. It was popular enough to pass and yet, still, it made Republicans in California even more despised than they were before. Again, just because someone is against gay marriage doesn’t mean they want to see gay people demonized–and that’s what they thought the Republicans were doing.

        Again, the principle is that once you become associated with having demonized some people, that is a hard reputation to shake, and as long as the progressive social justice warrior leadership of the Democratic party continues to demonize non-college educated whites, the harder a time they’re going to have mustering support for their policies–even among those who otherwise might support the Democrats and their policies.

        1. No doubt, there are many progressives who are thinking, “If we can’t demonize rednecks, then what’s the point of being on the left?”

          If those progressive leaders and their socially conservative counterparts in the Republican party all went down in the same ship, America would be a much better place.

        2. “Proposition 187 made it illegal for illegal aliens or their children to receive public services. It would have made it illegal, for instance, for the illegal alien children to go to elementary school.”

          Assume this is SoConish (though I could quibble, e.g., there are Catholic leaders who want open borders while defending true marriage). All it means is that if you’re not allowed to be in the country, you are not allowed to take tax money based on your illegal residence.

          “Proposition 8 passed in California. It made gay marriage illegal in California.”

          No, it did not. It said the state of California would not recognize same-sex unions as marriages. But it didn’t even stop state recognition of, and benefits for, “civil unions” between people of the same sex.

          So your example simply shows – horrors! – that some people don’t want to pay residence-based benefits to people who aren’t supposed to be residents in the first place. And that California voters decided that same-sex couples could get government marriage benefits but not the actual *name* of “marriage.”

          If that’s the best you’ve got, you haven’t got even remotely close to establishing the desired moral equivalence.

          1. It never ceases to amaze me how much I tend to agree with you on matters of law, while not necessarily agreeing with your worldview or values.

            I tend to personally strongly dislike socons in a general sense. I don’t think having consensual sexual relations with other adults is ever a sin. Adultery is wrong, because it is breaking an oath (after all, the spouse being cheated on isn’t consenting). But at the same time, I have no problem with married swingers, hot-wives, etc. I also don’t think it is a sin to put something into your body that makes you feel good. (Obviously, a person can lose control and do bad things under the influence).

            However, I freely admit that at this time, the ones who seem to be hell-bent on using the force of government more and more are on the left. There are a growing number of people who would consider themselves socons, who are saying “I don’t agree with that lifestyle. But I don’t want to put people in jail over it.” Meanwhile, progressives were the ones pushing the condom law for porn in CA. Progs are the ones pushing for affirmative consent (May I use my tongue? May I touch one breast but over the shirt? May I know go under your shirt but over your bra? etc.) Hell, progs sometimes try to outdo the cons on the drug war.

            Just goes to show that there is no one way to libertarian!

          2. “So your example simply shows – horrors! – that some people don’t want to pay residence-based benefits to people who aren’t supposed to be residents in the first place. And that California voters decided that same-sex couples could get government marriage benefits but not the actual *name* of “marriage.”

            What it demonstrates is that demonizing your opponents can and does lose you the war–even if it wins you a battle somewhere.

            I don’t know how many elections Democrats win by demonizing non-college educated whites, but they recently lost a war doing that–and they’ll keep losing for the same reason if they don’t stop “winning” that way.

            You asked me for examples. Don’t know why you can’t see it.

            California was largely Republicans before Prop 187.

            Anti-immigrant soccer moms in Republican Orange County skewed Democrat after Prop 187.

            Same thing with gay marriage. California didn’t become more Republican because Prop 8 was passed. Rather, because Prop 8 was passed, the Republican party came to be seen as more homophobic than ever.

            Now California is a deep blue state, and that is not unrelated to the Republicans being seen as hateful towards illegal immigrants and LGBTQI.

            If the Democrats want to see Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan become deep red states, they should keep hating on non-college educated white people. That’s the way it works.

  20. I write about that as my lead example in an L.A. Times column today devoted to helping wound-licking Californians strategize defense against Trumpian authoritarianism.

    Seems like a futile article. They’re not against actual authoritarianism when they get to impose it, only imagined Trumpian authoritarianism.

    1. ” …imagined Trumpian authoritarianism.”

      Dude that’s the worst kind.

      Like the dude who gets killed offscreen is so much worse than the gory on screen one.

  21. “There are a lot of people who supported ObamaCare–who didn’t want to see nuns demonized.”

    Like, the nuns.

  22. can we stop calling people liberals who are not really liberal?

    1. And maybe stop calling people “leftists” if they’re not members of the French National Assembly and sitting to the left?

  23. . You may not fancy Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), but he is the most influential voice in Congress opposing the nominations of John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani to secretary of State.

    Way to make Democrats like Bolton, Welch.

  24. Matt, what’s the timeline on #Crexit… or #CalExit?

    1. Judging from recent Reason articles…just up until the point the Northern Californians start talking about their *own* secessionist desires. Except this would be secession from California, not the US.

  25. From the Popehat article:

    Hillary Clinton won an epic, historic struggle to be the worst Presidential candidate ever. Ultimately she won that struggle ? and thus lost the Presidency ? because she did not persuade. She did not articulate her core ideas effectively enough, and so not enough people latched onto them and disregarded the bad things about her.

    The first sentence … perhaps.

    The rest? Um, no. She lost in part because other people unearthed her emails describing her core ideas of mendacity, secrecy, and lust for power, and then she proceeded to lie her way into confirming those emails were accurate to anyone paying attention.

  26. The giveaway is in the very first line:
    “Last Wednesday, when three-quarters of America’s eligible voters woke up to the sick realization that an authoritarian boor they didn’t support…..”

    Um, 3/4 of America’s eligible voters knew 6 months ago that Wednesday morning would arrive with an authoritarian boor they didn’t support. But somehow, I am not so sure that Matt Welch would have written this piece had the other authoritarian boor been elected.

    Just sayin…….

    1. So are you going to keep speculating on what Reason writers would have said had Clinton been elected for the next 4 years?

      Maybe deep down they do think that Clinton would have been less worse. But so what? This is the authoritarian boor we get to deal with now. Election’s over and Hillary will probably fade into the background (perhaps wishful thinking, but her health seems bound to catch up with her soon enough).

      1. When Trump is actually POTUS and doing stupid, anti-liberty things, I will gladly join in with Matt to talk about what a dick he is.

        But, MATT was the one who brought up the election. And as long as he keeps reminding us about how bad the election turned out, then I will keep reminding them that months ago it was decided that the election would have a bad outcome either way.

  27. Obama inadvertently undermined his party’s ability to self-reflect. The cult of personality around him is so strong that they will continue to believe that all they really need to turn things around again is Obamessiah 2.0. And when you consider that Bernie inspired quite a strong cult mentality amongst millenials, you just know that their strategy, yet again, will be to find the right Top. Man. to “inspire” people again. They won’t consider any alliances, and their self-reflection will push them even farther down their current path

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.