Reason Roundup

The Partisan Divide Is Turning Into an Age War by Proxy

Plus: A primer on street surveillance, new video from Sandra Bland's cellphone, and more...


Democrats are the party of young people, Republicans the party of the olds, and it could have huge consequences for near-future political battles, suggest Harvard historian Niall Ferguson and Greenmantle research analyst Eyck Freymann.

While "skeptical about cyclical theories of history," and "aware of the slipperiness of generations as categories for political analysis," Ferguson and Freymann argue in The Atlantic that "the generation war is the best frame for understanding the ways that the Democratic and Republican parties are diverging."

The Democrats are rapidly becoming the party of the young, specifically the Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and Gen Z (born after 1996). The Republicans are leaning ever more heavily on retirees, particularly the Silent Generation (born before 1945). In the middle are the Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980), who are slowly inching leftward, and the Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), who are slowly inching to the right.

If political trends continue apace, they argue:

Democrats are going to inherit a windfall. Ten years from now, if current population trends hold, Gen Z and Millennials together will make up a majority of the American voting-age population. Twenty years from now, by 2039, they will represent 62 percent of all eligible voters.

If the Democrats can organize these two generations into a political bloc, the consequences could be profound. Key liberal policy priorities—universal Medicare, student-loan forgiveness, immigration reform, and even some version of the Green New Deal—would stand a decent chance of becoming law. In the interim, states that are currently deep red could turn blue. A self-identifying democratic socialist could win the presidency.

Democratic socialism on one side and MAGA conservatism on the other is a grim prospect. But there are a few bright spots for anti-authoritarians in Ferguson and Freymann's analysis.

"When the question is posed as an abstraction, most Gen Zers don't trust the federal government," they write.

Rather, "they favor big-government economic policies regardless because they believe that government is the only protection workers have against concentrated corporate power. Philosophically, many Gen Zers and Millennials believe that government's proper role should be as a force for social good."

I don't think the current appeal of "democratic socialism" means millennials and Gen Zers are a lost cause for libertarians. (We see again and again that young people's support for different economic systems and policies depends drastically on how poll questions are phrased—something noted above in the question about trusting government authority.) But we need to be better at showing how government can be "a force for social good" by getting out of people's way.

As for boomers "inching right," this tends to be in economic matters. There's little evidence that erstwhile liberal boomers are abandoning support for socially liberal stances and old-school civil libertarian beliefs.

Meanwhile, younger people who do lean right, or don't support Democrats for whatever reason, still tend to be less socially conservative than their counterparts in generations past.

Which would all seem to leave plenty of room for third-party or independent candidates who fight freedom in social and cultural arenas as well as in other policy arenas, from financial matters to foreign interventions, criminal justice, tech policy, and so much more. Because as much as mainstream Democrats may shift left on economic issues, they still remain the same old surveillance-state supporting, warmongering, crime-panic promoting, speech smothering, free-enterprise killing control freaks that they, like their Republican colleagues, always have been. That may change with the rise of young Democrats, but (as Ferguson and Freymann point out), we've still got some time before the old guard cedes control. And the only real rule of 21st century politics seems to be that all previous bets are off.


The more you know:


Bitcoin isn't anonymous. "Is that a dealbreaker?" asks Andrea O'Sullivan.

The bitcoin network attains consensus through what is called a proof of work function. Each transaction is time-stamped and linked together in the public ledger called the blockchain. The blockchain allows everyone to agree on who owns what coins, and where they should go.

This was a brilliant hack. It overcame two longstanding problems in computer science called the Byzantine General's problem and the double spending problem. And it has worked incredibly well, spawning a host of digital currency projects inspired by these breakthroughs.

But this breakthrough came with a trade-off. The blockchain ledger that allows for distributed consensus is radically transparent. Transactions made on the bitcoin blockchain are recorded and visible to everyone for all time. There are no do-overs. And it's possible to trace where and how bitcoin users acquire and spend their funds.


  • Exorbitant court fees are trapping children in the juvenile justice system.
  • "Time spent on social media has only a 'trivial' impact on life satisfaction among adolescents," The Guardian reports.
  • A bill that passed the Oregon House yesterday would eliminate religious and philosophical exceptions to vaccine requirements.
  • A Dallas news station yesterday aired new video shot from Sandra Bland's cellphone during the 2015 traffic stop that led to her arrest and eventual death in jail, ruled a suicide. "Now, Bland's family is alleging that the Texas Department of Public Safety purposely withheld the video, raising fresh questions about official misconduct in a case that became a linchpin of the Black Lives Matter movement, sparking nationwide protests and demands for police accountability."
  • Eugene Volokh explains the 8th Circuit's verdict in Free the Nipple, Inc. v. City of Springfield.
  • Pssst:

NEXT: Bitcoin Isn’t Anonymous. Is That a Dealbreaker?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Democrats are going to inherit a windfall.

    Because people’s opinions don’t change as they age.

    1. Beat me to it.

      1. Yep-I know of at least a few former hippie types who are now grumpy old conservatives

        1. I bet the phenomenon is explained by cognitive decline and low testosterone. It would make perfect sense.

          1. I think it’s people becoming set in their ways and unable to adapt to new social trends. Sort of like how after a certain age, everyone thinks music was better when they were young.

            1. music *was* way better when I was young. fact.

            2. A scientific study was actually done that showed music has objectively become more and more dumbed down both musically, and lyrically. It is less complex, and in the case of lyrics uses an ever shrinking vocabulary. The study was MIT IIRC, and showed a constant decline from the dawn of the recorded music era, with a short lived stabilization and uptick in the late 60s and part of the 70s (AKA the height of epic ass classic rock), and then continued to decline.

              As a younger dude, I have ALWAYS thought the music from previous eras to my own was better… And the crap nowadays is outright horrible for the most part.

          2. Yeah OP, old people dont have the energy to go on murder sprees that Socialists are so fond of.

            Its even funnier that Lefties think more and more Americans are joining their cause. Conservatives control most of the USA when it comes to politics.

            1. The funniest thing is that everyone is saying the party run by Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, etc. is the party of youth.
              Everyday is opposite day when the establishment talks about the Democrats.

    2. Hey now, no one ever got more conservative as they got older.

      1. Wait, democrats appeal to the young, and republicans appeal to the old? My heavens, that is new…. The boomers back in the 60’s certainly didn’t have any such leanings. And there have never been any sayings like “don’t trust anyone over 30” or “if you are under 30 and not a liberal…”

        History is hard… especially when it is about events within the lifetime of most of the people alive at the time…

        1. Ferguson is an historian. The irony of him saying this is pretty premarkable.

          1. He might be on to something. What made people more conservative in the past was when they started working, bought a home, and had kids, and got tired of the government picking their pockets. Now you have a generation, many living with their parents still and not working full time, who don’t believe in owning stuff like cars or houses. Will
            be interesting to see how it shakes out, but a generation of perpetual children would be great for the Democratic Party.

            1. Trust fund babies have always been leftists for the reasons you give. I, however, think that the phenonmena of young people having nothing and living with their parents does exist but is vastly overrated. The vast majority of young people work for a living and aspire to have a life of their own.

            2. “Now you have a generation, many living with their parents still and not working full time, who don’t believe in owning stuff like cars or houses.

              Fortunately, there are not as many of these people as the media would lead you to believe. Further, I would suggest that the “mom’s basement” cohort is far less likely to vote than the rest; they’ll be too busy trying to get past level 27 of Duke Nukem’ XXIII.

              1. I agree. It isn’t old men making $100 an hour working in the oil fields or manufacturing plants. Not everyone or even a majority of people under 30 got a $500,000 degree in puppetry or hate studies to go and join Occupy Wall Street.

              2. Ha…. Duke Nukem’ forever…. you really dated yourself. And worse, that’s from before these guys were born…. and I think of it as “new” stuff.

                Dang… now I gotta insert “get off my lawn” in all my posts.

                1. Everybody needs to get the F off my lawn.

            3. There are statistical differences in the adulty things this generation… But a lot of it has been more delayed, vs never happens. Largely because of the great recession, and cost of living being higher in major cities than ever before in the history of the country. As an older millennial I know some of this shit has slowed me down in where I wanted to be, despite making way above average money… But I’m still getting around to the white picket fence etc.

        2. See P.J. O’Rourke.

          And as for history, any young person (and pretty much any person) can only consider history in the context of what they can remember. As in yesterday, or maybe last week.

        3. The thing is, other than promising ‘free’ garbage and empty promises, there’s nothing cool or exciting about the DNC. they’re just a bunch of nanny moonbats:

          Buttigleig: A gay mini-Macron.
          Beto: A guy who dresses in a rabbit costume, eats dirt and has a couple of DUIs under his belt.
          Booker: Spartacus.
          Harris: Incoherent authoritarian with a rep for sleeping around.
          Warren: Inauthentic Fake Indian old white lady.
          Sanders: Grandpa Gulag who honeymooned in Soviet Russia.
          The Three Stooges: Including a McMarxist from the Bronx and a refugee who pisses on a country that took her in.
          Biden: Creepy Uncle Joe the architect of the war on drugs.
          Hillary: Unhealthy, corrupted, sociopath loser.

          That’s the party the kids love? Yikes!

          1. Trump: Inauthentic creepy authoritarian fake-patriot old white incoherent Grandpa sociopath with a rep for sleeping around and approaching dementia, presently honeymooning with Putin. With Neo-Con adviser John Bolton.

            That’s the person the Republicans love. Yikes!

            But the economy is good.
            It’s too bad Hillary isn’t running. If she was running anything she said or did or was might matter.

            1. Yeah, but Trump is FUN. LOL

              He cracks jokes, insults people who deserve insults, etc. Can’t say that about any of the sour old commies.

          2. Yep, and the conservatives have people like you Rufus. Can’t imagine why no one would want to join in with a bigot like yourself.

    3. Until they start voting no one should be concerned. If they ever allow them to vote on Instagram, look out.

      1. Don’t give Progressives any ideas…

      2. Exactly. Old people show up. Young people don’t.

    4. Hello.

      Weren’t the Democrats already supposed to hold the permanent majority?

      1. They were but the Russians stole it. Or tricked everyone or something. Or it’s the Senate’s fault for not being elected the same way as the House.

      2. Not if the GOP has an advantage with older people. The average age of the US population has been increasing for decades. In point of fact, the average age of the GLOBAL population has increased significantly in the last few decades.

        If the partisan divide in the US is truly an age war, advantage: Republicans.

        1. Voting Republican is positively correlated with age, at least until people reach a certain age and die. Then their vote skews heavily Democratic.

        2. Well, that’s yet another reason they want a fresh stream of young immigrants from countries that are already far to the left of our own.

    5. Yeah. They’re assuming it’s a cohort effect rather than an age effect.

    6. It may be right this time, though. The elephant in the room is that the Republicans are not so much the party of old people as they are the party of white people.

      Given that the demographics of the country are getting progressively less white, it’s not surprising that the Democrats are reaping the benefits of a growing population of young non-whites.

      The age discrepancy is a correlation, not a causation. We have more old white people than young ones.

      1. Keep drinking that kool aid, Nemo.

      2. This is true.

        As much as conservatives AND libertarians like to deny it, NO ethnicity in this country has ever given 2 flying fucks about freedom, limited government, gun rights, or anything else except white people.

        Every other racial/ethnic group overwhelmingly shits on everything this country was founded on, and with glee to boot. It’s anywhere from 2/3rd to 95% left leaning with non whites depending on the group in question. I like to think the “we can change them” folks are right… But I don’t think they are. I think the demographic shift is what doomed the American Experiment.

        America WAS white America… And without white America, I don’t think America will exist as what it always was. It’s as simple as that. If we had the same demographics as we did in saay 1980 or 1970, I think our political spectrum would still be very much the same. Everything would be waaay to the right/libertarian side of things compared to now. Many so called Republicans now are more progressive than most Democrats were in the 70s!

    7. It has been said nobody on Earth is as dogmatic as a professor who learned something when he/she was young.

    8. They don’t when R’s are hostile to people because of things that won’t change – like their skin color, etc.

      That meme only applies to economic issues – and in the past those economic issues were about things like abstractions about tax rates. In future, those are about HIGHLY generational stuff like Medicare and SS spending. The party that has a workable reform to put in place when we hit the wall on those will immediately capture the younger generation of non-recipients. And the party that does that won’t be either the D’s or R’s.

  2. Rather, “they favor big-government economic policies regardless because they believe that government is the only protection workers have against concentrated corporate power…”

    Walmart doesn’t have the power to kick your door in.

    1. But Walmart can force you to work at a crappy low-wage job because … um …

    2. If you think that, then you didn’t know Sam Walton like I did.

    3. How I miss the days of the Phone Cops…

    4. Maybe not kick your door in. but beat the snot out of you – absolutely

  3. Learn about the spying technologies police are deploying in our communities at EFF’s Street-Level Surveillance hub

    EFF is turning into Wikileaks and giving America’s enemies (i.e. the people) all our secrets!

  4. Bitcoin isn’t anonymous.

    What? Am I going to have to go back to using cash?

  5. Exorbitant court fees are trapping children in the juvenile justice system.

    Yes but we need those fees to pay for the juvenile justice system.

  6. Broke: We’re Democratic Socialists, not Communists.

    Woke: Damn Kulaks and Wreckers!!

    This also ignores all the big business contributions to the left, going after the enemies of the left, etc. FaceBook bans, anyone? MasterCard cutting off people for political reasons?

    MSNBC Chris Hayes conspiracy theory: Trump economy surging because businesses undermined Obama

    1. Yeah, all that Wall Street money and all those Wall Street insiders in the Obama administration were just there for misdirection….

      1. America hated the thought of a black President being successful so much, millions of business owners agreed to go broke to ensure it didn’t happen.

        He actually seems to believe that.

        1. Is retard contagious?

          1. Judging from the staff at MSNBC, it looks like it might be.

            1. They all started that way in the MSM.

            2. MSNBC pundits were grown in the same vat. It’s genetic.

    2. Chris Hayes has finally figured out the truth. People willfully lost billions of dollars over eight years to stick it to the black man! We all have to tighten our belts and sacrifice if we’re going to teach that uppity negro what’s what, amirite?

      1. I just can’t figure out how Hayes learned the truth. Tens of thousands of business owners were able to keep this under wraps for nearly a decade.

        1. They didn’t loose billions, they just kept their money in their money bins. Where they happily swam about and also got into misadventures with their nephews. I think I saw the same documentary Chris is reporting on.

    3. Has Facebook and Twitter banned him yet?

      I thought they opposed insane conspiracy theories…

  7. A bill that passed the Oregon House yesterday would eliminate religious and philosophical exceptions to vaccine requirements.

    Keep your laws off my body unless of course I’m an autism kook.

  8. “Democratic socialism on one side and MAGA conservatism on the other is a grim prospect. But there are a few bright spots for anti-authoritarians in Ferguson and Freymann’s analysis.”

    That’s a false spectrum.

    Meanwhile, people are easily confused about what it means to be left or right. The right has been anti-socialist since before FDR, and anti-New Deal and anti-Great Society welfare programs since FDR and Johnson. That was Barry Goldwater. That was Ronald Reagan.

    What MAGA and Trump have to do with that is a mystery. MAGA and Trump are mostly about progressives and social justice warriors driving the white, blue collar, middle class out of the Democratic Party and into the arms of the only Republican who wasn’t campaigning in the ideological traditions of Goldwater and Reagan.

    Certainly, just because progressives identify themselves almost exclusively on social justice issues doesn’t mean average Republicans do so. I don’t know what’s worse–assuming that the Democrat of the rust belt who broke for Trump are like average Republicans or assuming that Democrats who broke for Trump don’t exist. The left seems to fluctuate between the two extremes depending on whatever point they’re trying to make.

    1. They hate the thought that people are thinking for themselves.
      You must conform to the norm!

    2. Nice points.

      I’ll add that the reason it is Trump and not any of the others is that Trump refused to play the game by the rules of the Democrats. I’m not sure what rules he uses, but it isn’t the ones the rest of them used.

      Rand Paul was the early leader…. and the left invited him in and then went full personal destruction. They did the same with the rest of them… One at a time they played the “uh, no… really, I’m not a racist” game.. or whatever misdirection charges the media/campaigns threw out there.

      Not Trump. He didn’t bend to their will. People responded to that. The DNC thought they were getting an easy win by pushing their media buddies to embrace Trump in the RNC primaries. Little did they know that Trump wasn’t following the rules of left-right politics.

      Ever since Reagan left office, the Republicans have been apologizing for fictitious outrages and losing the middle. The only lesson I’ve gleaned from Trump is that ignoring their game works.

      If Romney had answered charges of misogyny with a Trump-esque “you’re fat and you’re stupid” instead of stammering about binders of women, he’d probably be wrapping up his second term.

      1. Whoa, that’s weird. A whole bunch of comments got disappeared.

        Is the NSA in the Reason server room?

        1. No, they’re using a new Facebook moderation plug in.

      2. Yup. Trump won because he’s not actually terribly crazy on any issues, he’s a squishy moderate by any reasonable standards… AND he’s not a cuck. The not being a cuck thing was what sold it. And yet to this day, very few Rs seem to have grown a backbone and gone with his winning strategy of simply calling the leftist loons leftist loons.

  9. More bad economic news.

    BMW Car Unit Posts First Loss in a Decade

    A decade ago Obama was starting the strongest 8-year run in the history of our economy. So people could afford to buy nice cars. But now? Drumpf has ruined everything and people can barely afford food, much less a new BMW.


    1. Too busy working two jobs to have time to drive anywhere.

      1. Exactly right.


      1. MARKET CRASH!!!11!1!!1 /Noehm

        1. Fuck, that should have said Boehm

          1. Boehm the Gnome?

        2. You realize that’s a 1.5% drop, right? Disaster, dogs and cats living together, etc…

          1. My snarky comment was intended for Boehm, not the Derpster.

    2. can barely afford food, much less a new BMW.

      Well done.

  10. Eugene Volokh explains the 8th Circuit’s verdict in Free the Nipple, Inc. v. City of Springfield.

    ¡Ay, caramba!

  11. Which would all seem to leave plenty of room for third-party or independent candidates who fight freedom in social and cultural arenas as well as in other policy arenas, from financial matters to foreign interventions, criminal justice, tech policy, and so much more.

    1. Who votes for the guy that is fighting freedom?

      1. Around 99.9% of Americans

        1. Freedom is scary.

          1. To know what freedom is, we have to pass a law to regulate it.

    2. Libertarian moment?

  12. Or it could be seen that young people do not trust government because they see in principle inherent flaws in giving governments massive authority. They are quite enthusiastic about giving government authority if they think they can trust the people in government wielding it because they distrust private entities in principle.

    If so, that is not a hopeful sign for libertarianism, it is a hopeful sign for charismatic dictatorship.

    1. Hahahaha!
      Young people distrust business, except the good ones like Apple.
      Young people love government, and want big brother to fix all the problems of inequality and wrong think.

    2. Have stuff ==> Stop trusting government

  13. Meet wokaltarian hero Colleen Francis.

    In 2012, Colleen Francis was a 45-year old student at The Evergreen State College. Francis who identifies as a woman, but has male genitalia, has used the Evergreen women’s locker room.

    High school students and other minors also use Evergreen’s pool and locker rooms, and Francis was completely naked in the locker room sauna when teenage girls practicing for their high school swim team saw him and reported him to their coach. The female coach confronted Francis and asked him to leave. 

    Was Francis discouraged from exposing his adult naked male body to underage girls in a public facility supported by tax dollars? Were the teenage girls congratulated and encouraged to continue exercising good judgement, affirmed in their power to set boundaries about who can inhabit or expose themselves in a female-only locker room?

    Some wierdo exposing himself to a bunch of shocked high schoold girls. Ladies and Gentleman, your Libertarian moment as brought to you by Nick Gillespie and Scott Shackford.

    1. Quit being a science-denying bigot. Women can have penises (and Y chromosomes, and Adam’s apples, and thick beards).


    2. My older brother went to ESC and has never been the same since. I hate ESC. The only thing they accomplish is to turn people into retards.

    3. The other red-flag was being a 45 year old student

    4. I can’t even…

      1. It is a shame one of those girls’ parents didn’t just put a bullet in his head and be done with it.

        1. Hey now, age of consent is 16 in Washington, so they were probably fair game!

    5. Let me guess: xe is also a lesbian.

      1. Do persons with Y chromosomes who identify as lesbian get a boner in the girls locker room? I’m thinking they do.

        1. That’s right. And any (other) chick in the locker room who complains about it is just a mean old homophobe!

        2. To be clear, what part of that supposition isn’t an argument for banning all gay people from locker rooms?

          1. Maybe they should be?

            We should just give all the gays, trans, non binary sorts their own super duper special facilities and call it good. I’m tired of having to listen to .5% of the population with mental problems as if their opinion should matter or I should care. They’re weirdos. Weirdos should realize the entire rest of the civilization doesn’t have to bend to their every whim and demand.

            At least gays are a couple percent of the population, but I’m pretty tired of most of their BS too at this point, despite being fine with people being gay overall. Listening to all their shit is tantamount to thinking we actually have to consider the opinions of any/every group of people with weird opinions about shit… Which is nonsense.

            If there’s a pretty strong consensus, I think it’s fine to tell minority groups to STFU and deal with the will of the majority. I like some weird shit, but you don’t see me demanding Safeway playing super fucked up late 70s/early 80s punk at the grocery store because I’d prefer it.

    6. WOA. I really need to go back to college… and also become trans 🙂

  14. Ridiculous Headline Update:

    “Market Crashes as Trump Threatens More Tariffs After China Trade Deal Flops”

    —- Eric Boehm | 5.6.2019 10:20 AM

    Contrary to Boehm’s bizarre statements:

    “BEIJING/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the United States this week for trade talks, Beijing said on Tuesday, playing down a sudden increase in tension after U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to impose new tariffs.

    . . . .

    China’s Commerce Ministry confirmed that Liu, who leads the talks for Beijing, will visit the United States on Thursday and Friday.

    So, the market still hasn’t crashed, and the China trade representative is still coming to Washington D.C. for scheduled trade negotiations this week.

    The score?

    Reality: 2
    Boehm: 0

    1. The market was down a few hundred points yesterday, but the market is so high that a few hundred points now is like 1%. This isn’t the 1980s when the Dow was at 2,000.

      1. The big Black Monday crash was toward the end of the 80’s and it was 500 points, or about 22%, IIR.

        As the 80’s began the DJIA was under 900. By 1987 it was over 2,600. So even though 500 points was the second biggest single day loss (in percent), it isn’t quite so big a deal in the context of the massive run-up that led into the crash.

      2. “In previous rounds, Beijing has offered up broad language that it will pursue structural changes. But it has rejected U.S. demands for more details about implementation, including identifiable timelines, according to people close to the negotiations.

        The specificity the U.S. demanded caused the latest impasse, particularly over the listing of particular laws and regulations to be changed, according to the people briefed on the negotiations. Beijing believes that the U.S. demand impinges on its sovereignty, limiting its discretion on implementation, and that changing laws would take time, according to one of the people.”

        Yeah, see, we’re willing to promise to make changes, but actually making changes! Are you crazy?

        Incidentally, changing the law so that Emperor Xi could be president for life wasn’t difficult at all. Changing the law to no longer require American companies to take on a competitor as a partner and share all their technology–that’s too hard. Meanwhile, the Chinese government can detain a million Uighurs in anti-Muslim reeducation camps without much difficulty. Trade policy changes, though, that’s too difficult. What if the National People’s Congress doesn’t want what Emperor Xi wants?


          EVen the New York Times is admitting that China is losing the trade war.

      3. The market rebounded by the end of Monday to around an 80 point loss for the entire day.


    Meghan Markle and Prince Harry promise that baby boy’s name will be popular in both England and the US.

    Oh God, it is going to be “Barrack” isn’t it?

    1. Kardashian

    2. According to polls you’d have to go with Donald over Barrack

    3. Frito

    4. I vote for Baby McBabyface

      1. See, this is why the names of people and things should not be put to a vote.

    5. Kanye?

      1. Prince Kanye has a nice right to it.

    6. If they want to be really woke, they’ll name him, “Diana”.

    7. whatever the Queen says it will be.

      1. The Queen should be ordering up a DNA test for Harry.

        1. YO.

          Harry is such a mark. If I was a FUCKING PRINCE there’s no way I would marry some useless, not very attractive social climber like her. What a moron.

  16. I’ll bet many of you are not familiar with the serious issue regarding a lack of female and tranny skateboarders:

    “Skate Like a Girl ramps up confidence through inclusivity”
    “When Ashley Masters discovered skateboarding at age 10, she was instantly hooked.
    As she continued to skate through her teen years in Southern California, she found that being a girl skateboarder was a harder trick to pull off than a kick flip. The industry was dominated by males. No matter her skill level, she was still a girl and unable to be seen as an equal among her peers at the skate park.”

    How sad…

    1. she found that being a girl skateboarder was a harder trick to pull off than a kick flip.

      What the fuck does that even mean? She either skateboards or she doesn’t. A kickflip is fucking hard to pull off.

      1. Hey, how can she be a non-conformist rebel if she isn’t part of a crowd of non-conformist rebels who think exactly like her?
        That’s HARD!

    2. I’ve got kids. They skate.

      Most skaters are boys. The few girls who go to the skate park are not ostracized. They are the coolest thing going.

      It has always been that way. There are very few “guy things” where a woman would be anything other than embraced.

      I’ve been in skydiving, rock climbing, scuba diving, fast pitch softball, tennis, high powered rocketry, forging, and racing groups – all activities that are majority male (well, except maybe tennis). Not only were women not excluded or ostracized in any way, they generally earn 2 extra hotness points for joining in the boys.

      1. It has always been that way. There are very few “guy things” where a woman would be anything other than embraced.

        There was a time when comic book conventions were complete sausage fests. Then women figuted out that going to them involved dressing up, which women love, and being the bell of the ball in a place where men outnumbered women 10 to 1. Now, Comiccon is filled with women, some gorgeous, some homely and some inbetween.

        1. And all of them getting loads of attention from the guys.

          Sure, they then get to complain about that attention… but that’s all part of the game.

      2. When it comes to racing the women drivers are often paid to race by the race track wether or not they are any good at it. most likely other sports do the same

        1. Yeah, as to my personal experience I was referring to “guys hanging out” stuff, not real racing. We used to go karting and take our cars to the track for track days. Not a lot of chicks at either of those venues. But when some girl showed up in her spec Miata for track day, you can bet that every dude in the place at least swung by to say “hi!”

      3. >>>It has always been that way.

        we included every chick on any board.

      4. My daughter figured that out snowboarding in the terrain park. Dad is not happy.

    3. Let the trannies in and the industry will still be dominated by males.

    4. Maybe she just isn’t that good at skateboarding. I mean, compared to most talented amateurs, she could be very good, but compared to the best male pros she probably isn’t. Same with snowboarding. Same with ice hockey. Now, I will say that the ladies have gotten much better at those things recently, and so are at least watchable. But then again, the guys have gotten better, too. I suspect the same dynamic is at play here.

      1. That’s because women don’t have the physical ability to compete with men in 99% of physical activities… Because biology is a thing.

    1. Once Democrats retake the White House and implement the Koch / Reason open borders agenda, hopefully American cities will see a similar pattern.


    2. Eventually we will have to fight “Germans” and destroy Berlin. Again.

      1. Who will fight? Pajama boy?

        1. Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

    3. Jesus Christ. WTF is the world coming to. When will the west stop committing suicide?

  17. Crushed by the Leftist Juggernaut: One Lawyer’s Story
    I also learned that to the Left, its enemies are not human. The anonymity and persistence of the mailings put myself and my family in grave fear for our safety. I cannot describe the sleepless nights, the caution exercised every time we stepped out of the house. I made police reports, but without an actual threat, all they could do was document the mailings. None of that mattered. All that mattered was power politics and stopping me at all costs — simply for my personal views.

    …Nor was I human to the business world. Never mind the firm’s long and productive relationship with its corporate clients. Those clients were willing to kill that relationship over one employee’s nonconforming political views. And while my bosses were clearly sympathetic, the value of the clients’ business mattered more than the personal relationship I had developed with them.

    1. “And while my bosses were clearly sympathetic, the value of the clients’ business mattered more than the personal relationship I had developed with them.”

      Well duh! Personal relationships don’t pay the bills.

    2. The left is just evil. And they destroy any institution they infect.

      1. And if any of these predictions of a Democrat “windfall” come to light, best be prepped for a pretty big and long lasting disaster; hopefully not of Wiemar Republic dimensions [and outcomes…].

    3. If I were that lawyer, I would spend all my spare time destroying every law partner. Fuck them and their firm.

      If you wont stand up for people that you know are hard workers, because of some political hit jobs…fuck you. You deserve to go down too.

    4. Let’s see… quoting a person isn’t slander or libel, and seeing as he is a lawyer, if he thinks the quotes were dishonest and crossed that line he can always sue.

      America doesn’t have a “right to be forgotten” law, so the anonymous tipster is in the clear there.

      So what is it that’s so wrong? All we have here is constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech and Association, and while I can understand that’s not a concern for someone who thinks “the left” must be stopped “at all costs” (his words, not mine), y’all claim to actually care about the constitution sometimes.

      So c’mon. How is this different then a place firing a guy that’s outted as gay, something else y’all support?

  18. Eugene Volokh explains the 8th Circuit’s verdict in Free the Nipple, Inc. v. City of Springfield.

    Prof. V. didn’t really explain much. he did provide the pointer to Lilley so you could see the Circuit’s ludicrous arguments for yourself. I’d be curious to see his critique of the reasoning.

  19. For reasons that aren’t immediately obvious, the most interesting thing I’ve read in a long, long time is the following:

    “What Turing Told Us About the Digital Threat to a Human Future”
    Timothy Snyder

    No subscription required

    In short, the author is taking the Turing test and applying Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics from “Evidence” to explain how what we’ve recently discussed as “nudging” is leading to authoritarianism.

    One of the things that makes this piece so interesting is how many things the author gets right. He excoriates the elitists. He excoriates the journalists for failing miserably at their primary responsibility to relay the objective truth. He excoriates Silicon Valley for their perverse ethics. He even correctly surmises that libertarians are bound by freedom to tolerate the speech and persuasion of people like Putin:

    “In the months before the American presidential election of November 2016, the very distant descendants of “Adam Smith and Karl Marx,” American libertarians and Russian spies, met on the new territory of digital thoughtlessness.”


    He mentions libertarians repeatedly.

    What’s so interesting is that the author can see all of this, including the sick elitism of the left, so clearly, and yet he still can’t escape his own elitist perspective. He is convinced that Turing + Asimov explains the American people literally being controlled by “bots” through what we here have described in the past as “nudging”. He can see so much so clearly, and yet he still can’t imagine average people voting for Trump of their own free will for neither authoritarian nor nefarious reasons.

    He’s an esteemed History professor at Yale. He is not a stupid man. He gets so much right! It must be hard for him to see through as much elitism as he does, but he just can’t get himself to believe that Donald Trump was elected by anything other than the influence of Russian bots. It’s asking too much. It’s a bridge too far.

    1. If he faces the fact that people voted for Trump for other than nafarious reasons, then his entire sense of self and moral superiority are lost. That is something few people are capable of doing and this article is a good example of the wages of obtaining your sense of self worth from external things like politics or percieved intellectual superiority.

      1. He’s trying to do the right thing.

        It’s unusual to see someone who comes to those conclusions be as honest about the failings of the left as he is.

        He excoriates the elitists, the journalists, and Silicon Valley.

        Good stuff! He’s trying really hard.

    2. They are truly mentally ill on the Trump thing.

      They’ve been going after him on “dictator”, “authoritarian” and similar epithets since before he took office. Mostly for saying he’s opposed to the media smearing him unfairly.

      So the left didn’t accept the results of the election – which is, you know, anti-democratic… something they oddly accused Trump of. And now – as they have spent the last 2.5 years trying to overturn the results of the election – they are beginning to discuss the “fact” that Trump does not intend to relinquish power when they defeat him in 2020… and we are talking the top names in the DNC – Nancy Pelosi, et. al., not random bloggers.

      On nearly every topic it seems they are just a ball of projection. After President “phone and a pen” who didn’t need to reach across the isle because “elections have consequences”, we have a president who mostly blusters, but sends bills to congress and accepts whatever mess comes out the other end – if it ever does. He hasn’t invaded anywhere without congress (yet), also unlike his predecessor, he hasn’t decided to announce to the world that he would not enforce US immigration law in order to inflate the number of illegal immigrants entering the US…

      But Trump is the dictator-in-waiting?

      The guy is a sort-of isolationist with a sort-of america-first trade policy who spoke to lower middle class voters on populist issues, including immigration. That doesn’t really require a huge bot-farm run by Russians.

      Plus, Clinton had a massive bot-farm and social media campaign that dwarfs bot Trump’s operation and the Russians… combined. Alphabet/Google even created a back channel to an “analytics” firm specifically created to help democrat candidates. (most of the DNC field this year is using them as well). There was a blizzard of stories during the last election cycle about how great the democrat party is because of their huge lead in the use of technology and their close ties to tech giants. But somehow it is anti-democratic for the Russians to sow a little chaos with a couple hundred grand in Facebook ads. This, compared with a billion dollars spent by Clinton alone.

      Interesting side-fact in the spin world. Since democrats overall outspent republicans in 2016 by about 4 billion to about 2 billion – campaign watchdogs have put a pricetag on “free media”. Trump got $5+ billion in free media, according to these groups. Now, that coverage was way over 90% negative, but they don’t include that in their calculus.

      Anyway, the bottom line is that no mater which way you hold this thing up and look at it, the left is living in a deluded world where they rationalize everything and imagine the most preposterous machinations to explain their loss.

      1. On every rightwing comment board during the 2016 election about 10% of the accounts claimed to be “life time conservatives who couldn’t ever vote for Trump”. The day after the election, every one of those accounts disappeared never to be seen again.

        I never really believed that media matters and Soros and the rest actually conducted paid trolling operations. But the 2016 election convinced me that they do.

        1. They had a huge piece on Hil-dog’s expert use of social media before the election. I can’t remember where…. New Yorker, Atlantic…NYT… Some big name place. It was a puff-piece praising her savvy in embracing the new tech. They talked about how she had the largest bot-farm at her disposal, and huge rooms of people posting to social media. They also included offhanded asides about how Trump had hired some firm to do something similar, but they were way less sophisticated about it than Hillary’s team, and they were not able to spend nearly as much money.

          So imagine my surprise when the same “journalists” pivoted to “using social media in campaigns is totes evil”.

    3. “He is not a stupid man. He gets so much right!”

      The better with which to deceive himself, my dear.

    4. “… And thus my irrefutable logic compels the conclusion that the toothless people of the interior are capable of knowing what’s best for themselves. No, wait, that can’t be right. I must’ve made a mistake in here somewhere!” *erases blackboard and starts over again*

  20. The Case for Reparations

    Cancel the 2020 presidential until we can figure out what the hell is going on, and decide on a fair and honest reparations package. Thoughtful consideration should be given to punitive damages, as mentioned above. But what form should this disciplinary restitution take? Money is of no value to a man who has already agreed to forgo his $400,000 presidential salary, not to mention all the money he could be making in real estate as a private citizen. Such is his commitment the noble ideals of public service.

    If justice is our ultimate aim, President Trump must be repaid in the currency of that which was stolen from him: Time.

    By any honest accounting, two years would hardly suffice as adequate restitution for the misdeeds in question. Two years is merely the baseline from which our pursuit of justice should commence. The time sheets for every member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team must be handed over to determine the exactly quantity of man hours squandered on a fruitless investigation. Same goes for Democratic lawmakers and their staff members, who have wasted countless hours conducting their own “investigations” since taking control of the House of Representatives earlier this year.

    1. This was a hilarious troll… and the response from the left has been priceless.

  21. Reason seems troublingly untroubled that the Obama Administration mobilized the national security apparatus to surveil the presidential campaign of a rival political party and obtained the FISA warrants to do so under knowingly false (the word for that being “fraudulent”) pretenses.

    If rumors are true, this may just be the tip of the iceberg, and such surveillance of rivals was routinely done over the eight years of the Obama Administration.

    But let’s continue contorting the English language to find a way to interpret Barr’s comments as perjury.

    1. I’m sure when Trump’s people engage in the same activities against Bernie, Reason will be equally unconcerned. After all, I’ve been assured that this activity is common, ni big deal, and if anything, speaks to how super serial the FBI was taking these fears. After all, the FBI is never wrong or acts out of any but the purest if motives.

      1. I would have thought that even true partisans would have been swayed when they heard the ludicrous justification that they were concerned that Russia was attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign – therefore they had to secretly spy on the Trump campaign. The moment you heard that and not “so we called Trump and his staff and started working with them immediately to prevent this from happening” you should have known that they were lying. If you didn’t, or still don’t, you are completely blinded by your partisan sunglasses.

        1. Exactly. Protocol is to notify and work with them, not spy “covertly gather information using secret electronic surveillance and undercover paid informants.”

          1. I think trump is a blowhard and his policies have been a complete mixed bag (although admittedly better than maybe any other pres in my lifetime), yet the tds from the left is so crazy and the nefarious actions of the welfare/warfare/surveillance industries are so obvious, it would be laughable if so many weren’t duped by it all.

    2. >>>Reason seems troublingly untroubled

      yeah … bringing it up in the comments so it becomes topical is better than waiting for the articles anyway


    Swarthmore College has been swamped with protests and sit-ins following revelations about comments made by members of fraternities which have since closed.
    The latest hunger strike calls for the resignation of the school’s director of public safety.

    That is one way to solve the problem of too many fat chicks on campus.

    1. I think hunger striking might be the stupidest form of protest of all. I also doubt many of these kids have the fortitude to keep it going past lunch on Day 2.

    2. I have a relative who attended Swarthmore. She’s awesome. Really… fantastic and brilliant in every way.

      And she graduated with the most ludicrous case of SJW culture you’ll ever see. She buys in to all of it… 100%. Cultural appropriation even, right down to things like celebrating Cinco de Mayo or having foreign characters in movies written by white Americans (soooo problematic!).

      It will take years to unbend her mind. But she’s brilliant and headed to a prestigious doctoral program in the hard sciences at a huge football school. So maybe she’ll be fine by the time she finishes her post-doc.

      1. Sorry but if I were a hiring manager, I would never hire your relative. If she already worked for me, I would fire her as soon as I found out her views. As big of a dumbass as Teddy “Vox Day” is, he is sadly right about one thing; if you find an SJW inside your organization, fire them immediately. You have no other choice. It doesn’t matter that she is brilliant. She will never use that brilliance to do anything but advance her sick politics and destroy any organization that hires her.

    3. They should try intermittent fasting. It’s healthier than full on starvation, and you get your blood sugar under control.

  23. In regards to young people being more liberal than older people, somebody should probably mention that this has been noticed before. In fact, hasn’t that been the general rule throughout the history of democracy?

    “If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative by . . .”

    I’ve seen the statement attributed to all sorts of people. It might have described ancient Athens, so I wouldn’t count on the future being progressives because the youth of today are progressive. Just as likely that charges of racism won’t be as effective against a generation that was so adamantly against it.

    1. You’d think…. but you have to remember that the boomers were the first generation of desegregation. And genX is getting old too… and we were the gay rights and equality for all folks. It doesn’t stop them from using “racist” or “misogynist” against boomers like Romney or GenX dudes like Rand Paul…. and people seem to fall for it.

      People respond to simple labels.. particularly simple negative labels. And they are really hard to beat, because of the “first impression” effect.

      1. The power of the labels is starting to drop. When everything is “racist” nothing is racist. Also the fact that the current generation of SJWs are thoroughly ugly, miserable people can’t be lost on the next generation. The boomers had so much effect on following generations because they had great PR and were great at putting forth a glamorous image. There is nothing glamorous about the millenial SJWs. I can’t believe anyone after them is going to want to follow their example.

        1. >>>the current generation of SJWs are thoroughly ugly, miserable people can’t be lost on the next generation

          won’t be. and because their policies will never work or be put into effect, this crop of AOCs will give up when it’s no longer cool to be them.

    2. “He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”

  24. Democrats are the party of authoritarianism.

  25. What a stupid analysis. Not that long ago, the Baby Boomers were the party of the left. This trend is neither new nor increasing. As I think Churchill said, “If you’re not a liberal before you’re 30, you have no heart. If you’re still a liberal after you’re 30, you have no head.”

    1. The boomers were perceived as being on the left but that was a false assumption.
      I saw a Johnny Carson rerun with Selma Diamond, she was probably an old red, bitterly complaining about the young people voting for Reagan.

  26. Age? I thought it was deplorables vs. the woke.

  27. Democrats are the party of young people, Republicans the party of the old

    Been hearing this for… *looks at history* longer than ENB has been alive. Seriously.

  28. “When the question is posed as an abstraction, most Gen Zers don’t trust the federal government,” they write.

    Neither did the babyboomers.

  29. I don’t think the current appeal of “democratic socialism” means millennials and Gen Zers are a lost cause for libertarians.

    No, that would be the contempt, disdain, and dismissal that libertarians heap on, well, everyone.

  30. >Despocrats are the party of the young hurr durr…
    Tell that to the millions of young right wing activists online. Get woke, go broke didn’t just appear out of the ether. Keep dreaming, communists.

  31. I’m proud to say that I’m an older millennial, and also not a commie! So it ain’t all of us. And the important ones, the smart ones who end up running things, are mostly not idiot commies. I have a lot of friends who were very solidly left leaning in high school who have been slowly tilting to the right for years… The PC nonsense has been one of the main drivers. We’ll see how it all goes.

  32. […] and the need for competition of ideas even more pronounced. As Elizabeth Nolan Brown puts it “Democrats are the party of young people, Republicans the party of the […]

  33. Rather, “they favor big-government economic policies regardless because they believe that government is the only protection workers have against concentrated corporate power. Philosophically, many Gen Zers and Millennials believe that government’s proper role should be as a force for social good.”

    Gee I wonder who taught them that?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.