Josh Hawley

Josh Hawley's Toxic Populism

Is the senator's authoritarian grandstanding the dark future of the GOP?

|

When rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in January, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) was there. Not only was he happy to see the mob assembled outside his workplace; he cheered them on.

Shortly before the group of conspiracists and reactionaries broke into the building—vandalizing offices, taking selfies amid the wreckage, and dramatically halting business on both the House and Senate floors as lawmakers were evacuated to secure locations, sometimes fearing for their lives—Hawley had been photographed giving them a raised fist of encouragement.

Earlier that morning, then–President Donald Trump had addressed a rally at the National Mall. "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," he directed. "And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

Trump pumped the mob up, but it was Hawley who gave it an official channel and a sense of legitimacy. The week before, Hawley had been the first senator to announce that he would oppose certification of the electoral votes that would give the presidency to Joe Biden. "I cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of megacorporations, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election, in support of Joe Biden," he said at the end of December. Congress, he complained, had "failed to act."

The announcement was entirely typical of Hawley: blustery, partisan, pro-Trump, anti–Big Tech, and transparently authoritarian. And it led to disastrous consequences.

The events that followed played out as a kind of ironic insurrection, part 4chan lulz prank, part lethally serious attack. There was the "Q Shaman" wearing face paint and a Viking helmet, the gaggle of internet provocateurs cackling as they looted Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's chambers, and images of a ransacked parliamentarian's office (presumably not out of frustration with the Byrd rule). These madcap images were juxtaposed with more potent horrors: a mob-built noose and chants of "hang Mike Pence"; video showing rioters mercilessly assaulting a Capitol Police officer with whatever happened to be on hand, including the pole of a Blue Lives Matter flag. By the time it was over, five people, including a protester shot by police and an officer injured in the conflict, had died.

This was not the glorious revolution the rioters had imagined but a deadly cosplay version of it brought to life, a dangerous joke planned and perpetrated by trolls and cranks—and backed by people in power who should have known better. Those few hours on January 6 were like the entire Trump era in concentrate: There were the absurdist aesthetics and lunatic logic, the self-serving lies, the made-for-YouTube showmanship, the chaos and conspiratorial impenetrability, the muddling of the serious with the deeply unserious, the swirling threat of political violence and, finally, its palpable, horrible reality.

And there, as always, were Republicans like Hawley, standing by. They coddled Trump's delusions and saluted his mob of supporters, fueling their paranoia and excusing their outbursts. And they did it all under the guise of representing ordinary Americans who, they said, simply wanted to be heard.

That was Hawley's stated logic when he defended his decision to object to certifying the election results. "Many, many citizens in Missouri have deep concerns about election integrity," he later wrote in a column for the Southeast Missourian. "For months, I heard from these Missourians—writing, calling my office, stopping me to talk. They want Congress to take action to see that our elections at every level are free, fair, and secure. They have a right to be heard in Congress. And as their representative, it is my duty to speak on their behalf. That is just what I did last week."

Hawley's defense was crafted with a veneer of deniability. Strictly speaking, he had not called the election rigged, nor had he directly endorsed the nuttier theories that had propagated among the president's lawyers and supporters. He hadn't even quite said, outright, that Biden hadn't won. Instead, he had concocted a dubious rationale about supposedly improper changes to Pennsylvania's election law—an issue that, as a U.S. senator from Missouri, would not normally fall within his purview—and then insisted he was just echoing the concerns of Missouri voters.

His constituents, in Hawley's telling, were deeply worried about the technicalities of another state's vote-counting procedures. As if that's what the noose and death chants were about.

Did anyone really believe this too-clever-by-half shtick? Did Hawley? Did it even matter? The episode generated an uproar and entirely justified outrage, but it also generated something Hawley clearly craves: attention. More than anything else, the junior senator from Missouri specializes in grandstanding and gimmickry cloaked in the language of Middle American populist righteousness. And he is hoping he can grandstand his way to the top of American politics.

It's no secret that Hawley sees himself as a potential heir to the Trump coalition, a man of the people who dreams of one day occupying the Oval Office himself. After Hawley announced his plan to object to the vote certification but before the Capitol riot, Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger—one of the few House Republicans who later voted yes on Trump's second impeachment—mocked him on Twitter. "I want to be President so I decided to try to get [a] POTUS tweet saying I'm great even though I know this isn't going anywhere," Kinzinger posted, imagining Hawley's internal monologue, "but hey… I'll blame someone else when it fails."

Hawley has denied that he'll run for president in 2024. Yet he clearly wants to set the party's tone and recalibrate its self-image. In just two years in Washington, Hawley has already positioned himself as one possible future for the GOP, a new breed of legislator that is younger, more vehemently nationalist, and less committed to the party's "outdated" orthodoxies, particularly when it comes to free speech and limited government. Hawley's vision of government is a vision of vast power, used to forcibly advance a particular kind of life.

Yet he also represents a link to the party's past, following in the long tradition of socially conservative scolds and media panic mongers who have found a home on the American right.

Hawley doesn't want to be the next Trump, exactly. But he wants to be the heir to Trumpism. To that end, he combines the MAGA movement's ugliest traits with many of the worst tendencies of the pre-Trump Republican Party. He may well be the GOP's dark future, bringing the culture war into the social media era and repurposing the Progressive Era's statist playbook for faux-populist ends.

In the wake of the Capitol riots, though, Hawley became something else as well: a smug and self-serving avatar of his party's darkest and most shambolic moment.

Hawley vs. the Elites

If there's one thing to know about Hawley's politics, it's that they're rooted in opposition to contemporary elites. In speech after speech, Hawley has decried the progressive overlords who hold the commanding heights of American politics, tech, academia, and culture, who he says have joined together to rule over a vast Middle American public that does not share their values.

"Elites distrust patriotism," he said in a 2019 speech at a conference on conservative nationalism, "and dislike the common culture left to us by our forbearers." They "look down on the common affections that once bound this nation together: things like place and national feeling and religious faith."

America's Founders "built a new republic governed not by a select elite, as in the days of old, but by the common man and woman, grounded on the premise that it is the common man and woman who are the noblest of citizens," Hawley explained. But today, America is ruled by a "cosmopolitan consensus" that prioritizes "social change over tradition, career over community, and achievement and merit and progress" and global integration over family and national loyalties. The looming threat, he warned in a separate speech that year, is "government by unelected elites who are confident they know better than the American people, that they know better than the Constitution, that they should be in control."

Hawley takes this outlook personally. "I'm not happy that people in Washington, D.C.—and, let's be honest, New York, on Wall Street, in Hollywood—look down on the kind of upbringing I had," he told The New York Times in 2018.

That's more than a little bit ironic, given that Hawley is, by almost any definition, an elite himself. A graduate of both Stanford University and Yale Law School, he went on to be a Supreme Court clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts before his 30th birthday. From there, he worked as a lawyer in private practice, a teacher at the prestigious St. Paul's School in London, and an associate professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Along the way, he wrote articles for the conservative policy journal National Affairs and a scholarly book, based on his graduate thesis, on the life of President Theodore Roosevelt, published by Yale University Press.

All this was before he ran for office, first becoming a state attorney general and then being elected to the U.S. Senate at the age of 39. Hawley often passes himself off as a man of the people, but he's also a man above the people, an elite in nearly every sense of the word. He's well connected and well traveled. You might even call him cosmopolitan.

That's something he shares with Roosevelt, the subject of his book, who was born to a wealthy family, traveled the globe extensively as a child, and attended Harvard before entering politics. Hawley's biography is scholarly and intellectual, a dense and sometimes fascinating text intimately concerned not only with the character and philosophy of the man who would become president but also with the character and philosophy of the age, and with how the era and his subject pushed and pulled against each other.

As a sickly young boy, Roosevelt came to emphasize physical strength and vigor as pathways to virtue; he was obsessed with the idea of action, of being a player on history's grand stage. Roosevelt's political career, meanwhile, was defined in part by a desire to tame the corporate growth and consolidation that came with turn-of-the-century industrialization. He wielded the threat of antitrust as a weapon against the era's large corporations. He too was an elite whose political program was a response to a backlash against rapid social change, whose actions were taken in the name of assisting ordinary people.

Hawley's examination of Roosevelt is not a defense of the 26th president, but he clearly finds the man intriguing. Roosevelt was a stalwart of the late 19th century Progressive movement, which championed expansive corporate regulation as an answer to fast-moving industrialization and urbanization. Roosevelt was a Republican but not a believer in limited government.

In the end, Hawley calls Roosevelt's approach both "racist" and "coercive," though he also says it "may yet help Americans imagine a substantive politics of another kind."

In a later essay for National Affairs, he contrasted Roosevelt's governance with Woodrow Wilson's more individualistic, less moralistic philosophy, writing that Wilson "accurately identified Roosevelt's drift into statism." Yet it was Wilson who oversaw America's major early 20th century trustbusting efforts and Wilson who pushed through the Revenue Act of 1913, which implemented a federal income tax. Wilson was a Progressive reformer, too, but of a different kind.

Hawley vs. Big Tech

Hawley doesn't endorse a full-fledged Wilsonian worldview either—it's too narrowly individualistic for his taste—but it's clear he continues to see American politics through the lens of turn-of-the-century Progressive Era politics. Instead of the concerns about railroad monopolies, land conservation, and food safety that dominated the early 20th century, however, Hawley's principal focus is on the threat of Big Tech.

In April 2018, Hawley, then the attorney general of Missouri, announced that his office would follow a joint effort by New York and Massachusetts and begin a separate investigation into Facebook for its role in what was becoming known as the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Details were still emerging at the time, and the scandal would eventually grow into a convoluted, multi-threaded narrative involving Trump campaign adviser Steve Bannon, major Republican donors, Russian data scientists, and allegations of stolen or manipulated elections. At its core, the story was built on allegations that Cambridge Analytica, a British firm that also had business in the United States, had unethically and perhaps illegally scoured social media data to create "psychographic" voter profiles. Cambridge Analytica "harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission," The New York Times reported, by buying a batch of data from an independent researcher. It was "one of the largest data leaks in the social network's history."

Mainstream media outlets warned that the data created using these profiles might have given Trump an illicit edge that helped him win the 2016 election. They thought it may even have provided a tool for Russians or other foreign rivals to use to cause chaos in American politics. Democratic lawmakers in Congress held hearings and called for congressional oversight of social media.

Hawley, a Republican, had more prosaic concerns: Facebook had a lot of personal data. What was it using those data for?

"You think about the kind of information we put on our Facebook page," Hawley said at a press conference announcing the Missouri investigation. "Pictures of our kids. Pictures of our families. Family vacations. Pictures of our work colleagues. And then to think that all of that information and more might have been acquired by entities that we don't even know. I think it's really terrifying."

As it turned out, the scandal was barely a scandal at all. It was a misunderstanding, constructed out of a mix of paranoia, ignorance, and political convenience. In October 2020, a yearslong investigation by the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), a government body that oversees British data privacy, found little more than misleading marketing hype on the part of Cambridge Analytica's chief officers. The complexity of the voter profiles had been wildly exaggerated by both critics and the company itself. There had been no foreign election interference to speak of.

The incident did, however, make Facebook a political target. In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) came to a $5 billion settlement with the social media giant for having violated the terms of a 2012 consent decree. In response, Hawley, by then a U.S. senator, signed a letter with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) arguing that the unprecedented fine was too small and that the FTC had not gone nearly far enough in restricting and managing Facebook's business practices.

The incident was a model for Hawley's behavior as an elected official. The investigation he launched as A.G. went nowhere. It mostly served as an announcement that he'd jumped on a bandwagon driven by Democratic A.G.s in other states. The panicky pretext he cooked up—the sharing of family photos—had little to do with the actual issue at hand but was calculated to inject fear into the minds of heartland families. And after the FTC's settlement, he signed on to a high-profile demand that the federal government take dramatic steps to further regulate a company based on a bevy of bipartisan concerns that largely turned out to be bunk. In the end, he contributed almost nothing of substance. But he had grandstanded his way to the center of attention at every step.

Hawley's actions may have been largely ineffectual. But they represented a sweeping vision of government control and oversight of Facebook, one in which federal regulators would play a role in nearly every core business decision the company made as well as many smaller decisions about product functionality and marketing.

"Fines alone are insufficient," the letter said. "Far-reaching reforms must finally hold Facebook accountable to consumers." The FTC should "consider setting rules of the road" for the platform's data collection, advertising practices, and other aspects of its business. Essentially, the letter argued that the federal government should be running Facebook.

This was not the first broadside Hawley had launched against the FTC. In March 2019, he'd written a letter to the regulator lamenting that its approach to regulating big tech companies had been "toothless." The senator listed a series of alleged abuses by Google and Facebook, many of which were remarkably narrow in focus.

When Facebook acquired the chat service Whats-App in 2014, for example, it said that it wouldn't link accounts between the two services; in 2016, it updated its terms of service to note that the accounts from both platforms might be linked. Several of Hawley's complaints focused on location data, including a warning that Google had used "misleading terms like 'location' when it collects a much broader category of non-location data, including the type of motion (e.g., walking, biking, or driving), barometric pressure, Wi-Fi connectivity, MAC addresses, and battery status charge."

This was Hawley's grand case against the tech oligarchs, his argument for an expansive and intrusive regulatory regime: Google had used the words location data to capture data relevant to a user's location. And the senator didn't just want Google, Facebook, and their peers to amend their business practices. He wanted to put federal regulators in charge.

No tech product or design feature is too small to escape Hawley's notice. In July 2019, he introduced the Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (SMART) Act, which was somehow even dumber than its name would suggest.

Hawley's bill would have outlawed features such as "infinite scroll," a feature common to services like Twitter and Instagram that invisibly loads new content to a user's main feed, letting them scroll through posts without interruption. It also banned features such as Snapchat "streaks," which provide users with virtual rewards—essentially digital merit badges—for certain types of regular use.

Separately, he proposed legislation banning so-called "loot boxes" and "pay to win" mechanisms, both of which allow players of some popular video games to pay for the ability to advance more quickly through gameplay. All this was supposedly out of concern for children's attention spans. Instead of a senator from Missouri, you'd think he was the mayor of Farmville.

Hawley's legislation was dressed up in rhetoric about protecting families. The features he wanted to outlaw, Hawley said, were designed to promote "addiction." That's another way of saying he hoped to prohibit practices intended to make the services easier and more enjoyable for customers to use. Hawley was literally proposing that Congress regulate the design and layout of your Instagram feed in order to make it less functional.

In the March letter, he charged that the supposed abuses he laid out followed a "common pattern" in which "big tech companies adopt an 'ask forgiveness rather than seek permission' mentality." His goal was plain: to force big tech companies to get an OK from federal regulators before rolling out new ideas and services.

Hawley wasn't trying to shave off some rough edges from the tech world's business practices or correct some anti-consumer activity. He was trying to gut the industry entirely, to turn social media into a quasi-nationalized arm of the federal government.

He's made no secret of his deep disdain for big technology firms. In a 2019 interview with NBC, he wondered out loud of Facebook and Google, "Should these platforms exist at all?" He also said that a plan by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) to use antitrust to break up large tech companies—a plan that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg had, in an internal meeting, portrayed as an existential threat—might not go far enough. Hawley doesn't want to fix Big Tech, in other words. He wants to destroy it. And he has no apparent qualms about vastly increasing state power in the process.

Nowhere has that been more apparent than his approach to Section 230, a legacy of 1990s internet regulation that says users and tech companies do not assume legal liability for online speech created by other people. Hawley has proposed multiple amendments to the provision, including one that would end liability protections for large tech companies "unless they submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral." Companies would have to reapply every two years and gain approval from an FTC supermajority.

The proposal is all but an explicit call for federal control of large social media sites, a de facto nationalization of parts of the tech sector.

The goal is ostensibly to force such companies to behave like politically neutral players. But what will Hawley do when the political tables turn against him? As the last two years of congressional tech hearings have made clear, Democrats and Republicans have very different visions of what effective social media moderation looks like, with Democrats largely desiring greater restriction of views that align with the far right, especially when the views are associated even loosely with political violence. A Republican administration might produce an FTC friendly to Hawley's goals. A Democratic administration would almost certainly weaponize such a program to restrict the sort of Middle American, pro-Trump speech—for example, questioning election results in the aftermath of a deadly riot—that Hawley seeks to protect.

Hawley's approach to Big Tech regulation is, in many ways, his approach to government itself: He sees the state as both expansive and granular, an agent of massive power and minute control. It's an ethic in which Washington knows no bounds and regulates even the smallest interactions of daily life, making them worse when it does not prohibit them outright, in the name of protecting people from themselves. It's statist and coercive, a right-wing Progressivism updated for a new century.

Hawley vs. the Culture

Hawley's vision of government has no modesty to it, no sense of its own limits; it is both paternalistic and moralistic.

Hawley has no qualms about demanding that government step in with financial assistance for Americans, even at great expense. In December, for example, Congress put together the final details of what would eventually become a $900 billion COVID-19 relief package, following about $3 trillion of aid earlier in the year. Word emerged that the bill was to include a $600 direct payment to most middle-class households. In response, Hawley co-signed a push with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) to double the payment to $1,200. "It would be a dereliction of duty if Congress adjourns for Christmas without having a vote on providing working families with direct payments," Hawley said. Later, he backed $2,000 checks.

As in so many other instances, Hawley positioned himself as on the side of ordinary families and blasted Congress for having failed to do its job. He practically ignored the checks that had already gone out as a result of earlier COVID relief bills, as well as data showing a record personal savings rate among Americans. Hawley wasn't pushing targeted help for those who needed it; he just wanted to take credit for the government sending out ever-larger checks.

Sometimes Hawley seems to be calling for a return to a mercantilist world of tariffs and trade barriers, slowing or stopping the global movement of goods and people that has made both Americans and the global poor richer than ever before.

In his nationalism conference speech on cosmopolitan elites, he cautioned darkly that the consensus he took issue with favored "globalization—closer and closer economic union, more immigration, more movement of capital, more trade on whatever terms." He warned that elites thought "the boundaries between America and the rest of the world should fade and eventually vanish." If Big Tech is Hawley's foremost enemy, trade with China is his second-favorite target. Hawley wants a world that is both more closed and more closed-minded.

At other times, Hawley's governing vision manifests in mendacious moral crusades. He has repeatedly bragged about his work as Missouri attorney general helping local police free "female victims" who had been "forced into sex work," including operations with possible ties to "Asian organized crime." In a series of tweets in June 2020, he bragged of having "freed a dozen women in sex slavery." After one such bust in 2017, he stood in front of a massage parlor and warned, "We will find you out, we will hunt you down, and we will prosecute you."

Yet a year later, no felony charges had resulted from the bust. As Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has reported, no massive crime syndicate has ever been uncovered. Instead, the majority of the charges that were filed have hit the female workers themselves. He hadn't freed anyone from modern slavery. He'd raided women's places of employment and saddled them with small-ball charges that resulted in fines of up to $1,000. It was more of a hardship than a rescue. Hawley's hero act was a self-serving fabrication.

But it was, once again, typical of Hawley. Not only in the way it emphasized evidence-light grandstanding over real action, but in the way it harkened back to the politically exaggerated moral panics of an earlier era.

Looked at one way, Hawley represents the Republican Party's post-Trump future: more politically combative, more avowedly nationalist, more averse to trade and immigration, more focused on the white working class that fueled Trump's rise, happy to drop even the pretense of favoring limited government.

But Hawley also descends from the party's scolding, censorious past, its tradition of waging showy but largely unserious culture war battles against exaggerated moral panics—whether sordid tales of crime-syndicate sex trafficking or more domestic concerns like Facebook destroying the minds of young children—as well as Hollywood leftists and the liberal media.

Liberal elites have been GOP targets for decades because of their status as prominent, left-leaning institutions of cultural production. Hawley, who until January was the Senate's youngest member, has just taken that old culture war shtick and turned it against a new generation of coastal elites: Big Tech.

Republicans of an earlier era decried Hollywood for tarnishing America's family values, and politicians in both parties have participated in high-profile hearings on violent movies and video games, nominally out of concern that such media warp the minds of children. Hawley has repurposed those fears for a new generation. For all his talk of liability shields and privacy violations and addictive user interface designs, he isn't actually motivated by the particulars. He isn't going after Big Tech because the industry has committed some particular violation. He's out to destroy Big Tech because its highly educated, left-leaning, blue-state workforce doesn't share his values.

At 41, Hawley is (just barely) a member of Generation X. But his crusade against Facebook, Twitter, and Google is a millennial remake of the same old culture war.

Hawley vs. the Truth

A generous accounting of Hawley's worldview probably looks something like this: The primary job of an elected official is to represent the views and interests of his constituents. There is now a meaningful cultural and political divide between the views of Middle Americans, especially those without a college education, and the views of urban professionals, most of whom lean to the left.

Libertarian ideas are overrepresented in policy debates; Americans are not, by and large, libertarians. Indeed, Americans of the sort Hawley sees himself as representing tend to be almost exactly the opposite: socially conservative but also fairly fiscally liberal, concerned about government waste and spending on foreign aid but open to big public programs that directly benefit Americans.

This group prioritizes something like a traditional family life, and its members are genuinely concerned about the forces that shape their children's upbringing. But they feel their values are underrepresented in Washington and practically invisible in Big Tech, news media, academia, and Hollywood. Globalization has wreaked havoc on small town economies; once-stable jobs that allowed a sole breadwinner to support a family have evaporated. And since large tech companies now serve as the intermediaries for so much of day-to-day existence, that makes them a legitimate target for public oversight.

What's more, Republican voters rather like Donald Trump, and there is in fact widespread skepticism about the results of the 2020 election. Hawley doesn't necessarily have to believe everything his constituents believe. His job isn't to argue with voters. His job is to ensure they have a representative voice in democratic government.

There is at least some truth to this view of politics: Polls really do show a large cohort of socially conservative, fiscally liberal voters, a good chunk of whom reside in less dense regions and at the lower end of the income and education spectrum. And college-educated urban workforces, especially in tech and media, really do lean heavily to the left. Big Tech really is at the center of everyday life in a way that feels both novel and inescapable to many. It's possible to make too much of the urban-rural cultural divide, which is messier and more ambiguous than simple dichotomies suggest, but the divide is not imaginary either; these groups on average have different values, different views of politics, and different ways of life.

But the job of politics is to bridge this divide, not turn it into an existential struggle. And Hawley's idea of politics as mere representation, without any sort of independent judgment applied by the representative, undermines the constitutional system that he claims to admire.

This conception has the potential to transform the lawmaker into an empty vessel—a showboater and a grandstander—or even a powerful purveyor of falsehoods and crankery. It demands that legislators represent the people by giving them voice, no matter what. It says nothing about what to do when what the people want is baseless or even dangerous. It doesn't account for what happens when what the people want is insane.

It's a flawed and feckless view of leadership. Indeed, it is practically a form of anti-leadership, for it renders elected officials helpless before the whims of their constituents. And it's a misunderstanding of the constitutional vision of the Senate—the chamber of which Hawley is a member—which was designed at least in part to restrain the raw populist impulses of the House of Representatives.

Hawley might say he's acting as a public servant. In his pre–public office writing on the Progressive visions of Roosevelt and Wilson, he called for an ethic of "self-determination" in which the people get to choose their own society. But that ethic, he noted, requires a kind of responsibility and commitment on the part of elected officials, a duty to the polity rather than merely to oneself.

Hawley has clearly failed that test, feeding and validating false and destructive beliefs not only from voters but from Trump himself. It is more than a little ironic that Hawley, who has accomplished little of substance as a lawmaker, has so often framed his arguments as critiques of a Congress failing to do his job. In nearly every case, the failure was Hawley's.

One might argue that Hawley has tried to sand down the rougher edges of the views he's trying to represent by turning them into concrete legislative issues: concerns about Section 230, say, or the mechanics of Pennsylvania's early vote counting. But this attempt to render inchoate, nonsensical concerns into something more cognizable has led, at best, to context collapse, exaggerations, distortions of the truth, and too-clever covers for mistaken or even deranged ideas. And often, it has resulted in Hawley simply lying.

In the weeks after he raised his fist to the nascent mob of Capitol rioters, Hawley insisted that he had never questioned the outcome of the vote. "I was very clear from the beginning," he said, "that I was never attempting to overturn the election."

Yet following the election, Hawley repeatedly raised the possibility that Joe Biden would not be sworn in as president. On January 4, two days before Congress' certification vote (and the riot that accompanied it), he appeared on Fox News and was asked by Bret Baier: "Are you trying to say that as of January 20, that President Trump will be president?" Hawley responded that it was at least a possibility: "Well, Bret, it depends on what happens on Wednesday."

Hawley was indeed quite clear from the beginning. The results of the election—the results that said Biden had won—were in doubt. What happened next was just as clear: A mob of pro-Trump idiots ransacked the Capitol, and people died.

When the publisher Simon & Schuster subsequently canceled Hawley's contract for a book on "the tyranny of Big Tech," the senator's indignant response was to call the cancellation "Orwellian" and brand it as "a direct assault on the First Amendment." It was no such thing. The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to be free from government interference in speech. It does not guarantee a right to a book contract. Moreover, Hawley's book was soon picked up by another imprint. He hadn't been censored, even in the colloquial sense. Every word he wrote would still be published.

Is that the future of the GOP? One might argue it's actually the present. Under Trump, the party embraced an ethos of self-serving lies that weren't even particularly clever. In some ways, their obviousness was part of the appeal: They were dares and stunts and bait meant to generate attention and drive opponents nuts as much as anything else. Trumpy grandstanding is hard to replicate, even for someone like Hawley. But that doesn't mean he won't try.

In the weeks after the Capitol riot, Hawley was increasingly chastised for his actions leading up to the event. A major donor to his campaign, Tamko Building Products CEO David Humphreys, called for him to be censured—officially reprimanded—by Congress. Seven Democratic senators filed an ethics complaint against him and fellow election-results questioner Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas). A Morning Consult poll in late January found Hawley's overall approval in solidly red Missouri had fallen precipitously, to 36 percent. Among Republicans, his approval had dropped 9 points in the weeks following the Capitol riot, to 63 percent.

In response, Hawley amped up the grievance mongering. If he was going to go down, he would go down grandstanding.

He responded to the Democratic letter calling for his censure by accusing the signers of trying to "silence dissent" and by issuing a formal demand for an ethics investigation into them. "The Senate cannot function if its neutral administrative processes are hijacked for bad-faith ends," he complained in what was somehow not a competition for the least-self-aware statement ever made by a U.S. senator.

Separately, in a rambling diatribe of victimhood for the New York Post, he linked the widespread criticism he'd received post-riot and the cancellation of his contract with Simon & Schuster to China's "social credit scores"—a government-run monitoring scheme to rate citizens based on their conformity with the expectations of the Communist state. The headline, and his tweets about the piece, declared, "It's time to stand up to the muzzling of America." It was yet another self-serving gimmick built on lies.

America hadn't been muzzled, and neither had Hawley. He'd landed his tirade on the front page of a major newspaper, available on a website accessible to every American with an internet connection. He'd confused widespread disapproval of his behavior with the threat of an authoritarian crackdown on his rights, a telling mistake from a politician whose frequent response to ideas he disagrees with is to propose a government crackdown on someone else's rights. And perhaps even more revealing, he'd mistaken opprobrium at his own malignant behavior for opprobrium at the country as a whole.

In the end, Hawley isn't even a very good populist. He may think he is speaking for the nation or representing the voiceless and oppressed. Instead, he advances his own political fortunes at the expense of the nation's. He simply can't tell the difference.

That raised fist at the mob that would go on to storm the Capitol? He wasn't just cheering them on. He was raising it for himself, ensuring the eyes of history would be trained on him that day. It worked.

CORRECTION: The original version of this article contained a description of the death of a police office that has since been challenged by medical reports.

NEXT: 5 Ways Elon Musk and Other Billionaires Get Welfare for the Rich

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. “an officer beaten over the head with a fire extinguisher by rioters”

    You have *got* to be kidding me.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-times-quietly-updates-report-on-fire-extinguisher-striking-capitol-police-officer/ar-BB1dG92n

    1. Brian Sicknick died of an overdose of TOO MUCH LOVE (too many hugs, kisses, and fond wishes) from “law and order” “Blue Lives Matter” Republican Patriotic, peacefully protesting, law-abiding citizens at the Capitol, on 4 January 2021! Alex Jones told me so!

      1. I mean…at least that theory isn’t debunked by a lack of blunt force trauma. Shouldn’t it be embarrassing when mainstream “journalists” get basic facts on the most significant news story and WORST attack on America probably ever?

        1. Earning more dollars from home easily just by working 0nline j0b from home. Makes every month extra $20k or more from this easy h0me j0b. CMs Last month i have made $22759 from this just in my spare time. Every person can now get this and start earning 0nline from the instructions given to this web page…

          =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= JOBS APP

          1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and BDE its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…

            Here’s what I do.=========> GOOGLE CASH 1

            1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even NHBG a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..READ MORE

            2. Those few hours on January 6 were like the entire Trump era in concentrate…

              …were the absurdist aesthetics and lunatic logic, the self-serving lies, the made-for-YouTube showmanship, the chaos and conspiratorial impenetrability, the muddling of the serious with the deeply unserious, the swirling threat of political violence and, finally, its palpable, horrible reality…

              …specializes in grandstanding and gimmickry cloaked in the language of Middle American populist righteousness…

              …smug and self-serving avatar of his party’s darkest and most shambolic moment.

              …he may as well be the GOP’s dark future…

              …instead of a senator from Missouri, you’d think he was the mayor of farmville.

              This article is not news or even reasonable, rational points. It is emotion and sophistry, with a good deal of facts omitted and appears as obvious activism. Suderman should consider writing fiction novels instead.

              Hawley’s upbringing
              Suderman claims Hawley is an elitest simply because his education and successes. What he omitted, was that Hawley was from a small town of 69k, with his father working at the bank, and his mother a teacher. Most of his father's success came years after Hawley was born. Putting him in the same boat as say, Jack Dorsey, or Mark Zuckerberg, or George Soros, or even smug journos is not comparable.

              Big Tech
              Hawley fights for privacy, and then Suderman flips out complaining of government oversight. This is why you guys can't be taken seriously. This is why you guys get 1% of the vote and then celebrate with drinks afterward. Hawley went after leftist corporations because they want to run your life and dictate your vote, and you guys don't seem to see the threat, merely only dismissing it with "free market" bullshit. The left is controlling academia, the news cycle, and literally, a good portion of votes through news omission, and you guys are celebrating it while you are about to be flushed down the toilet with yesterday's conservatives.

              Hawley’s crazy bills
              I know you guys aren't too great with politics (again 1%) but have you ever thought to think that Hawley knew that his legislation had zero chance of ever getting passed, and the entire purpose of it was just to bring attention is cultural problems at hand? Politics is a game guys. Figure it out. I would say - and I'm going WAY out on a limb here (lol), that people know the name "Josh Hawley" more than they know the libertarian presidential frontrunner.

              Section 230
              In a move that surprised no one at all, Suderman complained about Hawley's pursuit of section 230. Suderman I guess, is a libertarian and doesn't see a cultural war being fought here. And he obviously doesn't seem to understand that social media is an arm of the democrats, make no mistake, and doesn't acknowledge that social media silence some voices and emphasize others for the purpose of activism and democrat causes. In this sense, they act as publishers, allowing libel and slander of some and silencing libel and slander of others, and are thus sending a message (publishing). They are not a platform. They are partaking in political activism, while saying - "we aren't lying! Those people are. We are just a platform." Meanwhile, Suderman applauds it as "free market." Seriously.

              Other comments

              The proposal is all but an explicit call for federal control of large social media sites, a de facto nationalization of parts of the tech sector.

              Sounds bad right? And I agree. Except the alternative is a corporate run democrat world in legion with the state to silence conservatives while endlessly slandering them, resulting in dragging the culture ideologically left, at running speed, in a one party democrat state, resulting in two parties: Communism, and socialism. And it has already begun. The republican party is further left now than they ever have been. They don't even care about fiscal matters anymore. And neither do their constituents. Suderman's solution? Write an article complaining about Josh Hawley.

              A Republican administration might produce an FTC friendly to Hawley’s goals. A Democratic administration would almost certainly weaponize such a program to restrict the sort of Middle American, pro-Trump speech—for example, questioning election results in the aftermath of a deadly riot—that Hawley seeks to protect.

              Little late now. Democrats have already weaponized it. They weaponized it years ago. Suderman needs to catch up to real time here.

              Hawley has no qualms about demanding that government step in with financial assistance for Americans, even at great expense.

              I have already said, the left has dragged the right to the left. They are further left than they ever have been, and they will continue left as long as they keep losing elections. The majority of people are left and moderates now. Because the left is winning. With exception to you guys quest for drugs for everyone and gross prostitutes' readily available, they think you guys are archaic conservatives. The conservatives of hundreds of years ago, that wanted *gasp* limited government???!? No. Conservatives losing is also you guys losing. If you can't see that, you are probably a moron, or are diametrically opposed to our faction (a commie pinko democrat).

              If Big Tech is Hawley’s foremost enemy, trade with China is his second-favorite target. Hawley wants a world that is both more closed and more closed-minded.

              Disagree. I think he is just uneasy about commie pinkos displacing the US as world leader. And the free market is on their side. They allow unsafe conditions. Child labor. Slave/prisoner labor, etc etc. Their price cannot be undercut. So all the complaining unemployed laborers here in the US, wanting handouts - I guess we are just stuck with them. About to be stuck with more, with our border situation. Suderman better pay his taxes. Millions depend on him.

              After one such bust in 2017, he stood in front of a massage parlor and warned, “We will find you out, we will hunt you down, and we will prosecute you.”

              Yet a year later, no felony charges had resulted from the bust. As Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown has reported, no massive crime syndicate has ever been uncovered.

              Perhaps Hawley was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were moral and dignified people rather than atheist whores trying to make a buck, in a grotesque undignified manner. Looks like reason.com is working hard to further the stereotype that they are drug smoking weirdos looking for a lay with no strings attached.

              In the end, Hawley isn’t even a very good populist. He may think he is speaking for the nation or representing the voiceless and oppressed. Instead, he advances his own political fortunes at the expense of the nation’s. He simply can’t tell the difference.

              Wouldn't it be funny, with Suderman counting his chickens before they hatched and all...

              1. Perhaps Hawley was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were moral and dignified people rather than atheist whores trying to make a buck, in a grotesque undignified manner. Looks like reason.com is working hard to further the stereotype that they are drug smoking weirdos looking for a lay with no strings attached.

                Atheist whores trying to make a buck, in a grotesque undignified manner are FAR FAR morally superior to conservatives initiating the use of state coercion to prevent it. They have every right to make money any way they want with their bodies so long as they do not initiate the use of force. Conservatives who initiate the use of force are absolutely evil and are not even worthy of licking the assholes of those whores.

                1. Atheist whores trying to make a buck, in a grotesque undignified manner are FAR FAR morally superior to conservatives initiating the use of state coercion to prevent it.

                  LOL. What a fuckin’ Clown World take.

                  1. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an hdo easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money……………READ MORE

                  2. The Clowns are morally superior to those who would initiate the use of force. The initiation of the use of force, denial of consent is the root of all evil. No one is being forced to fuck a whore. The whores aren’t being forced to fuck.

                2. The best part is that this was the only cherry you chose to pick amongst the entire list of bullet points he posted. You can’t refute a damn thing he wrote and you know it.

                  1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the gtu internet. Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
                    COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. READ MORE

                  2. I didn’t disagree that much with his other points. Though, I somewhat disagree with Hawley about Sec. 230. Suderman was right to state that the Democrats would use the repeal of Sec. 230 and the FTC, FCC to persecute libertarians and conservatives.

                    Democrats have already weaponized it. They weaponized it years ago. Suderman needs to catch up to real time here.

                    They’ll do worse. They’ll censor libertarians and conservatives on their own platforms and force them to carry those we despise.

                    The fact is that conservatives and libertarians need to develop their own social media and the like, instead of engaging in crybabyism and expecting to be given platforms. Whoever developed those platforms put in the work and capital; so it is their right to control them. Nothing is stopping conservatives and libertarians from developing their own. Sec. 230 would protect us when we do.

                    Fact is, with continued urbanization, the liberals and regressives will eventually control all three branches of the fed gov, and will democratically vote to impose regressive liberal dictatorship. We’d better have our own alternative institutions by then if we are to prevail in the civil war that will result. What is disheartening is that many conservatives are more than willing to sell out their private enterprise free-market principles. Makes me think they are too crybaby to prevail in the eventual civil war.

              2. Dude, this is sad.

                1.- Hawley’s upbringing:

                The reality is that Josh Hawley attended a private high school, then Stanford as the son of an alumni, while he was getting published by newspapers and getting internships due to his parents’ connections. The whole “man of the people” is a facade, as it always is.

                “B-b-b-but George Soros!”

                2.- Big Tech:

                How it started: “This is why you guys can’t be taken seriously”
                How it is going: “leftist corporations want to run your life and dictate your vote”

                Not paranoid at all. AT ALL.

                3.- Crazy Bills:

                Your argument seems to be that performative politics is fine so long as you agree with the guy doing it. Please refer back to “this is why you guys can’t be taken seriously”

                4.- Section 230:

                Did you know that there is no “platform” / “publisher” distinction in the law? I know, I know, mind blown. But it is a fact, whoever tries to claim there is such a distinction is lying to you; for example, Josh Hawley.

                5.- Other Comments:

                Your argument, sorry, “argument” is that private companies operating without state oversight is “communism” and socialism”. Do you know what communism is? Did you know that communism and socialism are two different political positions? Well, they are; and they have quite some views regarding state oversight over private enterprises.

                6.- Grandstanding:

                So, your explanation for the fact that the whole sex trafficking operation turned out to be a pack of lies is that… “perhaps Hawley was giving them the benefit of the doubt”. Man, one of these days you are going to learn who was really purchasing all those gifts at Christmas and you are going to fabblerghast!

                1. Dude, this is sad.

                  Sad is an emotional response - not a refutation.

                  1.- Hawley’s upbringing:

                  The reality is that Josh Hawley attended a private high school, then Stanford as the son of an alumni, while he was getting published by newspapers and getting internships due to his parents’ connections. The whole “man of the people” is a facade, as it always is.

                  Disagree that in order to be a "man of the people" you cannot attend a private school, go to an ivy league college, or get internships. You said he got internships from his parents connections - source? Because I haven't heard that before - did you make it up? From all that I read, Hawley worked hard to get where he was. I would say his paltry 1.1 million net worth, is anything but "elitest."

                  Further, I would say that that Soros, Zuckerberg, and Dorsey, all of which are to some degree running your life, desire to run your life, and are biased in favor of a socially elite class of people (them) and "know" what is best for you.

                  “B-b-b-but George Soros!”

                  This is a bad attempt at ridicule, not a refutation.

                  2.- Big Tech:

                  How it started: “This is why you guys can’t be taken seriously”
                  How it is going: “leftist corporations want to run your life and dictate your vote”

                  Not paranoid at all. AT ALL.

                  Another attempt at ridicule. Not a refutation. Not a counter argument. Devoid of relevant substance.

                  Further, Zuckerberg purchased a portion of the 2020 election:
                  https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-from-facebooks-ceo-saved-the-2020-election
                  Probably so he could save facebook from section 230 changes, so he can keep silencing conservative voices while magnifying leftist ones.

                  3.- Crazy Bills:

                  Your argument seems to be that performative politics is fine so long as you agree with the guy doing it.

                  That's incorrect. That's not my argument. I'm sure you would like that to be my argument, but it is not. My argument is that politics contains performances, and also... that republicans are better at politics than libertarians.

                  4.- Section 230:

                  Did you know that there is no “platform” / “publisher” distinction in the law? I know, I know, mind blown. But it is a fact, whoever tries to claim there is such a distinction is lying to you; for example, Josh Hawley.

                  So the text of the law says: (1)  Treatment of publisher or speaker: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

                  So they clearly use the label "publisher" in the text of the law. "Publisher and Platform" are words we use to describe their activity. It matters not, the label we use, the language of the law makes the distinction for us. Section 230 was to protect content providers from liability of what a user says. The reality is, the content providers are sending messages through the individual publishers (users) who post content, by silencing some and making others "trend." Either manually or by use of algorithms. So, the effect is:

                  AT&T isn't going to liable for a phone call made on their services that slandered a person. An unmanaged internet forum or comments section is also, not going to be liable because of individual posts. Conservatives in effect, want to address the issue, where content providers are publishing, by means of silencing some voices and encouraging others. So call it whatever you like. Label it whatever you like. The distinction is already there to those of us who can see it.

                  5.- Other Comments:

                  Your argument, sorry, “argument” is that private companies operating without state oversight is “communism” and socialism”. Do you know what communism is?

                  Yes.

                  Did you know that communism and socialism are two different political positions?

                  Yes.

                  You missed my point. The point was the left drags the right to the left. So my statement was an analogy, implying that in the future, democrats will be communists, and republicans would be socialists.

                  6.- Grandstanding:

                  So, your explanation for the fact that the whole sex trafficking operation turned out to be a pack of lies is that… “perhaps Hawley was giving them the benefit of the doubt”.

                  Whether Hawley knew they were atheist whores or not at the time doesn't matter. In the end, he got the job done. I'll just say that.

                  1. AT&T isn’t going to liable for a phone call made on their services that slandered a person. An unmanaged internet forum or comments section is also, not going to be liable because of individual posts. Conservatives in effect, want to address the issue, where content providers are publishing, by means of silencing some voices and encouraging others. So call it whatever you like. Label it whatever you like. The distinction is already there to those of us who can see it.

                    Glad more people are starting to have clarity on this issue, Unmanaged forums are the answer.

                    When phones were invented, there was much public worry they would be used to further criminal activity. And, of course, they were. An AT&T operator listening in to every call was not a better solution than privacy then or now.

                    1. “Unmanaged forums are the answer.”

                      Exercise For The Student:

                      1. Copy out, by hand, each and every work-from-home spam on this thread.
                      2. Ask yourself: Is “Unmanaged forums are the answer” a really really stupid notion?
                      3. If you did not answer “yes” at step 2, repeat step 1 with another comment thread until reality sinks in.

              3. Thank you for taking the time to point out that Suderman might more aptly be named ‘Suderchild’, or even whining, irrational, angry, out of touch with reality ‘Suderbaby’.

                I fail to see how an article such as one this should have anything to do with a magazine called ‘Reason’, since ‘reason’ implies logical, rational argument based on fact — none of which we see in this article.

                One thing that has become obvious in the last few years is that an ability to put words together competently into sentences has little correlation with an ability to sort out fact from fantasy, and little correlation with an ability to think, analyze, and draw rational conclusions.

                It has also become obvious that for the most part news and opinion people aren’t lying or propagandizing when they spout their diatribes. I’m sure that Suder’man’ believes every single word of this nonsense.

                This sad situation does not bode well for democracy, nor for the human species.

              4. SUDERMAN GOTS THE HDS! WYPIPO GOAN GETCHA!!!

      2. Flag, refresh

        1. If you insist. But why do you want us to do that to you?

          1. You are welcome to do as you please. I can’t seem to recall anything you’ve posted at all, so you’re not worth the effort.

            1. Brett posts well, mostly stays in volokh. Not sure he understands who sqrsly is.

              1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible ddo economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE……  READ MORE

              2. OK, not my problem.

            2. Bellmore posts here a lot and actually has some pretty good insights.

              1. Bellmore’s good insight here happens to be, I think, that Sevo is an arrogant jerk, who clutters up the forum here with bragging about its awesome computer skills in “flagging”! Next, it will clutter up the threads with bragging about its turd-pooping skills!

                1. Does this make you hungry?

                2. I think he thinks he has to write “flag/refresh” and say something about “lefty shit” each time, or the feature doesn’t work.

                  1. and you have to cry about it

                  2. I think the TDS-addled lefty shit is hoping to deflect the attention from his constant bullshit.
                    Fuck off and die, asshole.

                  3. Well, you’re flagable. You’re also a lefty shit. And a weasel, and a liar………. and a sophist.

                    Really, you have a robust array of horrible qualities.

                    1. She really is terrible.

                3. Flag, refresh.

      3. That was an impressive feat of sarcasm.

        1. Thank You kind White Knight!

          1. Flag, refresh

          2. LOL @

            Sarc and WK jerking each other off.

            1. The two annoying school jerks, tentatively trying to establish a friendship based on the commonality that everyone else despises them.

              1. You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
                https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
                From the conclusion to the above…
                These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.

                SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an asshole! You do NOT need to push me down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!

                1. flagged as spam

                  1. Sarcasmic exhausted his KAR schtick yesterday, so time to wheel out his other sociopathic sockpuppet.

                2. Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
                  How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

                  Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

                  So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

                  “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
                  Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)

                  (Etc.)

                  See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/#comment-8316852

                  1. I don’t understand a word of what you’ve written SQRLSY, but thanks for writing it.
                    Together we can crush the people and put America safely in the hands of our trusted oligarchs.

                    1. “I don’t understand a word of what you’ve written SQRLSY…”

                      Obviously, it MUST be due to my poor writing skills! It couldn’t POSSIBLY have ANYTHING to do with your laziness or dishonesty!

                    2. Pretty sure it’s because of the shit in your mouth.

                    3. Very easy; spaz posts, gets removed.

            2. They like to suck each other off and fuck each other’s asses, and in an order that might surprise you.

          3. Maybe you fags can run of and fuck each other. Leaving us alone. Or maybe a murder/suicide pact.

            1. Dude, I’m gonna have to flag you. The general public reads stuff on this website. “murder/suicide”? Yeah, I’m sure you’re not serious, but it makes libertarians look bad.

      4. What happened on 4 January?

    2. It’s his truth.

      1. If he actually believed what he wrote it could be.

        But Suderman knows he’s flat out lying, and we know it, and he knows we know it, but he does it anyway.

        “A mob of pro-Trump idiots ransacked the Capitol”

        Carrying a lectern to the lobby, snatching a laptop, and breaking a window is ransacking for Suderman, but burning down St. John’s and firing rockets into federal buildings for a month was mostly peaceful protest.

        “and people died”

        Is this the closest we’ll get to Reason acknowledging Ashley Babbit’s murder?

        1. Are you seriously doubting the trauma Suderman experienced when the Great Hall of the People Palace of Our Democracy was violated by the presence of filthy peasants? Can’t you feel the sheer terror of those peasants breathing the same air as their betters? How safe can you really feel if mere serfs can vocalize their concerns in front of our esteemed aristocrats, and in their own Palace, no less?

            1. OH! OH! Look!
              TDS-addled piece of shit finds one fake story and one where, if you squint just right, it might like like someone is gouging an eye!
              Do you post here hoping someone is stupid enough to buy your constant stream of bullshit?

            2. The gouger is pretty much all the mob violence I have left… I wish that there were two of them.

              1. How about that woman who put her face in front of the bullet the cop shot? I mean, that’ll cause him at least five minutes of trauma, right?

                1. The woman, Ashli Babbitt, who placed herself at the front of a violent mob trying to break into the Speaker’s Lobby. Do you mean her?

                  1. Yes the unarmed woman on public property who was shot while protesting.

                  2. Tell me again how the the mob was violent? The eyegouger was violent but he was hardly a mob, and your other two examples, weren’t.

                    1. Fuck off.

                    2. So you got nuthin’

                    3. Lol. The impotent anger of a liar is beautiful to behold.

                  3. The 10 year unarmed veteran on public property, yes.

                  4. You know what’s fucking hilarious, you defending a cop murdering an unarmed woman when there were officers (or other personnel) on her side of the door that didn’t feel she posed enough of a threat to shoot her.

                    Fuck off, you authoritarian piece of shit.

                  5. It’s also now rumored the reason we haven’t heard anything about who killed her is because it was a politicians personal security, not capitol police. And they could be held liable, especially in a civil suit.

                    Wonder what democrat was paying him?

                    1. Not disagreeing with this but wondering if there is more substance to it. Considering how quickly the names of LEOs who shoot peeps who have long criminal records and are doing things that do seem to be real crimes it does seem strange we have no idea who the shooter is.

                      I watched the vid of the shooting and have to wonder what training the shooter had. As a rule not just LEOs but military and self defense classes train students to shoot at center body mass; not the neck which is the smallest area of the body.

                    2. He also shot in the direction of a crowd, among which were police officers. Not exactly what cops are trained to do.

            3. Wow. You’ve been proven to be a 9/11 truther on regards to jan 6th… bit you persist. Yet all summer you defended mich worse riots with BLM endorsement. So weird. Almost like you’re a dishonest POS.

              1. LOL, “dishonest”. I know that you know what my actual argument about BLM and riots is, but you are misstating it on purpose.

                1. cite?

                  1. He doesn’t have one. He supports leftist violence. He will rationalize his support to hide it, but he supports it.

            4. So, Sevo, you are going with complete denial about the eye gouging? Even Mother’s Lament acknowledges it occurred, although he does attempt to belittle the importance of the assault because it was perpetrated by a “hillbilly”. I guess hillbillies get some kind of special pass when it comes to attacking police:

              https://reason.com/2021/02/22/anthony-fauci-coronavirus-masks-cnn-cautious-safety/#comment-8775264

              1. Do you realize how pathetic you sound making your stand on “a guy went for his eyes”?

                It was and is nothing. You’re not winning anything. You sound deranged.

              2. “belittle the importance of the assault because it was perpetrated by a “hillbilly”

                Would the assault be a more “important” assault if it was committed by the pope?
                I don’t think he was the pope, I think he was a hillbilly.

                You’re not very good at this.

              3. Eye gouging! I also heard someone hit a policeman with a folding chair, before putting him in a full Nelson.

            1. Cop committed suicide a the same month, right you steaming pile of shit?

            2. “One rioter beat the officer with a pole flying the U.S. flag.”

              Sure it was a flimsy, hollow aluminum pole weighing only several ounces, and the flag cushioned the blow… and sure the cop was beating the fuck out of the protesters with a riot club, BUT IT’S ALL I’VE GOT DAMMIT.

              You assholes try sustaining an insurrection narrative on a phony riot. It’s not easy, let me tell you.

              1. +100000

              2. Ask him about lasers, frozen water bottles and fireworks from last summer. Those weren’t weapons.

                1. Objects of any kind are only weapons in the hands of Trump supporters. They are harmless objects of self expression and harmless protest in the hands of leftists.

              3. Ah, this is the patented Mother’s defense:
                – Sure the guy was gouging out an officer’s eyes, but he was a hillbilly, so it doesn’t count.
                – Sure a guy showed up to the riots with Molotov cocktails, but they weren’t made very well, so it doesn’t count.
                – Sure someone was beating a cop with a metal pole, but it was only aluminum, so it doesn’t count.

                1. Don’t forget about the ZIP TIES!

                2. Had you nor lied for weeks about a cop being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher people might be more interested in hearing you whine about some one else slightly minimizing a few low impact altercations.

                3. >>Sure a guy showed up to the riots with Molotov cocktails

                  in his truck

                  1. That’s just more “fire extinguisher” from WK.

                  2. And a day before. Not at the riots.

                4. “but he was a hillbilly, so it doesn’t count”
                  You’re always pissing and moaning about people putting words in your mouth, and look what you just did. I never said anything about the gouger not counting.

                  “Molotov cocktails
                  Or some jars of raspberry moonshine, that weren’t even brought to the protest. But this is all you’ve got.

                  “beating a cop with a metal pole, but it was only aluminum, so it doesn’t count”
                  It weighed six ounces, tops, was wrapped in a flag and the cop that was hit by it had just finished beating them with a riot club. This is just pathetic and desperate.

          1. Lol, stick with the eyegouger guy, White Knight.
            A cop yelling in the doorway because protesters and all the other cops are squishing him, is just embarrassing for you.

            1. You’re assuming the TDS-addled shit is intelligent enough to be embarrassed. Evidence says otherwise.

            2. “eyegouger guy”

              Say that five times fast.

              1. So, a violent mob breaking into the Capitol while the electoral college votes were being counted is just a big joke.

                1. No, you pretending like a minor incident like going for someone’s eyes after you have been screaming about violent coups is though.

                  1. I defense of White Knight (gack) on that one, the hillbilly really was going for the cops eyes. He taken a good smack from a club and was pretty enraged.

                    1. Allow me please, a person who has been in a few steer fights, to charactierize a minor incident as a minor incident.

                      Unlike Jeff and White Jeff, I won’t cry a river if you disagree.

                2. eyegouger guy eyegouger guy eyegouger guy eyegouger guy eyegouger guy

                  1. Did this make you cry Dee?

                3. You still haven’t explained how “the mob” was violent.

                  You lied about the fire extinguisher, the zipties, the smeared poo, the flag “beatdown”, the presence of weapons, the presence of “molotov cocktails” and the squished policeman, and you still haven’t explained to us how “the mob” was violent.

                4. “So, a violent mob breaking into the Capitol while the electoral college votes were being counted is just a big joke.”

                  Yes, to anyone of IQ above, oh, 50, it is.
                  And if you need me to explain how, I’ll need a non-refundable deposit of $1500 to explain it to you; you’re pretty fucking dumb and you only get three hours to attempt to understand.

                5. Trump supporters lobbied their senators for weeks to join House members in the objections. Each objection backed by a member of the House and Senate would provide 2 hours of debate on each floor into the election “irregularities” Trump supporters wanted read into the public record. 20 to 24 hours of the airing of grievances.

                  20 minutes into the first 2-hour debate (Arizona), the Capitol building is breached and the debates are suspended. When the joint session reconvened, there were no more objections and no more debates.

                  So this thing Trump supporters really really really wanted to see happen was thwarted by… a handful of people, some of whom do NOT support Trump (John Sullivan, anyone?).

                  Who won? The mostly Democrat states whose election integrity was going to be challenged and debated. Pelosi, who got another run at impeachment. And certain morons who want to portray Trump supporters as dangerous domestic terrorists.

                  Tell me, Mr. WKII, if Trump supporters were so dangerous, why did the “mayor” of the Capitol (Pelosi) only have 500 of the 2300 CP officers on duty, and why were none of them in riot gear? Why, when the House Managers suddenly demanded impeachment witnesses and Republicans said, “okay. But we’ll want witnesses too, and if we can only have one, it will be Pelosi”, did the HMs suddenly decide no witnesses were needed?

                  Why was Voldemort himself filmed at the Capitol on a bullhorn telling the crowd, “Antifa is here, don’t take the bait!”

                  It’s a big joke, yes. No one’s laughing, tho.

          2. Bidens DoJ just dropped, with prejudice, 2 cases of BLM protesters assaulting officers. With prejudice means they can not be charged later for the crimes. Hundreds of cops were injured during the BLM riots. You defended BLM. Stop pretending you care about officers. You’ve even cheered on the death of a 10 year veteran for merely trespassing.

            1. They had a trial. If you watched on TV it is easy to see why it would be tough to make a case. The idiots at the Capitol on the other hand where there are security cameras everywhere, full face, broad daylight, taking and posting selfies could not have been more stupid.

              1. Or not a trial rather but legal something or other.

                1. Eh, same thing.

                2. ah yes the well known “legal something or other”

                3. So I was right you pathetic shit.

              2. No, the case was dropped with prejudice you lying fuck.

                1. “The term “prosecutorial discretion” refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute and unreviewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges, and what charges to bring, in cases where the evidence would justify charges.”

                  Prosecutors can choose not to prosecute for virtually any reason. They don’t feel the case will succeed and want to keep their batting average healthy. They feel political or public pressure to not pursue a case. Or they just don’t feel like prosecuting it.

                  Likewise, they can pursue prosecutions that have limited or no viability and waste taxpayer money, if they deem such a case to be “in the public interest” (or in their political interest).

                  It’s extremely rare for a prosecutor to be disciplined for abusing this power, and it’s much more likely that they’ll be called on the carpet for malicious prosecution than for, “well, never mind, we’re dropping the charges.” Well, except when the DoJ moves to dismiss a case against a Trump associate, I guess.

                  1. “hey kids sorry your parents were killed but the politics”

        2. Somebody did something and somebody stopped being somebody.

    3. I was not a fan of Trump (or Hawley for that matter), but this article got so ridiculous I just stopped about halfway through. Example, the part about the Pennsylvania claim not being within his purview.

      He’s a US Senator who is going to vote whether to certify the election results or not. Including the results from Pennsylvania. That puts the Pennsylvania claims pretty squarely within his purview. No?

      1. A single senator in the minority is far more dangerous than a house and senate controlled by an open authoritarian president. Far more dangerous.

        1. hey, come on, it’s not like there are brownshirts roaming the country committing violence with the tacit approval of the ruling party

          oh wait

      2. Disaffected, nonsense-addled. bigoted faux libertarian misfits are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        Open wider, bevis. You (with the other clingers) will spend the rest of your life swallowing even more progress arranged by your betters. Until you are replaced. By your betters.

        1. Fuck off and die, asshole.

          1. You get to whine about all of this damned progress as much as you like, clinger, but you will comply.

            Thank you for your obsequious, continuing compliance.

        2. You really should be tortured to death.

      3. Nope.

        The certification process only involves opening the Electoral College envelopes and counting the votes. Whoever has the most votes wins. Mike Pence understood this quite well.

        What the Senators can do is raise an objection & the body can debate that. But at the end of the day, nothing will change that vote count. The members of Congress that pulled the objection stunts on Jan 6 were grandstanding & making fools of themselves & democracy. All for Donald effing Trump. What a joke it was.

        1. But all the Democratic members of Congress that also made the exact same objections in 2000, 2004 and 2016, were only standing up for the truth, right?

        2. What about the Democrats that did the same thing in 2017?

        3. Fuck off Jeff.

    4. Josh Hawley is a complete scumbag, but doesn’t Reason have fact checkers?

      “By the time it was over, five people, including a protester shot by police and an officer beaten over the head with a fire extinguisher by rioters, had died.”

      The ‘fire extinguisher” was an unverified assertion by police that “surprise!” turned out to be absolutely false. The New York Times and Washington Post who originally spread this false rumor no longer post ethical retractions, but they have memory holed it and re-released the story with that fiction removed.

      Is Peter Suderman the last journalist on planet earth not to get the memo?

      “New York Times quietly updates report on fire extinguisher striking Capitol Police officer”
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-times-quietly-updates-report-on-fire-extinguisher-striking-capitol-police-officer/ar-BB1dG92n

      1. sad

        Suderman’s become just another BlueAnon conspiracy theorist

    5. It’s it gold when someone threatens the democratic party the liberal runs with an article like this…. so obvious.

    6. The reality is that the GOP is dying. People are moving to more urban areas where their experience is that government is necessary to get shit done. The more rural, less educated and poorer whites and evangelicals can be swayed by Hawley’s feigned populism, but it isn’t hard to see that without gerrymandering, voter suppression and restrictions, and the electoral college (which gives more power to dirt than it does people) the GOP’s days are numbered. In a democracy, the majority will eventually win out, even when the deck is stacked in favor of the minority. At a certain number the possibility of even cheating to win just doesn’t work any more.

      So he should feel free to campaign on grievance and imagined threats, fear of the government he so wants to be a part of, and say what ever it takes to get there. The real sad part is that a functioning center-right party would do well among voters not mention is what the Country needs desperately. But with QAnon, Trump, and the general terror and assumed grievance of the current GOP he won’t win anything of consequence.

  2. With Nancy, Benie, AOC ,Sleepy Joe and company in power, I’d say Hawleys is the least of our problems.

    1. He is Reasons new trump. They can ignore the open authoritarians and focus on him now.

      1. TLDR , Is he tweeting mean things?

      2. If leftists like Reason writers hate him, then he can’t be all that bad.

        1. He has surely said stupid things. But he is far less dangerous than many majority members of the senate including Schumer. The focus on a minority member here is proof of their bias more than anything else.

        2. It’s a shame you need to use others’ input to form your opinions. But that’s today’s GOP.

  3. Hawley, the authoritarian who is questioning and challenging authority. …k
    He is a partisan and I’m not in favor of all he says and does. However, he is a politician who is highlighting how news and social media twist facts, lie, and remove anything that hurts democrats.
    This article just highlights how out of touch, uninformed, and illogical Suderman is.

    1. Serious question:
      Has Suderman ever written an article that doesn’t highlight how out of touch, uninformed, and illogical Suderman is?

      Have anyone here (other than the fifty-centers) read a Suderman article and said “Wow, that’s a great point”?

      1. I generally regard his literary efforts as banal virtue signaling waste material. Perhaps ideal for compost.

    2. Actual CNN headline today:

      “Biden’s historic victory for America — no thanks to GOP”

      Referring to saddling US taxpayers with another 1.9 trillion in debt.

    3. Fox News does the same thing, including simulating outrage over trivialities. And it’s OK to complain about media companies having biased reporting. The criticism of Hawley is that he proposes the government step in to control corporations’ ability to publish what they please. I’m not OK with that.

  4. Isn’t Sen. Hawley just repeating the pro-union, pro-church, pro-bowling league message of the 1992 Buchanan campaign?

    Some nostalgia for the 1950’s never fades…

    1. “pro-union, pro-church, pro-bowling league”

      Those are all terrible things.

      1. Yes, we know you hate Christians comrade.

        1. You are replying to a chemjeff parody.

          1. I’m not the real Abe Lincoln, he’s already dead. Let everyone know, ok?

          2. Who still has more sense than you do. Think about that seriously – a parody makes better points than you do.

    2. Or just some of the same hysterical talking points of certain senators in 2016?

    3. except all the unions are government workers now with fat pensions

    4. “Some nostalgia for the 1950’s never fades…”

      well Hollywood blacklists are cool again

      Communism wasn’t nearly as threatening as beep/bop/boop

  5. Hawley is indeed terrible. But all forms of populism are inherently bad.

    In fact, Koch / Reason libertarianism is basically the opposite of populism. Our philosophy states that the most important function of government is to create the conditions under which billionaires — especially our benefactor Charles Koch — can get even richer. That’s why we support explicitly anti-populist policies like unlimited, unrestricted immigration and a $0.00 / hour minimum wage.

    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

  6. Very long article. I stopped at this point:
    ” . . . and an officer beaten over the head with a fire extinguisher by rioters . . . ”

    Another writer added to the never again list.
    If it weren’t for the comments, I would give this up completely.

    1. It isn’t just that Suderman is either being dishonest or ignorant about that. It’s ff he’s ignorant or dishonest about that, he’s probably letting getting other, bigger things wrong, too, for the same reasons.

      “Is the senator’s authoritarian grandstanding the dark future of the GOP?

      Are Peter Suderman’s paranoid fantasies the future of Reason?

      1. This allows reason to ignore how wrong they were about democrats. It really is as simple as that. The same reason none of the leftitarians herein sarcasmic have started attacking Joe and still focus on trump. They can’t admit how wrong they were.

        1. No one could possibly have been wrong about the democrats.
          They are implementing policies they have openly declared in their party platform for decades.
          Vote for fascists, get fascism; it ain’t that hard t figure out.

          1. Yep.

            It is what they wanted all along.

            Well, that and the checks from their oligarchic overlords.

            Suderman isn’t even a journalist, he’s a bought and paid for hack.

        2. And it’s becoming more and more painfully obvious all the time.

          They should be shouting from the rooftops about this:

          “The new effort would likely set aside a deal negotiated between the Trump administration and the Taliban. It would also likely delay a U.S. troop withdrawal by May that was part of the deal.

          Former President Donald Trump agreed last year to withdraw all troops within a period of 14 months in return for a Taliban promise to ensure that terrorist groups never again use Afghanistan as a haven to plot attacks against the U.S. and its allies. The 14-month period expires on May 1.

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-officials-propose-afghan-taliban-summit-to-form-interim-government-11614983054

          The Taliban hasn’t targeted a single American since the day President Trump signed the peace deal with them 12 months ago and promised to leave Afghanistan by the end of April 2021.

          Now that Joe Biden is effectively announcing that he has no intention of leaving Afghanistan–until the Islamic fundamentalists who run the Taliban can guarantee the rights of women–we’re effectively back at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

          Dave Chappell once said that the black community was supporting Jussie Smollett with their silence–because they could tell that he was obviously lying. Why is a libertarian publication that spent 20 years arguing against our foreign adventure in Afghanistan strangely silent about Biden pulling the rug out from under Trump’s deal to withdraw from Afghanistan completely?

          Like every serial killer and left wing pundit, they have their rationalizations, but behind it all is surely what you said–embarrassment. Donald Trump losing to Joe Biden was the worst thing that has happened to libertarian capitalism since FDR, and Reason was out front cheering it on.

          Back when Trump sealed a deal with the Taliban to withdraw our troops completely and actually started withdrawing them, back when the neocons in Congress were trying to pass bills preventing Trump from removing them below 8,500, Biden said we should keep 8,500 troops their indefinitely. Joe Biden’s intent to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely were not only foreseeable but also foreseen.

          How embarrassing for Reason!

          1. “The Taliban hasn’t targeted a single American since the day President Trump signed the peace deal”

            This is true. But they’re attacking Afghans left & right. The reason why the Taliban signed the deal was that it would get rid of the Americans and the Taliban would take over Afghanistan again. The US can’t police Afghanistan forever. But if the Taliban comes into power again and harbors terrorists like it did pre-9/11, we’d be back at square one. Its a lose-lose situation no matter what.

            1. ‘But if and if…’
              Goody. YOU police Afghanistan.

            2. “But if the Taliban comes into power again and harbors terrorists like it did pre-9/11, we’d be back at square one.”

              Which is what? Explain why I care.

              Because “letting terrorists hide is mud huts” is a pretty pass poor excuse for an invasion and occupation.

            3. “This is true. But they’re attacking Afghans left & right. The reason why the Taliban signed the deal was that it would get rid of the Americans and the Taliban would take over Afghanistan again. The US can’t police Afghanistan forever. But if the Taliban comes into power again and harbors terrorists like it did pre-9/11, we’d be back at square one. Its a lose-lose situation no matter what.

              There are a couple of points that need to be made here.

              1) We can’t force the Afghans to make peace with the Taliban against their will.

              Part of the peace deal Trump made with the Taliban was to get them to agree to peace talks in Doha with the U.S. backed government in Kabul. The U.S. backed government in Kabul dragged their heels on naming a group of representatives to go to Doha and negotiate a peace agreement with the Taliban, that Trump withheld foreign aid until they finally relented and entered negotiations. If the Afghanistan government doesn’t want a peace deal with the Taliban–for whatever reason–then there isn’t anything the U.S. government can or should do about that.

              2) What is in the best interests o the United States may not be in the best interests of the U.S. backed government in Afghanistan.

              The question isn’t whether the United States leaving Afghanistan is in the best interests of the government in Kabul. The question is whether the United States leaving Afghanistan is in the best interests of the United States–and I maintain that it is in the best interests of the United States to leave.

              If you want to make the case that remaining in Afghanistan is in the best interests of the United States, you need to make that case. While you’re doing that, you might also want to account for the fact that what is in the best interests of the government in Kabul may or may not be in the best interests of the people of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan might be better off with the Taliban and without a never ending war.

              Oh, and if Joe Biden thinks that we should remain in Afghanistan despite it being to the detriment of American interests, because it’s in the best interests of Afghanistan, then he should have been honest about that and run for the presidency of Afghanistan. I’m certainly not about to stop criticizing the Biden administration for selling our interests short for the benefit of other countries. Is that what you’re advocating, too? That we shouldn’t leave Afghanistan until we can guarantee that the women of Afghanistan will be treated the same as men by the Islamic fundamentalist’s who are running almost the whole country start treating women like men?

              That criteria is either dishonest or stupid.

              1. “The U.S. is cutting aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion and will cut even more unless the country’s feuding political leaders can resolve their differences and form a government that can implement a peace deal with the Taliban.

                Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the decision Monday after he briefly visited Kabul to try ending the dispute between Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and former Afghan chief executive Abdullah Abdullah, who are clashing over the results of their country’s presidential election last fall.”

                —-Politico, March 23, 2020

                https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/23/pompeo-afghanistan-taliban-aid-145331

                Those of us who didn’t know about this when it was happening need to ask ourselves why. Was it because the news you watch sucks? Was it because you were obsessed with Donald Trump’s tweets?

                Regardless, it’s hard to force the U.S. backed government in Kabul to enter into peace talks with the Taliban when the U.S. backed government in Kabul refuses to form a government–so they won’t have to enter into peace talks with the Taliban.

                Incidentally, where in the Constitution does it say that the United States is prohibited from pursuing it’s own security interests unless the government of Afghanistan approves? Why aren’t we free to do what’s in our own best interests even if it’s bad for the government of Afghanistan? What about Mozambique? Are we allowed to do what we want for our own security interests–but only if it’s in the best interests of the government of Mozambique, too?

          2. “Back when Trump sealed a deal with the Taliban to withdraw our troops”

            Trump never needed Taliban permission or agreement to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Or Germany or Korea or Britain or Japan or any other country he failed to withdraw troops from.

            1. Wait, so you’re trying to say that the peace deal wasn’t a good thing, and congress wouldn’t have let him pull out without it?

              Even with it they still set up roadblocks to the withdrawal:
              House Democrats, Working With Liz Cheney, Restrict Trump’s Planned Withdrawal of Troops From Afghanistan

              1. Trueman; disingenuous troll.

                1. mtrueman knew but he still lied.

              2. “Wait, so you’re trying to say that the peace deal wasn’t a good thing, and congress wouldn’t have let him pull out without it?”

                The peace deal is likely to be a sham, just like the deal Nixon struck with North Vietnam. But Nixon, unlike Trump, actually withdrew American troops from foreign soil, as he promised.

          3. When I was in Afghanistan, they stopped reporting mortar attacks. Even when mortars hit the airfield and burned a helicopter full of mail.
            See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

            1. They haven’t stopped reporting U.S. casualties, and there have been no U.S. casualties reported in Afghanistan since the day Trump signed the peace deal.

              Did you vote in the presidential election without knowing 1) that President Trump had entered into peace deal with the Taliban to get us out of Afghanistan completely by the end of April 2021 OR 2) where Biden stood on following through on that agreement?

                1. Well Ken, if you think that winning any argument is as easy as posting the wiki link, Bud, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. If you think you know anything about Afghanistan, you had better show me some fucking scars, Girlfriend.

                  1. Does this mean that, using the argument that because you claim to have been in Afghanistan and now have superior authority on the subject, you approve of keeping U.S. soldiers there indefinitely? Also, I guess I missed your attempts at posting verifiable facts to support your position, whatever it is.

            2. “When I was in Afghanistan, they stopped reporting mortar attacks. Even when mortars hit the airfield and burned a helicopter full of mail.”

              And?

              1. It’s not like we lost an ambassador and, even if we did, what difference, at this point, does it make?

        3. To be fair, the reason staff was probably not thinking much about the character of Team D. They just knew they could not tolerate any more deplorables mucking up the parlor.

          1. Yeah, but that’s part of the problem!

            Because the problem has an explanation doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem.

            And the other half of it is that they still haven’t seen error of their ways! Locomotive breath, baby! No way to slow down.

            Why are they still dog piling on conservatives and Republicans everywhere when they should be excoriating the warmongering socialists?!

            Yes, they hate the deplorables. But even after the Biden administration goes full blown warmongering socialist, they still can’t see that the real enemy isn’t average Americans but the authoritarian socialists that are running the Democratic party?

            That’s willful blindness, and I’m not sure that personal insults and ridicule aren’t the appropriate response to that. They need to be embarrassed. There are people out there who think the shit they’re serving around here is gourmet libertarianism.

            1. Of all the legitimate punk rock bands of my youth, the most technically proficient (certainly coming out of California) was RKL. They had this song that was about people in the scene shitting on their own scene, when we should have been sticking together against the police, the government, the media and all the shit polite society was piling on top of us.

              It could have been written today about this very situation with minor alterations:

              “Yet even with all our own problems
              We shit on our scene
              And even now I almost feel helpless
              About being free
              It’s not whether or not I can stand,
              But who’ll stand by me?
              There still ain’t a mag or a zine
              On the streets today
              Without some critic
              About [every word] we say.
              So be careful what you’re reading
              Opinions [are] misleading

              . . . .

              So blocked out all the phony people
              Blocked out, the trash that you read
              Blocked out, the shit on TV
              It’s not what you see but just what you’ll believe!

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjxqM5lPUxo

              Amazing band. Amazing lyrics. Great fucking song.

              We really shouldn’t believe the phonies, the trash we read, the shit we see on TV. The garbage they’re peddling is a function of the unprincipled and stupid shit they believe–and has nothing to do with the principles of libertarian capitalism or the facts.

              How embarrassing! It’s like watching Isaac Newton kill himself through mercury poisoning in the pursuit of alchemy. Shouldn’t he have known better? Shouldn’t they have known better? They’ll never live this down.

            2. Reason’s writers are a problem – the problem starts at the top of management. I’ve reviewed the online bios of some of the Reason writers and none seem to list any substantial work outside of writing stuff for this publication or that publication. Not that I expect anyone with, say, years of experience in engineering or running a business or other non-writing careers to find time to become writers on political matters – except maybe after retirement. My point is that I prefer to get political insight from people who have had to learn from the hard school of experience when and how to subsume their emotions in order to solve the problems standing in their way. I would wish for Reason to demand that kind of background as a basic criteria for its writers. Instead they seem to be experts at emoting and then rationalizing said emotions. Years of writing for all sorts of publications is a demerit in my eyes. The only time in my career that I considered professional writing a plus is when I hired a technical writer – the one we chose also had at least earned a degree in chemistry. (I would only hire someone as a writer with a degree in political science if they had actually successfully earned a living for 10 plus years at something other than writing or politics.)

              1. self-selection is a problem

                if you’re successful, why would you write?

      2. “Suderman is either being dishonest or ignorant about that…”

        Can’t it be both?

  7. One of the managerial class’s paid scribblers wrote this multi-thousand word excoriation of a congressional nobody. I hadn’t heard much about Hawley until now, but if he’s scaring Our Betters enough to fund this big a hit piece, I think I like him.

    1. Senator, he’s mine, I voted for him, and will again.

  8. Wow, this rant would have benefitted from an editor. Does Reason have editors? Well…looks like Suderman is an editor. Ugh…

    1. The editors here probably told him to put the WK version of capital riot fire extinguisher murders in.

      1. Imagine in your head an article written by someone like White Knight…
        Now, slowly look up…
        What do you see?…

        1. Mostly kindergarten style finger paintings of fire extinguishers.

          1. Racist! Those are ideograms, not finger paintings.

            1. ideograms were culturally appropriated from Ur

        2. Suderman is White Knight. Of course, it’s all so clear.

          1. Makes more sense than Suderman’s fever dreams.

    2. You mean like, spellcheck?

    3. Everyone’s an editor. It’s like promoting all your entry level people to ‘manager’ or putting the word ‘engineer’ in their job title.

  9. once upon a time….should have been how this article started.

  10. This was not the glorious revolution the rioters had imagined but a deadly cosplay version of it brought to life, a dangerous joke planned and perpetrated by trolls and cranks—and backed by people in power who should have known better. Those few hours on January 6 were like the entire Trump era in concentrate: There were the absurdist aesthetics and lunatic logic, the self-serving lies, the made-for-YouTube showmanship, the chaos and conspiratorial impenetrability, the muddling of the serious with the deeply unserious, the swirling threat of political violence and, finally, its palpable, horrible reality.

    How many times did you swoon on your fainting couch writing the sort of shit that Edward Bulwer-Lytton would have blushed to have written?

    I’ve got a pretty goddamn good suspicion that Josh Hawley is every bit the fraud and con-man of the greasiest, slickest of politicians to ever had slid down the colon of the body politic. He’s the dirtiest of whores, willing to say or to do whatever it takes to get a grab at the brass ring of power. He has no other principles than self-aggrandizement and you can’t count on his career trajectory to signify a damn thing beyond shit-eating weaselness. He’s as bad as Matt Gaetz, Elliot Spitzer, Mitch McConnell, James Comey, Kamala Harris, or any one of a thousand other politicians that we’d be better off throwing off a cliff.

  11. Sudermen? If I were Hawley, I’d circulate this article as an endorsement.

    1. I predicted a couple of months ago that Hawley was going to quickly morph into Public Enemy #1 for the Block Yomommatards like MacAdoodle. It was a pretty easy call to make!

      1. Damnit. I had Kristi Noem in the betting pool.

        Trump had gigantic turnout. It’s not surprising some politician decided to try and appeal to his voters.

        1. I had rep Biggs. Home state bias I guess.

        2. And they were real, not deceased or imaginary like Joe’s.

        3. Governors are, relatively speaking, small fry and not really worth fomenting a media-driven witch hunt over.

          Hawley is basically this era’s version of Santorum, instead the bugaboo is Populism! instead of Christianity.

      2. What am I, chopped liver?

  12. I imagine with each paragraph, Petey had to retreat to the settee, fan himself with a lace handkerchief, and imbibe some elixir.

    1. White wine spritzers.

      1. Those are weekday afternoon pickmeups. Suderman Sundays are for pitchers of StrawberryLime and Mint mojitos.

        1. While wearing a silk kimono?

          1. He claims it’s Megan’s and he just grabbed it because his stuff is in the wash.

            1. Sure, but we all know Megan’s actual kimono is way more butch than his.

  13. So demanding that your political opponents be rounded up and put into reeducation camps isn’t toxic, but questioning an election is?

    No wait, questioning an election has been the Highest Form of Patriotism for years. So why is it suddenly toxic now?

    1. The Trump supporters I know aren’t questioning the election at all. They already know the answer as does Trump.

      1. Yup. Trump won. Read it on one of MTG’s awesome masks.

    2. questioning an election has been the Highest Form of Patriotism for years. So why is it suddenly toxic now?

      Because fuck you, that’s why.

    3. Democrats still have an open attempt to overturn a house election. Oddly absent from every reason article on elections.

    4. Cuz “RESIST!” was never about ethics, just about tribes. Duh.

  14. Since we’re dealing with swamp-scum, lets try this:

    “Swalwell files lawsuit against Trump over Capitol riots”
    […]
    “Lawsuit alleges Trump inflicted emotional distress on Swalwell, a House Democratic impeachment manager”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/swalwell-lawsuit-against-trump-republicans-capitol-riots

    “Emotional distress”; hell, every time Pelosi opens her yap, I suffer “emotional distress”.

    1. If it gets past the judge dismissing, and Swalwell does get a jury, I don’t fancy Trump’s chances in D.C.. But the lawsuit is objectively insane.

      1. Imagine the suits using the same premise against the 90 Million BLM raked in last year for destroyed businesses.

        1. or Gina Carano, for that matter

          A key figure in bringing an end to blacklisting was John Henry Faulk. Host of an afternoon comedy radio show, Faulk was a leftist active in his union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. He was scrutinized by AWARE, Inc., one of the private firms that examined individuals for signs of Communist sympathies and “disloyalty”. Marked by the group as unfit, he was fired by CBS Radio. Almost alone among the many victims of blacklisting, Faulk decided to sue AWARE in 1957.[67] Though the case dragged through the courts for years, the suit itself was an important symbol of the building resistance to the blacklist.[citation needed]

          The initial cracks in the entertainment industry blacklist were evident on television, specifically at CBS. In 1957, blacklisted actor Norman Lloyd was hired by Alfred Hitchcock as an associate producer for his anthology series Alfred Hitchcock Presents, then entering its third season on the network.[68] On November 30, 1958, a live CBS production of Wonderful Town, based on short stories written by then-Communist Ruth McKenney, appeared with the proper writing credit of blacklisted Edward Chodorov, along with his literary partner, Joseph Fields.[69] The following year, actress Betty Hutton insisted that blacklisted composer Jerry Fielding be hired as musical director for her new series, also on CBS.[70] The first main break in the Hollywood blacklist followed soon after. On January 20, 1960, director Otto Preminger publicly announced that Dalton Trumbo, one of the best known members of the Hollywood Ten, was the screenwriter of his forthcoming film Exodus. Six-and-a-half months later, with Exodus still to debut, The New York Times announced that Universal Pictures would give Trumbo screen credit for his role as writer on Spartacus, a decision now recognized as being largely made by star/producer Kirk Douglas.[71] On October 6, Spartacus premiered – the first movie to bear Trumbo’s name since he had received story credit on Emergency Wedding in 1950. Since 1947, he had written or co-written approximately seventeen motion pictures without credit. Exodus followed in December, also bearing Trumbo’s name. The blacklist was now clearly coming to an end, but its effects continue to reverberate even until the present.[72]

          John Henry Faulk won his lawsuit in 1962. With this court decision, the private blacklisters and those who used them were put on notice that they were legally liable for the professional and financial damage they caused. This helped to bring an end to publications such as Counterattack.[73] Like Adrian Scott and Lillian Hellman, however, a number of those on the blacklist remained there for an extended period – Lionel Stander, for instance, could not find work in Hollywood until 1965.[74] Some of those who named names, like Kazan and Schulberg, argued for years after that they had made an ethically proper decision. Others, like actor Lee J. Cobb and director Michael Gordon, who gave friendly testimony to HUAC after suffering on the blacklist for a time, “concede[d] with remorse that their plan was to name their way back to work”.[75] Others were haunted by the choice they had made. In 1963, actor Sterling Hayden declared,

          I was a rat, a stoolie, and the names I named of those close friends were blacklisted and deprived of their livelihood.[76]

          Somehow I doubt Pedro Pascal has that much self-awareness.

  15. I find him extremely creepy. When watching C-SPAN coverage of the Senate, his peers all address each other when speaking. This guy stares straight at the camera. Every move he makes and every word he utters is grandstanding, pure and simple, and those who voted for him and enabled him should be ashamed of themselves.

    1. You sound just like Winston’s neighbor, Tom Parsons. Good for you, citizen.

    2. Someone, somehow, has never seen Chuck Schumer speak in the Senate.

    3. So, he’s a crappy politician. This should be a mark in his favor. If he doesn’t realize he’s a crappy politician, that would be mark against him.

  16. “Josh Hawley’s Toxic Populism”

    Not AOC’s, or Tlaib’s, or Feinstein’s, or Pelosi’s, or Water’s, or Schumer’s, or Omar’s, or Cleaver’s, or Schiff’s, or Harris’s woke lunacy, but Josh Hawley’s populism is the toxic part.

    Is Suderman even trying not to sound like a cheap carnival barker for the elitists?

    1. Yeah, well, that cop who got pummeled with nasty tweets and died the same month as the protest!
      What about him?

    2. Well, in 2016 the RESIST! leaders tried to take down an election by manipulating government apparatus, like civilized people should. None of this unsightly 2020 mob stuff.

  17. Reason = WaPo

    1. Just need to figure out whether WK is Suderman’s or Sullum’s sock.

    2. The “Reason Magazine” that you want is over there —> breitbart.com

      1. The “Reason Magazine” that we want is this place ten years ago, Wokey.

        1. I’d settle for just 5. Right before trump got the nomination.

          1. No, the Obama years were pretty damned sad as well.

            They went full beltway.

            1. yup

      2. Shocking. The guy who thinks trespassing is a capital offense, elites can overrule elections, and openly shills for China wants his own little bubble.

        1. That’s pretty amazing. A single 23-word sentence with four lies.

          1. ???
            But you only wrote eleven and one lie.

          2. Except we’ve seen you do all those things Lying Jeffy.

            1. Keep on trollin’, Troll Mac

              1. Keep lying about what you’ve said pathetic shill.

                1. That sure is the pot calling the kettle black if there ever was such a thing.

                  1. “You lie too” is so on brand for you.

                  2. Pedo Jeffy, go back to your NAMBLA board. You sick shitweasel.

              2. Keep on lying, Lying Jeffy.

          3. What were you saying?

            https://reason.com/2021/02/09/the-not-so-peaceful-transfer-of-power/#comment-8750591

            chemjeff radical individualist
            February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
            What is there to talk about?

            From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

            They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.

            Just like WK you lie repeatedly about what you’ve said. Pathetic.

            1. “Just like WK you lie repeatedly about what you’ve said.”

              LOL, you accuse me of lying and lie about what I’ve said all in one sentence. Please cite where I ever made the argument that the shooting of Babbitt was justified on mere grounds of trespassing.

              You won’t, because you can’t. I never said any such thing.

              1. “lie about what I’ve said”

                cite?

              2. That’s what I thought. Crickets.

                Just like yesterday, when you ran away from the discussion of Kyle Rittenhouse’s and his friend’s firearms charges.

                1. So you found ONE subject about which you have not lied in ONE particular manner and you’re therefore not the lying piece of TDS addled lefty shit we all know you to be?

                  1. I love it. This is what a begrudging admission from Sevo that I am right about something looks like.

                    That’s cool. I’d didn’t expect you to give me flowers.

                    1. Excepr you’re not. I posted the comments and both threads dumbfuck.

                    2. Don’t worry Sevo. Turned out that WK was lying about what he said… yet again.

                  2. No, he lied. I posted the comment thread saying exactly what I said he said. He didnt respond after despite posting 10 minutes after I linked the threads and comments. He is a full blown liar.

                2. I posted the citations you retarded fuck.

              3. You ran away from a thread a proved you lied in just yesterday sweetie. You were in the thread after. Timestamps are your enemy.

              4. Lol. Went back and you finally replied with a different argument to pretend you weren’t lying. Lol.

                I stated what you said. I posted what you said. What you said is what I said it was. You said under 18s can’t open carry in Wisconsin. I posted the law showing you to be wrong.

                Now you’re saying the prosecutor is charging him so you’re right.

                A) you were wrong on the law. The discussion was on open carry in Wisconsin, not isolated to rittenhouse.

                B) you appealed to authority without realizing prosecutors both over charge and incorrectly charge in the pre trial stages in order to get plea agreements.

                So instead of reading the linked Wisconsin law you appealed to the bias of the prosecutor.

                Holy shit you are retarded.

          4. He is good at it, isn’t he? It’s all the practice at being dishonest.

            1. Dammit, my trousers just caught on fire.

        2. trespassing is a capital offense

          Lie. I never claimed that.

          elites can overrule elections

          Highly misleading. I never claimed that as a general principle.

          and openly shills for China

          Lie. I don’t shill for China.

          wants his own little bubble.

          Lie. I don’t want my own little bubble. If I did, I wouldn’t be here with you all, would I?

          So there you go Jesse, there are your four lies, in one single sentence. But that is what you do, spread lies.

          1. elites can overrule elections

            Highly misleading. I never claimed that as a general principle.

            Lol

            1. He is just pathetic. I’ve posted for everyone.

            2. Heh

            3. Hahaha! He’s almost as dumb as he is dishonest.

            4. If there was an election legalizing slavery, do you think “elites”, such as, say, 9 judges in robes, should overrule the election in this case? Yes or no? If you say yes, then you agree with me. If you say no, then you want to subject even fundamental human rights to the vote of the mob. Which is admirable in a sense, in the consistency with populism. But disgusting otherwise.

              1. “you want to subject even fundamental human rights to the vote of the mob”

                You mean like, 9 judges in robes?

                Or is that mob different?

                1. Oh look at you, with your little act of trolling obfuscation.

                  You know damn well what I mean.

                  But, let’s now have a 50-comment thread debating the meaning of the word “mob” while the larger point of the discussion is lost. That’s the goal here, right?

                  Either address the point at hand or fuck off.

                  1. Yes you mean a 9 person mob of elites.

                    And you appear to have admitted it.

                    I gave you a chance to clarify and you threw a fit instead.

                    1. Lol, that’s how Lying Jeffy rolls.

                    2. No, your comment is offered in bad faith to troll. To divert from the actual point with some pedantic nonsense. Why don’t you offer something in good faith instead.

                    3. You like your mob better, we get it.

                      Funny how every one else is the troll here huh?

                  2. “Oh look at you, with your little act of trolling obfuscation.

                    You know damn well what I mean”

                    This is how you know you got him.

                    The funniest thing about this is that Jeff is so dumb that he is fooled by one layer of abstraction. Presidents choose judges. Congress confirms them.

                    For Jeff that single level of distance from the mob is somehow magically delicious.

                    1. ANY layer of abstraction from the mob is a frustration of the will of the mob, at least partially. That is how our system of governance is purposefully designed and that is the way it should be. Those layers of abstraction – President, Congress, judges – are the ones who wield the power, not the mob, and they are, often, the elites who, sometimes, SHOULD overrule the will of the mob when it comes to questions of fundamental human rights. Why is this such a difficult point to understand?

                    2. I didn’t read that shit you loser, he got you and we can all see it.

          2. I cited above sweetie.

            You also did claim elites should overrule elections just last week. Half the people you are arguing with now were in that thread. You also have claimed Chinese tariffs are bad while SA embargoes are good.

            Youre pathetic.

            1. Probably more than half. It was hilarious watching him try to spin through that conversation.

            2. You also did claim elites should overrule elections just last week.

              That is a dishonest characterization. I said that there should be some subjects off limits to votes of the mob, such as fundamental human rights. As typical you twist that into “he wants to take people’s votes away!” You are a pathetic little troll.

              1. “That is a dishonest characterization”

                shorter Jeff – ” I said it”

              2. That is a dishonest characterization

                Lord forbid someone steal your move.

              3. No, you said elites should overrule elections when the voters were wrong.

                Thank you for admitting you lied when you called me a liar.

                1. Again this is a dishonest characterization from you.

                  https://reason.com/2021/02/26/syria-airstrikes-trump-mcconnell-biden/#comment-8783277

                  I believe elites should overrule the mob to largely the same extent that you do – when fundamental liberty is threatened by the passions of the mob.

                  Or do you think that the mob should have the power to decide on, say, gun rights?

                  Oh – wait, I know! You actually don’t give a shit about the issues surrounding mob rule! This is you just flinging poo! I get it now!

                  1. “Again this is a dishonest characterization”

                    So you said it but don’t like it being used against you.

                  2. “I believe elites should overrule the mob”

                    We know.

                    1. Huh, I think you missed part of the quotation there. Let me clarify it for you:

                      I believe elites should overrule the mob to largely the same extent that you do – when fundamental liberty is threatened by the passions of the mob.

                      Because if you cut off my statement where you did, it could really make it seem like I don’t support elections at all. That wouldn’t possibly be what you meant to do, would it?

                  3. No, it is an accurate description. Just because you rationalize it doesn’t mean you aren’t saying elites should overrule voting when they think the voters were wrong. It is literally what you are saying.

                    1. No, it is an accurate description. Just because you rationalize it doesn’t mean you aren’t saying elites should overrule voting when they think the voters were wrong. It is literally what you are saying.

                      No, Jesse, that is a dishonest way to characterize my position. I am not saying that the elites should overrule the mob whenever the mob does something the elites think is wrong. If the mob wants a bad idea that however doesn’t otherwise infringe on fundamental human liberty, then no the elites shouldn’t outright overrule the mob.

                      Isn’t that what you support though, Jesse? That if the mob wants to start infringing on everyone’s rights, that there ought to be some institution, generally composed of elites, that should thwart the will of the mob so that the wholesale deprivations of liberty don’t occur?

                  4. By the way, thanks for the link. I forgot to save that one. Lol.

                  5. And by the way dummy, the correct action isn’t to overturn an election by voters, it is to pass a constitutional amendment. The courts declare settlements over rights, not self declared elites.

                    1. The judges who staff the courts are part of the elites that I’m referring to.

                      If the people of the state of Rhode Island vote on a referendum that completely bans handguns, then even though the Rhode Island “mob” (voters) want this, then both you and I would support “elites” (courts) telling the “mob” (voters) that they should not get their way. Agreed?

                    2. And by the way. Literally nothing that I said had anything to do with “overturning an election”. That is a complete fabrication on your part.

      3. Am I to approach your response as an “argument”?

        Or, can I just jump straight into insulting you?

        You tell me. I want to make sure you’re comfortable.

        1. He’s a lefty, and in 2021, lefties are afraid of speech they don’t agree with, so they try to silence it. Lying Jeffy’s just trying to get you to stop speaking here because it traumatizes him.

          1. LOL I am not the one who bitches and moans at every Reason article that is “triggering”. That would be the right-wing snowflakes around here who would prefer nonstop screeds against Democrats and don’t you dare say mean things about Republicans who are just trying to do the best they can against the mean meanie Democrats.

            1. No. You’re the one who bitches and moans that every comment is “triggering”.

              1. Cite?

                1. There is a paid troll here in the Reason comments (one of several fifty-centers) who uses the moniker “White Knight”.

                  This troll’s purpose is to try and deflect criticism of the Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, Reason Magazine articles and writers who support the agenda of the Democratic Party.

                  In order to halt conversation, the trolls here use disruption techniques.

                  White Knight’s favorite disruption technique is to demand a citation even for the most ordinary or obvious statements. Keep in mind that these requests aren’t just reserved for controversial statements but often for matters of common knowledge (e.g. the formula for water is H2O). The purpose of this is twofold:

                  In the first, a commenter will waste time and energy hunting down a citation.
                  When such a citation is posted White Knight will then redefine the criteria and claim that the citation is worthless; or, if unequivocal, White Knight will ignore the response, and move elsewhere. Either way the purpose of disruption was served.

                  In the second, if the commenter ignores White Knight or refuses to play along, White Knight will then follow the commenter along, claiming at every post that they are dishonest and can’t back up their statements. Here too, harassment and disruption are the purpose.

                  It is important for us all not to enable White Knight.
                  If you see White Knight making an inane citation request over an uncontroversial claim, please respond by posting “Fuck off, White Knight”, or by pasting this warning.

                  1. Actually, the disruption techniques that you have described are what the right-wing trolls use here time and time again. Well, not so much the “asking for citation” thing. Replace that with “whataboutism” and that’s about right.

                    1. You had to respond because you know he’s talking about you.

                    2. “Whataboutism” is the magic word chemleft uses to ward off legitimate accusations of hypocrisy.

                    3. Funny how anyone pointing out progressive hypocrisy is just engaging in “whstaboutism”.

                    4. Funny how anyone pointing out progressive hypocrisy is just engaging in “whstaboutism”.

                      Yeah, and it’s the only time that obese tard ever brings it up.

            2. No, you tend to do what you believe the authorities tell you to do. Whether it is reason, democrats, or media. Youre a cuck. A very obese one.

              1. Oh good, finally the “c” word comes out. I was wondering when you’d get around to that particular right-wing slur.

                You know what you are Jesse? You are a nothing. You have no principles, no positions, no values. Only “beat the left”. That’s it. Nothing is off-limits when it comes to that goal. You follow and obey every right-wing narrative and website and argument that feeds into that goal, no matter how sketchy or specious or unprincipled. You’re no different than Nardz or Shithead who wants to literally murder progressives, you’re just smart enough not to say so publicly. You’re a mindless zombie of Team Red, obeying every marching order. If anyone here blindly obeys the commands of his superiors, it’s you. I don’t have to go to Breitbart to know what is the topic du jour over there, you bring it here on their behalf!

                1. Oh good, finally the “c” word comes out. I was wondering when you’d get around to that particular right-wing slur.”

                  The unwoke version of “incel”, huh.

            3. You literally just told someone to go to a different website.

              1. He did not. He said that you would like Reason to be like Breitbart.

                Jeez, you talk about other people’s reading comprehension.

                1. “The White Knight II: The White Knight Rises!
                  March.6.2021 at 1:14 pm
                  He did not. He said that you would like Reason to be like Breitbart”

                  That’s a lie.

                  “The “Reason Magazine” that you want is over there —> breitbart.com”

                  Once again you get caught lying.

                  1. There wasn’t anything in that comment telling anyone they had to go to another website.

                    1. You suck at reading liar.

                      “over there —> breitbart.com”

                    2. So dumb.

                    3. You suck at pettifogging, WK. Why do you insist on doing it anyway?

                    4. So, an arrow pointing to the right means “you should be compelled to leave this site and go to this other one”? You can read all that into an arrow point to the right.

                    5. “you should be compelled”

                      “telling anyone”

                      “He said that you would like Reason to be like Breitbart”

                      MOOOOVE THOSE GOAL POSTS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU’RE WRONG!!!

                    6. So, an arrow pointing to the right means

                      So there is “anything in that comment telling anyone”.

                      Got it.

                    7. ““you should be compelled to leave this site and go to this other one”? ”

                      You’ll notice he made this quote up. A lie as it were.

                    8. Everyone who’s not retarded knows what it means Dee.

                    9. “MOOOOVE THOSE GOAL POSTS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU’RE WRONG!!!”

                      Didn’t you hear. Mother’s Lament ruled that you are not allowed to call it “moving the goalposts” in this case, since I was not the one making setting the original debating goals.

                    10. “Didn’t you hear. Mother’s Lament”

                      I don’t care about your pathetic sick measuring contests and they don’t get you off the hook.

                    11. You weren’t moving goalposts, WK, but you are obviously fucking lying about telling anyone they had to go to another website.

                      It’s like you somehow imagine people can’t read the whole thread and see what you wrote.

                    12. Jeez, Mother’s, you’re lecturing me about reading the whole thread and you don’t even know the debate is about something chemjeff wrote.

  18. I never cared much for Hawley, but if shallow Reason writers don’t like him then maybe I should give him another chance.

    You guys chose socialism because of mean tweets.

  19. America’s Founders “built a new republic governed not by a select elite, as in the days of old, but by the common man and woman, grounded on the premise that it is the common man and woman who are the noblest of citizens,” Hawley explained.

    When will this ridiculous myth DIE? The Founding Fathers were not populists. They distrusted mob rule almost as much as they distrusted monarchical rule. Federalist No. 10 is an entire meditation on how to subvert the passions of the mob. They deliberately created a system where the power of the mob was diluted and frustrated. Heck, at the nation’s founding, way less than half of the people could even vote in the first place, and when they did vote, they only got to vote on a US Representative and that’s it. No vote for a Senator, no vote for a President, not even a vote for an Elector for President. That was BY DESIGN. Why is it that the people who claim to be the Constitution’s biggest champions don’t even understand it?

    1. Why do you consistently equate the phrase common man with the mob ?

      These terms are not synonymous. If it helps to illustrate the point, the “mob” are the idiots setting businesses on fire in Portland. The “common man” is the guy that works in that business.

      1. I hate the proletariat and want to be a part of the gentry class and American aristocracy that form the ruling elite. That’s why.

        1. At least you’re finally honest.

          1. 🙂

      2. “The mob” is any group of people who presuppose that they are right solely because they think they have numbers on their side. It’s the rioters in Portland, yes. It’s also the rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6. It’s also the idiots on your Facebook page who demand that the city council resign because “they aren’t doing what the people want”. THAT is the mob.

        1. ““The mob” is any group of people who presuppose that they are right solely because they think they have numbers on their side.”

          So you right now.

        2. So, the Democrats?

          1. And the Republicans, and any other group that claims moral authority based on numbers alone.

            1. As opposed to the date?

              “It’s current year, people. Your beliefs are old-fashioned”

            2. So you and your woke buddies right now.

      3. “the ’mob’ are the idiots setting businesses on fire in Portland.”

        Yes, they were a mob. Do you acknowledge that the MAGA protestors who stormed the Capitol on January 6th were also a mob?

        1. I thought you were against whataboutism.

          Unless it’s all you have I guess.

          1. I am against whataboutism. I am all in favor of bothsidesism.

            I know they can look similar.

            1. You don’t even actually understand what whataboutism is, and imagine it’s some sort of rhetorical shield to employ against legitimate accusations of hypocrisy.

            2. Lol. Rationalizing his hypocrisy. Fucking hilarious. Lie again how I didn’t cite the two rottenhouse threads yesterday dumbass. You were in the thread after I did so you can’t admit you didn’t see it.

          2. So, do you acknowledge that the MAGA protestors who stormed the Capitol on January 6th were also a mob?

            1. “I am against whataboutism”

              “So, do you acknowledge that the MAGA protestors”

              Lol I guess you aren’t as against whataboutism as you thought.

            2. Mob: “a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence”. This is what we saw last year.
              That wasn’t a mob on Jan 6. That was a pack of buffoons high on rhetoric.
              Buffoon: “A ridiculous but amusing person; a clown”.

              This is all fun to watch from far, far away.

    2. The founders were justifiably skeptical of democracy.

      Then, it was “no taxation without representation”.

      Now we need “no representation without taxation”.

      1. The founders were justifiably skeptical of democracy.

        Exactly right. But populist demagogues like Hawley, simultaneously claim that the American Revolution was about transferring power from the elite monarchy to “the people”, while at the same time claim to be stalwart defenders of the Constitution.

        1. Lol.

      2. They were also incredibly wary of elitist rule without consent of the governed after 200 years of populist revolts.

        Our government is meant to provide populists a constrained way to be heard. And you technocrat elitists insist on putting the ruling class back on their gilded thrones.

  20. In yet another story that the so-called “libertarians” of Reason will never speak of in a million years: a Chinese court ruled a few days ago that being gay can be classified as a psychological disorder under Chinese law:

    https://nypost.com/2021/03/02/homosexuality-can-be-called-a-mental-disorder-rules-chinese-court/

    Given how many of Reason writers are gays, I can just imagine how much cognitive dissonance this must be causing them, given that sucking off the ChiCom government is pretty much a job requirement for them.

    1. They’re not upset. They know damn well they all have psychological disorders.

    2. But the Reason writers are not in China. They are in Frisco, and its fabulous!

      1. Except none of them are, but don’t let that ruin your dumb joke.

        1. Are you for real?

  21. Ah reason is still spreading myths about a riot. Hey maybe talk about why people wandering through a building and sitting in chairs are still in jail two months later. I thought libertarians were against this type of behavior by overzealous prosecutors.

    Yeah, guess not. Let’s talk about the antics of an elected senator who asks questions and is skeptical of others in power in government and business. See most of us don’t want open borders, big tech censorship, and delusional dementia patients running things.

    1. Libertarians are against things like that. Leftist assholes are not. Most Reason contributors are Leftist assholes, especially the ones on the tail end of their careers who are looking to make one last attempt to pivot into the mainstream MSNBC time slots.

      They’ll die with this shitty leftist rag but it makes shoveling shit for a living much easier to swallow, to be sure.

      1. Oddly they were fine with pulling down statues for the most part. Actual destruction. But feet on Pelosi’s desk? 10 years citizen.

    2. “Hey maybe talk about why people wandering through a building and sitting in chairs are still in jail two months later.”

      Heh. My boys know which side of their bread is buttered.
      If me and my new pal George want it to be a violent insurrection, then it better damn well be a violent insurrection. Or I’ll find some new boys who’ll write what they’re damn well told.

    3. Hey maybe talk about why people wandering through a building and sitting in chairs are still in jail two months later.

      Maybe because trespassing is illegal.

      1. So much for an iNsurrEction. Now chemleft’s pushing for indefinite detention for trespassing on public fucking property.

        1. indefinite detention

          Nope, those are your words, not mine.

          1. So what would you call it then?

            1. Something less than “indefinite” detention.

              1. Lol, what.

          2. You just said this in response to his comment retard.

            chemjeff radical individualist
            March.6.2021 at 11:17 am

            Maybe because trespassing is illegal

            1. Oh shit, Lying Jeffy’s in full rage mode and can’t even keep track of what he’s actually responding too. Imagine all the spittle and potato chip crumbs that must be flying at his computer.

            2. I said nothing about indefinite detention of anyone. That is you all making shit up. So therefore I am quite sure you will be posting yet another lie about me about how I support “indefinite detention of trespassers”.

              1. You should maybe try to understand the comments you are replying to

                chemjeff radical individualist
                March.6.2021 at 11:17 am
                Hey maybe talk about why people wandering through a building and sitting in chairs are still in jail two months later.

                Maybe because trespassing is illegal.

                You said that. Now, I fully believe you’re an idiot, but it was what you replied to so you claim that you said nothing about “indefinite detention” at least subjectively wrong.

        2. Remember when Jeff freaked the fuck out because officers arrested rioters in Portland without names on their badges?

          Just a dishonest lefty shit.

          1. They should have just shot all the trespassers in the face, rather than identify them and arrest them later. Duh.

            1. If they were in Libertopia, defending the property of others? That would have been absolutely justifiable. See, that is what it means to actually have a principled position. Unlike you who doesn’t take a position on anything because you are nothing but an ankle-biting troll.

          2. Remember when you try to conflate two dissimilar incidents in order to create a false equivalency in yet another act of dishonesty? Because you just did that.

            1. Remember when you whined like a bitch about Oberlin getting smacked with a massive civil suit ruling because its administrative figures tried to help destroy a local business?

        3. “…for trespassing on public fucking property.”

          According to Mamma-the-moron logic, everyday citizens should be allowed to willy-nilly stroll all over nuclear weapons sites… Hazardous waste cleanup sites owned by the feds… Rocket launching sites… National security reviewing-planning offices, AKA “war rooms”… Nuclear missile submarines and bombers… And the oval office! But the latter, presumably ONLY when it belongs to Der BidenFuhrer, and NOT to Der TrumpfenFuhrer!

          Morons will be morons, and show NO common sense! More news at 11:00!

          1. But don’t forget that also according to Mother’s Lament citizens must go through heavy security before standing in a crowd in a park watching the President speak behind bulletproof glass, and this imposition on the citizens is very good!

            Why is it good? Well, not because he cares one way or the other about the rights of Americans to assemble in a public park with or without weapons on them. No, it is good because he could use it in a flimsy argument that the Capitol mob couldn’t possibly have weapons on them because they came from a rally where he is super sure they must have been run through metal detectors. Like, he’s really sure about it even though he wasn’t there and doesn’t have any reports in hand on what security was like at the rally.

            Also, when I presented actual cites that showed that the rioters broke down security barriers, they were waved off as not counting.

            The warning about White Knight fails to mention that I PROVIDE cites backing up what I say when asked, and frequently before being asked. I don’t mind being asked to back up factual claims I make at all.

            1. You will know him by the company he keeps.

          2. Nuclear weapons sites aren’t public property.

            1. Then why do I pay taxes to build and maintain them? If the public doesn’t own them, who does? The Martians, or the Lizard People? The Illuminati, the Jews? Is not the USA Government Almighty “of the people, for the people, by the people”? Yet the people don’t own what Government Almighty owns? What you say, makes no sense!

              (Obviously I don’t believe, like Mamma the Moron apparently believes, that all Government Almighty property is our private playground, at the drop of a random hat).

            2. Nuclear weapons sites aren’t public property.

              They’re not?
              Don’t taxpayers pay for it?
              Aren’t they owned by “the people”?
              Why can’t I just stroll on to nuclear weapons sites? After all I pay for it, don’t I?

              1. They are owned by the people, in so much as our tax dollars pay for them. The Capitol Building is supposed to be the People’s House right? Forgive me if I think that there should be very few ways that access is restricted in the building where our elected representatives are supposed to be performing their jobs.

        4. On top of all of this… Mamma the moron demands her “public access” to wherever the hordes of trumpanzees gone apeshit go, on the soil of a FOREIGN NATION!!! When the ilk of Mamma the moron takes over the Inner People’s Republic of Islamic Canuckistanistanistanistanistan, and then the entire nation of Canuckistanistanistanistanistan, and the Canuckistanistanistanistanistani Red-Coat Army invades to burn down OUR capitol, in a fit of Righteous Islamic Jihadi Rage, then Mamma the moron will demand her “public access” to OUR war rooms, where our military plans our defenses against the likes of HER!!!

          1. I think sarcasmic thinks I’m a girl.

            1. I think that Mamma the Moron is all, or some combination of, dishonest, ignorant, mendacious, and a liar! She will randomly spout whatever nonsense she THINKS might fool stupid fellow conservaturds in the conservaturd echo chamber! (Sad to say, she seems to be effective at the latter; fools like to be fooled; liars prefer certain lies; see “confirmation bias”). Those are the important parts! Not Mamma the Moron’s sex!

        5. Humble but helpful suggestion for Mamma of the Marching Morons:

          Give UP on posting your comments here, because they are WORSE than useless!

          Instead, start a garage band called “Mamma the Moron and the Trumpanzees Gone Apeshit”. If your music sounds good, I’ll buy your album! I promise!

          1. I’m not sure what you’re babbling about, but I’m not going to fuck you, Sqrlsy.

      2. So, private property is sacred?

        (and the ownership of the Capitol is debatable)

        1. The ownership of the Capitol is not debatable. It is owned by the state. Which is a separate and distinct institution than “the people”. This is the result of a simple observation: A legal owner of a piece of real property has a monetizable financial interest in that property. The owner has the legal authority to sell part or all of that property. Does the state have the legal authority to sell part or all of the property that it owns? Yes. Do “the people”, or any individual person, have the legal authority to sell part or all of the property that “the people” supposedly own? No. I cannot sell my “share” of the Washington Monument or any other piece of public property. That is how things ARE. If you want to discuss how things OUGHT to be, then let’s chat. But as things stand right now, it is the state that owns the Capitol building, and it is therefore the state that gets to set the rules for who gets invited on to that property.

          1. Shilling for THE STATE … but for individual liberty, of course.

            1. Goldilicks Girlshit shills for seashells by the seashore…

              No, I mean, Goldilicks Girlshit shills for trumpanzees gone apeshit, or ANY other “R” party random barbarian assholes (“R” party only though!) to use force and violence to BECOME the state! Mobocracy not democracy says Goldilicks Girlshit!!!

          2. “The ownership of the Capitol is not debatable. It is owned by the state. Which is a separate and distinct institution than “the people”

            We always knew that was you.

          3. “Do “the people”, or any individual person, have the legal authority to sell part or all of the property that “the people” supposedly own? No.”

            Actually, that’s wrong. I have the legal authority to hire people (through voting) to sell that property.

            So, your weak attempt completely fails based on your own criteria.

            1. You don’t “hire” politicians, you vote for or against them. And the politicians buy and sell property on behalf of the state whether or not you personally approve of it. They are not acting as agents on YOUR behalf, they are acting as agents on behalf of the state while claiming to act on your behalf.

              1. “You don’t “hire” politicians, you vote for or against them.”

                Which is literally hiring them.

                JFC you simply cannot admit you are wrong

              2. You don’t “hire” politicians, you vote for or against them

                Without explaining the difference you are just asserting this. Since there is no discernible difference I understand why you failed to give one.

                They are not acting as agents on YOUR behalf, they are acting as agents on behalf of the state while claiming to act on your behalf.

                So, I’m right but politicians are self-serving so public property isn’t public anymore. This is your argument. Apparently because you forgot we were talking about why public property isn’t owned by the public.

                In order to win this debate you decided to go with “Politicians who I acknowledge should be acting on your behalf aren’t therefore the Capital is owned not by the public by by some nebulous entity called “the state” (which is I’m sure not the same as the “Deep State” whose existence you will probably deny) and that taxpaying citizens are not the owners and therefore were trespassing and rightly at risk of being shot for it rather than getting tickets like everyone else who trespasses.

                No wonder every one hates you.

                1. Without explaining the difference you are just asserting this. Since there is no discernible difference I understand why you failed to give one.

                  To hire someone suggests a financial component to the transaction. Obviously it is a crime to exchange votes for money.
                  Now if you are going to argue “but I pay taxes, which pays the politicians’ salary”, while that is true in part, the politicians’ salary comes from ALL the taxpayers and not from you specifically. So you are not paying a politician in exchange for specific services rendered on your behalf, as you do when you hire someone to perform a task for you. Furthermore, your taxes fund the salaries of all of the politicians, even the ones you did not “hire”, even if the ones you did not vote for win. It would be a very strange employment situation indeed if the employer had to pay the wages of the employees that he/she DIDN’T want to hire, to perform tasks that the employer DIDN’T want to happen. So the voter-politician relationship is quite a bit different than the employer-employee relationship.

                  Politicians who I acknowledge should be acting on your behalf aren’t therefore the Capital is owned not by the public

                  Actually, I didn’t acknowledge that. No politician is, nor should be, elected to serve as your personal agent in the government. They are NOT supposed to be acting on your personal, individual behalf, even in the best of circumstances. In fact, if that were the case, we would consider it scandalous, because politicians are normally viewed as acting on at least on behalf of the majority of the citizens who voted in the district, if not for the entire constituency that the politician purports to represent, and not on behalf of one individual. Furthermore, it’s one of the key findings of Public Choice Theory that government actors often act in their own interests, or in the interests of the interests of the institution that they serve, rather than some nebulous “public will”, and that this is a natural consequence of thinking about public policy decision-making from an economic point of view. So from an economic point of view, they aren’t even really acting on behalf of the “public good”, they are acting on behalf of themselves and their own institution.

                  some nebulous entity called “the state”

                  It is not that nebulous. It is analogous to a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity that has the ability to act according to the will of its shareholders and board of directors. In this case, the shareholders are analogous to the voters. Aha, you are thinking, but shareholders in a corporation actually do own parts of the corporation, so don’t voters own public property? The answer is still no, because while shareholders do own parts of the corporation, the corporation itself is the one that owns the assets associated with the corporation, NOT the shareholders. The shareholders can buy and sell shares of stock, but the shareholders cannot legally buy and sell individual pieces of corporate property. Likewise, it is the corporation’s board of directors that ultimately sets the rules for how the corporate property is to be used. If I am a shareholder in the Tesla corporation and I am discovered wandering on Tesla corporate property without permission, I will rightly be considered trespassing, and defenses along the lines of “but it’s MY corporation!” will not be successful.

                  Ultimately my argument is an empirical one. I observe that even though I am a citizen and a taxpayer, I am not permitted to do things on public property that I would normally be permitted to do were I to exercise actual ownership of that property. I am not allowed to sell my share of the Washington Monument. I am not allowed to wander in to the White House or the US Capitol at any time of my choosing. I cannot individually set the rules for how that property may be used. So in any empirical sense of the word, I do not “own” those pieces of property. The government owns the property and the government sets the rules for how the property may be used. I would advocate strongly that they set the rules that permit the public to use the property as generously as can be permitted. But ultimately it is not my individual decision.

                  1. “To hire someone suggests a financial component to the transaction”

                    1) they get paid

                    2) volunteers are hired

                    From your very first sentence you were lying.

                    1. “It would be a very strange employment situation indeed if the employer had to pay the wages of the employees that he/she DIDN’T want to hire”

                      This is how you know Jeff doesn’t own stock. You just described hiring in companies with stock you fucking moron.

                      For some stupid reason Jeff ALWAYS resorts to lying and insisting he gets to define words when he’s lost a debate. And in this case he is still wrong.

                      “It is not that nebulous. It is analogous to a corporation.”

                      So a group of people? So voters? So us?

                      Right that’s 2 losers for you.

                      “Ultimately my argument is an empirical one”

                      You don’t HAVE an argument. You just lie and redefine words over and over until people quit.

                    2. So this is where you ignore the entire rest of my argument and want to have a pedantic argument over the meaning of the word “hire”? Go fuck yourself, troll.

                    3. You just described hiring in companies with stock you fucking moron.

                      THE CORPORATION hires corporate employees. Individual shareholders do not hire corporate employees.

                      And if you are going to AGREE with me that the government is analogous to a corporation, then please explain why corporate shareholders do not have the legal authority to enter corporate HQ at any time of their choosing, and why that same idea shouldn’t also apply to voters and property owned by the government.

                    4. You don’t HAVE an argument.

                      No I do, as evidenced by the fact that you ignore 99% of it, and offer nothing in response but pedantic garbage and insults.

                    5. “No I do,”

                      No, you don’t. You just keep moronically asserting things and redefining words then pretending that’s an argument.

                      “THE CORPORATION hires corporate employees. Individual shareholders do not hire corporate employees”

                      YES FUCKWIT THAT’S THE POINT. IN THAT SCENARIO, THE VOTERS ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THE CORPORATION IS THE GOVERNMENT.

                      IT ISN’T STRANGE AT ALL DUMBFUCK even though you stupidly said “It would be a very strange employment situation indeed” IT ISN’T STRANGE AT ALL RETARD AND YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT.

                      You don’t even realize you made my point FOR me and owned yourself.

                      “And if you are ”

                      Jeff, knowing he is wrong and dumb, tries another argument. I can enter any corporation I own stock with at any time. Sorry you’re wrong dumbfuck!

                    6. Whether the arrangement is “strange” or not. What is your point? Do you have a substantive argument?

                  2. “The government owns the property”

                    And I am the government.

                    “I do not “own” those pieces of property.”

                    Wrong.

                    1. And I am the government.

                      Nope.

                    2. Wrong.

                    3. Oh, so you are the reason why my taxes are so high and the government is so deeply in debt?

                    4. Oh, so you are the reason why my taxes are so high and the government is so deeply in debt?

                      Nigga, you pay some of the lowest tax rates of the last 100 years.

              3. “You don’t “hire” politicians

                I guess that they don’t need salaries then.
                Glad that is settled.

          4. Lol. Jeff defending the state over private buildings burned in last summers riots. Classic jeff.

            1. Next week Lying Jeffy will pretend he never said all this.

              1. Next week you’ll still be a troll.

                1. Not even denying you’re going to lie.

        2. And I would not call private property “sacred” but private property rights are definitely a thing and from a libertarian perspective, should be highly respected.

          1. “private property rights”
            Are you actually claiming that the capitol building is private property?

            1. “The ownership of the Capitol is not debatable. It is owned by the state. Which is a separate and distinct institution than “the people””

              He is.

              1. Wow.

                1. I mean, once he claimed elites should interfere with elections, nothing else should be surprising.

                  1. I did? Where did I claim that “elites should interfere with elections”?

                    1. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      March.6.2021 at 2:33 pm
                      If there was an election legalizing slavery, do you think “elites”, such as, say, 9 judges in robes, should overrule the election in this case? Yes or no? If you say yes, then you agree with me”

                  2. Oh right, that was when I said that there should be some topics that should not be held up for votes. Like questions of fundamental human rights. It shouldn’t be up to a vote of the mob to decide whether someone is a slave or not. No person should be a slave regardless if there is 99+% support for enslaving someone among the people. Which is, you know, the standard Western democratic position for about 300 years now. Which, I’m willing to bet, YOU ALSO agree with. But when *I* say it then it is twisted into “he wants the elites to cancel elections!” Because you all are a bunch of dishonest shits.

            2. For purposes of property rights, it ought to be treated as property owned by the state. The only thing that makes it not private is that the people who run the state are selected by public vote of the entire nation. But in terms of deciding whether you may or may not be on the property, or whether you may or may not sell or rent the property, it should be treated as if it were owned by a separate institution called the government, and not as if it were owned collectively by “the people”.

              Otherwise, explain why citizens are not permitted to enter the White House or the Capitol Building at any time you wish, or why citizens are not permitted to sell their personal shares of the Washington Monument.

              1. They’re called government bonds, Jeffy.

                1. Government bonds, at least US government bonds, are backed by nothing but a promise by the government to pay them back. There is no physical collateral backing them.

                  https://www.finra.org/investors/learn-to-invest/types-investments/bonds/types-of-bonds/us-treasury-securities

              2. chemjeff radical individualist
                March.6.2021 at 11:39 am
                The ownership of the Capitol is not debatable. It is owned by the state. Which is a separate and distinct institution than “the people”. This is the result of a simple observation: A legal owner of a piece of real property has a monetizable financial interest in that property. The owner has the legal authority to sell part or all of that property. Does the state have the legal authority to sell part or all of the property that it owns? Yes. Do “the people”, or any individual person, have the legal authority to sell part or all of the property that “the people” supposedly own? No. I cannot sell my “share” of the Washington Monument or any other piece of public property. That is how things ARE. If you want to discuss how things OUGHT to be,

                chemjeff radical individualist
                March.6.2021 at 1:58 pm
                For purposes of property rights, it ought to be

                Lol what an idiot

                1. Do you have anything substantive to add? No? Then fuck off.

                  1. Ahahhaha Jeff has resorted to throwing tantrums and shouting at people again like he owns the place.

                    No one has to do shit here Jeff! They can post WHATEVER THEY WANT including that, openly mocking you and all you can do is tantrum!

                    Ahahah your own words make you look stupid so you got mad and attacked the guy who quoted you because you can’t argue with yourself!

                    A well adjusted adult would have laughed at the inconsistency but you’re so mired in not looking stupid in front of the commentariat hat you can’t STAND being laughed and you can’t refute or even argue with your own words!

                    Oh I love it!

                    1. Oh I know, people are going to do whatever they want. I get to call out people like you, and Farkus, and the other trolls around here, who offer nothing but snark and mockery. It is because they are cowards – they are unwilling to stake out a position and defend it, because in so doing it would open themselves up to potential mockery and derision as well. They don’t want to be mocked themselves so all they do is throw grenades into the conversation.

          2. And please note for everyone reading this conversation.

            I’m putting my ideas forth and defending them.

            All of the ankle-biters around here are offering nothing but snark and trolling.

            They have nothing serious to offer. They come here only to tear people down and to criticize, not to offer ideas and discuss them in good faith.

            They’ll criticize me all day long but they won’t advance their views on a topic, because that will invite themselves up for criticism and it also means that they would have to actually take a position on something. Which they don’t want to do, because it’s much more fun just to snipe from the sidelines.

            So as long as these assholes have nothing serious to offer, they should not be taken seriously.

            1. All of the ankle-biters around here are offering nothing but snark

              It couldn’t possibly be because I’ve been advocating fascist nonsense like I’m some sort of parody, that’s undebatable in its ridiculousness.

              1. Your moron ass just spent 4 paragraphs redefining hiring and insisting the people own nothing while the state/government does.

                No one needs to do anything but quote you, you fascist piece of shit.

                1. Trolls responding to trolls. Brilliant.

            2. Understood.

            3. It’s because you’ve posted here for years and proved yourself to be no better than Tony or cytotoxic in the length and breadth of your debate.

              Much like them, you will occasionally post something that people agree with, but you’re such a smug disingenuous fuck that even when I agree with you I think you’re an asshole.

              1. Oh, so I guess this is the Reason version of “he posts mean tweets”. Even when I’m right you’ll still argue against me because you don’t like my temperament. Well boo fucking hoo. Now you understand why so many people voted against Trump even if they nominally agreed with many of his policy ideas.

      3. BeCAuSe tReSPaSSInG iS ILlEgAL!!!

      4. Too bad only one of them got shot right?

        chemjeff radical individualist
        February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
        What is there to talk about?

        From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

        They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.

        And again, somehow you think trespassing should be at a minimum 2 months on jail based on this response. Lol.

        1. Would you care to provide an argument as to why you believe the above is incorrect?

          Would you care to provide anything useful at all to the conversation? Instead all you provide are lies, whataboutisms, and Team Red narrative pushing.

          1. “Would you care to provide an argument as to why you believe the above is incorrect?”

            He did.

            “And again, somehow you think trespassing should be at a minimum 2 months on jail based on this response. Lol.”

        2. Why don’t you repeat that little snippet 100 more times. Make it abundantly clear that your only mission here is to spread lies and narratives.

          1. Speaking of lies and narratives

            “chemjeff radical individualist
            March.6.2021 at 1:58 pm
            For purposes of property rights, it ought to be treated as property owned by the state”

            1. So since you can’t offer a reasoned response, you’ll just do what, laugh at it and pretend no one will notice that you have nothing substantive in response?

              1. Hi dumbfuck try reading

                “Speaking of lies and narratives”

                That’s the substantive response. You just hate it and can’t refute it.

                Now what are you going to do? Whine even more?

                1. Why do you think it’s a lie?

                  1. Because you posted it, fat boy.

                    1. There you go. It doesn’t matter what I say, idiots like RRWP here will object to it and call it a lie.

          2. I must have missed the post where you condemned her shooting and the two months of jail time for trespassing someplace the public should never be barred from.

    4. A public building*

  22. ” Instead, he had concocted a dubious rationale about supposedly improper changes to Pennsylvania’s election law…

    Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissent in the dismissal of a suit about the actions of non-legislature government officials changing election laws at the last minute. His point was that SCOTUS needed to clarify the rules surrounding what bodies have authority to modify election laws in what circumstances, and failing to address the issue will bite the country in backside in the future.

    You may not like where Hawley went with it, but it is not a dubious rationale.

  23. Libertarian ideas are overrepresented in policy debates; Americans are not, by and large, libertarians. Indeed, Americans of the sort Hawley sees himself as representing tend to be almost exactly the opposite: socially conservative but also fairly fiscally liberal, concerned about government waste and spending on foreign aid but open to big public programs that directly benefit Americans.

    I think this is largely right, except instead of “programs that directly benefit Americans”, that really ought to read “programs that directly benefit *worthy* Americans”. I think this is central to the worldview of the modern Right: that the nation should be divided into those who are “worthy” and those who are “unworthy”, and the job of government is to protect the “worthy” from external forces which might disrupt their lifestyles.

    The “worthy” are the Real Muricans, the “silent majority”, the saltiest of the salt-of-the-earth Middle American Heartland family. They should get tax breaks, subsidies, benefits, welfare, government assistance, whatever is required to make them prosperous and thrive. The government should protect the “worthy” against: illegal immigrants, globalization, China, Antifa, Big Tech, “elites”, and every other enemy which seeks to upend and alter America’s traditional values.

    So when the Iowa farmer gets farm subsidies, that’s okay because they are going to a worthy cause, because Iowa farmers are high on the list of worthy Americans. But if the poor single mom in the inner city gets welfare benefits, that’s an outrage, even if she gets LESS money than the farmer gets, because it’s going to the “unworthy”, whom we “all know” is just going to use those benefits to perpetuate a cycle of undesirable behavior. Never mind that the Iowa farmer might take his subsidy check to run out and buy a pickup truck he probably can’t afford, or to make foolish investments gambling on continued taxpayer support down the road. No one talks about that and no one cares. But it is of course an important matter of public policy to micromanage the life of the poor single mom if she deigns to accept one penny of welfare assistance.

    If poor people in the inner city get hooked on crack or meth, we are supposed to regard that as a self-destructive act borne of a result of poor moral choices, and the ‘victims’ here should get a stern moral scolding and sent to jail where they can clean up their lives. But if poor people in Appalachia get hooked on oxycontin, we are supposed to regard that as a cry for help from an underserved population that is really struggling economically and who require government action to set things right. The proper course of action here is counseling and economic assistance, and throwing Perdue Pharma execs in jail instead. Because poor people in the heartland are high on the “worthiness” list, but poor people in inner cities are low on the “worthiness” list.

    This modern right-wing viewpoint of course has little connection with liberty as an abstract concept, because the only liberty that matters to them is the liberty of the worthy. It goes even beyond that: violating the liberty of everyone else is justified if it means merely upholding the lifestyle of the worthy. So imposing tariffs on China violates everyone’s liberty in one way or another, but it is justified in this view because it presupposes to help those who are “worthy”, the blue collar American heartland factory worker. This factory worker doesn’t have any sort of right to a factory job, but the government should act as if he/she does, and violating everyone else’s liberty is justified in realizing that result.

    Same deal with immigration more broadly, illegal or otherwise. It is justified to force everyone into government-mandated burdens and regulations, because it’s imagined that these regulations benefit the worthy – the local businesses in Heartland America. Never mind that these regulations, were they imposed by any other government agency, would be considered an onerous burden and government overreach by these same people who complain about government regulations. But here, government regulations concerning immigration are totally fine because they benefit “the worthy”.

    This is why we can’t treat right-wingers as reliable libertarian allies. They will stick up for liberty, but only conditionally, and only if it benefits their coalition of “worthy Americans”. But the moment anyone suggests that hey, immigration regulations are just as burdensome as OSHA regulations or EPA regulations and maybe we should cut back on ALL regulations, then we’ve lost them.

    1. Tell us again how the common folk need a boot on their neck from the elites. Then tell us about liberty.

      1. Hey now, not a boot, just the ability to overturn election results they don’t like.

    2. Shorter chemjeff: “Let them eat cake”.

    3. White Knight, sarcasmic, are you two still confused about what strawmanning is? Here:

      “So when the Iowa farmer gets farm subsidies, that’s okay because they are going to a worthy cause, because Iowa farmers are high on the list of worthy Americans. But if the poor single mom in the inner city gets welfare benefits, that’s an outrage, even if she gets LESS money than the farmer gets, because it’s going to the “unworthy”, whom we “all know” is just going to use those benefits to perpetuate a cycle of undesirable behavior.”

      Literally nobody here has ever argued in favor of farm subsidies, in fact conservative libertarians actively condemn it. Chemleft knows this but has created a fake “conservative libertarian” in order to attack them.

      1. I’m referring to people like Hawley supporters and those who share his worldview. Show me a populist-nationalist-Hawley-type who opposes farm subsidies for small farms on principled grounds. You will have a hard time finding that person.

        1. “Show me a populist-nationalist-Hawley-type who opposes farm subsidies for small farms on principled grounds”

          It’s YOUR strawman motherfucker

        2. Most people who support farm subsidies also support welfare benefits for poor single moms in the inner city.

          The hoi-polloi that you hate so very much aren’t just one massive ideological block, you know.

          Either way your analogy is pure strawmanning.

          1. You’re right, there are people who support both.

            I’m talking about the nationalist-populist Hawley supporters though.

            1. It’s always so weird how you and White Knight go dark at the same time then come back at exactly the same time.

              Strange coincidence.

              1. Ah, is this our resident Sherlock Holmes, again? I’m going to press “Submit” and we’ll see what the time difference between chemjeff and my comments is… 3… 2… 1…

                1. Huh, nearly 2.5 hours.

                  1. after you were called out

                    1. I don’t know what he thought he was proving.

            2. Do you remember as far back as a week ago when you were talking about Hawley backing $15 minimum wage? But all of a sudden you don’t know his stance on welfare for single moms?

              You don’t seem to understand populism for all your screaming about it.

          2. “Most people who support farm subsidies also support welfare benefits for poor single moms in the inner city.”

            Maybe in Canadian politics.

            In the U.S., the former tends to be a Republican thing and the latter tends to be Democratic.

            1. No, it’s pervasive in working class politics across America.

              You really do seem to be utterly ignorant about the actual viewpoints of everyone outside your bein-pensant urban liberal bubble. You see the world as if it were composed of a series of tropes gleaned from the pages of the New York Times.

              1. Lol “working class politics” really isn’t even a thing in this country. The working classes are so divided by so many other things that there is nothing resembling a coalition of unified working class folks.

                1. Never mind that we are Americans who have spent our lives in our culture; Mother’s is going to tell us better.

                  1. Oh look, the two duplicitous, useless sacks of pus are conversing with each other.

      2. Here is Hawley’s own position on farm subsidies:

        https://joshhawley.com/get-involved/agriculture/

        Now, though, the way of life for many Missouri farmers is being threatened by special interests and government bureaucracy. The subsidies that farmers rely on are shrinking, or often they don’t come at all. As your Senator, I will fight for fairer subsidies, because a single drought year should not cause farmers to worry about making ends meet. Because those who provide so much to us should never have to worry about providing for their own families.

        See? Government subsidies are totally okay if it’s going to the “worthy”, that is, farming families, so that they don’t have to “worry”.

        1. ML, jeff STILL doesn’t get it.

        2. And what’s Hawley’s position on welfare benefits for poor single moms in the inner city.
          The answer may surprise you, because you don’t actually seem to understand what “populism” actually is.

          1. The hilarious part is he posted Hawleys views on min wage just last week so he should know.

    4. You may be right that they mentally divide the people into “worthy” and “unworthy”, but there is also the dynamic of “people who traditionally vote for my party” and “people who traditionally vote for the opposing party”.

      Jordan Peterson has also put forth the idea, in some of his lectures, that conservatives are prone to feel disgust toward certain people; “disgusting” correlates well with “unworthy”, I suppose.

      1. Aaaand of course White Knight completely (deliberately?) misunderstands Peterson’s statement.
        You better watch it again, bucko, and see where you went wrong.

        Also you don’t seem to understand the difference between a person having a conservative psychology and conservative political beliefs.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS9aIqUQ7oE

        1. “a person having a conservative psychology and conservative political beliefs”

          Split those hairs, Mother’s!

    5. Hey, you don’t have to post a wall of text just to stan for your fellow child molestors.

  24. Why do you guys now just ape the disinformation verbally defecated out by the MSM? This website is worthless, we can get that garbage in about 25 different places. No need to check this website to get that fucked up point of view,

    1. Because that’s what Charles Koch is paying for.

    2. You don’t have to be here.

      1. Imagine being angry that people don’t want authoritarian disinformation in their libertarian magazine.

        1. In WK’s eyes, everyone else is the authoritarian.

  25. Progressive elitists are always worried about “populist” politicians who might rise to power by giving people what they want, instead of implementing the progressive vision over the better sense of the people.

    1. And we must be warned about the populist threat, to save democracy.

      1. to save democracy Fortify Democracy.

        1. The only way to truly fortify democracy is to stop letting the rabble vote.

          1. We will reach American utopia when everything is up for a vote! That’s the populist way, amirite?

            1. How do you think judges get their jobs?

              You plant judge seeds?

              1. I must have missed John Roberts’ name on the ballot.

                Better yet, I must have missed the referendum for whether abortion should be legal or whether gun ownership should be legal.

                1. So here we see Jeff, knowing he has lost the debate, resort to pretending to be an idiot.

                  “I must have missed John Roberts’ name on the ballot”

                  Yes Jeff the judges a President will appoint have never been a subject in an election.

                  Please, keep making it this easy to own you.

                  “Better yet, I must have missed the referendum for whether abortion should be legal or whether gun ownership should be legal.”

                  Here we see Jeff pretend not to know what an election is for. He thinks it’s for passing out titles and assigning offices to staff.

                  God I love making you look stupid.

                  1. Yes Jeff the judges a President will appoint have never been a subject in an election.

                    So what? We don’t get to vote on Federal judges, do we? Gee I wonder why that is. I think it’s because the Founding Fathers set it up that way, so as to create a judiciary that would decide legal questions based on the law and the Constitution, and that would at least be partially isolated from the whims of the mob. Some might see this as an example of the elites not letting “the rabble” vote on important people who have great power over their lives. Sure smacks of elitism, doesn’t it? What do you think?

  26. FFS. Doesn’t anyone understand the REAL reason why Hawley is trying to become Trump 2.0?

    MONEY!!!

    Obvious to anyone who paid attention, Trump was able to raise $200M in a month to fight the “rigged” election. That’s unheard of. Guys like Hawley & Cruz want a piece of that pie.

    This isn’t rocket science.

    1. “in NYC”

      Forgive me but I ignore the opinions of people too stupid to leave hell.

  27. The crockpot dinner Hawley has put together here is just everything he can find in the current Republican pantry. He is just another political grifter. He doesn’t care about any of that stuff.

    Pretty much like all of them. At least the ones who make it.

    1. Hey, pay attention. They only throw in a “both sides” when it’s a negative story about Democrats. When it’s a negative story about Republicans, it’s the dark future of the Republican Party.

      1. Maybe but I don’t care.

  28. Is the senator’s authoritarian grandstanding the dark future of the GOP?

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    You guys were fine with Democratic authoritarianism until the election was over.

  29. And I don’t hear anyone squawking about HR1.

    1. Politicians voting for the government to foot the bill for their political campaigns and let them pocket whatever’s left over, is of very little interest to libertarians or something.

      1. That’s not an article addressing HR1. That’s an article bitching that big tech was being picked on.

        The bill basically allows elected officials to finance their campaigns on the taxpayers dime FFS.

        1. It’s literally an article criticizing HR1.

          You are tantruming like a two year old.

  30. I just love these hit pieces against Republicans espousing *the exact same shit* the most powerful Democrats are.

    To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.

    So, we talk about how bad this stuff is when Republicans espouse it – where’s your hit-piece on The Squad? They says the same shit.

    1. The squad and Bernie Sanders are the far left of the Democratic Party. They are critical of the more centrist establishment Democrats who took over the election. I don’t think they are much of a problem for Pelosi or Biden.

      I think the GOP is in a worse situation as to party unity. It was not hard to get them to vote against the impeachment which was a bad idea anyway. When it comes to actual legislation I think we will see.

    2. HOW DARE REASON WRITE SOMETHING MEAN ABOUT A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    3. Josh Hawley is an authoritarian little shithead who deserves to be trashed by Reason. Screw your whataboutism. Hawley deserves plenty of articles highlighting how he is a horrible human being.

      1. yes run interference for you boos

      2. “Whataboutism” is chemleft’s shining shield against accusations of hypocrisy.

      3. Imagine wanting a libertarian publication to take on both sides, and especially the side who is openly hostile to libertarianism/capitalism and is working on consolidating power in federal hands.

        Now imagine people that claim to be against both sides rushing to defend the publication when the editorial slant is 10 to 1 against the side who isn’t openly hostile to libertarianism/capitalism. Now imagine those same people calling it “whataboitism” when someone points this bias out.

        This is where you are Jeff.

        1. They DO take on both sides. Not always in the same article. Sometimes they devote an entire article to only bashing one side. Like this one. I think you must have missed all the articles bashing Ilhan Omar and the like. You are just upset that they are criticizing Team Red at all. It is the same with all of the articles on here that don’t say nice things about Team Red. “I’m outraged, Reason is full of left-wing propaganda shills!!!!!” They should ignore triggered whiny snowflakes like you and continue to attack ALL sides that are hostile to liberty. BOTH Team Red and Team Blue are hostile to liberty and neither one should get special treatment or prevaricating benefits of the doubt.

        2. Oh well wouldn’t you know, right on cue, here is the Editor in Chief herself posting an article bashing Biden’s economic plans. And what’s the predictable response from the Team Red shills? “Not good enough!” It will never be good enough for the right-wing snowflakes around here. Any article bashing Team Red is unfair; any article bashing Team Blue is too lame or too weak or something. They won’t be satisfied until Reason is fully a mouthpiece for Team Red, permitted to have maybe one or two heterodox opinions about drugs or gay marriage. But that’s it. On everything else, Reason must fall in line under the Team Red banner to defeat the Evil Team Blue. Only when that level of conformity is reached will the right-wing snowflakes be satisfied around here.

  31. Hawley sees the gap in the GOP that existed and was further fractured in the Trump presidency and continued control of his loyal followers.

    That is where he is going.

  32. The lies and distortions in this unhinged rant is staggering. Might as well be written by sullum.

  33. An election is the only thing keeping the two sides from killing each other.

    When the real evidence of election fraud is censored banned and cancelled along with the president of the United States and everyone else protesting the fraud, what could anyone expect?

    It’s all still canceled. There has been no investigation, no justice.

    Dipshits are only postponing the inevitable.

    1. The other day, we found out that Cuomo’s excuse for refusing to cough up the real data on how many nursing home residents were dying of Covid-19, was because Cuomo was afraid that if he told legislators the truth, it might have helped reelect Trump.

      “Melissa DeRosa, Mr. Cuomo’s top aide, explained the delay to state lawmakers during a Feb. 10 meeting. She said that the state sidelined a legislative request for the data because of a U.S. Department of Justice inquiry. Ms. DeRosa said the state was concerned the information would be politicized by the administration of former President Donald Trump, according to a transcript.”

      —-WSJ, March 4, 2020

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/cuomo-advisers-altered-report-on-covid-19-nursing-home-deaths-11614910855

      It isn’t just the media that’s lying, omitting, misdirecting, and feeding us bullshit. There aren’t any good reasons NOT to be skeptical of what we’re being told by the government, much less the media, when it comes to Trump–and people wonder why Trump supporters are reluctant to believe what they’re told?

      Cuomo’s office was so scared Trump might be reelected, they hid the truth and may have let thousands of nursing home patients die of Covid-19 unnecessarily–but Trump supporters should believe everything they’re told by the government and the media about who won the election and how our votes were counted?

  34. I think we’re seeing the end game of the Southern strategy by the GOP. It resulted in early successes for the GOP restoring the US to no longer being a de facto one-party state (from 1932 to the early 1990’s). But long term, the GOP has had to revert to its 1920’s version of itself to maintain that success.

    Which at this point is now 100 years old and gotta wonder how long that can stay ossified. Presumably as long as the D’s are the vehicle for boomers to remain in power through their golden dementia years.

    1. Did you come to this conclusion because Suderman wrote something stupid about Josh Hawley?

      1. The R’s have started looking like and talking like their 1920’s version for a while now. But the long-term effect of the southern strategy only occurs whenever the generational shift happens in each party since that strategy was rooted in the 1960’s and really only effective from the late 80/90’s. The electoral goal however doesn’t change. That generational shift hasn’t even started to happen w 50 senators over age 65 and another 20 between 60-65. US is a gerontocracy.

        Hawley is the youngest R Sen. Next is Cotton. Both quite a bit younger than the mid X-ers (Lee/Sasse/Rubio/etc). If an article about Hawley makes one see what the generational shift begins to look like for R’s – so what? That’s not an invention by a journalist.

        Until Ossoff a month ago, the only not-really-maybe-kind-of generation shift among D’s was Sinema. Maybe that will start to show some commonalities – or maybe it takes a couple more being elected.

        1. The R’s have started looking like and talking like their 1920’s version for a while now.

          There is very little about the Rs since the passage of TARP that resembles the party of Harding and Coolidge.

          1. I was thinking more Prohibition, Scopes, KKK in the Midwest, aftermath of Red Scare at state level and Immigration Act of 1924, the split after the 1912 convention which resulted in a different partisan/electoral semi-realignment than before – progresive Republicans and northern Democrats v southern Democrats and conservative Republicans – culminating in the aftermath of 1927 flood and 1928 election where Hoover won 5 former confederacy states.

      2. JFree needs little nudging to make an ass of himself; cites provided if that isn’t obvious.

    2. I mean, the democrats have been able to maintain their fascists policies for going on 100 years, so I’m not sure your point really stands.

    3. But long term, the GOP has had to revert to its 1920’s version of itself to maintain that success.

      LOL, what? The GOP was never a populist party in the 1920s. That ended when the factions within the Teddy Roosevelt wing got sick of Wilson’s bullshit and decided to cleave back to the corporatized conservatism of the traditional GOP, or shifted permanently to the Democrats.

  35. I’ll vote for Trump, Hawley, or anyone who promises to abolish social security and medicare. These programs are wrecking the country both financially ($30 trillion debt and counting) and morally (because they train people to sit at home and wait for checks instead of demanding their families get back to work to make money to pay for their care).

    1. And you did vote for Trump who never said he would abolish Medicare and social security. He was president for 4 years. How did that go?

      1. Of course but he did more to end it than anyone else. We need to do our part as well, which is to promise to support him to go further on this issue.

        1. He did nothing to end it.

          If that is what you want good luck.

          1. OK so who did you vote for?

            1. That nice professor lady

  36. Interesting article once you remove the propaganda about the rioters killing a cop with a fire extinguisher.

    As for the destroyed small towns and cities in real America..inhabited mostly by ethnics (Irish, Italian, Polish, French)..it is a reality and as much as libertarians say “so what” it is NOT because of free trade but cronyism and big govt. Fed printing money to fund govt debt had to be laundered hence China..allowing them to peg to the dollar is anything but free trade. The losers are small manufacturing/small town..wasn’t free trade that killed places like Hornell NY but deficit spending to fight wars and enrich the cosmo woke types. As for big tech…it is like wall street..run by a cabal setting up a monopoly protected by their Ivy league NYC buddies in the media and funded by their hedge fund buddies. The leaders of big tech are sure not like Steve Jobs (an American of Arab background) but liberal art majors from the Ivy League and not very diverse. FB and Google are the worse with this. Catholics need not apply it seems.

    Ron Paul was the answer..but Reason never quite understood this.

    1. allowing them to peg to the dollar is anything but free trade

      ‘Allowing them’? Do you not know how this works? Do you understand that the only way the US could counter that is to increase the risks of buying/holding dollars? Maybe hyperinflation. Or nationalization. Or hell a ton of ways that litter the history of Third World countries. And if you think China would be the main target for that – do you not understand that the main country which holds US dollars is – the US?

    2. What did Hornell, NY manufacture “before?” In some towns, small manufacturing did fine – Yuengling Brewing thrived in Pottsville even as coal mining layoffs collapsed their customer market and the Big Beer companies swept up, and closed, hundreds of small breweries.
      Many a small town in Penna. is filled with former factory buildings that thrived until “economies of scale” killed their business. Overseas competition didn’t help but the list of things that hurt (taxes, regulation, union agitation, deaths of the committed business founders, rising wages, etc.) is very long.

      1. To capture and wave the America’s Oldest Brewery flag. those Yuenglings swept up, and closed down, an Easton family brewery founded six years before their own.

    3. It’s not just that. It’s the United States Navy patrolling the sea lanes to keep merchant ships cruising without any self defense. *That* is the biggest subsidy for this so called free trade.

  37. Is the senator’s authoritarian grandstanding the dark future of the GOP?

    Hawley is the right-wing’s AOC. They’ll have their moment in the sun, then be pushed aside.

    1. How does that work? There’s no question the early representatives of a generational shift tend to get stomped on by an older crowd that resists change. See Amash and Gabbard. But unless the old farts have found the secret to eternal life, the torch passes soon enough.

      I can see an AOC being shuffled aside for someone from her generation who is more a party hack. But that ain’t Hawley’s problem at all.

  38. “an officer beaten over the head with a fire extinguisher by rioters”

    Seriously? We’ve known this was false since, what, early February?

    “Hawley’s vision of government is a vision of vast power, used to forcibly advance a particular kind of life.”

    Someone remembers reading Foucault.

    1. Intentionally perpetuating a malicious falsehood is what objective journalism is all about, dontchaknow.

      Either that or it’s a clear signal not to take anything the author says seriously.

      1. “malicious”

        1. Malicious libel TBQH.

    2. Since this is an article written on deadline for the print magazine, it was likely written in February and not corrected before posting on the website today.

      1. Of course, if you hear that from me, you’re going to argue. So, here’s the same thought from someone else:

        https://reason.com/2021/03/06/josh-hawleys-toxic-populism/#comment-8795580

      2. It’s been long enough there’s no excuse. It almost certainly wouldn’t have gone to print until after the real facts had come out, at which point Reason had a responsibility to fix it.

        And regardless, the online version should have been corrected, with a note that the print version contained an inaccurate claim, even when something went to the presses *after* it was clear the claim was wrong.

        1. Yes, of course, they should correct the factual error. I was just explaining the likely explanation for the error.

          Now, on the other hand, that people are getting their knickers all bent because of the error shows how desperate they are to make excuses for the Capitol rioters. Fact is Officer Sicknick *is* dead after spending a day batting rioters.

          1. That Officer Sicknick is dead may or may not have anything to do with the riot. I don’t care to defend the riot, but getting facts right matters. And causality is a lot trickier than you claim. You want to blaim the riot for his death with no obvious causal connection – it’s exactly the same as the loonies who think all people who die after getting a vaccine died from the vaccine.

            Statistically, some people are going to die shortly after getting vaccinated (especially when we’re prioritizing older and unhealthier people). And statistically, someone in DC was going to die on Jan 6th regardless of whether there was a riot. Would Officer Sicknick have died if the riot hadn’t happened? The medical examiner who did the autopsy is the only one who can answer that with any confidence (and we’ll never know for sure), but it’s sounding increasingly unlikely.

        2. If you really care, shoot an email to Suderman and point out the story needs a correction.

        3. There. Taken care of. He corrected the story. Took about one minute of effort on my part.

  39. https://twitter.com/c_c_krebs/status/1368347547497074691?s=12

    Donald Jr. speaks out against the indecency of firing someone via Twitter. LOL.

    1. HO2

      1. Remember when White Knight was still pretending they weren’t a paid DNC shill.

  40. I assume this article was written on the afternoon of the sixth of January and never got a rewrite.

  41. If Hawley was elected president, this “dark populist” would be a borderline libertarian, in that he’ll

    cut regulations
    cut taxes (to some degree)
    support school choice
    stand against college rape trials
    support 1A an 2A

    And so on. The whisperings of “dark populism” is a little more than libertarian dogma on some issues (like immigration, of course) barking. Ron Paul was a face of the libertarian movement for years and he spouted his share of conspiracy theories and edited racist content at a newspaper. I would vote him over Biden in a HEARTBEAT if those were two choices. In a cultural civil war, you have to be a bit more decisive.

    The writers here (and chemjeff) do not regard the left as a unique and singular threat to the republic. For them the GOP and democrats are equally bad in their own little ways and some populist like Hawley calling the other side is nothing more than convenient whataboutism. They’ll make a list of unlibertarian things they do and quip “What about the beam in YOUR eyes”

    Indeed, if we were call out the left and the media cheering on BLM destroying the cities for a year, Chemjeff would burst in here like the Koolaid Man and say “What about Hawley endorsing the capital city riots!” Yes, we have to abandon anyone on our side if they even slightly act like the left, but if the left just does what they want and no one says boo, we should just shrug our shoulders. We can’t pressure Cuomo to resign, because Trump didn’t! Even though the left has been protecting the likes of Weinstein LONG before Trump came into office! Accusations on Trump are decades old and few of the accused pursued legal action!

    It was quite entertaining to see Welch and Nolan put out half whining articles about how they can’t send their kids to school. Yes, your kids aren’t being educated and you’re worried. But we should still vote against all republicans who objected to election results, right? What did they think would happen when Biden got into office? This isn’t 1997, when we could afford to put more emphasis on personal character.

    1. The writers here (and chemjeff) do not regard the left as a unique and singular threat to the republic.

      Of course not. That is just typical Team Red scare tactics meant to scare you into voting for them. They pull this crap because they cannot get people to vote for them based on an inspiring platform, they can only get people to vote for them by making them hate and fear the Other Team. And YES of course Team Blue does the exact same thing when they call Trump a Nazi, that Handmaid’s Tale is right around the corner, etc., etc.

      This country has been through a lot more than what we are facing right now. This country has been through literal foreign invasion, civil war, a previous pandemic much worse than this one, riots and civil unrest that were way worse than last year’s summer troubles, presidential assassinations, literal vigilante justice ruling much of the land – let’s get a little bit of perspective here. So something like Biden’s plan of making an already heavily socialized health care system just a little bit more socialist pales in comparison to everything else the country has endured.

      Of course Team Blue has some awful ideas. I don’t like the Green New Deal either. The AOC version of it is downright stupid, and while the Biden version of it is not as bad, it is still just more taxes and more regulations and more crap along those lines. Joe Biden wanting to make illegal a couple of categories of guns? Yes that is bad. But – a little bit of perspective again – there was a time in the recent past when ALL assault weapons were illegal. Was the Republic mortally wounded when that happened? In the big picture, most of what Biden is doing is small-time shit. For that matter, most of what Trump did was small-time shit too. Yes he treated immigrants at the border very badly, and that should be condemned. But – again in the big picture – it wasn’t nearly as bad as Japanese internment, Jim Crow segregation, Trail of Tears, and a whole host of other condemnable actions of the past.

      I will say that the real existential crisis to the Republic isn’t some cultural crap that either Team Red or Team Blue are doing, it’s the national debt. Because that bill WILL be paid in some form or fashion, regardless of which bathroom transgendered people use, or which right-winger is banned from Twitter. Frankly I think that is one reason why culture war issues are raging so intensely now, when in the past they did not. It’s because the fiscal hawks have all but given up and so the only real difference between the two tribes now is what you think about transgendered bathrooms or social media censorship.

      1. Why have the fiscal hawks given up? Because they are unelectable? Even if, tomorrow, the pols of both parties were to merely “stop digging the hole deeper,” how to we get out of it?

        1. Well yeah I think the experience of the Tea Party showed that it isn’t enough to run on a platform of cutting spending alone.

          I don’t know what is to be done. I fear that it is going to take some major global currency shock to cause people in this country to pay attention to debt again. Like if nations start demanding payment for international trade in euros or yuan or pounds, or something other than dollars.

        2. “Why have the fiscal hawks given up?”

          Because everyone now realizes there’s no way to get out except through massive hyperinflation, which was probably the plan from the beginning.
          And the fiscal hawks are more afraid of the powers the elite will seize to deal with the hyperinflation than of the massive debt.

        3. Also, we’re in the looting phase of societal decline. Everyone is scrambling to get theirs.

        4. due to internationalization of the dollar, inflation is no longer very correlated to fiscal spending, but instead is now entirely correlated to monetary policy (b/c fiscal spending is smaller compared to the monetary base)

          look at the five year inflation spread, it’s going nowhere https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIFR

          this has led some unfortunates to incorrectly conclude MMT is a viable notion

          1. of course in fact there is feedback in the system

            dollarization was a function of expectations the US will not inflate

            MMT would quickly lead to international de-dollarization and that vicious cycle could spiral out of control very quickly

    2. Please, Hawley isn’t on our side. The article has plenty of evidence of that. Desiring the government to micromanage social media is not libertarian in the slightest. Once you go that far down the road of statism, you’re an enemy of liberty.

      I doubt he’d truly cut regulations. We’d just get *different* regulations. He still wants government to mandate a particular idea of the good life, it’s just a different one than the democrats want. *The desire for government to optimize a state of life* is the problem, not which good life it chooses.

      1. Thank you. Why do people around here still think that the 1990’s version of Newt Gingrich is still in charge of Team Red? Even Newt himself is fully on the MAGA train at this point.

  42. This is coming from the mixoligist movie guy…. enough said. The fire extinguisher claim has been de-bunked for weeks and for this little twat to cite it says it all. Things are going to get rough and pete and his ilke are not going to come out of well if at all

  43. Hawley’s cardinal sin is having sent Zuckerberg back to SNL hell, by grilling him until he turned red as a Woke bratwurst at a Senate hearing

  44. The recounting of Jan 6 is so ridiculous that you’d have to be an idiot to read the whole thing. The writer is peddling the same talking points as the political enemies of Hawley so what is this if not blatant DNC propaganda?
    How does something so stupid get past the editors? I would say there needs to be a retraction but it’s clear that this article was never concerned with the truth. Sheesh.

  45. Stopped at the fire extinguisher. Shameful. Wrote this on January 7 and sat on it? Editorial thought it was too much work to rewrite?

    1. at some point you have to wonder when our patience will have reached its limits. How long can the lies continue without any consequences?

  46. buy alcohol online
    looking for a space where you can wet your thirsty throat! buy alcohol online

  47. Extinguisher memes aside, Hawley is one of the few people brave enough to call a spade a spade. Election rules should not have been changed weeks before an election when we knew about Covid for almost an entire year prior as well as having primaries earlier in the year to figure out what does and does not work. There are also serious questions that Hawley raises regarding whether or not social media companies are making illegal in-kind contributions via political censorship.

  48. Shocking to see that the rootless clique of internationalists at Reason hate nationalism and populism, and will lie to smear anyone who even hints at supporting such things.

    Never stop the kvetching guys, I wouldn’t know what to do without it.

  49. I often wonder what the editors at Reason think about the fact that not a single one of their readers is libertarian. Just read these clown takes in the comments. To a person, they are big-government, statist, authoritarian, MAGA dudes. Why do you people read this site, when you don’t believe in a single libertarian principle?

  50. I stopped reading after Suderman said that Wilsonianism is too individualistic for Hawley. Since when is the lost cause movement individualistic? Or, is fawning over Wilson’s press for globalism? Is Suderman the Open Borders Liberaltarian? That read like a parody.

  51. “Is the senator’s authoritarian grandstanding the dark future of the GOP?”
    Uh huh.

  52. What a disgrace – someone who loves his country and believes in fair and equal treatment is lambasted by an elite writer who never got a callous or lived near anyone who was poor. Author was probably raised by a nanny while mom and dad did the golf and charity circuit. Is Mitt Romney the hero of “Reason”? I grew up in a four room house with no running water and believe poor isn’t anything more than an accident of birth and circumstance, and I did manage to be a division CEO of a NYSE-traded company. For shame on you!

  53. “There is now a meaningful cultural and political divide between the views of Middle Americans, especially those without a college education, and the views of urban professionals, most of whom lean to the left.”
    What a bunch of tripe puked by Peter Suderman. Those without a college education, like the liberals precious “minorities” on welfare, dead people, and illegals make up the leftist voting base. And “professionals” like shyster lawyers, union teachers, and Wall Street hedge fund thieves make up the rest. BTW I have a Masters Degree in engineering, and wised up long ago that socialism does not work, may be Peter Suderman needs to put the bong down and wise up too.

  54. This is not the first hit piece I’ve seen on Hawley. Far left websites like this seem to see the guy as a threat to the fascist dictatorship.

  55. “… and dramatically halting business on both the House and Senate floors as lawmakers were evacuated to secure locations…”

    Maybe they should riot every day.

    “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
    Judge Gideon Tucker

  56. Hawley is an amorphous loser. The idiot Trumpists who respond to him don’t realize that he despises them, and is using them. He’s a fool, but not stupid. His legion of supporters is both.

    At least they give me something to laugh at every day.

  57. I’ve subscribed to Reason for almost ten years and used to so look forward to each issue I’d collect them. I remember reading articles critical of China and how they (the CCP) had “private” companies do their censorship for them. This was the first issue that, when I saw the headline, went straight to the waste bin.

  58. More like Josh Haw-Hawley, Amirite?

  59. Well, lookey there. There you have it. Reason has found it. The new, the improved bad orange man with even more scarier populism and the new, the improved HDS! WITH MOAR DERANGEMENT!

    And and and ever moar most scarier WYPIPO!

    WYPIPO GOAN GETCHA, THEY GOAN GETCHA… BOO!!!

    1. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM !!!

  60. yes, let’s worry about Hawley and not the fact that the military has occupied DC to chase phantom QAnon insurrections b/c of a single two-hour riot in which no one was killed by the unarmed protesters (but several unarmed Trump supporters died due to delayed medical services and the cellphone networks being shut down while another was shot dead for breaking a window)

    Kenosha business BEGGED for the National Guard and were turned down

    instead BLM tried to kill Kyle Rittenhouse when he put out their fires

    and now the left’s “justice” system will finish him off

    even as Biden’s DOJ drops more federal charges against violent BLM rioters who have killed dozens

    1. Absolutely and very good observations. The left wants violence and, sadly, we are in a civil war. The political right (including libertarians) needs to understand that.

  61. I never get tired of Reason’s pearl clutching. Populism is what helped Ronald Reagan win against Jimmy Carter in 1980, helped Republicans win Congress in 1994, enabled the Tea Party and Republicans to win in 2010, and helped Donald Trump win in 2016. Notice the pattern here?

    I am confident it will help Trump win in 2024 too. Instead, Reason would rather Republicans campaign like Milton Friedmans while the left walks all over them. This is one stark example of an author who knows nothing about politics and is nothing more than a political loser.

    The fact is politics is a knock down, drag out street fight. It is totally irrational, but the author wants it to be otherwise. If you do not win in politics, you do not set policy and you do what it takes to legitimately win and then you can philosophize all you want.

    Notice Reason isn’t paying attention to the audit in Maricopa County, AZ? The County and State Senate (both Republican controlled) locked horns over the ballots cast with the County denying anything was wrong while the state asserted its authority due to potential vote fraud. Fortunately, the Senate won, but I have it on very good information that the County’s problems in this regard are not over.

  62. This article was so fair and unbiased it made me want to donate to Sen. Hawley’s campaign.

  63. TL;DR

    “Not only was he happy to see the mob assembled outside his workplace; he cheered them on.”

    It was a mostly peaceful protest.

  64. SUDERMAN speaks, no one gives a shit.

  65. Disappointed at the “officer beaten over the head with a fire extinguisher” canard which has since been replace with a slightly smaller canard. Lost all respect for author.

  66. can i get my 20 minutes back after reading this drivel of hate.

  67. Reason is controlled opposition at this point. Biden is signing record numbers of executive orders and bombing Syria and their front page article is about how the GOP and populism are the real bad guys. Fuck off, I’ve had a subscription for nearly twenty years and I’m not renewing it.

  68. As quoted above, Hawley stated ‘America’s Founders built a new republic governed not by a select elite, as in the days of old, but by the common man and woman, grounded on the premise that it is the common man and woman who are the noblest of citizens,’.”

    (Wikipedia) “The Constitution of the United States grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).”
    So much for Hawley’s “governed not b y a select elite, but by the common man and woman.”

  69. I didn’t know that Reason published biased leftist progressive articles like this one. Hawley 2024.

    1. Sadly, this is why I stopped giving out gift subscriptions to Reason this holiday season, and will be letting my own subscription lapse when it runs out.

      You did it to yourself, guys.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.