Bernie Sanders: Donald Trump Won Because People Are Tired of Political Correctness

"I think he said some outrageous and painful things, but I think people are tired of the same old politically correct rhetoric."

|

Bernie
Yichuan Cao/NurPhoto/Sipa USA/Newscom

Sen. Bernie Sanders understands something that mainstream liberals do not: Donald Trump won the presidency in part because he channeled populist resentment toward political correctness into a winning issue.

During a fascinating and free-wheeling town hall-style event on Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC Monday night, Sanders was explicit: Trump's criticisms of political correctness spoke to the American people's legitimate fury toward a political class and media regime that is overly-scripted and beholden to the powerful.

"[Trump] said he will not be politically correct," said Sanders. "I think he said some outrageous and painful things, but I think people are tired of the same old politically correct rhetoric. I think some people believe he was speaking from his heart and willing to take on everybody."

Hayes then asked what political correctness means to Sanders. He responded:

"What it means is you have a set of talking points which have been poll-tested and focus-group-tested and that's what you say rather than what's really going on. And often what you are not allowed to say are things which offend very powerful people. For years and years we have been told by Republicans and many Democrats that our trade policy was a great idea, that it was working for America. The American people don't believe it. The American people I think want candidates and politicians to have the guts to stand up to the billionaire class and start representing the middle class and working families of America. I don't think it's more complicated than that."

Hayes then challenged Sanders' contention that political correctness has anything to do with trade policy. Instead, Hayes suggested that political correctness was more about not offending people for identity-based reasons.

"[Trump] was going after these consensus things but he was always saying things frankly that when we talk about political correctness are basically just rules about not being a jerk," said Hayes. "He's violating taboos that a lot of people think we should keep."

But Sanders hit back. "He was talking about the media," said Sanders. "Do people here think the media reflects the reality of American society?"

The audience, needless to say, was none too pleased with the media.

"One of the arguments as to why Trump won," Sanders continued, "is the belief that most or many of his supporters are sexists or racists or homophobes. I happen not to believe that's the case. I think what he did do is he said, 'You know what, there's a lot of pain in this country, people are scared and people are worried.' People are tired of status quo politics. He broke through that."

Another round of Democratic Party operatives and pro-Clinton hacks will probably label Sanders a white supremacist for making these comments. And that's why they lost.

Defenders of liberal values have to find a better way to talk to Trump supporters: belittling them (even when they deserve it) hasn't worked, and won't.

Updated at 2:00 p.m.: Here's some video footage of Sanders on MSNBC last night.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Nominating Rex Tillerson Secretary of State

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. Even when they deserve it, eh?

    Never change, Robby.

    1. To be fair, no one is devoid of causes for ridicule.

      1. Sure. But marbling your article on how condescension brought the media and Dems down with, well, condescension is just so Robby. So projection. Much woke.

        1. It can’t be easy to argue against people who on the on hand reject his views as politically correct, and who on the other hand are as delicate as gossamer soap bubbles when faced with the least criticism.

          1. It can’t be easy to be a huge douchebag.

            1. It’s in the water in Ann Arbor. That’s what happens when you graduate from “The Harvard of the West”.

              1. Stanford? Caltech? Berkeley?

              2. Even Bernie Sanders must recognize that certain requirements need to be imposed, particularly when dealing with delicate academic matters, to ensure that intellectual discourse remains within the proper bounds of civility. Surely no one here would dare to defend the outrageous “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

                https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

                1. TLDR. Give us a brief summary or give it a rest.

            2. depends on your skillset…RS seems admirably equipped to be a huge douchebag…stupendous even

          2. Be careful, you might trigger the snow flakes, this is supposed to be a safe space from them.

            1. I would never, never bruise their delicate feelings by saying anything critical. What do you think I am, a big mean bully like Robby Soave?

              1. Good working definition of “political correctness” for many-many circumsadnesses:
                “When entities A B & C are allowed to declare, on behalf of entities M Q & W, what is offensive to entities M Q & W, and then to use political power to shut up entities X Y & Z when they say anything at all, vaguely referring (or imaginarily referring) to entities M Q & W, that entities A B & C do not like.”
                Example: “AIDs viruses are bad and we should protect ourselves from them.”
                “You are an evil homophobe, and AIDs viruses do not share your perspective, or your hyper-smug value judgments, either! Go home, you fascist you!”

            2. hey snowflakes …meet my flame thrower, you filthy animals…

          3. there is a difference between criticism and the total disregard of opinions based on the oft repeated mantra of racist homophobe zionist

        2. So projection. Much woke.

          Yeah, but can he stay woke?

    2. Ridicule can be a powerful social tool. But you don’t have to belittle someone in the process. That makes it sound more personal and counterproductive to me. You can go after their ideas with wit and sarcasm, but don’t make them personally feel like stupid children unless you just want them to hate you.

      1. I don’t see whats wrong with PC per say. Or what is attractive about bashing it. In the 1950s a man was expected to conduct his affairs with a degree of chivalry to be acknowledged as someone who understood the cultural norms and upheld them. A woman was expected to behave with modesty. Collectively we seem to have jettisoned all that by the 1970s.
        Today one of the social norms is to respect differences of race, religion, sexual orientation and gender. And by stepping out of that box you face ostracism. Its just a way of proving you are polite and conscientious even if like the 1950s it breeds pathology and moral crusaders.
        I have no appetite to be anti-pc. But don’t worry fellow reasonoids I combat the overwheening culture the way I can. My copious purchases of extreme metal and gangster rap create a safe space for misogyny, use of racial slurs and degradation.

        1. PC does not respect differences. It exploits differences to gain power and force conformity of thought.

          1. Yes. And of course it does not respect differences equally, which is a huge reason why it is resented. The double standards are huge and ever-growing.

          2. You could have made a similar case against older norms too. Respect for women was a facade for a patronizing culture. Sticking up for strong marriages was a bullwork for abuse and neglect. Still I think it a good idea to hold doors for women or step in the puddle.
            Ditto for PC. I don’t feel constrained because it seems inappropriate to claim blacks have worse life outcomes because of genetics or a lack of culture. I am fine speaking in a way that doesn’t make me sound like a prick or someone who didn’t live through the last 3 decades and listen to people who don’t share my values or background. It’s mostly just respect.
            Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can shoot down petty tyrants without emulating alt-right trolls who harass lefties and ask them if their sensitive homo feelings needs a safe space. And if they do the place is called Canada (or France) and they can take all the colored savages with them.

            1. PC is often defended with the motte and bailey argument. As practiced, it’s clearly divisive and all about power politics. When challenged, it means listening to and respecting diverse views.

              1. Indeed, Mainer2. It’s also Fabian-style incrementalism. E.g. at first it’s: “Leave gays alone and don’t fire them.” Eventually it becomes: “You don’t agree with this month’s ‘advancement’ of gay rights? You’re fired.”

              2. Thats almost a question of perception isn’t it. Maybe you feel like we live in something like the best of possible worlds and its mostly people calling wolf. Racial animus is largely a figment or political game.
                Its funny thay most surveys tend to show whites thinking America is fairly racially harmonious and that cops are overall trustworthy while minorities answer the questions entirely differently.
                So what gives? Alot of whites seem to think people of color are deluded about how things work. What you see depends on where you stand.
                At the same time blue collar whites are apparently fed up with the culture the black lives matter movement is fed up as well. There are Native Americans in the Dakotas being noisy about how they are crushed. You might want to be careful about stressing the alienation of whites at the expense of others. The perception gap starts somewhere.

        2. “I don’t see whats wrong with PC…”

          http://tinyurl.com/j72yvdu

          Maybe you don’t see what’s wrong because you are not supposed to see what is wrong, much less speak about it.

          Also, unrelated but topical here, another pathetic cop shooting:

          http://tinyurl.com/z2dpkeb

        3. “I don’t see whats wrong with PC…”

          http://tinyurl.com/j72yvdu

          Maybe you don’t see what’s wrong because you are not supposed to see what is wrong, much less speak about it.

          1. Also, unrelated but topical, another pathetic cop shooting:

            http://tinyurl.com/z2dpkeb

          2. Good article. For the TLDR crowd, this is the money quote:

            “Why is there no canon of P.C. that, once filled, would require no further additions? Because the point of P.C. is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself.” (emphasis in original.)

      2. Ridicule can be a powerful social tool. But you don’t have to belittle someone in the process.

        Uh, belittling someone is pretty much part and parcel of what ridicule is all about. Your claim here is like saying, “Sure, you can make someone dead…but you don’t have to kill them in the process.”

        1. The only difference being that the dead cannot resent you for making them so.(Valar morghulis) Those you have ridiculed, on the other hand -unless they internalize it and take part in some solemn introspection- will not look kindly upon you. They will not believe you have done them a favor or kindness.

      3. Sanders opinions are much like what I appreciate about Marx (but not Marxism). He’s a good observer and able to define the problem. Solving the problem, not so much. He honestly describes himself as a socialist. Fairness in advertising. Democrats, not so much, or at all.

        1. *Sanders’

    3. It appears that it is completely impossible for Robby to write anything (including “and” and “the”) without someone finding something to bitch about.

      1. “(even when he deserves it)”

        1. who cares whether he deserves it or not, fuck him!

          1. No Unforgiven quote ? I am disappoint.

          2. “A riot is an ugly thing, undt I think that it is just about time ve had vun!”

            1. “A riot is an ugly thing, undt I think that it is just about time ve had vun!”

              Sponge cake and wine afterward?

              1. Whiskey and bong hits and I’m in.

      2. Hey Robby does a great job writing articles (apart from the occasional SJW suck up bait).

        See Robby, we can caveat too!! 😉

    4. Come on man. They do deserve it. Alot of it. I can’t think of a politician who from a libertarian perspective is more of a caricature of everything wrong with the right wing than Trump.
      I come at the criticism from the opposite angle. Why in a year when Democrats racked up net wins in both houses, during the election cycle Trump’s favorability rating has averaged in the 30s and Trump lost the popular vote by 2% is everyone buying the Trump narrative hook, line and sinker and parroting it? Does that sound like some sea change in the culture? That sounds like we have a two party system with two widely disliked candidates and alot of people held their nose.
      Bernie Sanders has now entered the same solipsistic world the president-elect inhabits. How does Rex Tillerson represent the Sanders message? The only thing Trump and Sanders share is a suspicion of free markets. Sanders thinks compassionate technocrats should manage it and Trump wants bold strongmen to do it.

      1. Recall that the Democrats talked about taking over both the Senate and the House. The Senate in particular was weighted in their direction, with more GOP seats up for grabs. So their slight gains in both pretty much count as a defeat. And in 2018, there are 25 Democratic Senate seats up for grabs.

        1. It has nothing to do with the Democrats. They got punched in the nuts for sure. What I’m saying is this has been twisted into a story about a Trump groundswell that speaks for the American people collectively or even mostly. The facts don’t tell that story.

          1. I think it’s more of a shift than that, as evidenced by the insane over-reaction on the left. They sense that their nuclear weapons (calling people “racist-sexist-homophobes” etc.) are losing their power, and they are correct. The election was not a huge wipeout judging by the numbers, true, but there is a sense that it was a tipping point, and I think that’s accurate.

            1. Indeed. Their go-to weapons bounced off Trump. Who was the NYT columnist who basically said, we blew our credibility painting McCain and Romney as monsters? Now our weapons don’t work on Trump, even though he really is a monster ?..totally missing the point of the boy who cried wolf. You don’t regain your credibility by saying, yeah I was crying wolf before, but this time you should trust me.

              1. I’m a scorpion. It’s my nature.

            2. Indeed. Their go-to weapons bounced off Trump. Who was the NYT columnist who basically said, we blew our credibility painting McCain and Romney as monsters? Now our weapons don’t work on Trump, even though he really is a monster ?..totally missing the point of the boy who cried wolf. You don’t regain your credibility by saying, yeah I was crying wolf before, but this time you should trust me.

              1. That scorpion should sting that squirrel in the eyeball.

            3. Yep. When everyone is Hitler, no one is.

              Its a lesson the Progs are getting in spades and served cold.

              1. And it will keep happening. All Trump has to do is not be MegaHitler, and the Democrats and leftists look like fools in 2018 and 2020.

            4. First 538 thought winning the senate was about 48% for the Demos not a done deal. Also everyone knew the house was off limits for them in 2016.
              Also as of the present count less people voted for Trump in 2016 than for Bush in 2004. And a whole 6 million more people voted for Obama in 2008 than for Trump in 2016 and the Obama tally in 2012 was 2 million more than Trump in 2016. Trump was the first Republican to lose college educated whites in living memory and did poorly with all minorities.
              Again how does this signal Trump changed the culture? Because the left is freaking out? They always freak out when a Republican wins. The far left is impossible to satisfy. Ajamu Baraka called Bernie Sanders a white supremist. Enough said.
              Obama didn’t win his two terms because people were afraid voting against him was not PC. He won in 2008 because the public deemed W a failure and in 2012 because Romney had nothing to say on Obama’s achilles heel (Obamacare) since he approved virtually the same thing in Massachussets.

              1. Trump did not “do poorly with all minorities.” The last I checked, he did better with blacks and Hispanics than Romney did.

                1. Trump did better than Romney with Hispanics but worse than George W. And about blacks, keep in mind Romney ran against Obama. No Democrat has ever won the black vote in the same way Obama did. Trump lost both demographics resoundingly. Blacks 88-8 and Hispanics 65-29.
                  Another important point worth mentioning is Trump beat Hillary Clinton. Not Barack Obama, not Elizabeth Warren, not Joe Biden. This is a person who has a long scandelous history. A person nearly 50% of people polled in the 2008 election said they would never vote for under any circumstances. A person being investigated by the FBI in the last week of the election.
                  I’m a libertarian not a democrat. I don’t have an interest in raising the profile of either party. But the Trumpistas talk like they’re going to govern as if he won a landslide. And the Hillary bashers talk like they have annointed the second coming instead of pulling the lever for the lesser of two evils something over 40% of Trump voters claimed to be doing. In particular I find many libertarians enthusiasm for him deeply disturbing and makes me question if I’m in the right party.
                  I’m pretty tired of the apotheosis of Trump amongst the chattering classes. He barely slid into office on a technicality and is widely unpopular.

                  1. I have never had enthusiasm about any American Presidential candidate except Ron Paul. FTW.

                    1. *And Ed Clark, but I was a kid then

                  2. “I’m pretty tired of the apotheosis of Trump amongst the chattering classes. He barely slid into office on a technicality and is widely unpopular.” – no clue here what this means.

                    Yes because Warren, Biden, Sanders are all amazing people who would have won right? Yet, they couldn’t beat Hillary (Yeah, I know the deck was stacked). All the people you listed have no accomplishments but career politicians. They haven’t created anything. Obama was a special case which will be hard to find because for some (not me, his Charisma was overreaching even if he spoke only about himself)

                    Obama won because a) his voting block was solid and minorities turned out for him, b) white guilt, c) Romney didn’t inspire anyone. People didn’t turn out for Trump or Hillary yet more people liked Trump. Sorry, it was true. Look at the enthusiasm at rally and such.

                    I’m willing to give Trump a shot. I would have voted for anyone but a D now based on their platform. I am enjoying the entertainment of orange people – Oomplah Lampahs, Hulk Hogan, and now Trump

          2. Of course, CA made up 4.3 million difference in the popular vote but you can argue either side for that.
            The groundswell as you speak is – states that have been blue, weren’t. As for the Senate and House – remember they were predicting a crushing defeat of the Republications. It was favorable to the Dems.

            And you are missing the state level changes also.

            You are saying that Trump doesn’t speak for the people, yet the people gave him a Republication congress and 300 EV. I was told (before election) that 300 was a crushing defeat .

            Finally, you state Trump’s favorability. After all the name calling, violence, etc do you think people that support Trump answer those? I mean Obama approval rating is high but everyone things his policy stinks. Plus, anything the media does is not trusted by Trump supporters anymore.

      2. ” I can’t think of a politician who from a libertarian perspective is more of a caricature of everything wrong with the right wing than Trump.”

        Even though he’s largely an old school nativist populist Democrat?

        You might want to consider that part of the reason all those people in all those previously deeply Democrat states crossed over to vote for Trump is because the modern Democrat party told them their attitudes were everything wrong with the right wing.

        1. Months ago I was labeling Trump as a Tammany Hall Democrat*. It is nice to see someone else use a similar description. SJW issues are fine as long as people have jobs, to these voters. Somehow my former party lost sight of the economy. If only a quadranscentury old quote about stupidity was recalled it would have been easy to defeat Trump.

          * I’ve been using this handle on Disqus for nearly a year. Feel free to fact check my claim.

      3. A lot. They are two separate words. I hate to go grammar nazi, but I keep seeing that in your writings and it’s driving me nuts.

  2. He figured out that he appealed to the wrong populism?

  3. I agree with Hayes that PC doesn’t really cover technical topics like trade policy but Sanders is broadly correct that Democratic hold over the Rust Belt was tenuous due to their being all talk about helping the “working man” but not actually doing anything for them. They got out-populisted by Trump.

    Incidentally I think Bernie still would have lost to Trump simply on foreign policy given Bernie also knows very little about it and wouldn’t know how to tap into frustration with America’s perceived lost of prestige.

    1. Very few voters base their vote on foreign policy issues when there’s economic troubles at home.

      1. And even fewer voters have the economic education to be able to understand the correlation between the two.

    2. Incidentally I think Bernie still would have lost to Trump simply on foreign policy given Bernie also knows very little about it

      Also the fact that Bernie has like forty years of praising dysfunctional or murderous regimes, revolutions and terrorists under his belt. Credit where credit’s due, at least he wasn’t as enthusiastic about Castro as some other sycophants were recently.

      1. Castro wasn’t a true Soviet.

      2. None of my millenial Sanderistas have accepted this argument. I point out to them that Bernie wasn’t even remotely criticized on anything that would have mattered in a general election (guns only matter in the Dem primary). We can’t know how he would have done when the primary screwed him behind the scenes, but largely treated him with kid gloves on the debate stage. They also refuse to believe it when I tell them Bernie advocated for the Sandinistas crushing freedom of the press, or that his main takeaway from his visit to the USSR was that the trains always ran on time, or that he once advocated nationalizing the oil industry

    3. I think Hayes is wrong. Yes, PC is most obviously about not violating an endless and endlessly changing list of racial and ethnic sensitivities, but it is also about never EVER contradicting the recieved wisdom of the Liberal Intellectuals. If you question some of the (widely acknowledged to be bogus) data on Global Warming, you get called evil names. If you question the idea that being surgically mutilated into a pseudo-female is a legitimate ‘sexual identity’ you get called evil names. And if you insist on some real data regarding trade, you get called evil names. It’s all ablout the numerous topics the Liberal Intellectials don’t want to actually discuss, because they know they are wrong.

      1. Actually it’s about you being wrong about everything and also being convinced that your hurt feelings over being called out on it is the most important political issue in the universe. You’ve been seriously played.

        1. Someday I’m sure youl’ll have a point. Someday…

          1. Of course Tony has a point. His hair covers it.

      2. I don’t think they’re smart enough to know they’re wrong. Like Tony, they have 100% faith in their correctness which is why they can so easily dismiss conflicting facts before cognitive dissonance sets in. What they lack is the ability to argue their point because they’ve never had to do it in their echo chamber.

        That’s why you never see Tony attempt to explain why he’s correct, he just knows he is, and you need to educate yourself. And other ad hominems.

        1. I’ve noticed this in conversation and Facebook (I know, I know). They can never defend their position. It’s just right because, well, everyone knows it. And even mild questioning elicits an over-reaction.

          1. It’s because when confronted with someone who has a desire for rational reasoning, it causes their brain to short-circuit because they haven’t been required to actually apply any of the vast amounts of education they often have. The critical thinking portion of their education was basically jettisoned in favor of propaganda. I noticed this in my own education in College. When I would ask questions related to the ‘why’ it was virtually always ignored, and after independent research I realized why they had to ignore it or why their explanation always seemed incomplete.

            It’s because it’s often a logical fallacy that the whole house of cards is built on. You have to take it on faith, because faith is the only way to understand it. It reminded me of my Catholic Junior High School religion classes, only without the rigorous liberal education portion tacked on.

            I say this only partially in jest, because the coursework at a private school was orders of magnitude more difficult than the joke that was public education. I saw both sides of it, and when I got into public high school I basically breezed my way through school after years of tough study. Go figure.

    4. When you tell coal miners, or anyone for that matter, that you are going to destroy their livelihood, expect them to not vote for you.

      1. The most stunning point of this whole political season, is that the Democrat candidate President literally lived with the best example of a politician who was able to get the people to like him and not one damned iota of that skill rubbed off.

        She more or less said to people, “I hate you, vote for me.”

        1. And her followers said to everyone, “I’ve always hated you, but why won’t you listen to me and vote for Hillary?”

      2. If you spend lots of time telling people they are stupid and immoral, expect them not to vote for you.

    5. Still, Bernie and Trump (with Johnson and Stein, fuck Hillary) would have been a somewhat interesting debate. TPTB would avoid that at all costs.

  4. Robby swooning for Bernie. Trump’s protectionism Bad, Bernie’s protectionism Good. Got it.

    1. What the fuck are you talking about?

      Are you actually so stupid that you believe that saying anything slightly complementary about a person means that you agree with that person on every issue?

      1. Yup, got it!

        Hitler thought that building interstate-class highways, and breathing oxygen, were good ideas.

        All those who agree with Hitler on the above 2 items? EVIL fascists, ALL of them!!!!

        1. I should probably ignore it more. But the ever increasing levels of blind idiocy around here are getting frustrating.

          1. Are you going to cry?

            1. You’re a butthead!

        2. Well, Hitler’s anti-smoking and vegetarianism would have made me vote against him, though Volkswagen might have mitigated that a bit.

        3. Well, Hitler’s anti-smoking and vegetarianism would have made me vote against him, though Volkswagen might have mitigated that a bit.

  5. Defenders of liberal values…

    Is Bernie Sanders supposed to be one of those?

    1. The Venn diagram of “Defenders of liberal values” and “people belittling Trump supporters” has no overlap.

      1. Um, actually it has a pretty big one. How can one defend liberal ideals without having a measure of disdain for people who positively supported the worst candidate the GOP could manage to field this year?

        1. The belittlers I’ve seen and heard are hardly defenders of liberal values. And a true defender of classic liberalism would engage, argue with or criticize, not be so petty as to “belittle”.

          1. I’m curious what a true Scotsman would think.

            1. Look under my kilt.

          2. Well generally people who actually enthusiastically like the guy, as opposed to merely resigning themselves to him, are generally pretty stupid, it’s hard to engage them without belittling them.

            Oh, I know, I’m supposed to say ‘I don’t disdain people who are honestly misguided, I yearn to have a spirited exchange of ideas with them… blah blah blah.’ No. Have you been to Breitbart? Sorry, but plenty of people (including Trumpkins) have earned their share of belittlement.

        2. ** Takes a look a the collective progressive meltdown **

          Looks like its really really easy.

          1. That everybody is one giant pussy.

        3. By “worst candidate the GOP could manage to field this year” do you mean “the one who could garner the most previous Democratic voters?”

          Because, while he certainly was not top choice on my primary ballot, he sure managed to win without my support.

  6. Chris Hayes has to be the most submissive, punchable, SJW douche on TV. It’s like he’s a product of some liberal lab experiment.

  7. he was always saying things frankly that when we talk about political correctness are basically just rules about not being a jerk….He’s violating taboos that a lot of people think we should keep

    And a lot of other people think you are, at best, being too sensitive, and at worst, purposefully misrepresenting fairly innocuous or nuanced statements in the worst possible way in order to drive a wedge between identity groups, silence dissenting views, and increase your own power.

    Also, sometimes people are just being jerks – fair enough. But not everyone wants to run jerks (or more commonly, someone who sometimes acts like a jerk) from polite society along with everyone that shares some of their beliefs.

    1. Also, sometimes people are just being jerks – fair enough.

      We need them, they’re all part of the cycle of life.

      1. People on the edges (of all sides) help to keep us from veering too far into the extremes. But only if we are willing to listen to what they have to say.

  8. I don’t care what that fleshbag attached to him says, I want to know what Hair-Sama thinks.

  9. Populists gonna popule….or whatnot.

    Bernie’s prescriptions are wrong (as many of Trump’s are) but his diagnosis is correct. What libertarians can do is point out what does help people vs what is the same old horsecrap wrapped up in a new package (Smoot Hawley 2 = bad, regulations and taxes and spending being cut back = good).

    Cheer the good, point out the bad and avoid falling into a TEAM pattern of recrimination.

    1. Populate?

      1. Popule. That’s a great word. Verbing the word populist.

        1. You are going to give Heroic Mulatto a aneurysm.

          1. You just gave him one…. it should be “an aneurysm”…..

    2. The problem is, libertarian solutions go against the prevailing emotional and moral narrative. We can explain why we are right on technical, theoretical, and even empirical grounds – and it’s like throwing eggs at a brick wall until we find a way to appeal to those emotional and moral narratives (or until they change).

      1. Sadly, this is too right. Just as an example, when I get on the subject of drug legalization with my parents, I can sometimes somewhat successfully get my mother to maybe, kinda agree with me. But then, election time rolled around, and when it came to the marijuana legalization prop, she breaks down and says “I’m sorry, but I can’t condone drug use.” People need emotional and/or moral arguments on why liberty is correct. Cold hard facts aren’t enough, unfortunately.

        1. We have some ways to make progress. Personal responsibility and meritocracy still resonate with a fair number of people. So does choice. Where I think we are most lacking is in generating a sense of community and collective belonging – that’s hard for a movement primarily composed of individualists.

        2. “I’m sorry, but I can’t condone drug use.”

          “Mom, no one’s putting a gun to your head to use it.”

          1. It doesn’t help that she listens to conservatives like Dennis Prager, who have been claiming that ever since Colorado legalized, there have been tons of problems over there because of it.

            1. Most of those “problems” have been because surrounding states haven’t legalized it.

          2. wait, I put a gun to my mom’s head and she voted for legalization…did I do wrong?

          3. But gay marriage is mandatory!

        3. Ask your mother whether the repeal of prohibition was right. Then make the emotional appeal that everything that was wrong with Prohibition, even from a teetotaler’s point of view, is also wrong with the Wart on Drugs. Voting to end part of the War on Drugs isn’t condoning drug use, it is condemning counterproductive government overreach.

      2. Yes, based on the comments at H&R, I conclude that libertarians are hyper-intelligent Vulcans who are influenced purely by logic and reason, and not in any way by emotion.

        /sarc

        1. Yes, based on the comments at H&R, I conclude that libertarians are hyper-intelligent Vulcans who are influenced purely by logic and reason, and not in any way by emotion.

          Thanks! That’s certainly how I see myself!

          /sarc

          Oh..

          *Runs away crying, like a character on Little House on the Prairie*

          1. +1 pig bladder

        2. Let’s be fair. There’s a difference between delivery and content. Content might be rational–“The right to self-defense is implied by the existence of the self”–while the delivery might be emotional–” you bootlicking statist assweasel!”

          1. Effective communicators attenuate the delivery.

        3. You need to get on the fucking anti-team right now because it’s not a team. Got it?

        4. I don’t think he’s suggesting that libertarians are not emotional people, merely that our policies and ideals don’t neatly fit into the narrative that defines our culture’s current zeitgeist. Or, at least, that we as a group have not found an appealing way to present them as such.

          1. Pretty much this. I think we come to libertarian ideas mostly because our moral worldview aligns with the moral foundations of libertarianism. It’s at least as important as the technical justifications for free markets. We’re emotional and we’re trying to push a particular morality, but we’re different from a lot of people in what we value.

            We also happen to have a pretty good set of empirical and theoretical evidence for why a society that gives individuals and groups of individuals lots of freedom to peacefully cooperate in new ways and in pursuit of new things prospers more than societies that try to stifle cooperation and innovation towards ends that aren’t approved by some centralized force. A peaceful and free society aligns with our morality. But when I look at the publicly “respectable” libertarian institutions out there, they mostly come off as policy wonks trying to show why free trade or lower taxes or drug legalization save money or lead to better policy outcomes. And people just don’t care because they aren’t getting past the emotional smell test in the way we do, because their moral foundations are different.

            1. Libertarians also have very little respect for a morality that cannot be systematically tested and proven to be workable.

              Leftists will cling to and wear any old moral garb, regardless of if it makes any sense. That is what the crux of the whole issue with PC is all about.

        5. I think of myself as more of a wood elf.

          1. Always helps to get the targeting bonus with ranged weapons.

    3. I made the point to a bright collegiate youth over the weekend that the bernstar is right on identifying like 60-70% of issues, he just has the wrong prescription (prog harder)

      1. “No, he has the right solution on 70% of the issues.”

        /The 2016 Libertarian Party candidate

        1. +1 fine public servant

        2. Ask a lifetime government man what the solution to a problem is:

          don’t act surprised at the answer.

    4. Trump also won because the Electoral College map heavily weighted the states where his anti-free trade, anti-globalist message resonated the most.

      I think it’s important to avoid overstating how much of America is opposed to free markets just because of Trump winning.

      1. I’m having a hard time following that last sentence….are you saying Americans in more in favor of free trade than the election of Trump would suggest?

        1. Sorry, meant to type “are more in favor of”

        2. That’s how I read him.

        3. I think that’s the case. My feeling, from what fiends and neighbors say, is that even those who think the Chinese and Mexicans are ripping us off over trade (the audacity of selling us good stuff cheaply!), it’s not a priority, and most accept the benefits of trade, however grudgingly, with a little talk. But to them, it’s part and parcel of a world turned upside down, and what galls them the most is the lecturing by elite nannies and the idiotic regulations and economic crap that goes with it — even those who believe in global warming think the war on coal and fracking is heavy handed, the emphasis on solar and wind power, subsidized electric cars (cheap Teslas really annoy them), ridiculous tobacco taxes and even more ridiculous eCig taxes, the war on guns and the lies they use to demonize guns … it all goes together, and trade gets thrown in as just another example of the oppressively suffocatng political correctness.

          1. “My feeling, from what fiends and neighbors say”

            I knew that fiends were involved in American politics.

            1. Oh deer.

            2. Get off my lawn!

          2. I don’t think I agree with you. When asked their opinion on narrowly defined, specific issues, a majority of people report at least progressive or liberal-leaning ideas.

            58% support a Medicare for all type health care

            51% support bans on automatic weapons

            A narrow plurality, 46%, say we’d be safer with less guns

            61% say the upper income earners pay too little in taxes

            83% say it is critical to preserve Social Security

            73% support Dodd-Frank, and think Wall Street is regulated too little

            None of these positions are particularly free market. To free market proponents, they are even anti-market. Many conservative are fond of the sentiment “people love government handouts, they just don’t like paying for it.” Well, that’s true for basically everything. Yes we love our cheap goods from China and avocados, but we don’t like our jobs leaving or gross air pollution either.

            1. Polls and stats lie, QED.

              58% support a Medicare for all type health care

              Doesn’t seem like a bad idea when Medicare got your Grandmother her chemo, right? Then you think about it for a nanosecond, and say ‘but who would the payor be’ and it suddenly doesn’t make sense because you’re paying at a 1/1 ratio, or in other words ‘for yourself’. Duh.

              51% support bans on automatic weapons

              These already exist, so how educated are these people on the issue again? Go ahead, go buy one without the Federal license requirement and see how ‘legal’ it is.

              A narrow plurality, 46%, say we’d be safer with less guns

              This could be true if the ‘less guns’ people were the people who had theirs taken away. Again, mindless bobbleheading.

              61% say the upper income earners pay too little in taxes

              61% of people aren’t upper income earners, so obviously.

              83% say it is critical to preserve Social Security

              And what percentage of people have paid into Social Security and don’t want to see their money vanish into thin air?

              73% support Dodd-Frank, and think Wall Street is regulated too little

              That’s probably because your average moron doesn’t realize that Wall Street writes the regulations themselves for the most part. So in a way, they’re right.

              1. You’re missing the point; I’m not listing any of this stuff because I think their each sound ideas. I’m listing them as examples of clearly anti-free market ideas that have majority support.

              2. Not less, but fewer guns. That being said, lick my scrotum.

        4. Hell, Trumps more in favor of free trade than the things Trump says suggest….

    5. Bingo. I have always said this about Bernie, he correctly identifies many of the problems, but his solutions are precisely created the problem to begin with.

  10. Fuck your respectability politics Bitch.

    1. you cis white scum!

  11. He was talking about the media

    He was also talking about a lot of your base, Bernie. You make them feel good about hating people that are more successful than them. Sometimes those people are more successful because they rigged or gamed the system and are worthy of some scorn, but even then you do it wrong because you attack the people and not the system that enables them. But sometimes your fans just hate people who worked hard and maybe got lucky.

    Just because your fans and Trump’s fans hate some of the same people doesn’t mean they like each other.

  12. The whole thing comes down to identity politics.

    Hillary ran on what you are, and Trump ran on what you want.

    1. Bullshit. Total complete opposite of reality. But that’s not to say that the media didn’t cover it that way.

      They basically built a populist policy agenda around Trump as he campaigned on building a wall and pretty much nothing else. And they ignored Clinton’s detailed platform in favor of talking about her emails. Yes she did mention a few times that she was a woman. That was in response to her last campaign in which she was criticized for not doing so. Almost as if she couldn’t possibly win on that front.

      1. Detailed platform. You mean MOAR Taxes!!!! MOAR spending!!! PROG harder!!! That platform???

        1. In Tony’s defense, he didn’t read her platform. She had him at ‘I’m With Her’. No gender politics there, no ma’am!

          Not to say that he wouldn’t have agreed with it if he had read it, since her platform was specially crafted and tailor-made to appeal to people exactly like him. Focus tested and mom approved. I don’t think Hillary even knew what it actually said, since her ‘policy’ idea’s basically amounted to ‘spend us into bankruptcy, consequences be damned.’ Oh, and also ‘Nuke Russia’. She was considered the foreign policy expert out of the two, yet her grasp of international politics sounded like a sixth grader’s concept of it back in the 1960’s.

          Was Trump better? No, probably not. But at least he didn’t represent clear-and-open corruption in politics. That counts for something, I suppose. At least enough to win, which is apparently all that actually counts.

      2. She’s a female, not a woman.

      3. “detailed platform” Oooo do tell. Please provide.

        Oh and list an accomplishment by her beside taking money from cronies.

      4. Sheezus fuck. “It was all sexism! It was all her emails!” Not even close.

        Why do you think they talked about her emails so much? Because her handling of the email server and its fallout was an easily-digested empirical lesson about how this bungling, elitist liar handles literally everything she’s ever done.

        1. She gets caught doing (or not doing) something.
        2. She lies about what she knows, when she knew it, and whether she knew that what she was doing violates laws or expectations, or breaks promises she made.
        3. She gets caught lying, and is exposed.
        4. She gets all irritated and snotty, because how dare someone expect Empress Hillary to abide by her own promises or follow laws. She’s too important for the rules.
        5. She lies some more, giving different answers to the first set of questions she lied in response to.
        6. Gets caught lying again, plays the “they’re just picking on me because I’m a woman” card.
        7. She talks about how bad her political opponents are.
        8. Lather, rinse, repeat.

  13. Hayes then asked what political correctness means to Sanders. He responded:

    “What it means is you have a set of talking points which have been poll-tested and focus-group-tested and that’s what you say rather than what’s really going on. And often what you are not allowed to say are things which offend very powerful people.

    Wrong.

    1. You are right, P. It is so wrong, all you can say is wrong.

    2. I think he’s right in some ways — the war on guns is a prime example. Anyone who knows anything about guns is regularly appalled at the ignorance of hoplophobes (clips/magazines, assault rifles, full auto ARs and AKs, the should thing that goes up) and how they lie their ass off for universal background checks, banning scary-looking black guns, gun-free school zones. That’s a form of political correctness which is not just speech and safe spaces with puppies and crayons.

  14. ps-

    Belittle away, you fucking little Teen Beat social justice puke. Tell us all how much better and more pure of heart are those who have devoted their lives to government service than the moneygrubbing capitalists who have made this nation wealthy.

    1. What? This is supposed to be parody, I can only assume.

      1. I read it as sarcasm.

        1. thought it was more snarky than sarcasmic…

          1. snarkasmic would be a good handle

  15. Eh, Bernie’s right, but it’s still a stupid reason. It’s like burning down your house because you don’t like the HOA rules.

    1. Actually that sounds like something the HOA might do if one doesn’t obey its rules.

  16. I meant to say, a stupid reason for voting for Trump.

    1. A lot of people didn’t vote for Trump, but against Hillary and/or for someone who was upsetting elite apple carts.

      1. Exactly. I voted against Hillary, and for someone who would upset the ruling class.
        As Lincoln said of Grant, we need this man. He fights.

        1. Yeah, but he drinks, too. Like a fish.

      2. ^^ this ^^

        Though washing down popcorn with sweet SJW tears while I watch all the right heads explode has been an unexpected side benefit.

  17. Sanders is trying to deride “bad PC” by tying to something as innocuous [in this instance] to “trade policy” without offending any of his traditional support that is caught up with identity politics. I call bullshit on it.

  18. I can tell from the comments that more and more people are getting more and more tired with the stable of Block Yomomma SJW butt boys at Reason.

    Much like with yesterday’s firing of Jeff Fisher, my reaction is “what the heck took you guys so long?”

    1. #BlockLivesMatter

    2. You can’t expect to Weigel all the people all the time.

  19. On an unrelated note, NPR presented a surprisingly even handed treatment of I, Pencil over the weekend. I can’t remember which show it was part of. The entirety of the episode focused on explaining how market forces operate most efficiently and effectively when no one tries to assume the role of “mastermind” behind any of it. It being NPR however, there was an asterisk footnote about how the free market can’t be trusted to deliver all things because ROADZZZ, though no explanation was given or even attempted. I presume they needed to satisfy the irreconcilable prog idiot quotient of their audience lest they fuck up their incessant pledge drive in some way.

    1. there was an asterisk footnote about how the free market can’t be trusted to deliver all things because ROADZZZ

      Which is something that pretty much all conservatives and most libertarians also believe to be true.

      1. What’s odd is that people say this, but then don’t bat an eye when they take a toll road. It’s as if those don’t exist for these types.

        Not that I’m a huge fan of toll roads or anything, it makes driving a lot more expensive; but not as ‘more expensive’ as the excise tax on gasoline that adds cost to the price of virtually everything nation wide or the taxes that pay for all those roads that are taken out of my check each month. So there’s that, anyway.

  20. Bernie needs to spend a little more time pulling his weight down at the co-op and a little less sitting around talking politics.

    1. At least you’re not saying Chris Christie should pull his weight, that would just be cruel.

      1. Something… pulled pork… something.. I’ll work out the beats later.

      2. Or impossible.

  21. Sanders was absolutely right about the PC fatigue, but went way off the rails when he started citing “trade policy”. The real answer way way more primal than that. Simply put, normal people are sick and tired of being screeched at with names like “racist” and “bigot” any time they offer even a calm, reasoned opposition to the approved narrative. I have to admit I didn’t see it coming but I started to notice it in 09 when I complained about certain SOCIAL POLICIES of Obama’s with clear and logical reasons for doing so. Never once did Obama’s race enter into my thoughts or my comments.

    And a bunch of blue-haired, semi-retarded land walruses shrieked at me endlessly that I was a “racist bigot” who “could not stand that we elected a black man as president”. Notice who did and did not bring up race.

    This is what people are fucking sick of. These Oompa-Loompas vastly overplayed their hand for the past decade and are now paying the price. For the 4 millionth time I’ll issue this caveat: not a fan of Trump. I think he’s a doofus and a gimp. But I am enjoying every second of watching these withering snowflakes have mental breakdowns.

  22. “‘One of the arguments as to why Trump won,’ Sanders continued, ‘is the belief that most or many of his supporters are sexists or racists or homophobes. I happen not to believe that’s the case.'”

    I wonder if Senator Sanders remembers that this was also one of the arguments that the Clinton campaign and the media made for the success of his candidacy against Clinton in the primaries: supporters of Bernie Sanders were a bunch of sexist frat boy ‘Bernie Bros’ who didn’t want to see a woman become President.

    It’s really all they have.

    1. And now the SJWs are eating their own. Case in point: the shit that the Boys Don’t Cry director had to recently go through.

  23. If not being able to say nigger in polite company is your biggest grievance, then perhaps your perspective is a bit askew. Doesn’t help that Bernie and Trump were wrong on trade too. So we have a president and an also-ran who sold a bunch of horseshit to dumb people, but the big lesson is that we dare not belittle those morons. Okay. I mean, yeah. Trump did win, so apparently being politically successful in this country means appealing to the dumbest humans in the civilized world. Let’s see how that works out for us.

    1. See “reasoned” and “logical”, above. I don’t see anyone, anywhere who said not being able to say “nigger” was his biggest grievance, or even a grievance at all. In fact, this smarmy condescension (wholly unwarranted coming from people with your apparent mental wattage) is the exact reason you got handed your asses. But hey Tony, you do you and don’t let any reality change that. Keep on doubling down, see how far it gets you.

      1. I want to hear someone who’s not a relatively financially comfortable white dude tell me this election was all about annoying videos of college kids on YouTube or whatever else people are calling the Great Political Correctness Scourge. It’s such a shallow, meaningless, rightwing-media fixation of a topic. If that really is what people were voting on, then that ipso facto is evidence that this country is full of idiots. Being asked to be polite to minorities is not a huge imposition, actually.

        I’m willing to accept that liberals don’t get anywhere politically by talking overmuch about this in the presence of the thin-skinned white dudes who think the election was all about them, but I’m just a guy on the internet expressing opinion, so I’m going to call out idiocy when I see it.

        1. Fuck you, nagger.

        2. Thank you Mr. Tony for illustrating the smug self-righteousness that is so, so persuasive and fair-minded.

        3. See “reasoned” and “logical”, above.

          How completely terrible it must be to be so governed by your emotions. And like we all keep saying, keep on doubling down on your idiocy. And every night before you go to bed, remember you’re on the wrong side of history this time. Feel good?

          1. if you gots the feelz, thats allz youz needz

        4. I’m pretty sure that calling people “idiots” for having a revulsion to politicians who write emails saying they say one in public, but intend to do something else entirely, is a GREAT way to get those “idiots” (or is that “deplorables”?) to vote for your team next time around.

          Double down, Tony. Next time it’ll work!

        5. Mama mia, that’s a spicy straw man.

          Nobody is complaining about being polite to minorities. They are complaining about being shouted down and called racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, supercalifragilisticexpialidociophobe for making even the most mild criticism of left-wing viewpoints. Ironically, for all your moaning about civility, you leftist clowns are the ones who are incapable of behaving like decent human beings for more than 5 seconds when faced with a dissenting viewpoint.

          1. Pretty much.

          2. When does this happen? Who is being shouted down? This is all just hypothetical, right? It’s not like rightwingers actually ever venture into conversations with liberals.

            1. “Who is being shouted down?” Pretty much every non-leftist college speaker? Or ask Brendan Eich about job security after making a political donation. There are endless examples.

          3. They’re bereft of ideas, they lack any first principles, and they argue from emotion. Throwing poo is all they’ve got.

            1. But basing your vote on hurt feelings you have on behalf of hypothetical people who were treated rudely by hypothetical trans people… that’s sober political judgment.

              1. So, projection, straw men, and flailing? Again, you prove my point.

                1. That liberals actually care about the civil rights of minorities is the real offense, isn’t it? Sure, they talk in a language you don’t understand and don’t want to bother to understand, but you could always just ignore us. Instead you ignore every geopolitical issue out there in favor of whining about your hurt feelings because liberals are more socially sophisticated than you. And you want a lollipop for being so aggrieved. Yeah, sober political reflection, that’s what I saw at those Trump rallies.

                  1. Indeed, it has been shown that the Liberal left cares so much for minorities that they’ve kept them in the poor house for almost 100 years.

                    Honestly, it’s a pretty impressive track record. It’s questionable if the Ku Klux could have done as thorough of a job. Then again, lets be honest here and acknowledge that it wasn’t long ago that membership to the Klan was virtually a prerequisite for running for office in the Democrat party.

                    When you look at which policy agenda & party has done more for minorities in the last 120-ish years, the obvious choice is Capitalism and Republicans. You can try and rewrite history, but that is literally what you will need to do to make it any other way.

                  2. Wow, what color is the sky on planet Tony?

                    Liberals only care about minorities for votes. Period. Chicago, Philly, Detroit, Oakland,…hey what do they have in common?

                2. Wood, It’s amazing isn’t it? It’s like the mongoose trapped in the corner, hissing and spitting in all his puny, impotent rage when he knows he’s beaten by the cobra — guess we aren’t that different from the animals at all.

                  1. He can’t help himself. Right from the very beginning of his “contributions” to this thread he’s hostile, argumentative, offensive…he offers no new ideas, no counterpoints beyond his personal disdain for people he disagrees with. I block him most of the time, but every now and again I see what he has to say just so I can remind myself of what we’re dealing with.

                    1. Where is the block command. My time is far too valuable to waste on that turd.

                    2. I call bullshit. I think Tony is a made up handle meant to prove points around here. He’s like a Stephen Glass story subject – a little too perfect. Why would he even be here other than to prove a point – he’s clearly not the target audience.

                  2. Honey badger uber alles.

  24. So Bernie has some brains after all.

  25. Robby – I’ve ran across the term ‘political correctness’ (used in its current meaning) from the early and mid-80s. Not many but a few.

  26. WTF? I thought Trump won because Hilary used the “Mitt Romney Campaign Strategy” handbook.

    1. Most political questions can be answered with the Cock/Pussy/Asshole speech from Team America.

  27. “[Trump] was going after these consensus things but he was always saying things frankly that when we talk about political correctness are basically just rules about not being a jerk,” said Hayes. “He’s violating taboos that a lot of people think we should keep.”

    Except it’s not really that, is it? The people who think we should keep those taboos, think we should keep them on a highly selective basis. If I can say “Chris Hayes is a walking, talking piece of shit, a execrable excuse for a man who would do the world a favor if he killed himself” and the response to Hayes’ complaint that my comments were out of line or unfair was that Hayes is jerk who needs to check his privilege, that’s hardly a course for civil dialogue.

    And the taboos have multiplied to an extent that saying anything on identity topics other than the prescribed dogma of the taboo writers constitutes “being a jerk”.

    1. So you’re saying that people actually decide who they want for president based on a grievance about evolving standards on how to address transgender people, or whatever the fuck?

      What kind of bubble do these pussies live in that this is the most important thing in the world?

      1. Projection, Tony, projection. Your crippling insecurity is showing….

      2. Where the hell did I talk about who people vote for president?

        God, Tony, you really are a mendacious fuck. In the course of damning the public for nothing more than the desire to spew scorn on identity groups, you do nothing more than spew scorn.

        1. And you guys have always treated us liberals with such kindness and decorum. Give me a fucking break with this crap.

          1. as you treat so shall you receive…you fucking asswipe

          2. Actually Tony, as a general rule, Classical Liberals and Libertarians have a whole lot in common in mine and others experience.

            You’re not actually a Classical Liberal of course, you’re a mindless Progressive Operative, so it’s not surprising that you don’t understand either ethos well enough to have an informed opinion.

      3. The left starts World War T about the utterly trivial issue of transsexual bathroom usage, claims it’s just “evolving standards,” and when people object, they’re the ones who think it’s “the most important thing in the world”?

        1. You got it. Lather, rinse, repeat. Know your enemy.

    2. Exactly. And there’s an implied reciprocity in being courteous to each other. Not being a jerk means not trying to offend people but also assuming that people aren’t trying to offend you. If I refer to someone using a pronoun they don’t like, and they say, “Excuse me, I prefer to be referred to as X,” and I say, “Oh, I’m sorry, X it is,” we’ve successfully negotiated a social interaction without being jerks and everyone goes away happy.

      Political correctness is well beyond that. PC is an environment where people can be offended on behalf of other people and use that offended feeling to assign guilt or responsibility to people based on identity, for instance, or deride someone’s ideas or perspective on the basis of their failure to share the same feeling of offensive. PC is the ironic phenomenon which says that my ideas about virtually anything are irrelevant and my input is to be disregarded because my identity as a straight, white male gives me too much power and “privilege”.

      1. tl;dr – Political correctness isn’t not being a jerk, it’s what gives you moral cover to be a jerk to others.

      2. So all these Trump voters had a bunch of unpleasant encounters with trans people and then based their vote on that?

        Or have most of them never met a trans person in their lives?

        They’re being told that this is happens on an epidemic scale and is the most important thing in the world. It’s not something they actually experience.

        1. Actually, you’re on to something. Having never met a trans person in their lives, they’re being told most of them are bigots if they’re not wild about biological men using women’s bathrooms. Instead of being engaged as equal shareholders in politics, they’re being shouted down by people who’ve only encountered them as skits on the Daily Show. They’re being told that their ideas don’t matter and their opinions are irrelevant because they aren’t “woke”, or their too white, or too straight, or too traditional.

          1. Maybe they should stop being such sensitive little babies. There are real problems in the world, you know.

            1. Thank you for being part of the generation that fatally wounded Progressivism. I mean that sincerely. My children and my future grandchildren owe the Progressives of your generation a real debt of gratitude. It’s because of people like you that we as a nation, maybe even as a world, will pull back from the precipice of an Orwellian dystopia and start respecting the rights and dignity of individuals again.

              1. Hear hear. So called “progressives” are the most unsophisticated people, socially, intellectually, and as human beings, that have ever walked the Earth. Ironic all the articles and tweets a couple years back spoke of the anger and fury out there as the “last gasps of a dying kind” i.e., non-SJWs. How it’s a good thing they’re dying out and it can’t happen soon enough. Turns out, they were describing their own fates perfectly, and limp-dicks like Tony are the symptom in search of a disease.

            2. progressivism is indeed a real problem in the world

            3. Wait are you talking to your fellow Progressive?

              Obama won, people who didn’t vote for him say “F…” than went to work and their lives.
              Trump wins, Feminist have to shave their heads, progressives are in little balls sobbing, they can’t go on dates (Most don’t work so that’s fine).

              Not my president right Tony? Wait, did you promise to never write here if Trump won? Not that you would keep it because Progressives are all talk.

  28. Bernie is first and foremost a politician. He’s triangulating his positions to keep that sweet sweet government check coming.

    1. thought he was first and foremost an egregious douchebag…

  29. I think it’s telling that political correctness is such a force in the msm and on the left that even one of their fellow travelers has to disguise his reference by saying that PC means trade policy.

  30. Political correctness is the weaponizing of language to deflect valid criticism of something by labeling it as something that actually is offensive.

    Examples:
    1) Noting the problems of a welfare state is decried as racist or a product of “privilege”.
    2) Correcting the impression that women get paid 72% of what men get paid for the same job is called misogynist, defending patriarchy, mansplaining, or toxic masculinity.
    3) Defining racism in terms of collective power relationships so that only whites can be racist.

  31. Credit where credit is due. Sanders has abhorrent ideological views and a sophomoric grasp of economics but calling out political correctness is appreciated. Mostly because it has reached an unnecessary divisive point. As noted above by others, people are being shouted down, censored and losing their jobs over this unhinged PC insanity.

    1. I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a second and push back on this –

      When the CEO of Mozilla, Brenden Eich, was forced to resign when it came out that he donated to support Prop 8, couldn’t that just as easily be an example of a company reading market forces and reacting appropriately? PC nothing; the government wasn’t involved, this wasn’t heavy-handed regulation, it was a boycott by private citizens protesting something they disagreed with. Even if you weren’t personally offended by Eich’s actions, and didn’t support the boycott, the action itself of calling for his resignation is as free market as it gets. In fact, in the absence of government, this is EXACTLY how all “regulation” would take place – the public demanding companies act a certain way, and threatening company profits if they don’t comply.

      1. I am not comfortable with the idea that bullying by tiny activist groups counts as “market forces.” The boycott of Mozilla was insignificant: a few developers and a few users. Eich had a lot of support within the company, in no small part because nobody ever thought he was prejudiced against anyone.

        1. Clearly, Mozilla thought the movement was not insignificant. I feel safe assuming that a company the size of Mozilla gets threats from various crackpots fairly regularly, and they don’t take action. This time though, they caved to pressure. Ergo, it wasn’t an insignificant force of people.

          Eich didn’t lose his job because a mob of people literally stormed the board room and kidnapped him. They very publicly called for his resignation, and Mozilla decided to blink. Their loyalty to him was less than the threat of damage to their image.

          1. Don’t discount the fear of a weaponized IRS, EPA, OSHA etc in service to the PC cause.

            1. I feel like I’m tempting the whirlwind on this one, but is this a legit fear, or just a conspiracy theory?

              1. I’d refer you to one Lois Lerner, and then I’d raise you anti-gun groups suing the EPA in an attempt to get them to regulate lead ammunition.

                1. Did they succeed in their lawsuit? ‘Cause if they didn’t, my response is “system worked as intended.”

                  1. No, and surprisingly the EPA wasn’t thrilled about the idea themselves, but the point stands that the attempt was made and made it to a federal appeals court. And of course the Lois Lerner IRS thing did in fact happen, though whether you count that as a political correctness issue or simply a standard “crush your political enemies Nixon-style” issue is certainly up for discussion.

                  2. Lawsuits don’t always have to succeed in order to achieve their goals. Tying your target up in expensive, time-consuming litigation is often an effective punishment even if he ultimately wins the case.

                    1. A fair point, though more applicable when a large and/or flush with resources person sues a much smaller, less powerful entity. Not really applicable at all when trying to sue the federal government.

          2. Don’t discount the fear of a weaponized IRS, EPA, OSHA etc in service to the PC cause.

          3. Yes, but the “blink” depends on various factors. The average Firefox user cared nothing about Eich’s donation. Only a few activists. Because of the general PC fog that infests Silicon Valley, those activists had disproportionate power.

            In fact, I think the fallout was worse for Mozilla than standing firm would have been. Firefox was boycotted and forked, and their market share declined (though for numerous reasons).

            1. That might be true, but it doesn’t change or challenge my overall point.

              Free markets aren’t a magic spell leading to rationality and objective, results-driven thought. It gives a great deal of power to the will of the mob, to mass panic, to rumor, and to any yahoo with an ax to grind. There’s plenty of fault to find with government and government regulation, but in a general sense it does act as a filter of sorts to the worst impulses of a mass of people.

              1. There is power in numbers and mobs are just power. Might be for good or evil. No system can stop them, whether it’s a kingdom, a democracy, or anarchy. All will end up giving them what they want.

                There isn’t necessarily a clear line between govt and non-govt there either. Particularly when they have members that go too far and get violent. Govt can abridge your rights by imprisoning you or worse, mobs will abridge your rights by ruining you, threatening you, and worse.

      2. By libertarian principles Mozilla was within its rights to fire Eich. But, others are free to find their firing of Eich reprehensible. Libertarianism simply defines what is permissible coercive behavior.

        Frankly, I find their firing of Eich wrong. Essentially, they fired him for having had “bad” politics. For poltics that was not in any way considered beyond the pale at the time he donated. Are they allowed to? Sure. But, in my mind, in doing so, they’ve tied their brand to an intolerant and extremist progressivism that undermines its value to me.

        1. It’s one of the reasons I stopped using Firefox.

        2. Agreed. I’m just pointing out that free market ideas like this are very much a doubled-edged sword.

          I’m having a hard time figuring out how to word this next part, but here goes: The OP noted people losing their jobs as a fallout of PC insanity, but if one is a true believer in free markets, than the PC movement must be accepted for what it is: a group of people exercising their rights as understood by free market/free thought principles. Anyone is of course also free to disagree with them, but the base idea of a person or group of people demanding certain actions from someone else is the woven in to the fabric of free markets.

          A free market, or society, opens the door to a rather ironic contradiction: it will almost inevitably give rise to someone who implicitly or even explicitly campaigns AGAINST the very rights they are using to spread their message.

          1. Everyone here is forgetting about the EEOC, the commission what drags businesses that are “discriminatory” into court. What constitutes “discrimination”? A “hostile workplace” does! What is a hostile workplace for women and minorities? One which isn’t sufficiently politically correct to make the aforementioned “comfortable”.

            It is incredibly tiresome to hear Leftists constantly claim that PC-ness is just the free market at work, and has nothing to do with the government.
            In the ’90’s, many businesses and lives were ruined on the most spurious claims. That creates an environment where everyone is going to be PC or wish to be perceived to be PC. Because noone wants to lose in court when some spurious bs complaint is made to the EEOC. And since it’s a minority lotto, bs complaints are a constant thing.

            Want to make PC bs go away. Do something about the EEOC. Political Correctness cease to be a problem overnight.

      3. I was more referring to teachers and professors but point taken.

  32. Robby talking on The Green Space?

    More like The Safe Space. Amirite?

  33. like most socialists, Sanders is showing he’s a fucking naive dipshit spewing talking points that he doesn’t understand. PC isn’t about fucking trade policy or people being upset. PC is about taking mundane phrases and/or normal situations and turning them into Jim Crow. People don’t like being constantly told that something they have always liked or been into, such as the name of football team, is racist and if they don’t fall in line, they’re racists too. They don’t like being called a sexist because they didn’t want to vote for that lying crook Hillary. They don’t like being called a bigot because they think that men wearing dresses shouldn’t be allowed to use the girl’s bathroom. They especially don’t like being told that the American flag and our national anthem are tools of oppression. It’s all fucking bullshit.

    This issue has only gotten worse during the Obama years. Every criticism of the President has met a chorus of “you’re a racist” and little actual rebuttal to the substance. And make no mistake, the purpose of all of this name calling is silence all opposing views. This hurt the Dems during the election. Trump was out there making his case. The Democrats were out there saying the debate is over, the issue is settled, and there was no time for arguments. If you wonder why Trump won its because he made an argument for his vision and the Dems were calling people names with all of the snark of a fake news show host.

    1. + a whole big bunch ^

    2. I suspect Sanders was really thinking of Mexicans and The Wall and such verboten topics, as in their appeal to the working class from the perspective of protectionism and all (and not as taboo racist etc), but didn’t dare mention them himself even. So tried to force his point using an example that was, ironically, more politically correct.

    3. Comrade Sanders never worked a salary job in his life.
      That ought to tell you everything you need to know about him.

    4. + add another big bunch

      Also add – changing history so as not to offend anyone.

  34. Apparently, the thing that apple cider vinegar does for your health is make you look like an even dumpier Lena Dunham.

  35. 1. So the takeaway here is that Sander’s grasp of PC is on par with his understanding of socialism.

    2. What the hell is up with the 20 ‘you may like’ links?

  36. https://represent.com /bernie-sanders-hindsight-in-2020-mens

  37. Bernie Sanders is incorrect…people who live in trailer parks and are considered deplorables with no class and who walk in to a Trump Tower restaurant wearing flip flops, khaki shorts and flip flops with hair growing out of their noses are tired of the same old politically correct rhetoric.

    Get it right Bernie.

  38. Sanders is wrong. The real [unspoken] truth the media and party avoid is that Hillary was just a bad, very flawed candidate. She lacked charisma and integrity. Trump at least had charisma. This vile town hall interview sums up her inexperience in dealing with people – You should never mock those you want to vote for you later. http://bit.ly/hillary-arrogance The only silver lining in this evil election was the destruction of the Clinton dynasty.

  39. Defenders of liberal values have to find a better way to talk to Trump supporters

    It would be a lot more effective for them to learn to listen to Trump supporters.

  40. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  41. Where to start? How about giving away our tax-dollars to Welfare cheats and Illegals, then calling me a Nazi for bring the matter to light. Progressives simply not following laws they disagree with and again calling me a Nazi for bringing the matter to light. Constant lying about the intent of proposed legislation, passing it in the midnight hour with parliamentary slight-of-hand and again calling me a Nazi for bringing the matter to light. Income redistribution anyone? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller? Anthropological Global Warming? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

    Power. Money. Societal Control. I’m sick to the back of my teeth hearing career politicians who’ve never worked a day job in their lives treat the working class like some inferior life form.

    There are hundred reasons why Trump ‘s message speaks to people, from the working class to the investor class. The one people he doesn’t speak to are the leech class, the Progressive’s most dependable voting block.

  42. So it wasn’t about looting at gunpoint by tax collectors and asset-forfeiture gangs or econazi fanatics organizing pogroms to send honest climate scientists to extermination camps?

    1. Shoulda, coulda. woulda…

  43. Speaking as a conservative who supported Trump over Hillary Clinton this election, this article greatly increases the respect I have for Bernie Sanders, and I already thought pretty highly of the guy.

    If only he valued market economics over socialism, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.

  44. Liam. I agree that Carl`s bl0g is cool… I just got a great new Honda since getting a cheque for $9458 thiss month and just a little over 10/k this past-munth. without a doubt its the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost immediately started earning at least $75, per hour. go now

    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  45. Wow a democrat who gets it. Oh wait, Bernie is an Independent, never mind.

  46. It was not the only reason he won, but it was not an insignificant part of it.

  47. What a fraud. It was Bernie’s people, the Marxists who INVENTED political correctness in order to spread their power. I hope all the “democratic socialists” have figured out what a huuuuuuuge mistake Bernie would have been.

  48. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

    =======================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  49. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.