Bernie Sanders

How Bernie Bros and Trumpistas See Their Guys Is Really Weird to the Rest of Us

The editors of the left-wing magazine Jacobin and MAGA-loving artist Jon McNaughton don't let reality intrude on their hero worship.


The hard-left magazine Jacobin makes no secret of its love for Bernie Sanders, who rarely (if ever) is criticized in the journal's pages. In fact, they dig the socialist Vermont senator so much they've made a poster of him straight out of Mussolini's cult-of personality playbook (Il Duce staged bare-chested photos of himself threshing wheat and skiing the Alps, among other things).

Does it matter that the 78-year-old millionaire recently had a heart attack and is one of the least athletic-looking figures in national politics? Not to the Bernie Bros at Jacobin. The cover is graced by a stylized image that is reminiscent of the art deco (a style in vogue internationally during the reign of Mussolini) and figures "Bernie and the Squad" as cyclists about to blow by Sleepy Joe Biden and Goofy Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie's domestiques (hey, why are women doing all the support legwork?) consist of, from left to right, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib (I assume that the fourth member of AOC's squad, Ayanna Pressley, was dropped from the illo because she has officially endorsed fellow Massachusetts resident Warren for president). Showing some serious entrepreneurial chops, Jacobin is selling poster-size reprints of the cover for just $14.95, plus shipping and handling. They've only made 200 copies, so get yours now.

Of course, it's not just progressives who fetishize their strongmen. Jon McNaughton, whose website describes him as "an established artist from Utah whose new paintings have attracted the international attention of millions over the last few years," makes a living selling paintings of Donald Trump that walk the line between ultra-earnest kitsch and winking self-parody as expertly as Philippe Petit danced between the World Trade Center's Twin Towers back in 1974. McNaughton is nothing if not prolific and it's hard to choose a single image to represent the way he depicts Trump as superhuman. In one painting, for instance, Trump is roughing up former FBI head Robert Mueller. In "MAGA Ride," the president is riding a red-white-and-blue chopper with First Lady Melania Trump along for the ride like any other biker chick.

His most recent work on the Trump theme is "2020 Ride" and shows Trump taming a bull that represents…the American people (that would be weird, wouldn't it)? His Democratic opponents (whom McNaughton shows cheating at cards in "Democrats Playing Poker")? Who knows? In keeping with the sports motif of the Jacobin cover, here's a McNaughton piece from the summer:

If you're interested, McNaughton provides a key to the hapless players Trump is running through like they're the 0-10 Cincinnati Bengals:

Goal line: President Trump, Closest to Trump: Cory Booker, Three on the ground: Bill de Blasio, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Next row of four: Bernie Sanders, Richard Blumenthal, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Referee and three blue players in the back: Not telling!

If we've learned anything over the past 20 or so years, it's that politics is capable of destroying everything it touches. When it comes to the most ardent supporters of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, it shouldn't be surprising that politics completely shreds their artistic judgement.

NEXT: Doorbell Surveillance Networks Have Arrived. Should We Be Scared?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Worshipping any politician is sick.

    1. Well, Obama deserved to be worshiped. He won a Nobel Peace Prize, created the strongest economy ever, and never put kids in cages.


      1. Correct. He just deported them.

        1. “just deported them”

          After locking them in cages.

      2. Where do kids belong, if not in cages?

      3. And he was dreamy, and he could croon songs, too.

        1. This is what he ACTUALLY BELIEVES

      4. You seem fetishize cruel authoritarianism under Trump and justify it by noting that Obama indulged in cruel authoritarianism while he was President. This is a libertarian site… you understand that, right? Nazi dicks like you have a site over at Why don’t you go over there, fascist dick?

        1. Piss off with your fake outrage, Tony.
          Baby-killing, eugenics-fetishizing, Kirchenkampf-loving freaks like you are fascist in everything but name.

      5. Sorry… this was directed at you, dick

        You seem fetishize cruel authoritarianism under Trump and justify it by noting that Obama indulged in cruel authoritarianism while he was President. This is a libertarian site… you understand that, right? Nazi dicks like you have a site over at Why don’t you go over there, fascist dick?

        1. Please don’t liquidate another 100 million people, and control yourself, you’re bawling.

      6. And healed race relations. And Michelle classed up the nation.

      7. You don’t need to lock them in cages after you drone them.

    2. Anyone remember the Obama tee-shirts right after the election?

  2. While I certainly agree that Bernie’s cult of personality is incomprehensible, I cannot see why you would criticize Our Lord and Savior Donald J. Trump. Everyone knows He is perfect and without sin and no blame may attach to Him, for His wisdom and mercy surpasses understanding. Forever and ever, Amen.

    1. yeah we are after all just barely evolved chimps.

    2. And the poor helpless guy is a victim of the DEEP STATE.

      1. At least you finanly decided to stop pretending you weren’t trolling, Jeff.

      2. To be fair, we’re ALL victims of the Deep State— which if I’m following the current winds… now exists.

      1. That could come in real handy on the gold course.

  3. I’m not a supporter of either of either geezer, and I’m an ardent hater (detractor?) of both major idiotic parties and the numbskulls they field as candidates, but the first poster is the better one artistically.

    But then I admit I like that art style, even though I find Jacobin to be a ridiculous publication.

    1. Yeah, maybe, but the Trump painting is way funnier. It’s interesting, though, that both sides fetishize their pack leader by ascribing to him non-existent physical prowess. No doubt, if they could get away with it in this prudish culture, each side would show their hero with a cubit-sized marmoreal turgid member pointing at the sky and glistening with the sweet promise of impregnation.

      1. Or it is hyperbole intentionally. But better to assume everyone that disagrees with you is mental.

        1. Well, of course it is. It’s still really weird.

          1. No, it’s art. Stop with the weird shit, you sound like a retard.

        2. Hyperbole or just symbolism maybe even sarcastic with out believing they are capable of what they depict. some people take things to seriously.

          That said I think my sister thinks Trump is the best thing ever if not perfect. its wierd

      2. please stop giving them ideas, Chipper. For the love of all that’s good, don’t give them any more ideas

      3. Of course, that’s been going on ever since the day’s of Geo. Washington:

        1. Heck, the Romans aped the Greeks. Who did the Greeks imitate?

          1. I guess whatever people “Homer” was a part of. Homer (or the authors attributed as Homer) seems to have invented a lot of our modern ideas of heroism.

            1. Mycenaeans?

              1. Midi-chlorians, maybe. Those little guys were up in everyone’s business.

      4. “the Trump painting is way funnier”
        The best one, though, is the Democrats playing poker painting.

      5. Also that they use such old clothing styles. Don’t know when bicycling clothing changed, and it hasn’t changed as much, but both remind me of the 1920s and 1930s.

        1. McNaughton Is clearly referencing Norman Rockwell in a lot of his paintings.

        2. New law! If you see an old guy wearing spandex on a bicycle, you can now legally run him off the road. God, I love this time we live in!


      6. It’s not so much “both sides”, though, as a (possibly quite tiny) faction of each side.

        Now, I’ll admit that I’ve got a picture of Trump sitting on the throne of swords on the wall next to my desk at work. But that’s not because I think him kingly, but rather because I think it’s hilarious.

        Next to it I’ve got one of Stalin saying, “Dark humor is like food. Only some people get it.” and I don’t idolize Stalin, either. (Yes, my employer is rather hands off about how you decorate your office, so long as you get your work done.)

        But, anyway, it’s important to remember only a fraction of each side are actually part of the cult of personality in either case.

    2. I lean more right and think the Jacobin piece is just boring. The Trump one looks better and I think makes a better point.

      1. What point? That Trump is better suited to the leather helmet era?

    3. It would be fun if Mangu-Ward commissioned these artists to do some Reason covers.

    4. Art deco is totally rad, I’m a big fan. But I also like the art style they used for a lot of Soviet propaganda. Linework and politics are not the same thing.

  4. So, Jacobin prints constant propaganda articles and whatshisface makes silly Trump art that also serves as patriotic propaganda. Methinks the volume, reach, and depth of the two aren’t equal enough for much of a comparison. That said, I actually like the Teump football piece. Artistically, it’s appealing as a quality political cartoon. More than that, it kinda accurately represents the reality of how Democrats, media, and bureaucrats fall on their faces attacking him as he keeps moving forward.

    1. This is similar to the time meme machine stories journalists dont seem to get. A lot of it is trolling the left and people find it hilarious. It isnt worship of trump. It isnt a thrill up the leg like chris Matthew’s and Obama. It is what will get a rise out of the idiot left. Even works on Reason editors.

      1. I hate auto correct sometimes… “trump memes machine”

      2. Did you make the same arguments about the weird nude obama on a unicorn thing?

        1. Laughing hysterically at Obama is getting a rise out of the right?

          Stop Zeb. You’re making a fool of yourself.

      3. If you really wanna troll the left, Jesse, you should make a video of yourself deep-throating a huge plastic dong while staring up at a picture of Trump. That will surely get them all riled up!

        1. Why bother when what he does obviously already works on you.

  5. What do these two septuagenarians have that would really interest anybody? Both have relied on anger and resentment in their messaging. Neither has presented truly workable ideas. M4A is just another version of Mexico will build the wall. I don’t understand how a thinking person would support either of them. Yet each has a following. What does this say about us?

    1. Please tell us the truly workable solutions you want that don’t involve government control.

      1. It is pretty hard in a modern first world country not to have a lot of government involvement. Government builds and maintains the roads. Provides police, fire protection, and for many sanitation. I count certainly go on but you get the point. The answer is not bigger government or smaller government, but instead smarter government. That is a government that does the minimum needed and does it effectively. Both Sanders and Trump are big government. Neither have effective ideas.

        1. Fuck off Tony.

        2. Get a load of how much this simp loves Government.

          Much scarier than loving the two ‘outsiders’ in the posters

          1. Outsiders? Really. One of these two held a government job most of his life. The other has used government to feather his own nest. He donated to politicians left and right. He used government tools like bankruptcy to clear his debts and leave his creditors holding the bag. You think there are outsiders because they shout and behave badly. Because they propose things that are totally unrealistic.

        3. “The answer is not bigger government or smaller government……… a government that does the minimum needed and does it effectively.”

          That sounds like much, much smaller government to me. Seems like you are arguing against your own point.

          1. I do think the government could be much smaller. I suspect I would have differences on the minimum needs from some others. For example, in a world where we have cruise missiles and drones, do we really need multimillion dollar piloted fighter aircraft. Alternatively, if we will treat anyone who comes into an emergency room is it not better to have health care coverage to provide care before we need to have that ER visit. Should we regulate soft drinks, no way. Should we subsidize corn syrup in the drinks, again no way.

        4. But won’t someone please think of the ROADS?!?!

          C’mon man, it’s a meme at this point. Try harder, I’m sure you can find something better.

      2. Like tariffs (which you still claim are not taxes) and immigration? Yes, more examples like that that do not involved government control.

    2. Part of it is attributable to voters willing to take “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to extremes.

  6. Jesus both of these just seems so tame and small potatoes after living through 8 years of Obama where AP photos would be published featuring messianic halos around his head without a shred of irony. This is always a problem, but it’s not that bad as it was.

    1. I mean it’s just relegated to Jacobin and a guy with 13k twitter followers. The Corporate medias level of love affair with Obama reached so many households and permeated all levels of their coverage. The only scandal he had was his tan suit.

      1. +100

      2. Just as CNN and its blatantly pro-liberal reporting is part of the mainstream media, isn’t Fox also part of the mainstream, big corporate media?

        1. That you think so is precious.

          1. So, you are saying you think Fox Corporation is not a huge corporation with millions of people following its news reporting?

            1. No, twit.

              He’s saying that Fox, while being a “huge corporation with millions of people following its news reporting” is not “part of the mainstream, big corporate media”

              You didn’t ask him if Fox was “a “huge corporation with millions of people following its news reporting”.

              You asked him if Fox was “part of the mainstream, big corporate media”.

              You moved the goalposts to an entirely different venue, in full view of the commentariat, in a single exchange.

              And you wonder why people think you’re a disingenuous prick.

              1. I changed the wording slightly, but my point stands. “With millions of people following its news reporting” is another way of saying “mainstream”, and “huge” is another way of saying “big”. My point is that there are big, mainstream sources of conservative-leaning news just like there are big, mainstream sources of liberal-leaning news.

                This means the narrative that conservatives are being persecuted by mainstream “fake” news is overblown. Conservative thought has plenty of their own big, widely-followed news and opinion sources.

                1. I changed the wording slightly, but my point stands.


                  You changed the meaning completely.

                  Having millions of followers means that you’re popular with those followers.

                  It does not, in any way, shape or form, mean that you are part of the mainstream.

                  But you knew that when you wrote it.

                  It’s why everyone calls you a disingenuous prick.

                  Because you are.

                  1. “Mainstream” is defined as what is normal or conventional. Donald Trump, a Republican, is President of the United States. The only way one can twist it so that Fox is not mainstream is to discount a huge Fox following because one wants to believe one is a victim.

              2. “He’s saying that Fox, while being a “huge corporation with millions of people following its news reporting” is not “part of the mainstream, big corporate media”

                Which is a contradiction. Is Fox a media corporation? Yes. Does it have millions of viewers, enough to qualify as mainstream? Yes. Does Fox therefore meet the definition of “mainstream, big corporate media”? Yes.

                1. Mainstream indicates proceeding as a unified body.
                  Is Fox News corporate media?
                  Is Fox News popular?
                  Is Fox News mainstream?
                  Not really.

                  One of the main reasons FN is so popular is that it takes a slightly different editorial position than other corporate media. FN is the only corporate news targeting those on the right, while leftist views are divided among multiple corporate media outlets.

                  Though… Fox News is something of controlled opposition

                  1. Basically what happened is that Rupert Murdock, though no conservative himself, was not particularly hostile to conservatives, he just liked money.

                    So he looked at a media environment where ALL the large players were catering to half the market, and said, “Cha-ching!” and created FOX to rake in money catering to the other half.

                    Not well, mind you, because not being hostile to conservatives doesn’t make you one, but better than outlets that were consciously the enemies of the right.

                    Now, of course, the next generation of Murdocks are taking over the family empire, and like happens so often, they grew up fat and happy, and have higher priorities than “Cha-ching!”, like the approval of their peers.

                    So, FOX is entering the media mainstream, and wouldn’t be an outlier at all if it weren’t that a stern chase is a long chase: They’re chasing a moving target as that mainstream races left with the Democrats.

                    I expect they’ll catch up by election time, and be fully on board with doing whatever it takes to elect the Democrat, though.

                2. Yes. Does it have millions of viewers, enough to qualify as mainstream?

                  “Qualify” as mainstream? What the fuck are you babbling about, sockpuppet?

                  You’re ‘mainstream’ when your opinion coincides with mainstream opinion. You don’t “qualify”. You don’t need millions of fans or followers. You just need to have, and espouse the same stances as the mainstream.

                  And that’s not Fox.

                  1. Is the current President of the United States a conservative or liberal?

  7. That Jacobin cover would be great in about 20 years for the wall of a hipster’s (or whatever they will be called then) apt.

  8. Trump is a vulgar uncouth businessman who will utilize the rules to benefit himself. That said, the unelected IC and State bureaucrats seeking to destroy him are far worse in every aspect. Something Reason refuses to acknowledge.

    1. My concern is that we’re headed for Civil War 2.0 and Reason is still rooting for the unicorns to fly to the rescue. Socialism simply cannot coexist with individualism and the Left (the Democratic party, their propaganda arm known as the MSM, their divisions within the Administrative State and the brain-washed masses within academia) are openly cheering for and actively working for the death of Western Civilization and all that it stands for. We can’t afford to be picky about our allies at this time and any enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      1. If Trumps actions were as dire as the interpretations of his words, I could see why reason would be scared. But they blind themselves over his words.

        1. I always ask people who really hate Trump what he has done that is so bad. They never have much of an answer besides teh way he talks and what he says. Sure, tehre are some real policy disgreements, but he’s not doing much of anything that isn’t in the standard political playbook.

      2. meh. We’ll probably be okay.

    2. Acknowledge is a what one does with facts. That one political group is worse than another is a value judgement; it is presumptuous to expect everyone to share that value judgement is a fact.

      1. Unaccountable government will always be worse than an accountable government. This shouldn’t need to be explained to you. It is the difference between a republic and an authoritarian state. We get that you don’t care about abuse by career government officials.

      2. So, Red Army Faction = Ross Perot, and Nazis = Republicans, and Pol Pot = Hubert Humphrey. No subjective value judgements here

        1. I’ll gladly make a pronouncement here that I don’t think Republicans are Nazis, or any of those other things.

      3. Acknowledge is a what one does with facts.


        That one political group is worse than another is a value judgement;

        This is not a fact. It is the opposite of a fact.

        One political group CAN factually be worse than another.


        Are all objectively worse than anything else that has ever been devised. Feudalism is preferable. The reign of ‘god-kings’ was preferable

        Objectively so.

        it is presumptuous to expect everyone to share that value judgement is a fact.

        Since it is not actually a value judgement it is not presumptuous to expect everyone to share the fact that has been related.

        1. Getting back to the precise subject we were taking about, are you claiming then that career Federal bureaucrats are worse “in every aspect” than Donald Trump and everyone should acknowledge that as a fact, like we all acknowledge that the earth goes around the sun as a proven fact?

          1. Yes federal bureaucrats are worse in every aspect than Donald Trump, marionette

          2. This is what we were talking about–

            That one political group is worse than another is a value judgement; it is presumptuous to expect everyone to share that value judgement is a fact.

            And how you were –and still are– wholly wrong.


            Getting back to the precise subject we were taking about, are you claiming then that career Federal bureaucrats are worse “in every aspect” than Donald Trump and everyone should acknowledge that as a fact, like we all acknowledge that the earth goes around the sun as a proven fact?

            –is something you pulled out of your ass to avoid admitting that you were wholly wrong.

            Because you’re a disingenuous prick.

  9. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

    …….. Read More

  10. Yeah–I mean anyone who puts politicians as worship figures has problems.

    But can these guys truly and honestly be 100% for reals?

    I mean seriously–drawing/painting either one of them–I’d start snickering and laughing. If there is 100% seriousness then we are just screwed eternally I guess.

    We can have technical and economic progress–but if too many human brains are overly wired for tribalism and hero worship–we’ll always have this crap.

    I have thought that politicians –if they are to be compared to any superheros–follow more closely in the captain underpants vein. TRA LA LA!

    1. Reason could have also brought up the works of Jum Kerry as a counter example to the pro Trump example (or a few NYT political cartoonists). I dont remember the media ever celebrating anti obama art work like they do with good old Jim.

    2. They are not literal. And beyond that, if Nick wants to claim that we shouldn’t worship politicians, and he is right we should not, then he needs to worry about the media obsession with politicians’ character. What is that other than saying that you care more about politicians you can look up to and hold in high esteem than you do their actual policies and performance?

  11. Looks like Kamala didn’t make the team.

    1. Couldn’t pass the drug test.

  12. These sorts of political posters have always been around. I don’t even find the Jacobin cover bad. It is an an analogy. For the life of me I can’t see why the right picked up on it. There are a lot of things to make fun of Jacobin over but that cover not one of them.

    I am starting to think that maybe everyone in the media is some kind of Aspy who is incapable of understanding irony, sarcasm, and metaphor. Does Nick not understand that Bernie supporters really don’t think he could win the Tour de France or that Trump supporters don’t actually believe he is physically running over his opponents?

    I am utterly dumbfounded how anyone over the age of 14 could find either of those posters “weird” or think they are anything but an attempt at metaphor. There seems to be something very wrong with journalists.

    1. Think back on the journalism majors you knew in college. Everyone I knew who ended up in that major failed their first major.

      1. Yes. Jobs in journalism are very hard to get these days. Being an education major is a more sure ticket to the middle class than journalism. Since money talks, as a rule journalism attracts a lower quality of intellect than education. Wow.

      2. A lot of those programs are closing down. School newspapers are disappearing. There have been tens of thousands of journalism jobs lost over recent years. A lot of that is people writing about national news.

        There had to be some competing forces at work in the past, where lefty news organizations were vying with each other for the same customers. In that kind of environment, you might try to be the lefty news organization your advertisers and subscribers want you to be.

        We’re in a different environment now. If you aren’t The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, or The Chron, then you’ve lost the war for lefty readers.

        This is mostly about the old monopolies breaking down–and, yeah, the newspaper business was a monopoly type of business for decades. The biggest barrier to entry was distribution. Before the internet, the only way a newspaper like the LA Times could invade an area like Orange County was to get the paper delivered to every house in Orange County or San Diego. If you didn’t have the distribution necessary to deliver a paper to every subscribers’ front door every morning, you couldn’t really compete–so there wasn’t much point in covering sports, local, etc. for Orange County or San Diego if you didn’t already have the distribution in place.

        When the internet let people read the NYT or WaPo from anywhere they wanted, all that monopoly money broke down. If I can read what’s being written by the lefties at the NYT or WaPo every morning, why bother reading what the local yokel wrote at the local paper? It ain’t a monopoly no more.

        If the locals were writing from a different perspective–say Republican or libertarian right–that would differentiate their product, but what’s the point of being a journalist if you can’t condemn the right for being on the right?

        1. Here are some stats:

          The dozens of jobs lost at those two outlets merely add to a 2019 that has seen over 3,200 people lose jobs in media already, including some 2,400 journalists.

          Those numbers are relatively mild compared to recent years. In 2018, media companies announced an astonishing 15,474 cuts, some 11,878 coming from news organizations, with both local and national outlets like Vice culling their staff, the worst year to date in what’s been a brutal decade for the industry. Since 2008, newspaper newsroom employees have seen their ranks slashed by 47 percent. Stretching back further to 2000, some 65 percent of newspaper jobs have disappeared, a greater percentage decrease than that of coal mining jobs over the same period. All that has led to a rash of recently coined “news deserts”: 60 percent of U.S. counties have no daily newspaper, with 171 counties boasting no newspaper coverage at all. It’s not just a rural or small-town phenomenon: Major metropolitan areas like San Diego have seen an 83 percent loss in the number of journalists.

          —-August 16, 2019

          They’re calling for congress to fund journalism of course–because if not enough people want to read their news from a left wing perspective, then the solution to rent seeking, I guess?

          Here’s a thought–how ’bout compete for the markets that under served by the leading progressive publications? As I’ve argued here before, the Gallup survey that tracks Americans’ satisfaction with the news media seems to track Trump real (rather than polled) popularity. When Gallup polled the approval rating of the press a few weeks before the 2016 election and it was at an historic low of 37%–and the news media was almost universally anti-Trump–is it any wonder that this proved to be a predictor of Trump’s win in 2016?

          If the press learned anything from that shellacking of their credibility, it isn’t apparent by looking at the coverage. If anything, it as biased against Trump and the right as it ever was–and according to the last poll by Gallup, Americans are becoming more disgusted with the news media all over again. In the run up to November of 2020, expect those numbers to plummet even further.

          There must be an enormous underserved market of frustrated news readers out there. There’s an old adage on Wall Street about how the easiest time for stock brokers to pick up new clients is after a crash–because all the investors are upset with their current broker. The fact that journalists and the people who hire them can’t see their own bias is well supported by the fact that they don’t leverage this situation by changing their stance. Left wing news is commodity product in an over-saturated market. Why else wouldn’t they lurch to the right to leverage the opportunities?

          One of the other explanations is that print media isn’t being owned by people who are mostly interested in the profits. Buying as media property as a hedge against public criticism by other journalists (who may want to work for you in the future) has been a defensive strategy since long before Buffet bought Disney, Bill Gates financed MSNBC (in the aftermath of the antitrust suit against MS), and Bezos bought The Washington Post.

          If we don’t think Bezos bought the WaPo because he thought their profits would exceed that of Amazon or contribute significantly to his personal bottom line, then he must have bought it for other reasons. If those reasons include paying off the progressive journalist community (who may want to work for him someday) not to be too harsh in their criticism of Amazon or Bezos, then that might explain why they keep pushing a progressive message despite the oversaturated market.

          1. Bezos might like solidifying those ties with the CIA as well

      3. Think back on the journalism majors you knew in college. Everyone I knew who ended up in that major failed their first major.

        I keep coming back to this; in my undergrad years it was openly discussed that, nationally, we were producing between 3 and 10X the number of journalism majors as there were total positions in the industry. Nurses were going to be in demand. IT was going to be a growing field. Law and trades were seen as being fields where you could make your own way. Journalism was consistently identified as being oversaturated and worthless and people still got the degrees anyway. All of this was before people were generally aware that the internet was to bring an end to print media.

    2. There is look at twitter.

      1. Twitter has done more to destroy the credibility of the media than anything in my lifetime. I wish I were the caliber of genius who could have thought of it as a means to destroy the media. Before Twitter journalists were always presented through the filter of editors and producers. This ensured they looked smart and reasonable. Twitter allows them to broadcast their thoughts to the world without that filter. Better still, journalists are so egotistical they have no idea how much editors and producers helped them. They all think they are geniuses with something important to say. So, here comes this medium that allows them to say it whenever they want without any filter. There was no way they were going to resist that. And the results have been pretty ugly. The world finally found out just who they were. That hasn’t been a good look for them.

        1. The internet destroyed the credibility of the media, simply by allowing a way around them, so that if they did something stupid they couldn’t successfully cover it up the way they used to be able to.

          Twitter is just another way of doing something stupid.

    3. It seems they do like irony, sarcasm and metaphor when it is the side they agree with dishing it out. When it is coming from another perspective they disagree with they get, or at least pretend to get, painfully literal and uncomprehending.

  13. This is much different from what I’m seeing in the mainstream press. They used to say that politics was show business for ugly people. I’m starting to think it’s more like sports for people who don’t like sports.

    People root for candidate these days for the same reasons they root for their favorite football team, and the news media that covers the candidates seem to cover them like they’re covering their hometown football team, too.

    Who should start at quarterback? The primaries are being covered like a quarterback controversy. In the end, they’re all rooting for the home team no matter who starts.

    1. I’m starting to think it’s more like sports for people who don’t like sports.

      There is a lot of truth to that Ken. I have been thinking something similar for a while now. I see this in the Never Trump right. None of them can really articulate why they hate Trump so much other than they just don’t like him and they want a candidate they can feel good about voting for. That is what they are really saying when they say ‘Trump has bad character’. They never give a reason why he does or why someone with bad character in some aspects can’t be a good public servant in other respects. It is just their way of saying they want a candidate they can feel good about supporting above and beyond whatever the person’s actual policies are.

      The best sports analogy I can come up with is Trump is to some Republicans what Tyreek Hill is to some Chiefs fans. Hill is one of the two or three best WRs in the league and next to the QB the most valuable player on the team. But Hill beat up his girlfriend back in college and was accused of beating his child over the summer, though it was later shown he was innocent of that. Even though Hill is a great player and as a player has never been a problem for the Chiefs, he works hard and does his job, some fans just can’t get over what he did in college. They don’t just want a good player they want someone they can feel virtuous rooting for.

      Trump is similar only the stakes actually matter. You can demand likable football players to root for because ultimately it doesn’t matter very much if your team loses. Politics, however, are a different matter. And people have brought this mentality of “I want virtue with my performance” to politics.

      It is all very unAmerican. The Founders understood that if your plan is to have virtuous politicians, you don’t have a plan. They set up a system of checks and balances because they understood that expecting virtue in politicians was a fool’s errand.

      1. “That is what they are really saying when they say ‘Trump has bad character’.”

        Bad character here means Trump’s mendacity, cowardice, pettiness, vindictiveness etc. It’s a lack of wisdom and virtue as you say. We follow sports teams not because of their character, but out of a sense of local loyalty for the most part. The analogy is silly.

        1. It doesn’t mean any of that. Trump has followed through on more of his campaign promises than any President since Reagan. The same people like you who claim that sit around and say people like John McCain, a man who campaigned promising to repeal Obamacare only to cast the deciding vote against it, or Obama himself a man who told the country they could keep their insurance if they liked it only to laugh about what a great lie it was later have “good character.”

          People like you are lying pieces of shit. Everything you say is the opposite of the truth. If anything bothers you about Trump is the fact that he tells the truth and follows through on what he promises. To someone whose entire life is built on lying, and yours is, that is like holy water on a vampire.

          1. People like you are very shrill and partisan. You just got through writing a post repudiating all politicians for their lack of virtue and the need to keep them in check.

            1. No. It just appears that way because you are a liar and anything that doesn’t conform to your lies is just “partisan”.

              1. People like you are still shrill and partisan. You haven’t changed a bit since your last response to me an hour ago.

            2. No, he’s right mlyingman.
              You’re a dishonest sack of shit.

              1. I’m a yawning dishonest sack of shit.

      2. People have given very specific, concrete reasons they dislike Trump.

        Personally, I have had a low opinion of his character ever since reading about the Vera Coking/eminent domain matter way back in 1993:

        I first read about it in Reason Magazine (and in Institute for Justice communications). I didn’t think about Trump much at all until he ran for President, and my opinion of his emotional maturity and sanity dipped again when he started petty attacks against Penn & Teller of all things. Here’s a man who claims to be a serious candidate for President, and he’s making petty, spiteful attacks on a pair of b-list entertainers.

        Still, I tried to give him a chance as President. Partially, that was a reaction against how extreme some of my progressive peers were reacting to his election (my boss at work came into a meeting late, crying that morning). But he has demonstrated over and over during his Presidency a lack of competence, lack of discretion, spitefulness, and willful ignorance.

        1. First of all, you never heard of that until someone told you about it likely this week. Second of all, whatever you think of that, you are making my point. Who cares what he did in 1993, what matters is what he is doing now as President. And if you agree with that, 1993 doesn’t matter.

          Mike, you are dumb as fucking post. As you always do, you completely miss the point and make a response that just proves my point without even realizing it. I don’t mind disagreement. What I mind is people like you that are too stupid to understand what is going on and just say stupid shit anyway.

          Just shut up and go away.

          1. You are proving Brandybuck’s point about the rudeness of Trump supporters here.

            1. Brandbuck openly begged Reason to censor his opponents, so his opinion is worth fuck all.

        2. “. But he has demonstrated over and over during his Presidency a lack of competence, lack of discretion, spitefulness, and willful ignorance”

          So, what’s your point? That this behavior be relegated to people like the last two Democrat presidents, who absolutely embody this statement? Because you’ve just as aptly described them.

          1. I’m no fan of Obama or the Democrats, either. I don’t know why it is so hard to grasp that someone who criticizes Trump cannot automatically be assumed to be a liberal, especially on a libertarian website where there is a long tradition of criticizing both Democrats and Republicans.

            1. No dumbass, its your constant water carrying for progs that makes you a prog.

        3. “my opinion of his emotional maturity and sanity dipped again when he started petty attacks against Penn & Teller of all things.

          When you write things like this in defense of the suggestion that this isn’t like football fans, it hurts your argument.

          I have some criticisms of Trump’s policies, too–mostly centered around immigration and trade. If you want to show us how objective you are, tell us some things you like about Trump.

          P.S. I grew up a Redskins’ fan from suburbs of DC. I can’t think of anything good to say about Troy Aikman. Donald Trump isn’t the quarterback of a rival football team, so I don’t think of him that way.

          1. “If you want to show us how objective you are, tell us some things you like about Trump.”

            I like his appointment of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, and think she is unfairly attacked by teacher’s unions.

            1. That’s A thing, and we don’t believe you.

    2. the start of the impeachment hearing were exactly like a football game with the announcers announcing each person just like they do at a football game it was embarrasing

    3. Isn’t there some old aphorism about how Americans confuse and combine sports, religion, and politics?

      1. The Cowboys are going to filibuster the hell out of those 7th Day Adventists this week!

      2. If Jesus hit a homer, congressmen would try to repeal the 3rd Amendment?

  14. At least they have the squad in Communist red.

  15. I actually think both the Jacobin and Trump-artist pictures are nice and non-fascist.

    With all the stuff Jacobin puts on its site, why focus on a bicycle race cartoon with their favorite politicians catching up to their less-favorite politicians?

  16. How Bernie Bros and Trumpistas See Their Guys Is Really Weird to the Rest of Us

    Very true. I don’t get much contact with Bernie Bros, but the Trumpistas on this site are unfathomable. They not even seeing the same world the rest of us see.

    They’re not conservative, and they’re certainly not libertarians. At best they’re knee jerk contrarians. Automatically gainsaying anything said. To the point that they will claim others have said things just to gainsay them. A failure of a Reason story to mock the article’s subject is seen as some sort of whole-hearted approval.

    My post will undoubtedly be mocked, that’s what they do. They cannot provide any cogent arguments for their stances, it’s all mockery and insult. Monkeys throwing poo. If I did not know better I would assume they were all fourteen year olds in their mothers’ basements.

    They’re why Reason needs some sort of moderation. Not for woodchipper posts, God bless the woodchippers. But for the utter rudeness of the posters. Satire and sarcasm is fine, but the Trumpistas can’t even rise to that, it’s just outright hatred.

    1. I’m a sworn opponent of the Trumpistas here, but I do think most of them are libertarian-conservatives: their political views lie somewhere on the spectrum between libertarian and conservative.

      I used to live in ultra-liberal Bay Area, but even there I only knew one Bernie supporter. And even he (mostly) bit his tongue once Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination.

      The worst thing about the rude comments, like the ones from that Ugh/Tulpa guy, isn’t the rudeness as much as that his comments clutter up the comments section with boring, content-free garbage.

      1. I work in what could be called Baby Bay Area North in a small town in California that I won’t name but was mentioned on Portlandia so you know its bad and there are a lot of Bernie supporters here and they are not quiet about there hatred of Hillary.

        1. Interesting. Portlandia may be more extreme than the Bay Area.

          1. Fuck off jeff

      2. The worst thing about the rude comments, like the ones from that Ugh/Tulpa guy, isn’t the rudeness as much as that his comments clutter up the comments section with boring, content-free garbage.

        No, that is the best thing about it. Some people are unworthy of a reasonable response. You are one of those people. You never make a good faith argument. You engage in every sort of logical fallacy and never concede even the most obvious points.

        Rude language is all you deserve. You will get reasonable responses when your arguments rise to the level of deserving one.

        1. Thank you John.

        2. John, Name one left-leaning poster here you don’t spit at in the comments. You’re lack of self awareness is telling.

          1. Fuck off, Tony. You’re everything you’re whining about.

      3. “I’m a sworn opponent of the Trumpistas here”

        Which is so pathetic that it doesn’t merit further discussion.

        1. I don’t mind.
          I’m personally a sworn opponent of all the ‘leftists’ here.
          I believe they are instinctive authoritarians, that their professed philosophies are closer to fascism than anything else, and that they conflate personal libertinism with libertarianism in order to fake concern for freedoms.
          I believe they are misanthropic garbage people.
          I believe that they are malevolent.

    2. Very true. I don’t get much contact with Bernie Bros, but the Trumpistas on this site are unfathomable. They not even seeing the same world the rest of us see.

      I think the problem is you are either stupid or being willfully stupid here. What world do you see that others do not? Nothing as far as I can tell. What I see is people taking positions you don’t like but can’t really refute. Instead of agreeing to disagree or gasp admitting they have a point, you just pretend they are crazy or are not seeing reality as a way of avoiding examining your own beliefs.

      If it makes you happy, good for you. But, understand whatever doing that does, it doesn’t make you smarter and it certainly isn’t making you persuasive.

      1. John, I have no right to complain if you sometimes take it to 11, but it’s another matter to turn the dial to 11 and super-glue it there.

        1. Not really, you can still shut the fuck up about it.

        2. I don’t always go to 11. I engage in reasonable back and forth all of the time. Look at the original posts I put on this thread. They are entirely reasonable. To the extent that I go to 11, it is always in response to some insulting stupid response to my post. When someone makes a reasonable response I remain reasonable.

          1. 11 when the fenders, Gibsons, Pearls, Ludwig, zildjians, Marshall and the rest went to 11.

            One thing aside from fried chicken, burgers, cars America did best was rock, blues, jazz, country you name it music. In this the soviet socialist republic could not even get close. They lost on that, Levi’s, cameros, mustangs, and cassette tape players.


    3. They not even seeing the same world the rest of us see.

      I agree wholeheartedly and am impressed by your open self awareness.

      It is a strange thing to encounter one so obviously–and, let’s be frank shall we?–sometimes droolingly delusional who admits that they live in an unreal state that is the creation of their defective intellect. You, and Mike, and Jeff, and Tony and all the rest of you take whatever falls from the diseased minds of your masters and blather it around as if it is truth–all the while moving, and interacting with people who see reality.

      It’s absolutely fascinating.

      But kudos to you for admitting it.

      Ha–look at me, posting as if I’m not aware that you’ll decry what I’ve said. Of course you will.

      You live in a fantasy.

      1. Correct, except counter arguments aren’t really Brandys thing – he just cries for Reason to censor people instead

    4. Oh, I don’t know Brandy. I kind of enjoy watching all these GOP monkeys flinging poo. You’re saying you would want to moderate all this Trump Cult worship? Why? I find it instructive about what we’re up against as libertarians.

  17. I guess cycling is more exciting than a more age appropriate “sport” for Bernie, like bingo or mall walking

    1. Because the Left is sick of old, rich, white people telling them how to live, remember?

  18. Flashin’ back to when Bernout bowed out and kissed Hillary’s ring (as he was always meant to do) and all his zealots could do for the next two years was proclaim, “HERE’S HOW BERNIE CAN STILL WIN!”.

    1. I don’t like Bernie, but he was pursuing a rational strategy to get the nomination.

      The nomination race was fixed, everybody could see that, and just Hillary’s reputation alone would tell you that anybody who made a serious attempt to beat her would be taken out SOMEHOW.

      But Bernie could run for second place, and wait for her to implode, as she always had a good chance of doing, and then he’d be the unavoidable replacement. THAT was something he could safely do, that stood a decent chance of ending up with him as the nominee.

      I guess his mistake was in not realizing that the party establishment was so tightly in her grip that even when she imploded they’d follow her over the cliff.

  19. Meh, on a Cult of Personality Scale from 1 (Harold Wilson, 1966) to 10 (Stalin, 1937) this rates at a 2. You are aware that people running for President frequently have had flattering images of themselves distributed— probably since George Washington. I mean, you have a situation where 10,000 or so Neo-Nazis and assorted loons get together in a stadium and ritualistically gyrate before Precious Dear Leader Dump and you’re complaining about what is— you’ve got to admit— some pretty good graphic design. Priorities, man.

    1. Please don’t send your political enemies to the gulags again.

      1. I’ll try to keep the numbers below what the US Army racked up in Iraq. That should be enough. I just want to send bankers and racists to the gulag so they don’t bother the rest of us. We’ll all be better off.

        1. “I just want to send bankers and racists to the gulag”

          And Tony here gets to decide who’s a banker or a racist.

          “Bankers are people who have a bank account and racists are anyone who disagrees with whatever I say. Death to the Kulak class”

    2. “10,000 or so neo nazis”.

      Haha. Yeah, white people are terrible, eh LTAL?

      Don’t change a thing, little buddy. It’s working so well!

  20. These are both rather tame versions of political art–just a bit past cartoons.

    While the Jacobin cover bestows youth and vitality on Sanders neither example is, as noted, anywhere near the fawning near religious stylings we saw during the Obama years–often presented, again as noted, as if there was nothing odd or over the top about them.

    Far from being anything anyone would even give a second glance to, these are tame, if trite, pieces.

    1. I agree, compared to what we routinely saw with Obama both of these images are incredibly tame.

      The Jacobin piece appears to be more strictly and thoughtfully constructed – with only Omar and AOC not showing any visible distress. Meanwhile Bernie, while closest to the reader, is also at the bottom of the image and is depicted both with a straining neck and pencil thin arms. Compositionally your eyes are drawn by the movement and color to AOC. Who, while not in the lead is centrally located and has an open path to the front.

      On first glance, second glance, and final scan this image is not promoting Bernie.

      The Trump image is not remotely subtle, it’s only redeeming quality is the throwback uniforms. The only other character I recognized without explanation is Schumer, and only then for the readers he is wearing.

      Gillespie is losing his mind, or lazy and running out of actual things to say.

    2. I’m actually more concerned with the uptick in assassination art, than I am with the favorable stuff. That stuff has always been around, but there used to be a bit of a taboo about portraying political opponents beheaded or whatever.

      The left is starting the process of normalizing violence against their opponents, and the art is just a component of that.

  21. $12.95 for revolutionary rag Jacobin? Heads should roll.

  22. Not impressed. What this really calls for is a Bob Ross style painting with Donald and Bernie crushed under a happy little rock.

  23. We’ve all heard of Jacobin magazine, who the fuck is Jon McNaughton?

    1. Apparently he is the yin to their yang.

      No, not really, but Gillespie was smitten with the Jacobin cover and needed to find something in order to play the both sides schtick.

      1. There is certainly a case to be made for “both sides” here, but if I were to really try to see this through non-partisan glasses, it seems to me that one side is… on balance… more susceptible to creepy hero worship than the other.

  24. Jacobin actually “sells” things? How capitalist of them. They should be allocating these posters based on greatest need, right?

    1. We the people own Jacobin magazine.

      Bury them in the Katyn Forest if they wont comply.

  25. Full Disclosure: I did not vote in 2016 and am a registered independent. No, most independent minded voters aren’t out buying strong men or my tribe posters.

    I now like Trump for two reasons:
    1st… I am not, and never will be, a marxist or statist. The democrats openly admit that they are (and Biden, the capitalist war hawk, belongs in assisted living).
    2nd…Open borders into a western welfare state is a disaster for a civilized society. At some point those policies require Martial Law and devolve into tribalism. The growth of welfare will also require growth of government- (Maimo Sweden exhibit A). Most cannot afford private security guards armed with infrared micro bombs, nor want to live like this.

    1. I always considered myself a swing voter and open thinker. I was never really a nut about anything. But I too, if I were American, would vote for Trump.

      He represents something a little beyond ‘typical politics’ as you state. It blows my mind how Reason has yet to make a nuanced argument in his favor.

      It would be nice if they discuss some of his better policies – ie prison reform. Or his work to reform the tax code. Or First Steps. Or perhaps to offset Dalmia’s screeds on immigration, present a countering view – that is the case for ‘not open borders’. I completely agree the Democrat position (which Reason seems to lean towards) is a threat.

      The best they can is equivocate as if they’re ‘principled middlemen’ but I’m not buying the argument they posture.

      1. My goodness, you guys are clearly nazis.

        Yeah, that’s the ticket. This should work well!


  26. Jacobin. It’s in the name really isn’t it? It’s pretty amazing that a group of murderous reactionaries during the reign of terror would have a magazine named after them. They could have called it “Robespierre Smiling’.

    It’s worth noting, Marat made sure one of France’s – indeed history’s – greatest scientists Lavoisier was executed.

    Nice people you revere.

    I will say this about the cycling cover. That must be the pack of the peloton because those people are losers.

    1. “It’s pretty amazing that a group of murderous reactionaries during the reign of terror would have a magazine named after them”

      A lot of people have called themselves Jacobin over the years. They are hardly reactionaries. William Blake identified with the Jacobins and he was as radical as they come. Nudism, vegetarianism, free thought, feminism, socialism were not reactionary pursuits 2 centuries ago.

      Personally, I prefer the Jacobins to the Jacobites, followers of the Catholic pretender to the throne, Bonnie Prince Charlie. Given your taste for vain, incompetent leaders, you probably feel the opposite.

  27. The Muslim Congresswomen like Bernie Sanders because he’s a Jew who doesn’t like Israel.

    1. To be fair, Netanyahu *is* a criminal.

      1. But only in Israel and for small stuff. Even there he is not yet.

        Bibi has been in office too long. As of now he cannot form a government. Benny Gantz is not a bad choice.

  28. Any moron who uses the term “Bernie Bros” can’t be taken seriously.

    1. What else would you call them?

  29. Trump engaged in physical activity? That’s rich.

  30. Do fans of the Libertarian Party really want to get into a pissing match over who is more weird?

    1. We are the weird. Wear it proudly libs.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.