Freedom

Rising Conservatives Are as Hostile to Freedom as the Leftists They Disdain

Republicans, who have gleefully warned the public about Democratic flirtations with socialism, shouldn't be quick to gloat given the emergence of an anti-freedom movement on the Right.

|

Delegates to the California Democratic Party convention last weekend drew national attention after they booed a presidential candidate, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, for saying that "socialism is not the answer." Conservative writers were aghast. Look at those crazy California Democrats, they insisted, who get upset at a few jabs at an ideology that's long been associated with collectivism and misery.

Yes, there's a deep rift within the Democratic Party between its traditional-liberal and progressive wings, with the latter moving in some troubling ideological directions. But Republicans, who have gleefully warned the public about Democratic flirtations with socialism, shouldn't be quick to gloat given the emergence of an anti-freedom movement on the Right.

While Democrats were airing their internal strife in San Francisco, Republicans were having a knock-down, drag-out ideological battle in a couple of journals read mostly by intellectuals. The fault lines are strikingly similar. Two factions are fighting for the soul of the party, with one side proposing that the GOP scuttle—or strongly soften—its historic support for pluralism, freedom and markets.

The first volley was lobbed by Sohrab Ahmari, in a May 29 column in First Things called "Against David French-ism." Few people know that obscure religious journal and even fewer have heard of "French-ism." Even French, the target of the piece, seemed bemused by the term. Both are conservatives. Both are pro-life Christians. French is a lawyer who has filed religious-liberty cases. Yet Ahmari, an editor at the New York Post, tarred him as an ideological softy who is too interested in "individual autonomy" to fight the culture war with sufficient zeal.

French fired back at Ahmari, arguing that "there is no political 'emergency' that justifies abandoning" a political order that goes back to our nation's founding. He found it odd that Ahmari would tout the libertine Trump as the key to restoring traditional values.

This looked like some insider blog debate, but it garnered wide attention among conservatives. Even mainstream media writers in the New York Times and Vox wrote about the dust up. That's because the argument wasn't really about two conservative writers, but about the future of the conservative movement and the visions each of them represents.

French holds to the classical tradition that champions liberty, market economics, civility and decency in the public square. I disagree with him on many issues (foreign policy, for instance), but agree strongly with the traditional American idea that government should try to neutrally protect individual rights—rather than be used to advance cultural preferences.

Ahmari believes Americans are fighting a "cultural civil war" and, "The only way is through—that is to say, to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good." It's a bizarre argument given that cultural conservatives lose every culture war that they fight.

Ahmari essentially complains that the Left is doing to the Right (re-ordering the public square) exactly what the Right would like to be doing to the Left. That makes me more committed than ever to this neutrality thing. Maybe neither side should be using the government to force its culture on others?

Ahmari never specifies what policies he would endorse once his allies grab control of the levers of power – perhaps because such policies might seem authoritarian to the average American. But one needn't take too many leaps to see where this populist-religious conservatism is headed.

"Government intervention will not be the answer to every social ill," Ahmari writes. "In many instances, free markets and individual enterprise can best serve the common good, albeit indirectly." So, Ahmari won't use big government to control everything. He might allow some individual enterprise provided, of course, the rulers believe that it conforms to the "common good." Well, that's a relief.

That nebulous term, "common good," drives me crazy. It means whatever people in charge of the government say it means. Those of us in the classical-liberal and libertarian camps believe that each individual can figure that out on their own without government mandate. They can do as they please even if we might not personally approve of their decisions. But Ahmari wants "to enforce our order and our orthodoxy" on society. Creepy, no?

Even creepier is this reality: Many influential conservatives no longer value liberty or the marketplace. Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently praised some of leftist Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren's economic agenda and blasted Republicans as "libertarian zealots," controlled by banks and who yammer about entrepreneurship. Conservatives might have a problem if some of their thought leaders start channeling Warren and Huey Long.

The Democrats are dealing with a socialist-friendly Left that despises economic freedom, but Republicans are facing a resurgent nationalist Right that shares many of the same hostilities. There's a clear and present danger on both horizons.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

Advertisement

NEXT: Review: Freedom: Art as the Messenger

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. The real battle within conservatism is between the respectable, patriotic neocons (like David Frum, Bill Kristol, and Max Boot) and the alt-right white nationalists (Stephen Miller, Richard Spencer, Orange Hitler). The neocons aren’t perfect, of course; the Iraq War they promoted was probably a mistake. Still, nothing in the neocon record compares to the violence against black and brown bodies unleashed by the alt-right’s draconian war on immigration.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. Libertarians are nothing but progressives in faggot’s clothing. You and George Will should stay out of the way as we correct this abominable mess you’ve made over the past 30 years.

      1. Plan Z,
        It’s unclear to me. Are you of the Authoritarian Left or of the Authoritarian Right? The left MAY be mote likely. And you’re just another brainwashed tool of the political elites. These may not all apply to your particular mind control.
        1) You believe a $50,000 worker pays a higher income tax rate (avg 8.5%) than millionaires and billionaires. (28%)

        2) You believe health care should be a right — which is how you FUCKED low-income Americans with Medicaid. Before Medicaid, we had 100% treatment (not coverage) regardless of income. From charity hospitals (mostly religious), financed by thousands of charities, foundations, churches. Your tribe said. HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE A RIGHT -NOT DEPENDING ON CHARITY. That;s how the slogan began. Medicaid is now a right. But prior to Obama’s expansion, Medicaid eligibles had the HIGHEST percent uninsured! It pays less than Medicare, and too many doctors refuse to accept it. Do the math. Add millions of insured, but NO MORE DOCTORS. Do they have treatment? Now the enrollments are PHONY. Any uninsured in the ER are automatically enrolled.
        Not sure if all states, but most. Do THEY have treatment?
        3) Obama knows why we have the most costly health care. He told of his grandmother, who got a hip transplant when she was terminal cancer, AND DIED A FEW MONTHS LATER Obama, not the Kochs

        Your entire agenda is based on lies, exactly like the right.

        Did I mention that the rich subsidize nearly half the entire share of the income tax for the core middle-class ($40-100k). Sucker.

    2. No way. I’d rather troops at the border than troops in foreign lands. Trump has tendency toward non-interventionism. War is a greater threat to liberty than closed borders. Trump hasn’t unleashed any violence.

      1. He just sent 100,000 troops to the middle east, announced today.

  2. The Democrats are dealing with a socialist-friendly Left that despises economic freedom, but Republicans are facing a resurgent nationalist Right that shares many of the same hostilities.

    The parties have for a while now been split between blue collar and woke, redneck and business. I for one trust our two party system to continue to regulate itself and keep us on this very sustainable economic trajectory.

    1. I, for one, continue to expect our two-party system to continue to work to the benefit of people with wealth and power, and steamroll the shit out of those without.

      1. I, for one, expect it to steamroll the shit out of everyone, eventually.

      2. Umm, how come the rich subsidize nearly half the entire tax burden for the core middle=class ($40-100k)?

        Do you believe a $50,000 teacher pays a higher tax rate (avg 8.5%) than millionaires and billionaires (28%)

        Do you believe in … a tooth fairy … Santa? … Easter Bunny?

  3. Yes, there’s a deep rift within the Democratic Party between its traditional-liberal and progressive wings, with the latter moving in some troubling ideological directions.

    There are no “Liberals”. Anyone to the Left of Libertarianism is a Socialist, Nazi, Communist, Progressive, or other authoritarian-loving Nanny Stater.

    Everything the Democrat party does involves enlarging the Police/Nanny-State:
    1. War on Drugs- Millions of Americans jailed and spent thousands each to defend against a larger Nanny and Police State where the police became more militarized
    2. Decriminalize Weed- Weed is taxed and regulatory state gets bigger
    3. Unionize workers- Money all goes to Democrats, worker rights go down, and the regulatory state gets bigger
    4. Pass more laws to “protect” something- State…bigger
    5. Welfare to “help” poor- State got bigger and state creates poverty cycles
    6. Slavery- Some Americans have no rights and the state to control them got bigger

    1. To be fair though, the drug war has bi-partisan support. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Sessions- all big drug warriors. In as much as MJ decriminalization is a thing, the legalization is happening in liberal states, so it is unsurprising that it is taxed and regulated in proggy ways. I would like to see a GOP answer to legalization, but unfortunately they are still in the drug war phase.

      I feel the pejorative term of Nationalism applied to the GOP is wrong here. They are populist. Behind all of the “Make America Great Again” slogans, it isn’t so much about making America the dominant country in the world, but about giving the populace a bunch of freebies and protection. There is a lot of overlap between nationalism and populism, but the former is focused outward, and the latter is focused inward.

      Overall, the article is correct though. The idea of liberty is hardly envisioned when everyone is talking about how to dice up big countries, and which part of the economy needs government protection.

      1. Congress was controlled by Democrats during Nixon’s entire Presidency.

        Nixon was a Quaker so of course he was anti-drug…and anti-alcohol…and anti-fun.

        You re correct though, it had some bi-partisan support and that usually means things get really bad for Americans.

        As to the article, it is not correct as Lefties are always far worse at being hostile to freedoms than Conservatives.

        Additionally, Lefties never want to change. They want their Socialist policies to be the status quo.

        Social Conservatives will adopt change if there is mass popular appeal. Case in point: Slavery was the status quo and Republicans under Abraham Lincoln sought to change the problem, first with deporting all slaves to Africa and then freeing them after the Civil War was well under way.

        1. Except Nixon did drink alcohol. Do you just make shit up? You’re trash.

          1. For other people, dipshit. Who cares what a politician does themselves, its how they want government to control others.

            Who cares if Nixon drank. He didn’t like a lot of the things happening in the 1960s relating to free love and drugs.

            You new trolls, really make me laugh.

          2. Let me help you out with your humanity here OG. It sounds like you agree with most of what loveconstitution1789 said here, and disagree maybe with one thing because Nixon wasn’t an abstainer himself. So maybe you say something along the lines of “Nixon may not have been entirely anti-alcohol because he was a drinker.” I’m so sick of 90% agreement resulting in personal attacks like “do you just make shit up? You’re trash.” Get a life and learn to be a good human being.

      2. There is a lot of truth to this.

        Populism is not the same as nationalism.

        Trumpism is populist, and to that extent, it is anti-conservative in the Burkean sense of the word.

    2. hateconsitution1789 proves this correct … with typical raging hatred of the Authoritarian Right, and a side order of hysteria.

      Democrats borrow trillions to pay for free stuff.
      Trump’s GOP borrows MORE trillions to pay for free tax cuts — claiming that borrowing trillions from their own kids and grandkids is “letting me keep more of my own money.” (lol)

      It’s actually forcing a tax INCREASE, without a vote, on their own children, while whining about a “nanny state” to divert attention from an arguaeven greater threat.

      (Trump has already added more new 8-year debt than Obama did AFTER 8 years, per CBO debt forecast. And is the first President to EVER increase the deficit by more than 40% in a single year, with a “booming” economy.)

      Left – Right = Zero

      1. LOL… Here we go again — Democratic News “forcasts”………… Here’s a forecast. Democratic News lies at least 99% of the time and spreads some of the most wild imaginative propaganda most can’t even believe others eat their garbage.

        Obama 2009-2017: $12T -> $20T ($2.5T/yr)
        Trump 2017-2019: $20T -> $22T ($1T/yr)
        You need to find a better source of information.

        1. You are arguing with the Hihnfaggot. No good will come of it.

    3. What a nasty bubble you choose to live in. Why not join the rest of us in the real world, instead?

    4. IS THIS SATIRE?

      1) DEMOCRATS demand the War on Drugs?
      2) DEMOCRATS oppose legalizing pot?
      3) You’re just plain full of shit on how union workers vote.t
      4) DEMOCRATS are the law and order party?
      5) REPUBLICANS have a plan for the welfare state? WHERE?
      6) DEMOCRATS deny rights to gays and transgenders, and would deny gay marriage?

      With so many falsehoods, mostly laughable ….
      are you Donald Trump?

  4. Obama started this whole problem by bringing in illegal Kenyan ideas from Mexico. We need to build a wall and tax all the foreign ideas. Especially the ones that are disguising themselves as American ideas.

    1. Seems like you picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue.

      1. Surely you can’t be serious?

        1. WERE YOU? (shudder)

          1. literally only one response in this universe to “Surely you can’t be serious?”

            1. That’s why I did it!

            2. I am, and don’t call me Surely.

              1. That wasn’t it. And don’t call me Shirley.

            3. And don’t call me Shirley!

  5. Social Conservatives have always been on the right side with less freedoms as they more rightward away from Libertarianism. The extreme right is Monarchy and Theocracy where people tend to have no freedoms.

    Social Conservative Republicans are somewhere in that spectrum and want a Nanny and Police-State that bans drugs, abortions, sex outside of marriage, and other freedoms that they do not approve of.

    1. Republicans, who have gleefully warned the public about Democratic flirtations with socialism, shouldn’t be quick to gloat given the emergence of an anti-freedom movement on the Right.

      In other words, the Republicans have not “emerged” more anti-freedom as the social conservatives have always wanted certain freedoms banned.

      The two parties are nothing alike. Everything the Democrat Party has done was ruinous for America that takes decades if not centuries to dig our way out. Slavery…Great Depression bailout…WWI…Korean War….Vietnam War…Drug War…TARP…Obamacare….

      And now we have Trump.

      1. You’re rambling and your points are unrelated. But from what I can tell from your arguments is that the Democrats are bad mmmmkay.

        1. He’s being more even handed than normal. Pretty good posts in my opinion.

          1. The stuff I speak about really upsets the Lefties and LINOs so they have upped their trolling of my posts.

            eric is just one of the many trolls.

            1. “troll” doesn’t mean “people who point out your mistakes”, yet you keep using the word as if it did.

      2. Poor eric the troll.

        1. ERIC IS THE TROLL?
          You are telling people to NEVER vote for even ONE Democrat.
          And never … not ever ….. THINK about their vote … for all of eternity

          To be fair, I will grant you this
          That’s the ONLY way to increase Trump’s 2020 vote.

      3. So, are you with the social conservatives or not? There is no Republican party without the socons as part of the coalition and the socons are getting more powerful, not less.

        1. He would be, if the social conservatives were socially conservative enough.

          1. 🙂

  6. If I’m reading this correctly, the author is comparing the left’s clear enthusiasm for authoritarian socialism with some unclear, unnamed evil that may be harbored by some people on the right?

    There isn’t anything unclear about the left’s goals. The left’s enthusiastic embrace of authoritarian socialism has two clear features that have been embraced by the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination–Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

    There is nothing that Republicans are campaigning or average Republicans support that’s worse for our freedom than the those two things from a libertarian and capitalist perspective.

    Reading this article, I’m sitting here imagining what it will be like when we’re suffering the consequences of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All’s authoritarian socialism–and Greenhut and others are trying to reassure us with the argument that if the Republicans were in charge, things might be even worse but in a different way.

    That would be bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now.

    Take a look around you. If you imagine that women are about to be forced into burkas and domestic roles like they are on The Handmaid’s Tale, then you should seriously consider seeing a professional about anxiety. A couple of journalists arguing with each other isn’t indicative of anything. There simply isn’t the kind of support, either outside the Republican party or within it, to inflict the kind of right-wing policies you fear.

    The danger of socialism from the left, however, is real, present, and runs from the top contenders for president all the way down through the Democratic electorate. They even have specific proposals to make America socialist–the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. To compare those dangers with your anxieties about some dark corners that may or may not have any resonance with Republicans anywhere is to denigrate the seriousness of the threat of authoritarian socialism.

    You’re worried about “reds [cultural conservatives] under the bed”, but the Democratic party from top to bottom is rallying under the banner of authoritarian socialism. Get a hold of yourself. Open your eyes.

    1. That comment illustrates how ‘lesser of two evils’ really works. You rationalize your vote for the Giant Douche by painting the Turd Sandwich as the most fetid rancid Turd Sandwich in history. Indeed, because you can uniquely see how fetid and rancid it is you are really standing on the bulwarks defending America against the single greatest threat we have ever or will ever face. Deep down in places we don’t talk about at parties, we need you on that wall. Thank you for your service.

      1. Why is the lesser of two evils always team red? Why are libertarian leaning politicians safe on one side and not the other?

        Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit. And yet they are somehow equated as equally bad at Reason because cocktail parties

        1. Why are libertarian leaning politicians safe on one side and not the other?

          Amash would like to have a word with you

          1. Amash knew he was getting primaried and decided to virtue signal to save face. How many votes would he get as a democrat? three?

          2. And one side elected him, the other calls him a nazi

          3. he’s much too busy w/tha’graft.

        2. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for only 50 years now. Along with over 60% of Americans

          No offense intended, but your time has expired.

          1. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for only 50 years now. Along with over 60% of Americans

            Libertarians have done nothing for over 50 years.

            And the fact that you seem to think that having “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policy preferences makes people libertarian shows what an ignorant statist you actually are.

            Libertarianism is about small government and individual liberties, not about “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policies.

            1. “Libertarians have done nothing for over 50 years.“

              Good to know that I am in the right place.

            2. Pay attention.

              And the fact that you seem to think that having “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policy preferences makes people libertarian shows what an ignorant statist you actually are.

              Do I believe an uneducated troll or the Cato Institute?

              “In all of these calculations, we use a broad definition of libertarian. … We asked half the sample, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”?
              KAPOW

              Libertarianism is about small government and individual liberties, not about “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policies.

              They’re the same thing. THAT’S HOW WE GET THERE. It means no government interference in economic or personal (social) issue!

              Many on the right see the word liberal and freak out ,… revealing their ignorance of what SOCIALLY liberal is.

              Here’s an early mantra
              Republicans want government out of your wallet and in your bedroom.
              Democrats want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
              ONLY libertarians want government out of you LIFE .. in both economic and personal issues.

              Got it? How is that statist.
              Are you also unaware of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz?

              Libertarians have done nothing for over 50 years.

              We do NOT allow the Authoritarian Left or the Authoritarian Right to define us … or restrict our our actions and values.

              And you’re wrong. I myself have been elected in two different states, launched a winning tax revolt, ran as state LP (as director). and helped elect over a hundred libertarian and Libertarians.

              What have you done in the last 100 years?
              Anything else?

              1. And you’re wrong. I myself have been elected in two different states, launched a winning tax revolt, ran as state LP (as director). and helped elect over a hundred libertarian and Libertarians.

                And have nothing to show for it except a solitary existence on the Boise riverbank and an Enemies List on a Web 1.0-style page, desperately creating sockpuppets to fill out your pathetic, useless existence.

                1. He does appear to be a little better medicated so far. I suspect he was involuntary committed for awhile, explaining his absence here. It also gave the doctors at the asylum the chance to dial in his anti psychotic medication.

              2. Do I believe an uneducated troll or the Cato Institute?

                The Cato institute correctly points out that Americans say they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (unfortunately, that’s not reflected in actual voting patterns). But 95% of those same Americans will tell you that they are not libertarian. It’s your and Cato’s delusion to call them that.

                We do NOT allow the Authoritarian Left or the Authoritarian Right to define us … or restrict our our actions and values.

                Nor do we allow incompetent senile trolls like you to define us.

                1. (boldface in defense of multiple aggressions by a BULLY from the Authoritarian Right .. as they so often do)

                  HOW crazy does JW get ,,.. when he’s been publicly humiliated?
                  He GOES FULL PSYCHOI (emphasis added for the thinking impaired.

                  Cato
                  “In all of these calculations, we use a broad definition of libertarian. … /blockquote>LIAR ALERTM/b>

                  JWThe Cato institute correctly points out that Americans say they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal

                  THEY SAY IT’S THE DEFINITION OF LIBERTARIAN …. PROVING YOU FULL OF WRONG!
                  EVEN CRAZIER …

                  JW
                  And the fact that you seem to think that having “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policy preferences makes people libertarian shows what an ignorant statist you actually are.

                  AFTER HE SAW THE DEFINITION!!! OMFG!!!
                  CAN HE possibly GET CRAZIER> YESSSSS!

                  JW (sneer)
                  Libertarianism is about small government and individual liberties, not about “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policies.

                  They’re the same thing. THAT’S HOW WE GET THERE. It means no government interference in economic or personal social issues!

                  *** WHAT DID HE SAY NOW??

                  *** JW SNARLS that no government involvement in personal issues … wait for it …. VIOLATES CIVIL LIBERTIES

                  ***JW SNEERS that big government is caused by … GOVERNMENT DOING NOTHING .. economic OR personal issues

                  What does JW call limited government? Soviet Union? China? Cuba? North Korea?

                  **** And NO government interference is …. STATIST

                  Left – Right = Zero
                  No better than a Berniebot

                  1. I knew it wouldn’t take long before you fully revealed yourself Hihnfaggot. Now that you’re out of involuntary civil confinement I’m guessing you stopped taking your meds.

                    Probably a pretty quick slide into another manic episode, right? Maybe you can give me yet another entry on your enemies list.

                    1. Your shameless homophobia is disgusting, but sadly typical of your ilk. I have no clue what you’re babbling about … or to who.

                      Why did you log on to this page for the SOLE purpose of 11 personal assaults to me?

        3. “. Between two evils, I generally like to pick the one I never tried before. ”

          Mae West

      2. You sound like someone that would complain incessantly about a dog that barks all night while the world is in the middle of a zombie apocalypse.

        How about we fight the zombies (leftists) first then we’ll worry about the dogs that bark at night?

        1. And you sound like someone who is petrified to leave his house because zombies are roaming the neighborhood. Which is probably why you bought the damn dog that barks all night. Cuz someone told you that dogs keep zombies away by barking.

          1. See any zombies lately? I told you it works!

          2. And then dear Watson there was the case of the dog in the night who didn’t bark. Which tells you it was the Republicans all along.

        2. How about we fight the zombies (leftists) first then we’ll worry about the dogs that bark at night?

          Because the rightist are an equal threat to individual liberty.
          As libertarians have noted for nearly 50 years: Left – Right = Zero

          And now, over 60% of Americans say they are neither left nor right.
          They would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

          http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2007/libertarian-voters-2004-2006
          (The link is Cato, but the polling was conducted by a top independent pollster)

          We’ve also noted that Left and Right are obsolete, as being the only alternatives. They won’t fade away entirely, of course, but they’re still shrinking.

          1. It’s 2019 now.

            1. Oh
              (lol)

            2. Umm. Have there been LARGE gains of approval for …
              Gay marriage?
              Pot legalization?
              Transgender military?
              etc.

              MORE libertarians.
              1) Liberals were already there.
              2) So they had to be conservatives!!!
              3) So now they’re becoming …. fiscally conservative and socially liberal!!

              I understand that it may be shocking to learn your tribe has expired. It’s obsolete and shrinking.
              Consider becoming an independent? Join the rush!!!!

              1. Hihnfaggot begins his raving.

      3. “That comment illustrates how ‘lesser of two evils’ really works.”

        You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that one of the two evils is real, present, running for president, and marching in the streets to support authoritarian socialism.

        The other is about two journalists arguing with each other.

        Yes, dragons could theoretically be as destructive as a hurricane, but a hurricane is a much greater danger because 1) hurricanes are real and 2) the news says there’s one headed this way.

        Do you really not see the difference between dragons and a hurricane?

        1. BOTH SIDES!!!! You dragon lover

        2. this was very funny.

          >>If you imagine that women are about to be forced into burkas and domestic roles like they are on The Handmaid’s Tale, then you should seriously consider seeing a professional about anxiety.

          this too. and agreed on the above ^^^^ larger post

        3. Dragons and hurricanes and zombies? Oh my!

          These constructs of a mental fantasyland are called – cognitive distortion. And yes – two of them – magnification and minimization – were exactly the sort that I was talking about in my comment.

          Here’s the problem. I don’t get what you are proposing as a real world alternative to say Medicare for All. Anti-hurricane measures? Evacuate the coastlines? Or maybe listen to the R’s talk about something while singing Puff the Magic Dragon? These fantasy constructs lead nowhere – and render those trapped in them irrelevant.

          1. So it’s not that you think dragons are as real as hurricanes, it’s that you welcome hurricanes

            1. That must be it.

          2. “I don’t get what you are proposing as a real world alternative to say Medicare for All.”

            What we have now is better than Medicare for All.

            The ObamaCare Reform bill that cut $772 billion from Medicaid–and Trump promised to sign–was better than Medicare for All.

            What we had before ObamaCare was better than Medicare for All.

            If you don’t think any of these options are “realistic”, then why pretend that you’re a libertarian or a capitalist?

            Here’s another realistic alternative to Medicare for All and the Green New Deal: We could put Trump back in the White House. He’s opposed to both Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

            Are you one of these people who’s so principled you wouldn’t vote for Trump–not even if the alternative under a system of single districts is authoritarian socialism? That isn’t principled. Being principle is when you’re willing to do things that are hard–because you care about your principles. Yes, if the greatest thing I can do with my vote is help put Trump back in the White House to stop Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, then that’s exactly what I’ll do. If you’re not willing to save the country from authoritarian socialism if it means you might have to vote for Trump, then you’re not a principled libertarian. You’re a phony.

            1. Yes, if the greatest thing I can do with my vote is help put Trump back in the White House to stop Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, then that’s exactly what I’ll do.

              Ken – again – you live in CA. Your vote for Trump will make no difference as to whether or not he gets re-elected.

              1. Ken is from CA, huh? Everything makes so much more sense.

                We really should encourage CA to secede — the Republicans it generates are every bit as deranged as its infamous Democrats.

            2. What we have now is better than Medicare for All

              OK. What you are now doing is doubling down on the usual conservative problem. Identified well by Hayek. Defending the status quo at all costs. There is no change to it that is acceptable because it has no problems that need fixing. Which means that anyone who DOES identify problems with the status quo will end up in the Medicare for All agenda/camp cuz they are the only ones filling the vacuum that ‘something needs to change’. This is exactly the wrong sort of issue/moment for libertarians or classical liberals to ally with conservatives.

              IOW – it is conservatives who create pressures for extreme change by their resistance to even discussing any change to what is. And the useless tendency of libertarians to believe that conservatives are their natural ally just compounds that because it shuts them up at precisely the moment when they need to express a vision – an alternative – of what can be.

            3. “Here’s another realistic alternative to Medicare for All and the Green New Deal: We could put Trump back in the White House. He’s opposed to both Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.”

              Trump is for anything that personally benefits Trump, and totally ambivalent about anything else.
              Only a fool believes Trump when he talks about what he’s for and what he’s against, until you see what he actually does.

          3. I don’t get what you are proposing as a real world alternative to say Medicare for All.

            Nothing. Nothing at all by the fiscal conservative establishments.

            Trump’s GOP managed to make Obamacare more popular than ever. An earlier (and equally stupid) GOP rejected Obama’s original bipartisan proposal — an alternative to the public option, which would have killed single-payer forever. That drove him to his far left — unlike Kennedy whose bipartisan tax cuts were later copied by Reagan .. and fiercely opposed by the AFL-CIO

            They’re also fucking up Medicaid, by explicitly rejecting free-market outcomes

            Lesson: bipartisan is NOT compromise … and it castrates the wackiest extremes on both sides!

          4. “a real world alternative to say Medicare for All. ”

            How about not make things worse? The status quo. Or how about making private health insurance pre-tax like employer provided insurance? Maybe define as fraudulent certain risk pool management practices that cause skyrocketting.

            1. LOSE. The status quo – which probes my point.
              How will you get elected on a MAJOR tax increase for the working and middle class?

              Sorry.

              1. So Hihn, how was the nuthouse?

      4. because you can uniquely see how fetid and rancid it is you are really standing on the bulwarks defending America against the single greatest threat we have ever or will ever face

        Socialist governments oversaw the death of 200 million of their own citizens in the last century. This is continuing to happen in China, NorK, etc., right now at this very moment. As long as you refuse to acknowledge that the verifiable legacy of socialism is death on a scale in the hundreds of millions, then there is no value is discussion with you.

        Ken has a demonstrated willingness to support whoever is promoting the policies that lead to libertarian outcomes. There are always some trade-offs in pursuit of collective goals, but where conservatives ask for inch and take a mile, the socialists ask for a mile and take another 5 miles. Protect the environment by providing free health care and college tuition? The money will not magically materialize, and in the meantime this socialist policy will turn over the rationing of health care and education from the market to the government.

        The educated guess based on any reasonable historical analysis is that standing firm against waves of conservative oppression is much easier than trying to escape from the pit of socialism.

        1. That’s the second time you’ve used the 200 million number recently. Gotta source for that? ’cause the number I’ve seen often is 100 million (The Black Book of Communism).

          Really, though, 100 million dead, 200 million dead, whatever. The number of leftism-caused deaths don’t matter when there’s Republicans wanting to ban late-term abortions lurking about. Which seems to be the gist of this useless article.

          1. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

            I was given very similar estimates by a history prof at ultra-liberal Linfield College, so I don’t suspect these are overly biased because of a particular hatred of socialism. And I am not even counting the number associated with colonialism, just the socialists.

            You may have heard lower estimates previously, but there were a lot of records revealed after the fall of the USSR that has lead them to double the old estimates of 30 million that died under Stalin, including thousands of pages of ‘liquidation lists’ that “Uncle Joe” was proud to sign himself.

            As we speak, there are millions of Muslims being detained in Eastern China. How many of them will ever make it out?

            1. How many by Denmark, Sweden and the Netherland?

              Here;s the problem. If you want to traffic in hysteria by bullshit.
              Then they will equate Hitler with all of the right .. which they already do … and why it’s all so useless.

              And it says you have no idea how to defend liberty — to those who aren’t.

              1. Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands aren’t socialist.

        2. the death of 200 million of their own citizens…As long as you refuse to acknowledge that the verifiable legacy of socialism is death on a scale in the hundreds of millions, then there is no value is discussion with you.

          I did not realize that. Thanks for the info. Do you have any more specific data on how many of them were killed by Medicare for All? Hell I’d have a bit of a problem with even 10 million deaths. But hey 3 million starts getting a bit more reasonable depending on how yummy the omelet is.

          1. You *really* need a new drug.

            1. He’d kick your ass even worse.

          2. It would be nice if you would actually choke just based on the sheer volume of your bullshit.

            What does economics tell us? Subsidize it and demand rises. The market already rations healthcare by price, so the idea that the government will NOT have to ration it when there is already more demand than the market is willing to supply at any lower price is willful ignorance. Name one valid criteria for access to healthcare. Even if you could, I can virtually guarantee that will not be the criteria that ends up getting used. As with every government program, healthcare will go to those who have pull. People will be denied care or die waiting for it. Just like they do in every socialist shithole everywhere.

            You continue to be all fallacy and no fact.

        3. Socialist governments oversaw the death of 200 million of their own citizens in the last century.

          A tiny percentage of them.

          Likewise, it was only a tiny percentage of the political right who built those gas ovens to slaughter Jews.

          An even tinier percentage marched in Charlottesville, launching both violence and murder.

          (Libertarians have long rejected both left and right, both of whom are now fewer than 40% of Americans, combined.)

          1. Likewise, it was only a tiny percentage of the political right who built those gas ovens to slaughter Jews.

            The gas chambers were mostly built by slave labor and forcibly recruited military personnel.

            Hitler’s ideology and political agenda was progressive. And Hitler was democratically elected and his policies enjoyed widespread support in the population until Germany started losing the war.

            1. I am SO sorry … I should have been more careful. I did not mean to imply that Hitler did all that single-handedly .. or that anyone would assume such a thing. Please forgive me.

              Hitler’s ideology and political agenda was progressive.

              Uhhh, that was Mussolini’s left-wing fascism. Hitler’s was right-wing fascism. The Authoritarian Right — the subject of this article — have long tried to say fascism is left-wing ,… because they are fascists.

              Left-fascists are like communists — for the worker (unions) — also called Guild Socialism Right-Fascists are similar to crony capitalism — for the corporations.

              And Hitler was democratically elected

              Oh.
              Irrelevant to this, but …. Oh.

              1. Look at those evil right-wing authoritarians that redefined Nazi-ism as right wing. Yeah, that’s it.

                Fascism in all of its forms was and always has been of the left. As usual they have a history of 30 years and conveniently redefine any past transgression as not being true leftist thought.

                1. You are engaging the Hihnfaggot. It won’t go well.

                2. Fascism in all of its forms was and always has been of the left.

                  Depends what kind. Which I explained immediately above you.

                  I deflection an Olympic sport now?

                  1. Fascism is collectivist. ALL of it. German OR Italian OR Spanish.

                    The right is anti-collectivist.

                    Next.

    2. “If I’m reading this correctly, the author is comparing the left’s clear enthusiasm for authoritarian socialism with some unclear, unnamed evil that may be harbored by some people on the right?”

      He is comparing an entire movement in the democratic party to a couple conservative intellectuals and a tv host. And the implication is that many conservatives hate freedom. Very honest journalisming

      1. “If I’m reading this correctly,

        You seem to be, but are massively confused on politcal ideologies.

        <blockquote? the author is comparing the left’s clear enthusiasm for authoritarian socialism See? Is Sweden authoritarian? Denmark?

        with some unclear, unnamed evil that may be harbored by some people on the right?”

        It is named, but with a word you don’t know. And they are a major faction in the right.

        He is comparing an entire movement in the democratic party

        The same Sweden blunder,

        to a couple conservative intellectuals and a He is comparing an entire movement in the democratic party to a couple conservative intellectuals and a tv host.

        We can start with the Christian Taliban and … that’s enough to prove you wring.

        And the implication is that many conservatives hate freedom.

        Uhhm no. Like the extreme left they THINK they love freedom which is a major part of their mind control. Thus, they are both mostly quite self-righteous .. like when those on the right deny equal rights to LGBTQ people, under a bastardized form of Christianity. Or conned into believing “God intends procreation to be for reproduction,” which requires flunking high school biology!

        Very honest journalisming

        You have proven him correct. All down this page. And I’ve tried to explain why.

        1. Go away Hihn. No one wants your raving mania here. Best you leave before your mental condition deteriorates to full insanity.

    3. I’m afraid I have to agree here. I hate Trump’s tariffs. I disagree strongly with his immigration platform. But if I were forced to choose between a country with closed borders and 25% tariffs on foreign goods and a country gleefully implementing Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, I would go for Trump’s america in a second.

      On the other hand, there is a reason to be concerned. Instapundit has gone full on down the closed borders, pro-tariff, anti-silicon valley path. The National Review has gone from rebellious anti-drug-war liberty-adjacent to pro-culture-war nonsense. The Trump vs NeverTrumper fracture is really an argument about who gets to carve up the beast- both sides have abandoned liberty principles for populism.

      Again, I agree that right now, the GOP is the lesser weevil, but without a strong voice of liberty, I don’t see that lasting for another decade.

      1. I’ll also note that the people fighting for liberty on the Conservative side also tend to be Never-Trumpers, or at least have found themselves lumped in with that group through their criticism of Trump and their friendships with actual subversive NTs. I speak of personalities like Goldberg and Williamson. I don’t think they are perfect, but since the GOP has adopted this “With us or against us” mentality, you can’t be critical of a Trump decision without being lumped in with NTs.

        It really does feel like the Civil War. Decent people on both sides of that conflict ultimately had to align themselves for or against slavery, often because of totally different reasons (state sovereignty, loyalty to family, etc). Likewise, Trump has polarized the field. Many people on both sides of the camp don’t agree with his immigration or trade policies, but they find themselves at odds merely over their allegiance to a populist former democrat from New York.

        1. The same liberties such as lack of due process? Embracing government overreach? those personalities?

          1. Umm, who commits such atrocities?
            To homosexuals ?
            Pregnant women?

      2. Its the massive, fucking stupidity of the GOP that has allowed progressives to win on every policy issue, in the court of public opinion.

        It’s not enough to piss, moan and sneer about socialized medicine, they need an alternative. Something better. It’s kinda pathetic that they have NO alternative to Medicare for All … and I am PISSED at THEIR threat to my liberty.

        I don’t see that lasting for another decade.

        It’s been dying ever since Reagan, went full corpse under Dubya. And Trump!

      3. “Instapundit has gone full on down the closed borders, pro-tariff, anti-silicon valley path.”

        And Reason has gone full on down the welfare state path, the censorship path, and the ends justify the means path.

        “Again, I agree that right now, the GOP is the lesser weevil, but without a strong voice of liberty, I don’t see that lasting for another decade.”

        Which sure as hell ain’t Reason.

    4. Pretty much summed it up.

      When I decided the LP was hopeless, and was looking for a major party lifeboat, I took a hard look at both major parties. Neither of them is libertarian.

      But the left trends totalitarian, and the right trends authoritarian, and that’s a freaking big difference. It’s no accident that enthusiasm for gun control is a left wing thing. It’s no accident that the left is doing the deplatforming, is trying to cut its foes off from financial services.

      The right, fundamentally, wants its way on a limited list of issues. I don’t agree with all of that list, but it’s a short list.

      The left, fundamentally, wants its way on EVERYTHING.

      1. Totally false on “everything.”
        The right excuses its authoritarian compulsion with a leadership-driven self-righteousness. Exactly like the left.

        Each BELEEBS they’re defending a fundamental right. Health care is one of many for Bernie. Guns are one of many on the right, plus all the phony “God intends” nonsense.

        1. Go away Hihn.

          1. ([posted in response to multiple aggression by a serial stalker,

            Thanks for proving the point of this page!

            RISING CONSERVATIVES ARE AS HOSTILE TO FREEDOM AS THE LEFTISTS THEY DISDAIN


            Republicans, who have gleefully warned the public about Democratic flirtations with socialism, shouldn’t be quick to gloat given the emergence of an anti-freedom movement on the Right.You ilk has been burning witches and books, censoring speech and general oppression since colonial America, 200 years longer than the American left.

            McCarthyism.

            Your bullying ALWAYS fails, but you still log on to post 50 or more assaults per day … censoring no one … which makes you a loser for all to see.

            A page search shows you’ve logged onto this page 10 times,for the sole purpose of attacking me. Thus showing everyone that your greatest is … me.

            Keep losing Righty But why do you get so much satisfaction from being a thug?

            Please attack us more!

            c

      2. “I took a hard look at both major parties. Neither of them is libertarian.”

        You pick which half you want.
        The R’s want to deregulate business, but get government’s nose all up in your sex life. The D’s want to regulate business, and get the government out of people’s sex lives.

        We went a couple of generations without a Depression thanks in part to Glass-Steagall. Gramm, Leach, and Bliley decided to ditch Glass-Steagall, and we got the Great Recession. It’s almost like business regulation is a drag when things are headed up, but also a drag when things are headed down.

        1. “but get government’s nose all up in your sex life. The D’s want to regulate business, and get the government out of people’s sex lives.”

          Those nasty righties are the ones holding back OTC birth control and forcing porn actors to wear condoms. The left is at least as controlling of your sex life as the right, just in different ways.

          “We went a couple of generations without a Depression thanks in part to Glass-Steagall.”

          We went a couple of generations without a depression thanks to dumb luck until the government decided again that it could centrally plan an economy of housing and that printing money at the federal reserve will finally work. It’s almost like government is a drag when things are headed up, and a boat anchor when they’re headed down.

    5. I love that two WRITERS having a spat is equated with a POLITICAL PARTY booing socialism not being an answer plus advocating a wide array of freedom-slaughtering bills.

      Good to know non-candidates French and whomever the other guy is are as relevant, politically, as the vast majority of the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES.

    6. Intellectual honesty means admitting that both parties want to control the population, albeit in different ways. Trump wants to be in charge of the price of goods, adding a tariff here and there to achieve a price that he thinks is “fair” to American companies. A lot of Republicans want to ban abortion because they think society would be better off if everyone followed their religious views. Trump is a big fan of eminent domain because his business as a property developer is made a lot easier by being able to compulsorily purchase other people’s land. Both parties are pretty happy about the war on drugs (at least things are starting to change there), the PATRIOT Act and various stop-and-search type laws.

      1. Or …. both are authoritarian. Thanks for the thoughtful comment, guy. 🙂

  7. “You just had to bring the blue bonnet, didn’t you, bitch?”

  8. So one example is a splinter group of republicans who want to abandon their long standing principles of freedom (chuckle) in exchange for culture war.

    The other example is that socialism and culture war is mainstream among Democrats.

    Totally the same thing.

    1. Back in the ’80s, when the culture war people really had a chance at some influence, you could see some real benefits on the left.

      Socialism and communism were still dirty words, even in the Democratic Party–and at least they were pro-free speech, right?

      Now that socialism enjoys enthusiastic support in the Democratic party, from top to bottom and now that Democrats represent the biggest threat to free speech, now I’m supposed to be worried about the danger conservative culture warriors present to libertarian ideas–despite the fact that they’re on the brink of extinction?

      No fucking way that’s realistic.

      1. This is Reason’s first piece on ..’if Democrats are authoritarian global socialists, the republicans are the exact evil as anti-authoritarian global socialists”. Voters look at Democratic controlled states and cities and are pretty horrified at the living conditions, taxes, overcrowding, K-12, union pensions and potential public health crisis. The dems are a fucking disaster and they are now desperate enough to equate click bait ‘writers’ or media personalities on the right with the very real infiltration of authoritarian socialists into the political party we call the democrats.

        1. Voters look at Democratic controlled states and cities and are pretty horrified at the living conditions, taxes, overcrowding, K-12, union pensions and potential public health crisis.

          If it’s all such a disaster, then why do so many people freely live in these cities?

          1. Poor people don’t live in those cities “freely”, they live there because they are dependent on the government handouts. Rich people live there because they like being plantation owners.

          2. The wealthy isolate themselves from the density of the low income, low productivity masses, hire armed security guards and exempt themselves from density bills.. Marin County as an example. State run capitalism, or the China model is in, freedom and local control is out.

        2. Would rather live in most blue states than Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama or Mississippi. There are plenty of people living in cities (and most cities are blue rather even if they are in red states) that are not living in horrible conditions. Taxes vary widely across both blue and red states. K-12 education is the best in the nation in blue-state suburbs. Your individual living conditions depend on your social class, not on your party affiliation. If you are making plenty of money taxes are not the be-all end-all of where you choose to live.

          1. I prefer legislative purple states. The suburbs are in the crosshairs of progressives in blue states- they’re coming after you. And yes, taxes will matter when they reach New Jersey property, New York income and property and California income levels. Short of the fed buying muni bonds, they will go after you for the state pensions shortfall or debt per capita, that is if the state legislature is one party rule -Democrat.

        3. Educate yourselves. Libertarians have been saying this for 50 years.

          Republicans want government out of your wallet but into your bedroom.
          Democrats want government out of your bedroom but into your wallet
          Only libertarians defend all your values, economic and personal, whatever they may be … if you’re pay the price. The price is that you defend the same for everyone else. Grant TO them what you want FROM them. .

          Liberty is a mutual aid society, not a member’s only country club.

    2. It’s not just mainstream for the Democrats, but they’re beating any among their ranks who disagree into submission. One can have qualms about the ongoing debate going on among the right, but at least it is a discussion instead of a beatdown. As such, there’s a chance for the right to turn back but not as much so with the left.

      1. Are you saying that Trumpists and the mainstream Republicans have engaged in “discussion”? I guess if you consider shit flinging “discussion”, then OK.

        1. If you call that “shit flinging” (and I’m not disputing that), then what do you call the leftist lynch mobs that come down on anyone that questions The High Values Of Leftism like a ton of bricks?

          1. I think the term “lynch mob” covers what leftists are doing nicely.

        2. What the fuck is a Trumpist? Point to one, just one, in these comments. Every argument I have ever seen you post is completely and utterly fallacious. To you and your ilk, anybody that attacks socialism is a Trumpist.

          Flinging shit has worked, fantastically btw. The socialists turn purple and you can suddenly see them for the partisan hacks they really are. That doesn’t make me a Trumpist, it makes me someone who read The Art of War, you ignorant piece of socialist crap.

          ALL FALLACY, NO FACTS

          1. What the fuck is a Trumpist? Point to one, just one, in these comments.

            LC1789, Last of the Shitlords, and Nardz, off the top of my head, as far as full-throated supporters. You’ve also got guys like Ken Schultz who feels the need to tie himself into pretzels every day talking himself into supporting Trump.

            But yeah – I’ve never noticed any content to “Trumpism” other than “Orange Man Good Because Drives Lefties Crazy.”

            1. I’ve never noticed any content to “Trumpism”

              Exactly. You don’t have to be a supporter of Donald Trump to appreciate what the presence of President Trump does to the proggies and the establishment. They cannot resist revealing themselves by denouncement or disclaimer. Trump is the interruption that we desperately needed to shed light on the ‘business as usual’ of dividing up the carcass of the American Dream between party elites while throwing the bones to the globalists.

            2. As opposed to Reason writers and some commenters who have to contort themselves daily to justify “both sides do it.” Shall we go down the list?

              Government investigations are good because they can prove you innocent.
              Abortion is good because otherwise we all will have to pay higher taxes to support more welfare.
              Any incremental reform of the welfare state is bad because it isn’t full reform, but any incremental reform of social issues is good because reasons.
              Private censorship is good and “owning the libs” is “vile.”
              Bake the cake because it’s the law (but if we don’t like laws then we can ignore them — I can see why you like this point)
              Income tax cuts are bad because we have a deficit and the government is entitled to our money, but tariffs are tax increases which are also bad because… wait.

          2. What the fuck is a Trumpist?

            He told us.
            Anyone who would support him, and lie for him, even if he shot siomebody to death in broad daylight

            One signature trait of his administration is his demand for absolute loyalty to … him.

            In principle, just like the Bernie-ists. A cult.

            1. You raving bullshit was old last year.

              Go back to the mental asylum.

    3. I question whether or not the SoCons are actually a “splinter group” in the Republican Party. IIRC they were huge policy drivers on that side of the isle up until a few years ago.
      I also question just how prevalent the Socialists are on the Democrat’s side.

      One’s bent on these issues is likely warped by the echo chamber they occupy. This is an issue that increasingly worries me. You see a lot of extremely (mis) informed people becoming increasingly certain of their viewpoints.

      1. “”I also question just how prevalent the Socialists are on the Democrat’s side.”‘

        There’s like five of them.

        1. 5 Democrats left?

          Dayum.

        2. There’s like five of them.

          ^ This. My industry (public construction in California) is chock-full of Democrats. It’s the default. To a person they are very anxious about the leftward lurch of the Party and leap at the opportunity to assert that they are not Socialists. This anxiety is aggravated by the fact that they don’t see Trump’s Republicans as a viable option, and so fear that their going to “have to” accept whomever wins the Dem primary.

          I think this is the secret of Biden’s growing popularity – everyone knows that he only pays lip service to things like the Green New Deal and would make for the most ineffectual president since Ford. In the current Democratic field, those are the best virtues to be found.

          1. the most ineffectual president since Ford

            What happened to Carter? Did they discover some legacy we were previously unaware of?

            1. Carter actually accomplished some deregulation. I know of nothing accomplished by Ford, but that’s not really a criticism of Ford – by his own account he never wanted to be President and spent his term warming the chair. That’s the kind of President I can root for.

          2. This seems to completely fly in the face of the fact that Bernie is a self-proclaimed socialist and is a very popular figure within the party. Maybe he wouldn’t be able to win a Senate race in every blue state, but he’s got decent odds at winning the nomination for the democratic party.

            1. Bernie is a self-proclaimed socialist and is a very popular figure within the party

              Yes, but his support comes from a very specific and very vocal and active sector, not run-of-the-mill, everyday Democrats (in my limited observations).

              Public school teachers seem big into Bernie & Warren, and the college kids, but I know a lot of self-described “market-oriented” Democrats who think the left wing of the party has gone completely insane.

              And like I say, the concern is that someone like Bernie or Warren will win the nomination and moderate Democrats won’t feel like they have any choice but to vote for them.

              1. And it’s also important to remember that when Bernie says “I’m a Socialist,” what he means is “I’m a New Deal Democrat.” But the truth makes him sound like the intellectual fossil that he is.

                1. when Bernie says “I’m a Socialist,” what he means is “I’m a New Deal Democrat.

                  EXACTLY. Bernie’s version of “socialism” isn’t Stalin. It’s FDR. FDR did a lot of bad things, but it wasn’t ZOMG COMMUNISM either.

                  It is so obvious what the right-wing is doing. They are playing their usual bogeyman games – find an opponent, distort it into a caricature of monstrous evil, and direct everyone’s hatred against that figure. They did it with Obama and Hillary, and now they are doing it with AOC and Bernie.

                  1. FDR did a lot of bad things, but it wasn’t ZOMG COMMUNISM either.

                    In fact, I’ve had more than one actual communist tell me that the point of FDR was to assuage the working classes with just enough crumbs to avoid having a communist revolution here. They spat upon his name and sang the praises of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, because those guys were at least honest capitalist imperialists who were hastening on the Revolution rather than trying to prevent it.

                    find an opponent, distort it into a caricature of monstrous evil, and direct everyone’s hatred against that figure

                    That’s just politics. It’s exactly what the Dems are doing to Trump and the alt-right, too.

                  2. No, it was fascism. And that is precisely what most of the demo candidates want again. Warren has a plan!

                    Precisely how outraged were you when dems ran ads showing Paul Ryan literally throwing grandma off a cliff?

                    All the right-wing is “doing” is merely repeating what the dems themselves are saying. Or will you now claim that the gop forced AOC to publish the GND? That it forced them to submit Medicare for All?

              2. Just stop. You’re smarter than this.

                Eighty-five percent of Democrats said they strongly or somewhat supported a Medicare-for-all health insurance program, but just 27 percent thought it should completely eliminate private insurance.

                Now if you want to hang your hat on that 27%, go ahead, just don’t accuse Ken of being the only pretzel maker here.

      2. The old-school SoCons are dying, yes. The ones that watch 700 Club all day and think that God creates hurricanes to punish gays. That isn’t ascendant anymore.

        The new SoCons, represented by people like Ahmari, are ones who aren’t based on Biblical teaching and just makes up their morality as they go along in an ends-justify-the-means rationalization to “destroy the Left”. That is the more dangerous faction.

        1. The old-school SoCons are dying,

          Quite obviously, they have more political clout than ever.

          Trump panders to them far more that actual fundamentalists/evangelicals like Carter and Dubya. Also more than Reagan, who also wore his religion on his sleeve, but NEVER supported their agenda. He was a major defender of gays int the 1970s, long before Clinton shamelessly signed both DOMA and DADT, and even longer before Obama evolved.

      3. You see a lot of extremely (mis) informed people becoming increasingly certain of their viewpoints.

        Like the viewpoint that socialist governments killed 200 million of their own citizens in the last century? Like the viewpoint that China and NorK are doing it as we speak?

        That is not a viewpoint, it is a fact. Socialism has killed more people than every religious war in history.

        You lie and lie and project partisanship and insular thinking upon others and then lie some more. Fuck off and go corrupt the discussion somewhere else.

        Trolls gotta troll…

        1. Tu quoque piggy?

          1. Tu quoque piggy?

            You use the words without understanding what they mean.

            Point to my lie, asshole. Point to my partisanship. I can’t refute an argument you never actually made, but only implied. My argument is right there and you never even address it.

            The only thing you have brought to the conversation is the stench of failure.

          2. LOL. Let’s see, 2 people critical of my posts come back to an older thread and post within 1 minute of each other. Is Eric Chemjeff or is Chemjeff Eric?

        2. That is not a viewpoint, it is a fact. Socialism has killed more people than every religious war in history.

          Shame on you. False negative stereotypes for an entire group is the very core of bigotry.

          How many were slaughtered by Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands? Thanks for showing everyone what the title of this page is all about.

  9. There is a word for what’s ailing Greenhut’s article: “bothsideism”.

    “False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

    The Republicans do NOT represent an equal threat to libertarian capitalism by virtue of the fact that, like the Democrats, they are also not libertarian capitalists.

    1. +100

      “Bothsideism” is a great word to describe the Left’s attempt to drag the Conservatives down with them.

      Its an attempt to make the Democrat Party seem normal. Their agendas are not. They are not nationally popular.

    2. You are right, that Republicans don’t represent the same magnitude of threat to libertarian capitalism that Democrats do.

      But Republicans represent a different type of threat to liberty overall.

      I don’t think anyone honestly claims that both Republicans and Democrats are equally bad. Rather, that they are both bad in their different ways and that there is no reason to have to put up with either shade of bad.

      1. And you’re free to have that opinion until you get put into a democrat sponsored re-education camp, where you’ll learn that anyone against the progressive dogma is evil

        1. Yes yes we know. Cognitive distortion justifies any outlandish fantasy, such as Sanders being equivalent to Stalin.

          I’m not going to vote for Bernie, but if he did happen to win, I’d bet good money that he wouldn’t institute gulags.

      2. I don’t think anyone honestly claims that both Republicans and Democrats are equally bad

        Jeffy, shitting your pants in the middle of a conversation will get you attention, but not the good kind.

        We are going to have to put up with someone. The one who is less likely to destroy free markets is the obvious choice.

        1. I plan on voting for the candidate who is less likely to destroy free markets. That candidate is probably not going to be an R or a D. I don’t have to select either the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich. Get it?

          1. We get it…anyone but Trump.

          2. I don’t have to select either the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich. Get it?

            And yet, one of them will represent your nation. It still matters which.

            1. To you it might.

  10. No matter what you say, we must choose the shitty right over the shittier left. Our very lives are at stake here, people! Can’t you see that the loony left wants to completely destroy our way of life? How can you not be against that? How can you not prefer the long, slow, spiraling descent in shittiness over the cliff dive into the heart of it?

    1. I don’t think anyone honestly claims that both Republicans and Democrats are equally bad,?

      Hey, Jeffy, Sparky wants you to hold his beer.

      1. the shitty right over the shittier left

        Note the comparative suffixes.

        1. How can you not prefer the long, slow, spiraling descent in shittiness over the cliff dive into the heart of it?

          Note that the end result making the comparison completely irrelevant. You really have no talent for argument.

          Anyway, both of you are wrong. The ‘bad’ policies of the right are of short term effect and susceptible to being overturned if they prove intolerable, i.e., tariffs and immigration. The ‘bad’ policies of the left will subject citizens to ever-increasing nanny-state regulations that will destroy the economy and potentially subvert US sovereignty, i.e., Medicare-for-all, free tuition, and the Paris accords.

          I can tolerate paying more for stuff assembled in China and mowing my own lawn. I can’t tolerate massive tax increases, blackouts, and riding trains with filthy hippies.

          1. Oh good heavens. You cite the Paris agreement as some hideous conspiracy to take away American sovereignty? It wasn’t even a binding agreement! It was a list of suggestions and unenforceable promises.

            The bad policies of the left, and the bad policies of the right, are both approved by the same mechanisms of passing legislation. One is not more permanent than the other. Medicare can be repealed tomorrow by a vote in Congress and signature of the President if they so choose. Same with tariffs. Same with immigration restrictions. You’re deliberately exaggerating the threat from the left and minimizing the threat from the right as a cheap rhetorical trick. It’s called gaslighting.

            susceptible to being overturned if they prove intolerable, i.e., tariffs and immigration.

            Just like on the left, the right will not tolerate rescinding the tariffs or relaxing immigration restrictions unless they think that their goals has been met – but the goals that they are intended to meet are impossible to achieve on any practical level. The left will not tolerate EVER reducing the welfare state because they are always able to find some anecdotal story of someone who fell through the cracks of the welfare state, necessitating in their view more of a welfare state. Same deal with the right and immigration. They will, now, not ever support a more open immigration position because they will always be able to find an anecdotal example of some illegal immigration behaving badly which in their minds justifies taking away even more liberty from everyone to stop that one case. You minimize the burden of immigration restrictions reductively as just simply “mowing one’s own lawn”. The deprivations of liberty represented by immigration restrictions represent a far greater threat to this country than some stupid unenforceable international agreement in Paris.

            1. It’s called gaslighting.

              I am not trying to make you think you are crazy, I am trying to demonstrate you are ignorant. Your incorrect use of ‘gaslighting’ is a perfect example.

              You’re deliberately exaggerating the threat from the left and minimizing the threat from the right

              I am? The USSR, China, NorK, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezula, all have actually happened within my lifetime! They all started out ‘for the good of the proletariat’ and ended up with millions dead or starving. When socialists lose control of the economy and people begin to starve, they have no choice but to implement a police state. There is simply no equivalent to this threat.

              You minimize the burden of immigration restrictions reductively as just simply “mowing one’s own lawn”

              For you. You won’t listen anyway and it clearly annoyed you.

              some stupid unenforceable international agreement in Paris.

              Again, how can be so ignorant? Every single Democrat candidate has endorsed the Paris agreement and parts of the GND. Every one. They believe that crock of shit and will labor to commit the US in every way they can.

              It is not unlikely that the establishment Rs will shift us towards a police state, but I guarantee you the left will get us there much faster.

              1. I’m the ignorant one? You are the one who claims that somehow, leftwing policies are more permanent than rightwing policies, even though each one is enacted by the same mechanism and may be repealed by the same mechanism. We should be more afraid of leftwingers because they have some super-secret way of imposing their will forever and ever, while rightwingers only have a merely transient ability to do some things for short periods of time.

                I am? The USSR, China, NorK, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezula, all have actually happened within my lifetime!

                Why yes they have! But you keep using those examples as if they are substantively relevant to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Do you think they are stalking horses for Stalinism and Maoism? I don’t support their policies, but even if they were enacted, I think what would be the most likely result is that the US would be more like a European welfare state. Not a positive development, but not the Soviet Union nor Maoist China either.

                And here’s the thing. More people than you are willing to acknowledge are smart enough to pick up on this duplicity. They see Elizabeth Warren campaigning for ‘free’ college tuition (like they have in Germany, by the way – not exactly a totalitarian hellhole), and instead of people seeing a reasoned rebuttal or objection to this plan, they instead see you screaming about SOCIALISZMS and GULAGZ. They can see very plainly that free college tuition would not lead to death camps. So why WOULDN’T these people just tune out what you have to say and vote for Lizzie? You haven’t given them any *good* reason to vote against her! You discredit the anti-socialist cause by blowing up everything and exaggerating every government program as if they are all equivalent to gulags and death camps. We could use a more REASONable objection to ‘free’ college tuition proposals, than just screaming our heads off about the Soviet Union all day.

                Every single Democrat candidate has endorsed the Paris agreement and parts of the GND. Every one.

                Okay, and? Are you going to argue against the merits of these ideas? Or are you just going to scream about socialism and gulags?

                Here is a truly radical idea: Let’s see if we can discover the motivation behind these plans, the problems that they are intended to solve, and come up with alternative ideas to solve these problems in a manner that doesn’t involve taxation or state coercion. What do you think? Could it work? Oh but that’s hard, it’s much more fun to generate outrage by screaming about SOCIALISM all day.

                1. You’re the moron who won’t accept that regardless of permanence which policies have killed or enslaved far more people.

                  1. Do you have anything intelligent to say in response to my comment? No? Oh then, never mind.

  11. The answer is to reject both left and right. Both sides are authoritarian by nature. Screw ‘em! You control YOU. That’s it. You don’t get to decide what’s best for me and for anyone else. This concept is deeply offensive to everyone on the left and the right, who so long to control others “for their own good.” This is why I can’t respect them, much less vote for any of them.

    It’s bizarre that more people around here don’t know about the Nolan Chart.

    1. Once the Democrat Party implodes, Libertarians can step into the void and challenge the GOP on social conservatism and fiscal responsibility.

      1. Keep dreaming that dream.

      2. That is the dream

    2. Well, thank you for that. I have seen that chart. Many times. I was just unaware of who had come up with it. Thanks.

      1. I was just unaware of who had come up with it.

        It was the late Michael Hihn.

          1. What the hell does “libertarian left” mean? Someone who wants big government programs that leave us alone?

            1. In the context of that chart, it means socially liberal, economically authoritarian.

              1. So, not libertarian?

                1. Libertine, like Bill Maher. Lots of freaky sex, with no personal responsibility

    3. The answer is to reject both left and right.

      Bingo

      Stop arguing about which tribe is worse. Both tribes are bad enough!

      1. So precisely why do you jump to the defense of one tribe if you think they are both bad?

        Revealed preferences, what are they again?

        1. Here is a news flash. Pointing out the hypocrisy and lies of the right is not the same as defending the left.

    4. Neithersideism. Word.

    5. It’s bizarre that more people around here don’t know about the Nolan Chart.

      The new Hihn-bot will be along shortly to edumacate us.

  12. ‘French-ism’? Come on.

    There is an ideological battle on the right, but it doesn’t concern the debate cited in the article–that is two intellectualists in ivory towers trying to hit each other with tomatoes. THEY care very much. But they are having the fops version of the debate.

    The real debate is, and has been, for quite some time, about how we fight back.

    Do we accept the status quo, wherein polite Republicans and folks on the right play by the rules the left has created to hamstring them–which moves us towards the goals of the left at a slightly slower speed.

    Or do we take off the gloves, unsheath the steel, and lock and load and fight the left on the battlefield they use–a strategy that keeps bringing those who use it victories?

    Victories, I might add, that line up far more frequently with what libertarians want than the losses-painted-as-victory that so-called ‘left-libertarians’ trot out to defend their support of policies that openly disdain liberty.

    I must confess, I would much rather have arguments over nuances in policy once the path to hivelike communism is completely destroyed and the entire philosophy discredited and rotting on the trash heap of history like it’s vile siblings, fascism and national socialism than this endless vacillitation that only serves to slightly slow the drag towards the left and the doom that it contains.

    1. That was Ahmari’s point, exactly

      1. And it’s valid.

        I view “mainstream Republicans” like the 3rd Republic French military after World War I. They had the ability to EASILY quash Hitler before anything happened…but they were so afraid of causing problems they, instead, did nothing until it was too late to do anything.

        Conflict, sometimes, is necessary. Accepting bullshit doesn’t make the bullshit stop coming…it, instead, invites more of it.

      2. I have no clue who Ahmari is and haven’t read the pieces from either. What I can say is that I don’t trust Reason to accurately cover anybody even remotely right-leaning (and that includes Jordan Peterson, Carl Benjamin, and other moderate left people). What I can say is that coming from the right, French has been considered a RINO for well over a decade. He espouses some conservative principles but abandons them the moment the left pushes. He’s the type who is more likely to fight against “his side” and for the other side’s position.
        Another issue involves the original meaning of “alt-right”. At first it was conservative/libertarian leaning people who were done with the right just rolling over and letting the left win their incrementalism. It was about digging in and actually fighting at the same level that the activist left engages in. French represents the opposition to that. That is what I’d call intentionally losing or “controlled opposition”

    2. Indeed, that’s exactly it. It’s like being mugged in a alleyway, and somebody complains that it’s uncivilized of you to kick your mugger in the balls.

      We’re in a fight with people who will, eventually, progress to marching us into camps. It’s a fight they’re winning, have been winning most of my life, because the people who ought to be their opposition are too concerned with fighting clean.

      Sadly, I think the fight might have gone too far their way to beat them back with anything short of civil war, because they’ve been allowed, without any more than nominal opposition, to take over all the high ground of cultural transmission. Either we recapture at least part of it, and soon, or we’ll be overrun in the long run.

      I’m old enough I probably won’t see the inside of one of those camps if we lose. I worry for my son, though.

      1. See, that’s just it–we HAVE been nearly overrun.

        The migration to bitchute and minds and gab and tiktok and all the rest has begun.

        And, if it actually completes, we’re going to see the shift–the same one we see with FOX. Their sites will be struggling and failing to get views, while those on the other side will flourish–because they’ve been banned from ‘polite society’.

        They don’t understand that FOX beats them, and conservative talk radio is a ratings leader BECAUSE they’ve been marginalized.

        They also refuse to notice that the numbers show that they’ve actually lost the culture war. They’ve passed laws, and gotten what appears to be their way because people are going someplace else.

        It’s nearly impossible to ignore them in the media–but it’s pathetically easy to avoid them at the level where people actually socialize.

        They’re in a bubble whose skin is made of diamond, with a one way mirrored inner surface.

        WE are all forced to look in–but they can’t see out.

        And it is because of this that civil war looms. They do not understand that most people don’t like what they’re doing– because the only people they let themselves see are nodding in agreement.

        When Trump is re-elected they are going to crack completely. That will be the moment that pushes them into real violence.

        We have 18 months to ‘win’ enough that this doesn’t happen.

        How do you make the deliberately blind see when they’ve torn out their eyes?

      2. +1000 Brett

        1. yes Brett and Azathoth …

      3. We’re in a fight with people who will, eventually, progress to marching us into camps.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion

        If you really think that Elizabeth Warren is just Stalin in a skirt, then get help.

        I’m not going to vote for her, but I”m also not going to believe in falsehoods about her either.

        1. If you really think that Trump is Hitler, then get help.

          You’re willing to believe an awful lot of falsehoods if it involves the right people.

          1. I don’t think Trump is Hitler.

            Do you think Warren is Stalin in a skirt?

    3. Or do we take off the gloves, unsheath the steel, and lock and load and fight the left on the battlefield they use–a strategy that keeps bringing those who use it victories?

      So what does “take off the gloves” and “unsheath the steel” actually mean in a non-metaphorical context?

      1. It means calling them out on social media and disenfranchising them, like they do.

        Leave the snark to the professionals, kid.

        1. Calling them out on social media? That doesn’t sound terribly radical.

          “Disenfranchising them”? What do you mean?

          1. Dictionaries are tools of Communist oppression. Do you know that Stalin used a dictionary? Do you? Dictionaries led to 200 million dead – that’s far more than thesauri and cookbooks combined! Even now, dictionaries are wreaking misery in the extensive gulag system of totalitarian Denmark and Norway.

            Plus, I’m pretty sure they make you gay.

          2. Calling them out on social media? That doesn’t sound terribly radical.

            Is that why you were whining about telling journalists to “learn to code” as harassment?

            1. I think it’s harassment to send thousands of tweets to journalists who have just been laid off, to rub it in their noses, yes.

              Do you think it would be harassment if it happened to you?

              Is that what you mean by “calling them out”? Being total dicks and assholes to your opponents? Then no I don’t think that is particularly a wise or good idea.

    4. I would much rather have arguments over nuances in policy once the path to hivelike communism is completely destroyed

      Okay, so how do you plan on “destroying” the path to communism? Are you going to start imprisoning people who advocate communism? Perhaps in something like camps?

      “Oh no, that isn’t what I meant. I was just speaking metaphorically.”

      Okay then, so what is your plan to “destroy the path to communism”?

      1. What is it with you leftists and always wanting to set up camps, Jeff? Communist gulags, Nazi concentration camps, Chinese, Cambodian and Vietcong ‘re-education’ camps–and Roosevelt’s ‘internment’ camps. I think you’ve got a fixation on killing people who can’t fight back.

        Because I never said a word about camps, Jeff. Not even metaphorically.

        Communism MUST be treated as what it is, Jeff.

        A murderous ideology that does nothing but kill in it’s quest to make people act by it’s made-up precepts.

        People who espouse it should face the same penalties and ridicule that those who espouse fascism and national socialism receive.

        They should be treated like the gibbering fools that they are.

        The philosophies and policies of the left have killed more, destroyed more and deranged more than any other ideology in the history of the planet.

        Adherents watch them commit heinous crimes on their rise, and mass murder as they fail and STILL insist that this is a workable idea.

        And it fails EVERY time it’s tried. It’s precepts, used piecemeal, fail EVERY time they’re tried.

        We have 18 months to do peacefully what we’ve failed to do since this idiocy first burst forth from the minds of indolent ignoramuses.

        When Trump is re-elected they –you– will go mad.

        And then we will long for the day when taking off the gloves, unsheathing the steel, and locking and loading were just a metaphor.

        Like Ken, I fear, more and more, that we might be past the point of no return. I hope that we have the strength to make it a short war, and the strength to make sure that, in the future, such a hideous ideology can never rise again.

        1. People who espouse it should face the same penalties and ridicule that those who espouse fascism and national socialism receive.

          Okay, so what is your plan to achieve this?

          Yell about everything and call it all socialism?

          Marxist socialism has killed millions of people, yes. We don’t have Marxist socialism in this country. We don’t have anything close to Marxist socialism in this country. What we have are people who call themselves “socialists” but who want something like a European welfare state. What we have are people who think FDR had the right idea. I *don’t* think FDR had the right idea, but I also don’t think he was a Marxist socialist. Do you?

          1. Oh, Jeff–you’re almost there.

            Say it with me, Jeff,

            SOCIALISM has killed millions of people.

            Say it.

            Mao wasn’t Marx, Hitler wasn’t Marx, Mussolini wasn’y Marx, Lenin wasn’t Marx, Stalin wasn’t Marx, Castro wasn’t Marx, Bolivar wasn’t Marx, Chavez wasn’t Marx, Pol Pot wasn’t Marx

            And I can keep going and going.

            What we have, Jeff, is people who think they can live inside Santa’s bag of presents and have everything they want. THAT’S what they’re calling ‘socialism’.

            Why?

            Because that’s how it’s described. Socialism promises everything it forbids when people actually try to put in practice.

            At Pride last weekend there was an ISM booth, all decked out in rainbows and ‘impeach trump’ signs. No one asked what life is like for LGBTQ people in countries that implement socialism.

            But when you DO ask LGBTQ people who’ve escaped it for the US, they’re more than happy to tell you about the repressive policies they were forced to live under.

            Socialism has killed millions of people. It has failed horrifically everywhere it’s been tried. And socialists LIE to get people to follow them.

            1. SOCIALISM has killed millions of people.

              But that’s not true, if you are referring to “socialism” broadly as a concept, and not narrowly as a type of Marxist implementation of state ownership of the means of production.

              1. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                And this is why you fail.

                ALL of it Jeff, in EVERY possible interpretation. ALL.

                It ALWAYS ends in mass death because it’s intrinsic to the ideology.

                1. How many millions were killed by Sweden, Denmark and The Netherlands?

  13. So after years of trying to sell the public shitty policies like open borders “because freedom!!”, you’re surprised that people have decided maybe freedom isn’t such a hot idea, after all. Yeah, funny how that works.

    Nice going!

  14. Populist right > Bolshevik neocon right
    I prefer economic illiteracy to imperial warmongering and constant caving to leftist cultural hysteria

  15. It’s a bizarre argument given that cultural conservatives lose every culture war that they fight.

    When I glance left to modern feminism, #Metoo, safe spaces and cancel culture, I think they might have won more than we give them credit for.

    1. It certainly appears to be a ‘full circle’ kinda thing.

  16. That nebulous term, “common good,” drives me crazy. It means whatever people in charge of the government say it means.

    Google and Facebook are here to hold your hand and let you know what the “common good” is. As soon as your account is deleted, you’ll know you stepped outside its boundaries.

    1. They don’t delete anything.

      To be sure they’ll lock you out, and your presence will effectively die, but they will still sell your bones for whatever they can get.

  17. Yeah, no. There’s nothing remotely bad about the Republican party compared to the Democrats.

    1. there could be

  18. I’m amazed Reason has avoided praising French’s “libertarian impulses”.

    1. concept fail.

  19. “Even mainstream media writers in the New York Times and Vox . . .”

    Full disclosure; there are no mainstream media writers at either socialist publisher. There are full on socialists, and extreme socialists. With a smattering of fascists called ‘balance’.

  20. Libertarian zealotry is zealotry like any other.

    Realize that liberals value economic freedom. It’s one of the primary aspects of liberalism. It just isn’t zealous, i.e., it doesn’t think the pathway to economic freedom are retarded simplistic slogans and giveaways to rich lobbies. Consider, for a moment, that perhaps you are the stupid ones.

    1. it doesn’t think the pathway to economic freedom are retarded simplistic slogans and giveaways to rich lobbies.

      You really don’t pay much attention, do you.

    2. Consider, for a moment, that perhaps you are the stupid ones.

      Stupid people can’t consider their ignorance. It’s evil people that won’t.

      [holds up mirror for Tony]

      1. Damn, I’m beautiful.

        1. Damn, I’m beautiful.

          So, you and Trump do have something in common…

    3. There does seem to be a disconnect between what I think is a rational understanding of the word “freedom”, and the more colloquial understanding of the term.

      Genuine freedom really is “freedom from”. What individuals choose to do with that freedom is their own concern.

      But I do understand the argument that a person is not truly “free” unless the person has the resources to actualize that freedom. I understand that feeling. But it is a feeling, not a rational understanding of the term ‘freedom’.

      IMO it would behoove libertarians to explain how people can create their own ‘freedom’ through smart decisions, so that everyone else’s actual freedom isn’t eroded through well-intentioned but nonetheless coercive taxation and redistribution schemes.

  21. “Even mainstream media writers in the New York Times and Vox”

    Hey…wasn’t Vox the outfit trying to kill monetization of YouTube because one of their writers had his feelings hurt?

    Yeah, they are so much better about freedoms and all…

    1. Dear Steve,

      your resume will sit unread, no matter how many kisses you blow Vox’s direction.

    2. And the New York Times claimed Youtube was radicalizing people to the right, even using over-the-top phrases like, “I was brainwashed,” when writing a story about a traditional conservative who became a liberal.

      He went from right to left! And NYT claimed the story was about how he was radicalized to the right!

      1. Everybody knows Ben Shapiro is TOTALLY down with the alt right…

        1. He’s like their spokesman. The alt-right are such huge fans of prominent Jewish media figures.

  22. The photo at the top of the article discredited the narrative before it could start. Nothing in the article made it any better.

    Libertarians are more interested in their “Right and Left are equally bad!” narrative than they are in any actual libertarian principles.

    1. ^^^^

    2. Reason libertarians sure love them some identity politics.

    3. (lol) That IS a libertarian principle!! duh
      And your comment proves why.

  23. It’s a bizarre argument given that cultural conservatives lose every culture war that they fight.

    Greenhut prefers you don’t fight. Just lie there quietly while the pillow is held over your face. You’d lose, anyway, so don’t fight back. Shhh, shhh. It will all be over soon. Shhh.

    1. Libertarians have always opposed all sects within the Authoritarian right. Which tends to spawn rage and anger from their authoritarian loyalists.

      But that’s why God invented libertarians to defend Individual Liberty! And our mantras, such as: Left – Right = Zero

      1. Nobody uses that mantra but you.

        1. (snort)

        2. It’s because they’re both authoritarian. Here’s just one recent review, on Reason.
          https://reason.com/2018/02/19/busybodies-battle-outbreaks-of-freedom

          Libertarians is the polar opposite of authoritarian.
          We explain THAT as government having only two opposing purposes, generally speaking. To defend individual liberty, or to impose its own values on everyone.

          Left and right both seek to impose their on values, both by force, and both with a self-righteousness fervor (which is how they justify their power-lust) .

          1. Libertarians is the polar opposite of authoritarian.

            Too bad you, Hihn, are the opposite of a libertarian as well, though in your case, it seems to be more rooted in ignorance and senility than bad intentions.

            1. They they nasty when they’ve been TOTALLY humiliated. JW made a TOTAL fool of himself on libertarianism .. with even crazier lies when his idiocy and bullying were so massively ridiculed.

              https://reason.com/2019/06/14/rising-conservatives-are-as-hostile-to-freedom-as-the-leftists-they-disdain/#comment-7819708

              The modern version of their burning books and witches, McCarthyism and more .

              For any newbies, cyber-bullies don’t care how big an ass they are.
              Their sole purpose is attack and censor.

      2. But that’s why God invented libertarians to defend Individual Liberty

        Hihn, however, is financed by statists to give libertarians and liberty a bad name.

        1. Is that why you made such a total fool of yourself here,
          https://reason.com/2019/06/14/rising-conservatives-are-as-hostile-to-freedom-as-the-leftists-they-disdain/#comment-7819708

          So now your punishing me, poor thing,
          But this does win you today’s trophy for the absolute most psycho claim of the week just endimg.

  24. Shorter Greenhut:

    The dark night of non-socialism (and bugbears under the bead) is forever descending upon the people who refuse to support Democrats.

    1. So … according to you, Hitler merely refused to support … Jews.

      The KKK merely refused to support … blacks

      Ron Paul merely refused to support … gays …
      (when he sponsored a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS to even CONSIDER any challenges to DOMA, the first group forbidden to defend their constitutional rights since slavery.
      https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/ron-paul/to-protect-marriage/)

      Thanks for clarifying!

      1. One of these things is not like the others.

        You’ve literally compared an anti-centralist Congressman who wants everyone to be equal under the law with a mass-murdering dictator and a violent racist organization.

        1. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

          That was ridicule … and quite intentional … a mirror of his own tribal idiocy … now matched by your own homophobic fascism.

          who wants everyone to be equal under the law

          I have already PROVED you wrong,
          Because you DARE to defend his blatant fascism toward homosexuals …, but they’re just fucking faggots to your ilk.

          How large is your Klavetn?

  25. I saw the title and assumed it was about Reason’s commentariat.
    The left are not the only precious snowflakes, raging against non-conforming views.

    Left – Right = Zero

    1. We were looking for someone to explain the Nolan chart…

      1. They don’t even know it exists, or what it’s said for 50 years.
        And since over 60% of Americans now self-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, they aren’t looking for it either.

        1. And since over 60% of Americans now self-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, they aren’t looking for it either.

          So they are not actually libertarians, but instead self-interested statists with certain policy preferences.

          1. Do we believe a stalking psycho, a hostile conservative per the page title? Or the Cato Institute?

            http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2007/libertarian-voters-2004-2006
            “In all of these calculations, we use a broad definition of libertarian. … We asked half the sample, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”

            KAPOW!

            Rising Conservatives Are as Hostile to Freedom as the Leftists They Disdain

        2. So, you won’t explain the chart.

          Do you even know why you want the kids off your lawn any more? The grass is mostly gone and there are weeds everywhere.

          Grumble, grumble…
          And I was actually interested in finding out about the chart…

          1. Oh, damn, I just thought of a better sign-off.

            Hihn – Sanity = Zero

          2. So, you won’t explain the chart.

            DIVERSION.
            It proves my point.

            Google it.

    2. I saw the title and assumed it was about Reason’s commentariat.

      Right?

      I miss the old days… before Trump… this place was so much fun.

  26. You’re reading this wrong. Anti-freedom has been the default stance among conservatives for many decades. What’s changed is that that is increasingly being rejected by younger conservatives, while younger progressives and “liberals” are becoming increasingly anti-freedom.

    Of course, Reason has trouble seeing this because Reason writers tend towards anti-freedom conservatism themselves.

    1. Of course, Reason has trouble seeing this because Reason writers tend towards anti-freedom conservatism themselves.

      PROVE IT!
      You have been called out
      Your hatred for libertarianism, and ignorance of us, has been displayed all down this page. Typical Authoritarian Right, trying to deflect their guilt.

  27. Ahmari’s frustration seems to be that classical liberal principles are not doing a good enough job protecting social conservative institutions from being driven from the public square by social progressive totalitarianism. Unfortunately, abandoning classical liberal principles will only expose those institutions more, unless social conservatives control the culture.

    Part of the problem is that social libertarians in large part do not seem to have the stomach to defend a classically liberal tolerant public square against their erstwhile allies on the left.

    1. Unfortunately, abandoning classical liberal principles will only expose those institutions more, unless social conservatives control the culture.

      That’s far from clear. Historically, socially conservative societies developed into classically liberal societies. No other form of social organization has ever developed on its own into a classically liberal society; not progressivsm, not socialism, not anarchism.

      Political liberalism is only possible within the context of a widespread culture of voluntary individual social conservatism and functioning private civic institutions.

  28. Individual autonomy, small government, free markets. Those are pretty easy to understand.

    Whatever conservative or liberal means today they abandoned those ideas long ago,

  29. my god the writer is an intellectual dilettante

  30. If we assume for a minute that Republicans and Democrats both want to limit freedoms in the same quantity and to the same degree(which a lot of posters have already pointed out is highly doubtful) the the reasonable thing to do is to look at exactly which freedoms each group is proposing to limit to determine which is the lesser of two evils.

    Hypothetically if you had one group which was entirely about removing economic freedoms( I could do what I want, but I needed to hand over a huge chunk of income to the government, and was forced to by health care, insurance, education, etc. from government sources) and you had another group which was entirely about removing social freedoms(I could keep almost all of my own money, but I had to live under a strict social construct which I may not agree with), which would I choose? I personally would choose to keep my economic freedom, in a heartbeat. Why? It’s pretty simple. Revolutions require one thing above all else, money. Money is power. History has shown time and time again that they way you keep a population subservient is by keeping them poor, hungry and disarmed.

    This is a gross simplification of the parties. For example it seems like a large number of Democrats are not for social freedoms any longer, while a large number of Republicans are also not in favor of economic freedom, but in broad strokes if those are the two options I’ll take my economic freedom thanks. Also note that Republicans are generally in favor of the populace retaining their arms, which is another big check box checked.

    1. Or, you could not endorse either one of the liberty-grabbing tribes.

      1. Indeed. In fact I have gone back and forth a dozen times in life between choosing a someone closer to my ideal candidate vs. choosing the lesser of two evils between D and R.

        You could make a argument that liberty minded people joining one of the major parties and bringing it a more libertarian direction has a larger overall net effect than voting for a Libertarian candidate and losing over and over again.

  31. “Even mainstream media writers in the New York Times and Vox wrote about the dust up.”

    The NYT and Vox love catfights among conservatives. Such infighting would give progressive journalists visible erections, if their penises were large enough to be visible.

  32. The “common good” includes a hefty dose of freedom.

    Or so Reason seems to believe judging by its other articles.

  33. There is practically no anti-freedom movement. Out of billions of people in the world, there aren’t more than a handful who thing freedom is a bad thing per se — who would say that and mean it seriously. Nobody says it would be a good thing if freedom were reduced, even if it achieved no good end and even made things worse. Nobody looks at a situation and looks first for improvement by asking, how people can be made free, and then decides whether the loss of freedom would be worth the gain of some evil or the loss of some good.

    What you have is that nearly everybody values freedom positively, but some place a very low value on it relative to other goals. They’ll trade a lot of freedom to achieve what we might think are trivial goals but which they value more strongly. They’re not anti-freedom, they’re just not pro-freedom as strongly as you are.

    1. I think what you mean is that a lot of people are willing to give away freedom to do things they didn’t want to do, or couldn’t do, in the first place. In other words, to give away OTHER PEOPLES’ freedom.

      For example, all the people who want to limit the freedom of people to get abortions.

      The fact that I don’t want an abortion, or a gay marriage, doesn’t mean I want to be told that I can’t have one.

      1. Just like people like you who want to limit my freedom to execute tried and convicted murderers. Just because I may not want to perform an execution doesn’t mean that I want to be told that I can’t.

        I’m sure you oppose that limitation on freedom as well.

        1. “Just like people like you who want to limit my freedom to execute tried and convicted murderers”

          You seem to have confused me with somebody else, with whom you’re having some sort of disagreement. Why don’t you go wrap that up, and then come back here?

  34. “Rising Conservatives Are as Hostile to Freedom as the Leftists They Disdain”

    This is not news for non-partisans. It should be reacted to with a resounding “duh”.

    1. ^^THIS …. ^^THIS …. ^^THIS ….^^THIS

      And we’re the new majority. For now, a voiceless majority.

  35. Why are there so many articles on this blog that try to squeeze in as many logical fallacies as they can, and are generally full of shit otherwise?

    1. Name a few, so I can humiliate you.
      Or you’re just another whiner.

  36. Allowing corporations to exist, under strict government control, is pretty much the definition of fascism.

    1. When the government owns all the corporations, that’s Communism.
      When the corporations own the government, that’s Fascism.

    2. True (to CE)
      Throw out the government control. Next?

  37. The looter press has since 1941 blinkered the simple fact that conservatism is christian national socialism, a.k.a. fascism. Not even Orwell dared spell it out, but the example of Nazi-dominated Vichy France and fascist Spain serve warning. French “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” became “Work, Family, Nation”. Franco was el caudillo de Dios (God’s Own Dictator) and Hitler’s 1920 platform and 1933 Enabling Act speech were grounded in christian altruism. And yes, they were at daggers’ points with other socialists, just like in These States.

  38. You know what unfettered free market capitalism is? American companies selling bombs and bullets to the highest bidder during WWII, whether they be American, German or Japanese.

    1. Do you know what lunacy is?
      A severe hatred for humankind Apply that to crime and unfettered liberty would have people murdering each other in massive numbers.

      What you say has never happened. Here’s what DID happen with unfettered socialism … democratic socialism. I’m not a righjt-wing psycho who says (in effect) that Denmark’s and Sweden’s socialism murdered tens of millions

      Let’s do health care. Canada and UK

      In 2005, Canada’s medicare was ruled an “unconstitutional threat to human life,” citing all the Canadians who died on waiting lists of a year or more. The case wa.

    2. Yup.

      I love me some capitalism… But there is more to the world than economic markets. Autistic libertarians miss this a lot of the time.

      IMO the main reason nobody gives a shit about libertarian opinions on a lot of things is because they’re retarded… Putting something like international freedom of movement before the right of a people to maintain their culture and civilization… Most people think it’s absurd that they don’t have a right to maintain their way of life. In short people value other things more than weird, quirky, extreme forms of freedom.

      I certainly do for a number of things. Like open borders crap. Having some level of morality in international dealings. Not dealing with nations that are TOO shitty or TOO dangerous to our long term interests.

      None of this is to say the current way we’ve been doing things makes any sense, merely that the 100% purist libertarian idea is equally if not more retarded.

  39. Part 2

    … The case was a Quebecker who needed a hip transplant. His waiting time was … unknown, but OVER A YEAR,. If you’e too young to know, a transplant means he was already suffering severe pain … for over a year, exact date unknown.

    That was in Quebec, but their medicare is the same across Canada, and it was caused by cutting the federal share funding to all promises. On that ruling, their Court granted a hold –a threat — to withhold judgment on their federal plan, allowing time to repair thew damage. Under force … by unelected judges .. federal restored out equivalent of two trillion. Google Chaoulli v Quebec. In 2005

    In England, google the Keogh Report, their equivalent of our Inspector General, found thousands of people had died, abandoned in unattended hospital rooms, many found in their own excrement. Funding cuts had forced layoffs of thousands of hospital staff.

    BTW, as a libertarian, I know BOTH parties are wrong on health care.

    Here’s what your tribe lies about. Government health care means betting your life, literally, that politicians, faced with tight budgets, will NEVER cut our benefits and ALWAYS increase our taxes!

    If you aren’t laughing like hell at the possibility of politicians doing that, how’s your nursing home?

  40. Difference is the percentages. Most conservatives are awesome on 90% of issues… Most Dems are awful on 90% of issues.

    Therefore they’re equal???

    That may be Reason’s take, but not a sane persons. Also as has been pointed out if we’re stuck getting one of two extremes, if the left wins we’ll end up with 1950s USSR… If the right wins we’ll end up with 1950s USA… Which one of those options do you REALLY think is better?

    I know the choice any sane person would make…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.