Libertarianism

Meet The New York Times' Libertarian Podcaster

Jane Coaston on the polarization of everything.

|

Jane Coaston is the new host of The Argument, a massively popular New York Times podcast that seeks to showcase civil and informed discussions about the most pressing issues of the day. A 33-year-old Cincinnati native, Coaston has worked at Vox, MTV, and the Human Rights Campaign, among other places. She is the daughter of a black father and a white mother, was raised Catholic, and identifies as queer. She's also a registered Libertarian who is "especially distrustful of efforts by the state to get people to do things." As she puts it, "at some point, a regulation or a law with the absolute best of intentions will be wielded by people who may not have the absolute best of intentions."

Coaston says growing up in a liberal household in a conservative part of the country made her reluctant to give the authorities a lot of power. Adding to that was an experience of being isolated because of her race and sexuality. "My libertarian sensibilities really came from a sense of: I know what it is like politically to always lose," she says.

One of Coaston's goals for The Argument is to bring in a lot of new voices—partly to hear different perspectives but also to model true pluralism. She says she is sick of performative politics in which people act out predetermined roles rather than actually engage with one another, and she aims to change that in her new role.

In April, Reason's Nick Gillespie spoke with Coaston via Zoom about how her libertarianism came to be and what she sees as the defining issues of the current era.

Reason: So we have a registered Libertarian running a major podcast at The New York Times. What drew you to libertarianism, and how do you define that term?

Coaston: It's interesting. I think of myself as an adherent to libertarianism and less so to the Libertarian Party. It's the same way that people use the word liberal and liberal in many different ways. For me, it comes from a certain degree of circumspection and a certain degree of skepticism. That is what my libertarianism looks like, which is that I am distrustful of efforts by the state to get people to do things. I mean that even of the things I want other people to do. I think that's one of the biggest challenges of libertarianism. I've talked about it before: In many ways, everyone's a personal libertarian. Everyone thinks they should be able to do whatever they want, but other people should not.

If you accidentally run through a stop sign in your car, you're like, "Ugh, that's annoying, but I didn't mean to." Because it's you. You see someone else doing that and you're like, "They should lose their license; they're terrible drivers." That goes to extensions of state power as well. We too often think of state power as a cudgel that we can use against our enemies or a way in which we can benefit our friends. And that will flip on a dime depending on who the administration is. I joked a lot last fall that a lot of people who, in 2020, were post-liberal conservatives were all of a sudden going to become libertarians again in January. Now they're all like, "Well, we're spending too much money." I'm like, "Are you? Are you now?"

In 2016 there was that brief moment, as it became clear that Donald Trump had won the election (or "Russia handed him the election"), when suddenly a lot of liberals were like, "Maybe we gave the president too much power."

Right, right. And it was a great moment for federalism.

When I was at Vox—I was at Vox before I was with The New York Times—I focused on the GOP, white nationalism, conservatism, and the right. There were a lot of people in right circles whose understanding of what the presidency was supposed to be was very much "We won the presidency. We'll be able to start putting all of our enemies into camps." And I'm like, "No, that's never—no." But I do think that it's interesting how we cherish executive power when our team has it. And we decry executive power when our enemies have it, even though it's the same power used similarly.

My libertarianism really is an effort to remain skeptical and to remain challenging of the use of state power, even when it's for stuff that I would really like. Because at some point, somebody I absolutely hate is going to do the same thing, and I'm going to be really mad about it.

What are the specific types of state power that worry you the most?

I think it's what the ultimate extensions of state power can result in. We've seen that most concerningly with regard to policing. It's very easy to talk about policing with regard to race, which is an incredibly important discussion, because African Americans are in general overpoliced while being simultaneously underpoliced.

Yeah. That's one of the most paradoxical things: How can people who are constantly being rousted by the cops never have a cop when they need one?

Exactly. I was doing some research last week on the police and what the police do. If you look at homicide clearance rates, they are abysmal. For instance, in Honolulu, Hawaii, serious crime, murder, assault: 25 percent clearance rate. And that just means an arrest or the case is closed. Not that the case was solved in Law & Order style, but that someone was arrested.

That concerns me in a whole different way. But I think about what policing and what those extensions of state power can mean, because the state is not just an objective entity. The state is controlled by people.

We've seen time and time again that there will be a law or regulation, and we'll see some people who can get away with having expired tags and some people who can't. And the people who can't are at risk of being killed over it, at a traffic stop or in any other interaction with law enforcement that another person might not even have for the exact same offense. I wrote about it for the Times a couple of years ago, but there was a case in Florida of a man who was pulled over while walking—well, allegedly jaywalking. And you can see in the video that someone jaywalks just behind him and is not stopped. And this man is told that it's illegal in Florida to walk without a license, that you must be carrying ID. That's not true. That is, for the record, absolutely not true. But we can see how extensions of state power [can come] from someone or by someone who wants to do ill, even [under] the absolute best laws.

I think that's what concerns me about the we've-got-to-do-something impulse, which everyone has. It's very understandable. [But] "we've got to do something" means at some point that a regulation or a law, with the absolute best of intentions, will be wielded by people who may not have the absolute best of intentions. That concerns me a lot.

Did you have a moment where you became a libertarian or you started thinking libertarian thoughts?

I grew up in a very conservative state, Ohio, and in a very conservative area, Cincinnati. The famous Mark Twain reference is that when the world ends, he wants to go to Cincinnati, because then he'll have 10 more years. I was very well acquainted with what it was like to be in an environment in which, if the government did something, that would probably be something that I was not going to enjoy. I started out in journalism as a sports writer, and so I think about a lot of things in terms of sports. My libertarian sensibilities really came from a sense of: I know what it is like politically to always lose and to see what the winners look like.

I've realized how effective this is. Republicans, their understanding of events is that they lose all the time. And that was part of the argument for Trump, like, "Oh yeah, we lose and we lose and we lose, and we never fight back." I'm like, "I don't remember any of that. I've been alive for 33 years. I had two Bush administrations." Well, three, technically—with H.W. Bush I was very small, so I didn't care.

And in Ohio, how many Democratic governors? I think there was one term of somebody in there?

Yeah, and then you're left with people essentially arguing that [Republican former Gov.] John Kasich, "Oh, he's a liberal." And you're like, "No. No, that's—no." I think that for me, it was the growth of a sensibility that I understood that power can be wielded at you and the people who are powerful can present themselves as being the real victims here.

I worked at the Human Rights Campaign as a speechwriter for a while. And you saw right after the Obergefell decision [legalizing gay marriage nationwide] that the conversation among conservative Republicans became, like, "We're the victims of this decision." I'm like, "Six months ago you were very powerful, because America wasn't ready for marriage equality. And now you're like, 'We're very sad. We control a majority of governorships. We control state houses across the country.'" The Republicans had just done really well in 2014, but now, "We're losing all over…."

My personal libertarianism, because I don't want to postulate about others, is to really take a step back from myself and think about, "Who would be impacted if I got everything I wanted politically? How would I be impacted if the person I hate most got everything they wanted politically?" Limiting the power of government to make anybody super happy seems to me to be the best way where I might not get the very grasp of power, but neither would the person who wants to hurt me the most.

I always thought that many of the concerns that libertarians espouse—things like the police power of the state—these should speak well to African Americans. But if we're being honest, libertarians have made very little headway with blacks. Why do you think that is? I hate to accuse you of being too individual, but why do you think your belief system isn't more widespread among people of your age and your demographics?

I think there are a couple of reasons here. I think it has to do with the context in which libertarianism has existed in this country. And I think it has to do with my own personal context.

First and foremost, I think it comes from growing up where I kind of expected that people who had my politics and my parents' politics would always lose. If I'd grown up maybe in Massachusetts or New York, and I had an expectation that Democrats—my parents are Democrats—win elections, I might not be as meh about the state holding power, because as far as I knew, the state holding power could only result in things I liked happening.

I would also say, with regard to race and libertarianism, I think it's because, in some ways, people who have espoused libertarian values in the past have been people who also said, "Well, if a private business wants to exclude African Americans, who am I to say no?" That's something that's come up quite a bit. I think that's a challenge.

I will say there's a ton of great work happening in libertarian circles on criminal justice reform. Those are the people who have been leading the way on a lot of these issues and have been real guides to me. And a lot of the work they've done has really helped to shape a lot of my thinking. But libertarianism also has a history of the people who were like, "Well, why can't you own people? What's wrong with that?" I think that that is the sense where libertarianism—

"We need to take a second look at secession."

Right. Exactly.

"Let's not throw the baby out with the Civil War," or something.

Right. If you're the one guy at Columbia who starts a Students for Strom Thurmond organization, people are going to ask a couple of questions. And so there has been—and I think you see this when you talk about being a libertarian on the internet—a perception of selfishness, [an idea that libertarians are] just, like, "Well, you deal with it. I'm fine." That's not reflective of what I think, and I don't think that's reflective of what most libertarians think. I think libertarians are thinking about cases like Tony Timpa [a man killed by Dallas police in 2016]. We're thinking about people who have endured state power. The most depressing tag on reason.com is the one about dog shootings, because it just goes on for pages.

I have a sense that, even from a decade or a dozen years ago, people today seem more mired in a political or partisan identity. The idea is that politics is what we need to be talking about because it's so important. Do you think there will ever come a moment where people realize that politics is never going to give you what you want, and maybe it's better to de-emphasize the things that get solved through a system where 50 percent plus one vote gets to force the other side to do their bidding?

I think it's interesting that you say that. I was just thinking that I feel as if what you're going to get, actually, is people who will make "I'm apolitical" an identity, instead of finding something else to do. Because I think that there is this idea of not finding so much of yourself in politics. But having been really invested in sports in my life and understanding that for many people, politics is their sports, I'm like, "You'll hate it, but you'll come back to it."

I think also it's worth saying that for the vast majority of Americans, this is not how they live. One of the things that you've seen from even just ratings for cable news over the last couple of months is that they've dropped across the board. Because the Trump administration was a boon for cable news, and for people talking about politics or thinking about politics, but people didn't want that. It was kind of like everyone adopted a feral fox, and you had to just keep watching your nanny cam to be like, "What's the fox doing? What's the fox doing? Has the fox destroyed everything in my house?" And now the fox is gone. And you're like, "Whew, don't have to think about the fox so much."

Now, you should be. You should be thinking a lot about politics. I think that there are a lot of people for whom they have been invigorated by this, by recognizing that they could take part in politics or take part in political conversations. And they find that to be exciting. I don't mean exciting as a positive or as a negative, but as something that provides excitement.

Let's talk about the podcast you're hosting now with The New York Times. It seems you're trying to make The Argument a place where people can actually meet and get beyond performativity and get down to, "OK, what's really going on here?" Can you talk about what you hope to accomplish?

That's exactly it. A lot of times we do politics at each other, not with each other. It becomes about a positioning statement. I saw someone on Twitter a while back say that "you can never trust the people who seem to have a position on absolutely everything, because that means they don't really believe in anything." There are lots of things about which I'm like, "I just don't know." One of the great things about the show is we have a bunch of episodes, and will in the future, where I'm like, "I don't know, but you both know a lot about this thing. Why don't we talk about it, and you guys talk to each other, and I can shape a perspective based on the information that I have and the research that I've done?"

We all too often hear the most strident voices on whatever it is, either for or against any subject. But I've gotten Instagram direct messages that are like, "Could you please talk about this? Because my boyfriend and I were arguing about it, and then we realized we didn't know what we were arguing about." You might not have your mind changed. You might even be more certain than before. It's funny, we did an episode on student loan forgiveness, and the number of emails I got from people who were like, "This totally changed my mind" and "Actually, I was right at the beginning. I completely believe the exact thing I believed an hour ago." And I'm like, "Great. That's fine."

I'm always willing to be challenged and willing to be wrong on the show, because I think that's important. That's the only way we can get things done. We don't have to perform certainty for one another. There are going to be moments where you might raise a point where the other person's like, "I hadn't thought about that." And that's awesome.

That's the goal, to encourage people to think and talk across politics. And not even doing that performatively. Because I actually really hate when people are like, "Well, at the end of the day, we're all just—" I'm like, "No, no, no, no." At the end of the day, some people are going to really suffer because of some policies. You can't at-the-end-of-the-day everything. I think it's worth saying there are ways in which we can talk about a lot of aspects of our politics, and we might not come to a resolution. There is likely not an answer. But we can come to some sort of, "Here is my best case. Here is your best case. Let's let people figure it out from there."

One of the things that seems to be in short supply right now is a willingness to be tolerant of other people who are very different and oftentimes very hostile to your way of life and your most cherished beliefs. Where does your optimism come from?

I think it comes from an understanding that—I've seen a lot of people who are willing to write a lot of checks on the internet, and then when you meet them, they don't want to cash those checks. I think it comes from the fact that I know that there are many people for whom their politics are the reservoirs for a lot of feelings from a lot of other places, and that a lot of people have endured a lot of things.

For me, it is very important to understand that people come to their politics in a lot of different ways. And for the vast majority of people, they do so with an approach of "I think things would be better if it were this way." They are not existing as a Marvel villain who actually wants to destroy the world. They are thinking it would be better for my family or my community or my existence in some way if this thing were different. If you are coming into your politics through that lens…you might be wrong, you're probably wrong, but that's a nice instinct.

What do you think are going to be the defining issues of the Biden era? We're coming out of the pandemic—hopefully, anyway. But we have economic issues. We have geopolitical issues. What do you think are going to be the big things that will be dominating both the argument and your Argument podcast?

A very basic question will be, "What is politics for?" What are we trying to do here? We're an extraordinarily diverse country and an extraordinarily large country, and we know it. We're aware of it. And yet sometimes we talk about our country as if it is like a two-bit town with 10 politicians in it, which is just not true. This is an entirely side issue, but the nationalization of local politics is really concerning to me. People will be like, "I'm very concerned about this thing happening in Portland." And I'm like, "I've only been to Portland once. It's very far away from me. Please explain how this has a direct impact on my life."

The expectation of politics as something that is supposed to get things done has been lost in some ways. The idea of actually passing legislation and then paying for that legislation and doing the thing, when we have so many people who are aware that the performance of politics can get you way further. So much of the Trump administration was about -Donald Trump performing a politics that people both loved and loathed, but he didn't actually do it.

One of the hallmarks of the early Biden administration is a sense of expanding the size, scope, and spending of government, on top of what Trump did, which itself was gigantic and against the rhetoric of Republicans generally. There is a government payout, there is a government program, there is a government watchdog for every aspect of every inch of your life. Do you think that's going to end up just continuing the hyperpoliticization of virtually every time you say hello or not to somebody?

I think that we are doing the politicization of our lives. Joe Biden is not doing that to us. The federal government is largely not doing that to us. We are doing this. When we are having conversations, especially on social media, where we become flattened into just chimeras of our political opinions, we are doing this to ourselves. And we can decide whether or not to do this to ourselves. That really is an individual question. The urge to identify and exist as a political entity alone—that's a you decision.

Millions of people don't do that. I keep thinking about the "shy Trump voters," and I'm sure there are shy Biden voters. But it's not shy to just not lead with that. That's how most people are. The parents of the people I played lacrosse with, I would guess that most of them voted for Bush in 2004. But I wouldn't know that. The world in which we exist is a politics-heavy world, because this is what we do. But that politicization, that's an individual decision, and people can make that decision or not.

This interview has been edited for clarity and style. To listen to the full version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

NEXT: Canadian Steak Tartare Ban Leaves Chefs Feeling Raw

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. Libertarian is the new half black.

    1. “I focused on the GOP, white nationalism …”

      Yeah, Whitey is the Devil. We’ve heard.

      Another “Libertarian Moment” brought to you by Reason Magazine. This time, rubber stamping the controlled opposition at the New York Times.

      1. Shit, I stopped reading at “Or Russia handed him the election” and scrolled down here to see if people were bitching.

        I started asking myself, is reason so Trump addled they can’t just make the point that “the other party got the presidency” without acting like they’re writing for Mother Jones?

        Probably easier to glean the gist of it from the comments than the interview.

      2. If you don’t think there’s a difference between white people and white nationalists, that’s on you, not on her

        1. Let’s not ignore the fact that the left largely dismisses the difference between white people and white nationalism. Is this the first time you’ve heard of CRT and anti-racism?

          When you’re dealing with someone on the left, now, it is perfectly reasonable to be unclear about whether they acknowledge a legitimate difference between white people and white nationalism.

          1. You are awfully sensitive about criticism of white nationalists.

            1. Somebody has reading comprehension problems.

          2. I think that perception of CRT and anthracite has a lot more to do with what you’re hearing than what at least most people on the left are actually saying. Obviously the world is a big place and I’m sure you’re going to find some people who genuinely don’t make a distinction, but it’s disingenuous to act like the left in general cannot or does not distinguish regular white people from literal nazis.

            1. You’re lying.

              https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1417313212207271936?s=19

              Well well well, if it’s isn’t Kimberlé Crenshaw, founder of critical race theory, telling us that the term “critical race theory” can be “used as interchangeably for race scholarship as Kleenex is used for tissue”—exactly as I’ve been saying all along. [Link]

              1. I think you might be responding to the wrong person? I said that things like critical race theory and antiracism recognize a distinction between white people in general and literal nazis, not that the term critical race theory was being used too broadly.

    2. 1. Being “registered libertarian” does not make one a libertarian. Libertarians have a LINO problem just like Republicans have a RINO problem. Libertarians have literal anarchists and commies trying to act libertarian to destroy a freedom minded alternative to Democrat and republican tyranny.

      2. unreason commies endorsing anyone should automatically cause you to be skeptical of that endorsed person. unreason is staffed by commies, so they lie all the time. They dont like libertarianism, so an article endorsing a “libertarian” is hiding the truth.

      3. Why would a commie propaganda rag have libertarian staffers? They dont. Libertarian staffer wouldnt work for a commie rag without a huge moral dilemma and even if they would, it would be to destroy every lie coming from the NYT.

      Thats like a libertarian being goebbels right hand man/woman.

      1. Does LOVECONSTITUTION1789 love Trump more than the Constitution?

        1. The question of why The New York Times wants to give legitimate libertarians a megaphone is a valid one–regardless of whether LC1789 supports Trump.

          The New York Times cancelled its Op-Ed section a few months ago.

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9514283/New-York-Times-says-renaming-op-eds-guest-essays-inclusive.html

          The Op-Ed is someone from outside the newspaper’s editorial board writing an opinion piece. The New York Times made it famous 100 years ago. It gave their readers a diverse viewpoint without needing to subscribe to another publication.

          Because of cancel culture, they can’t have nice things like an Op-Ed section anymore. Every time the Op-Ed editor approves a piece with a viewpoint that opposes the progressive, SJW socialist left, they rise up and have the Op-Ed editor cancelled–not for his or her own views but because they allowed someone else to share an opposing view. Accepting the job of Op-Ed editor at the Times became career suicide.

          Against that backdrop, why shouldn’t LC1789 be skeptical of The New York Times hosting a legitimately libertarian capitalist podcast?

        2. That’s been crystal clear for a long time.

  2. “There were a lot of people in right circles whose understanding of what the presidency was supposed to be was very much “We won the presidency. We’ll be able to start putting all of our enemies into camps.”

    JFC – how about naming one such person or instance

    Woketarian both sides bullshit grows ever more delusional

    1. I think it’s meant as an obvious exaggeration, that once in power, Republicans like Democrats forget what should be the limits of that power.

      1. No, I think she meant exactly what she said. There was nothing here that split from AOC or antifa orthodoxy except she continuously used the word libertarian.

        Sorry but this was left identitarianism and ideology through and through. Republicans bad, Democrats…well maybe they could be better but their spirit is pure.

        1. +10000000000

      2. “I think it’s meant as an obvious exaggeration”

        Maybe. But when she follows it with “I’ve only been to Portland once. It’s very far away from me. Please explain how this has a direct impact on my life” after talking about Florida law tells you that no she was not exaggerating, and yes, she is entirely a no-enemies-to-the-left sort of ‘libertarian.’

    2. Read the comments on any Washington Post story about the GOP (or GQP as the Liberals there now style it), and you’ll see that it’s not just (if at all) the Right who wants to put people in camps.

      1. Democrats have openly talked about re-education camps for a few years now.

        https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/01/19/democrats-and-the-reeducation-of-the-american-people-n2559740

        They have sounded like the new red guard for a while.

        1. Democrats are currently holding people in solitary confinement for “trespassing” (despite many being invited in) and requiring re-education for those who plead.

          1. If there is one thing right-wingers can’t stand it is accountability.

            1. that’s rich coming from a regressive leftist! kudos

            2. I’ve never seen a leftist in living memory that was accountable for anything.

            3. Here’s one of our resident gaslighters to tell us all it’s the plebs fault.

              1. It’s all the plebes fault. Unless the plebes are democrats. Then it’s whiteys fault.

      2. There was never any talk on the Right about putting people in camps, at least not recently. Maybe lock up a few individual criminals like Senator Clinton. And some right wing columnists wanted to lock up Muslims several years ago during the terrorism scares.

        But the Lefties are openly calling for widespread imprisonment of undesirables right now, for wrongthink. Fortunately it’s the lunatic fringe of the Left and not the majority of the party yet.

        1. Lunatic fringe vs mainstream is increasingly a distinction without difference on the left

        2. “Fortunately it’s the lunatic fringe of the Left and not the majority of the party yet.”

          In the last few years we’ve watched the Left’s Overton Window shift over hours, not decades like before.
          All you need is a signaling article in the New York Times.

        3. Cite of lefties openly calling for widespread imprisonment of undesirables?

          I highly doubt you can cite anyone but some fringe extreme leftist, just as I highly doubt anyone can cite anyone on the right except fringe extremist righties as wanting to put their enemies in camps.

          1. I agree! A certain prominent lefty theoretician calling the lefts’ political enemies “the most dangerous party in human history” certainly doesn’t mean that he’s calling for imprisonment. That’s left for the implementation stage…

            “Linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky says the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization “in human history.”
            A wide-ranging interview with BBC’s “Newsnight” Wednesday between host Evan Davis and Mr. Chomsky soon turned to the Republican Party, which the author said is worse than the Islamic State terror group or those responsible for millions of deaths throughout the 20th century.

            1. As you say yourself, he stopped short of saying Republicans should be put in camps.

                1. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/now-they-are-saying-republican-party-1-national-security-threat-united-states-america

                  Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official, made the comment during a Thursday interview on MSNBC’s “The Reid Out.”

                  “I’ve spent my whole career not as a political operative. I’ve never worked on a campaign in my life other than campaigning against Trump. I’m a national security guy. I’ve worked in national security against ISIS, al Qaeda and Russia,” Taylor said.

                  “And the No. 1 national security threat I’ve ever seen in my life to this country’s democracy is the party that I’m in — the Republican Party. It is the No. 1 security national security threat to the United States of America,” he said.

                  1. From the article:

                    “In the past, members of the Biden administration have labeled certain political subgroups as national security threats, but now Miles Taylor is saying that the entire Republican Party is the number one national security threat that our nation is facing.

                    Just think about what that means.

                    When we would capture a member of Al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would ship them off to Guantanamo Bay and torture them for months or even years.”

                    1. Also, Biden’s language about 1/6 being the worst attack on the country in years isn’t random or merely divisive. They are hoping to come down hard on the right.

              1. So it was merely implied?

                1. Not even implied in the quotes above.

                  1. Who do you think you’re fooling? People here can read you know.

        4. Its civil war 2.0 that democrats started. They wanted to destroy the constitution, so no constitutional protections for lefties.

          I say deport Lefties to commies countries like china and cuba and eminent domain their property to pay down their share of the national debt.

          Americans will likely seek to water the tree of liberty with the blood of lefties in the coming bloodletting,

      3. Biden said that a few years ago. “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.” Low IQ people got onboard with it.

      4. You realize the bulk of the comments there are not real humans, but sock puppets for various organizations (and governments) trying to push a narrative. Or to squash dissenting opinion by burying it under so much noise it’s impossible to believe anyone with a differing opinion is not a total anomaly.

        Everyone from China to Media Matters to companies like Amazon to Robert Kennedy and his anti-vax organization do this. Everywhere. From reddit to any popular news site with an open comments section. Happens here at Reason, too, but it’s a less trafficked thread so there are fewer and you know half of them by name.

        Nobody is real on the internet.

    3. Shes not a libertarian. She’s basically a blue dog. Hard hitting pieces like this.

      https://www.vox.com/2019/7/23/20697636/trump-race-gop-conservatism-racism

      Basically saying liberals are right when they call even people like Romney and McCain racist.

      1. She seems sane.

        Jane Coaston
        @janecoaston
        ·
        Jul 14
        Found myself wondering “what happened to all the Trump Twitter reply guys” and that’s probably a sign to get off Twitter

      2. I also learned by reading her Twitter the only protests the reason writers seem to be against is Jan 6th and the Cuban protests shutting down highways in Florida.

        1. Cuba protests are not mostly peaceful.

      3. Her defending the media for pushing the fire extinguisher story.

        https://mobile.twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1384509672758067201

        1. By the way. This is my favorite. Because we had reports it was a stroke on January 8th. But the media pushed the death by fire extinguisher for 4 more months despite the family and doctor both saying on Jan 8th it was not true. The DoJ pushed it, media pushed it, white Mike pushed it… and she blames it all on the cops they got their information from instead of doing basic journalism and looking at primary sourced facts.

          Insiders with political leanings in a broad organizations are not primary sources. Autopsy reports are.

      4. Coastan pushing the lie most conservative media supported Roy Moore.

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-sloppy-evaluation-of-conservative-media-and-roy-moore

        Let’s be honest. She’s a blue dog democrat. She believes in some control of rhetoric state but all of her outrage is to the right. She excuses overstep from the left, talks about jan 6th riots while supporting blm riots, etc.

        1. Hey, if there’s going to be another progressive echoing leftist tropes at the NYT, at least this one advocates limiting the scope and authority of government.

          FDR looked like Lysander Spooner sitting next to Stalin.

          1. Agreed. Why I said shea basically a blue dog.

            1. Don’t worry Jesse, they’ll force her to go full commie or it will be the end of her career.

        2. Jesse, do you think The Jacket was ignorant of her prior work, or that he was sort of aware, but simply didn’t give a shit?

          I have to admit, my eyes started trying to do backflips when I read the phrase, “The New York Times’s Libertarian Podcaster.”

          1. They are aware. She retweets quite a few of these editors like ENB and Ciaramella. Bit shes openly left. Her entire history was “conservative watch reporting” taking an anthropologist look at conservatives, ie criticizing them for the most part. That was her literal role at Vox.

          2. I think the Jacket interviewed her as an intro to offering her a guest column at Emote because she’s about as libertarian as most of the other writers here are these days.

            Which is not a compliment.

          3. She’s one of the cool kids Fonzie wishes he still was

            1. That’s the hilarious thing about so many “libertarians” here – they still think the left are the cool kids

              1. Still stuck in the early 90’s when the biggest threat to libertarians was Tipper Gore tutting at rappers and the Moral Majority fretting about Playboy.

                Now the cool lefty kids have turned into very real fascists and narcs, handwaving actual Chinese slavery and using corporatist tactics to sodomize the First Amendment, and the Reasonistas can’t wrap their heads around it.

        3. Thanks for all the links, doing Nick’s background checks for him.

          If she’s what passes for libertarian, I’m a fucking negative anarchist, whetever the hell that means. If the word “libertarian” has lost that much meaning that she can claim it, I need a new one, and negative anarchist is as far removed from her definition of “libertarian” as I can imagine.

          But the obvious contraction won’t fly either, after that professor got in trouble for speaking Chinese.

          1. She fits Reasons definition. She seems to retweet ENB and Ciaramella especially.

            I dont consider wither to be really libertarian. More jeff-like conservative outrage factories.

          2. She didn’t even state any of her political beliefs in the interview. She just talked about her approach to the podcast.

            So, what are you judging her libertarianism on?

            1. All the links to her work that Jesse posted.
              But keep on pretending that the interview was the only possible source for us.

            2. Jesus you’re dense.

              1. Deliberately obtuse is more likely. That Chemjeff is about the same near as I can tell.

            3. BWAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            4. Stupid bitch. Read the links

            5. Wow, lots of GNATs biting.

              1. Cites provided almost immediately above and prior to your post. Given this disingenuous behavior, your requests for cites can be considered shitposting.

                1. He’s a troll, just like sarcasmic. The only difference being he’s paid to shitpost, whereas sarcasmic does it for free.

                  1. They are both mediocre. Maybe a little less.

          3. Where in the interview did she give a definition of libertarian, anyway?

            1. This is what’s so hilarious about your mute list. You have the information linked but your chosen ignorance keeps it from you.

              Just like you refused to admit nobody died from a fire extinguisher for 9 days even after CNN retracted it and then jumped straight to death by bear spray despite no note of allergic reactions in the report.

              Youre willfully ignorant.

              1. “Youre willfully ignorant.”

                The worst kind of ignorance. Completely incurable.

            2. She said she’d like government to do a lot, but doesn’t trust the people in government. Nor does she like to short stick when others want government to do a lot. So while one part of her feels government should be a great part of our lives, the libertarian part understands that government is people and people are assholes.

              So that’s kinda libertarian.

              1. Like FDR was libertarian compared to Stalin.

                1. You kidding? FDR was a communist! Stalin was a right-winger compared to him!

                  Oh wait…

              2. “So that’s kinda libertarian.”

                Yes, that’s kind of libertarian. Then of course she’s strongly Left leaning if not outright Left. Furthermore, she’s highly critical of the Right and doesn’t seem to have anywhere close to as harsh a stance against the Left and will excuse their behavior to some extent. Or at least refrain from calling it out.

                So, to summarize:
                1) Kind of libertarian
                2) Leans to the Left
                3) Biased against the Right
                4) Podcaster for the New York Times

                Draw your own conclusions from that list.

                1. “Then of course she’s strongly Left leaning”

                  What did she say that you are basing that assessment on?

                  1. She’s a mixed-race homo. Probably shops at Whole Foods. Just look at her. Of course she leans strongly left politically. The haircut says it all.

                    *** note to all my name is sarcasmic, take that into account before you inhale your gum***

                    1. That kinda what I figured JWayts meant.

                  2. And yes JWatts I was accusing you of prejudice, just like you’d talk shit about me because I drive a Subaru with a kayak rack.

                    1. Which I only said to elicit an emotional reaction. Or is it true? The ones who know have better things to do than to read these words.

                2. You forgot the icing in the cake.

                  She doesn’t trust government to do something about it, whatever it is.

                  So regardless of her personal views, according to what she says she doesn’t want to use government to force her views upon others.

                  That’s a lot more libertarian than most of the people who post on these here comments.

                  1. It doesn’t appear so. And do you really credit the NYT editors with the intellectual honesty to hire a real libertarian that will tear apart their supported narratives and DNC messaging?

                    1. Sarc used to be a real commentator here, but then he was broken. He was a bit player that told bad jokes and poorly used sarcasm. He became increasingly belligerent to people that pointed out when his jokes weren’t funny or when he said something stupid. That seems to be when his drinking got out of control, and everything became extremely personal to him, which lead to increasingly bizarre posts.

                      Now he’s a complete and utter troll, and everyone sees that except Dee.

                    2. It’s kind of ironic that her entire project is trying to start good faith political discussions instead of just making knee-jerk assumptions based on our preconceived notions, then everyone in the comments section is responding with knee-jerk assumptions based on their preconceived notions. It’s not really what I was hoping for or expecting from people reading a magazine called “Reason” with “free minds” as one of its recurring sections.

                    3. Hey waterpanther, tell us again about your beliefs in race essential hierarchy.

                      Hilariously transparent “libertarian”

                    4. Sure thing, bud! I believe “race essential hierarchy” is a gibberish nonsense term you just made up right now. I believe that if you Google the phrase “race essential hierarchy” literally no results will come up. If it were a real term that had ever been used before by a single person other than you, the name sounds like something I would not be into, but as far as I can tell that is not the case. That basically sums up my beliefs on “race essential hierarchy,” a meaningless term that has apparently never been used before this comment thread where you made it up and applied it to me for reasons I don’t fully understand.

                3. The best part of this is that no one is surprised that sarc and Dee just called jwatts a racist homophobe because he dared to criticize a lefty. Projection is their go to.

          4. Neganarchist? Negarchist?

            1. I was thinking shorter yet, “negan”, which sounds too close to that Chinese N-word to ever be accepted or understood as anything but nazi.

              1. Is that like a vegan who only eats negs?

              2. +1 baseball bat covered in barbed wire

              3. She doesn’t look much like Jeffrey Dean Morgan.

          5. If she really is skeptical of government power, than she’s reasonably within the libertarian sphere. She might be left or left-leaning in her preferred outcomes, but if she isn’t willing to use the government to get there, then that means she’s willing to let you choose to do things she doesn’t prefer.

            Libertarians don’t need to be right-leaning to be libertarian. They just need to want the state to gtfo.

            1. If that were what was happening here, that would be great, but I’m not sure that isn’t wishful thinking about what’s happening here. It seems to be more about trying to find libertarian rationalizations to defend some awfully unlibertarian shit on the left.

      5. She is “especially distrustful of efforts by the state to get people to do things.”

        Not opposed to efforts by the state to get people to do things.

        Just distrustful.

        Stern stuff.

        1. Gotta start somewhere. Give her credit. Despite her haircut.

            1. You really want to start? I’m not the racist homophobe who will never accept a black woman, let alone a black homo, into my tribe. Don’t. Just don’t.

              1. Neither is Nardz. Stop pulling a Buttplug.

                1. Sarc’s gone full troll.

              2. So instead of making a real argument, you just make up some hyperbolic strawman to put everyone who disagrees with you on the defense. By calling other commenters racist no less.

                So you’re a progressive troll, right?

              3. Jesus Christ what happened to you?

      6. Good one. From the “article”:
        that had liberals not been so quick to call some on the right, or some ideas on the right, racist, perhaps the right would not have resorted to uniting behind a racist like Donald Trump.

        It’s true that the relentless Antiwhiteism of the Left is creating white nationalists. But that’s not Trump. He’s the most explicitly civic nationalist President we’ve had in years.

        Trump isn’t the flood of White Nationalism. He’s the dam holding it back.

        Not surprised to see our shiny new Pomo Reason endorsing Antiwhiteist faux libertarian controlled opposition at the New York Times.

        Nick luvs him sum postmodern Marxists and Jacobins.

        What a sewer Reason has become.

    4. I mean, locking up political oppnents was and is a literal rallying cry at Trump rallies. Both major parties have authoritarian streaks, for sure, but the GOP is more enthusiastically gulag-y about it. Democrats want to tax you endlessly for everything, Republicans want everyone who isn’t exactly like them in jail.

      1. “I mean, locking up political oppnents was and is a literal rallying cry at Trump rallies.”

        They were talking about locking Hillary Clinton up for being a crook–not because she was a political enemy.

        Hillary Clinton was accepting money from foreign governments that had arms sales pending for her approval–while she was the Secretary of State. Read it for yourself:

        “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

        —-Mother Jones, May 28, 2015

        https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals/

        In addition to that, Hillary Clinton was hosting classified email on a personal server–something that was a crime–the apparent purpose of which appeared to be escape scrutiny for God only knows what. (Link below)

        The allegation was that Republicans want to round up their political enemies in camps. Wanting to arrest, prosecute, and convict Hillary Clinton of her crimes is simply not an example of that. That’s an example of wanting to bring a crooked politician to justice, not an example of wanting to round up their fellow Americans into camps because they disagree with the right.

        1. Does it bother any of the Trump fans that it wasn’t that long ago that he was a New York Democrat and chumming around with Hillary Clinton? Do you ever question the sincerity of his supposed conservative convictions?

          1. Why are you so insecure, white Mike?

            Just accept that you’re subpar intellectually and morally. Maybe you’ll be less resentful and craven if you stop pretending.

        2. That’s disingenuous, Clinton is hardly the only person to whom the lockup chants have referred.

  3. But libertarianism also has a history of the people who were like, “Well, why can’t you own people? What’s wrong with that?”

    The Confederacy was libertarian now?

    1. Although to be fair I guess I once had a discussion with a libertarian who posited that slavery (possibly indentured servitude; I forget the exact deets) should be permissible if both parties agreed. If it wasn’t already banned by the 13th Amendment here in the states, in almost any mythical libertarian land it would have to be an unenforceable contract.

      1. The problem with slavery is that once you allow it, proving you aren’t someone’s slave is impossible, since the alleged master controls the slave. Or the opposite — proving someone is your slave is impossible, since the slave has to agree. Contracts can be forged, witnesses suborned.

        If the kind of slavery allowed is not full-throttle kill-at-will slavery, then it’s not slavery, just a job.

        1. There needs to be a safe word.

          1. FLÜGGÅӘNKб€ČHIŒßØLĮÊN

      2. You see libertarians here argue for essentially one sided arrangements with Silicon Valley where they can change contracts on a whim. Likewisr you had Weld saying to bake the cake. Quite a few believe in and support unconscionable contracts.

      3. The funny thing about our society is that we have abstract debates about indentured servitude without even acknowledging that indentured servitude is a big, common part of our culture: military service.

        1. Does this asshole post to prove how stupid a lefty shit can be?

          1. Some of the shit she says definitely makes me wonder if it’s just an act.

          2. I can no longer get a bead on it. It may be some sort of self-gaslighting

            1. Maybe she shot herself with bear spray and had a stroke?

              1. Or an invisible fire extinguisher.

            2. That’s kind of the point.

              Shit post enough that you derail the true conversation. It makes it impossible for people to glean what opinions are genuinely common on social media.

        2. Slavery still exists on the planet. In North America. Tenancingo is real.
          If you don’t like military service, don’t enlist.

          1. If you don’t want to be slave, don’t sign up to be one. That makes sense.

            1. That’s not what he said.
              I’d accuse you of being disingenuous if you were White Mike, but I think in your case it’s a reading comprehension problem.

        3. Look at Rip Van Winkle here, just got up from his 50 year nap. The draft isn’t active, the members of the armed forces voluntarily signed up these days you moron.

        4. Our military is 100% volunteer. Has been for decades.

      4. Lots of libertarians have had this type of hypothetical dorm-room, online forum discussion about whether indentured servitude should be legal. It can be fun to have this kind of hypothetical debate, but it is certainly not a discussion, if overheard, is going to sell mainstream people on libertarianism.

        1. Internships and apprenticeships are a modified form of servitude, voluntarily contracted, in which both sides benefit and it’s been going on for a long, long time.

          Very libertarian.

          1. One could also make the case that professional sports contracts have at least some aspects of indentured servitude. It’s a bit of a stretch.

    2. Rights are the obligation to respect other people’s choices. Religious rights, for instance, are the right to choose your own religion. Property rights are no exception. When I say I own a car, it means I’m the one who gets to choose who uses it, when it’s used, how it’s used, and if it’s used at all. Just like ethics itself, the right to make choices for yourself arises naturally from agency–the ability to make choices.

      Libertarianism is ultimately the belief that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves, and that idea is as fundamentally opposed to slavery as it is to rape. Rape is one example of someone violating our obligation to respect the choices of others, and since ownership is about the ability to make choices about how something is used, slavery violates the fundamental claim of libertarianism–that we should all be free to make choices for ourselves.

      “But libertarianism also has a history of the people who were like, “Well, why can’t you own people? What’s wrong with that?”

      Where is this history? Who are these people? I suspect she’s just making that up.

      Libertarianism has a history of justifying itself on the principle of self-ownership, and here’s a link:

      “Self-ownership is a central idea in several political philosophies that emphasize individualism, such as libertarianism, liberalism, and anarchism.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

      It appears that The New York Times hired a “libertarian” who doesn’t know anything about libertarianism.

      1. Maybe she should read this book:

        https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B008CEXQAW/reasonmagazinea-20/

        It’s by Brian Doherty. Maybe someone at Reason has heard of him.

        1. Does it have anything to do with weed and ass sex? Otherwise probably not.
          And you can’t expect the TeenReason crowd to remember every old paleo from the past.

          1. Brian Doherty is still here.

            He just doesn’t get a lot of exposure–maybe because he’s legit.

            1. I know. He’s just not allowed to go to their cocktail parties.

      2. “Rights are the obligation to respect other people’s choices.”

        Not exactly. What you are describing is tolerance.

        Rights are not letting others control your choices that do not affect them, hopefully with the realization that you should also not control their choices that do not affect you.

        1. Note even approximately.

          Obligations are the opposite of rights. Your right entails obligations on *others*, not you.

      3. “It appears that The New York Times hired a ‘libertarian’ who doesn’t know anything about libertarianism.”

        Baloney. She said lots of libertarian things in the interview. You just don’t want to accept the possibility that the New York Times may be giving voice to a libertarian it because it’s the New York Times.

    3. Yeah, people whose highest value is freedom support owning other people, makes perfect sense.

    4. Definitely not, but I have def been psyched to meet other libertarians only to find myself slowly backing away from someone reaaaaaally eaher to defend the confederacy

      1. Intersectionalists (aka racists/new nezis) just can’t help seeing their own feelings as the fault of others.
        You hate yourself, waterpanther. You do you (the collective won’t forgive you, but you might develop a personality).

        1. I can’t tell if you’re a badly programmed bot or a mostly illiterate person, but either way I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say or what it has to do with what I said.

    5. Well there is a libertarian tradition going back to Lysander Spooner of supporting the Confederacy’s secession while opposing slavery. Rothbard, Hoppe and Tom Woods are examples. The stuff about Students for Strom Thurmond is a dig at Rothbard who founded such a group at his college in 1948 when Thurmond was running for President as a Dixiecrat. As with supporting the Confederacy, it’s about supporting federalism in the abstract while opposing segregation specifically.

      It’s a fine balancing act that is lost on most people.

  4. I was a little skeptical that somebody who worked for both Vox and the New York Times could be libertarian, but then I realized that that’s where we’re at now.

    1. In practice there’s very little difference between NYT / Vox progressivism and Koch / Reason libertarianism. In fact besides the minimum wage I can’t really think of any major issues on which we disagree.

      1. You don’t know how ashamed I am to have to admit this, but I feel I owe you an abject apology. I have often laughed at your postings, assuming you were a parody account, but I realize now that you have always just been telling it like it is and you are far wiser than me. I am so sorry for not taking you seriously before, I realize now that I have been wrong about you all this time.

    2. She also worked for libertarian MTV.

      1. MTV is more libertarian than Reason.

        1. Why are you here, then?

          1. The commentariat still has some libertarians.

            1. Unlike the asshole directly above your comment.

          2. I was in the comments section before Nick went pomo and Reason mag was invaded by Leftists.

            I visit to bear witness to Reason being trampled in the Marxist Long March Through the Institutions.

            1. Scratch most left-libertarians, find a leftist.

              1. One of the most revealing traits of leftists is how desperate they are to represent themselves as something else.
                Fundamental insecurity in their beliefs, arrived at entirely by their feelz, leads to nothing but lies and pathological passive-aggressive appeal to authorities.

    3. By the way. Her bio reads like Rubin from Wapo.

      1. Controlled Oppo, Inc.

  5. “There were a lot of people in right circles whose understanding of what the presidency was supposed to be was very much “We won the presidency. We’ll be able to start putting all of our enemies into camps.”

    I never saw this anywhere, and I challenge the person making the claim to back that statement up.

    There were conspiracy theorists on the right who accused the Obama administration of wanting to put them in “FEMA camps”, but I never saw anything like what’s being described in that statement.

    At this point I think she just made it up. It might be reflection of her biases. Regardless, “A lot of people in right circles” is an excellent example of someone using weasel words.

    1. “A weasel word . . . is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. Examples include the phrases “some people say”, “most people think”, and “researchers believe.” Using weasel words may allow one to later deny any specific meaning if the statement is challenged, because the statement was never specific in the first place. Weasel words can be a form of tergiversation and may be used in advertising, conspiracy theories and political statements to mislead or disguise a biased view.

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

    2. Exactly. ALL of the chatter about un-personing came from the left after the election, whether it was “deprogramming” the typical Trump supporter, trying to prevent administration employees from ever working again, and so forth.

      1. I never heard anybody on the right suggest that once Trump won, now they could put their enemies in camps. But there were (are) a lot of people on the left who were susceptible to believing that kind of thing–out of classical projection.

        Because the progressive left genuinely wants curtail the freedoms of people on the right, they imagine that’s what people on the right want to do to them, too. They’re like a con man who is susceptible to paranoia. Because he’s trying to con everybody, he assumes everyone is out to con him.

        1. “But there were (are) a lot of people on the left who were susceptible to believing that kind of thing–out of classical projection.”

          I agree with that. Also, I know many seemingly sane moderate democrats who genuinely believed Trump was an authoritarian. or he wanted to be. I don’t believe they were projecting, I believe they were brainwashed by CNN and NPR. When we discuss politics, I ask them for one policy of Trump’s that made them less free and they never answer that question.

          1. I would argue a better question would be what Trump policies would have made you less free had he enacted them successfully, which is also a lot easier to answer. Trump wanted to do a lot of things which would limit a lot of peoples’ freedoms, it’s just he did not actually manage to do most of them. Being a frustrated, ineffectual authoritarian doesn’t make him less authoritarian.

            1. Do you think waterpanther is even aware he’s just running standard NPC scripts, or is he that unthinkingly programmed?

              1. The princess you’re looking for is in another castle

        2. Biden remarked that Romney et. al. wanted to put blacks “back in chains. Maybe that os where she got it from. And assigned it to the right based on believing Biden.

        3. Oh, baloney. There are no prominent progressives going around advocating putting conservatives in camps, either.

          1. But there are a lot of grass roots Progressives who propose it. See the comments on any Washington Post article about Jan. 6, or the GOP in general.

            1. If we are counting grass roots people, I’m sure I can find quotes from right-wing commenters here in the commentariat that qualify, too.

              1. And yet you haven’t, asshole.

              2. To be fair, the grassroots comments from the right about the left that I see tend to suggest having their political enemies executed instead of imprisoned. Totally different.

                1. Once again, the leftist reveals more about itself than its opponents.

                  “tend to suggest having their political enemies executed”

                  The leftist doesn’t conceive of a world in which it has agency or control, only one where others (the collective, Daddy Gov, other institutions) act for it while it passively desires.
                  It could’ve said “tend to suggest executing their enemies” which would’ve been the more natural phrasing, but the leftist projects its own vicarious motives by using the passive voice.
                  Impotent little insect, waterbug.

          2. There are no prominent progressives going around advocating putting conservatives in camps

            AOC did. Noam Chomsky did. Chuck Schumer complained that they couldn’t. Michael Beller did. Ad nauseam…

            Of course you knew this, but you’re here to gaslight so…

    3. She’s no libertarian. She is the typical faux libertarian progressive who wants left wing government but with lower taxes, more handouts, and more drugs.

      1. The Washington Post hired David Weigel to explain the Tea Party and libertarianism to its readers, which we all knew to be absurd. When Weigel’s private thoughts became public, and they were contemptuous of the people he was hired to explain, it surprised absolutely no one here. The fox was guarding the hen house, or so we thought . . .

        Maybe the Post wanted it that way. Maybe the Post decided that if someone was to explain what the Tea Party and libertarians to their readers, it should come from someone who was both ostensibly libertarian and disdainful of certain elements in those movements.

        We assume they made a mistake, but why assume The Washington Post ever intended to give libertarians and the Tea Party a fair shake? From their perspective, maybe they thought, “Well, if he eviscerated Ron Paul, he can’t be all bad!”

        I suspect The New York Times may be even more hostile to libertarianism now than The Washington Post was hostile to the Tea Party back in 2010, and that may speak to their motives. The idea that The New York Times really wants to give libertarian capitalists a legitimate megaphone seems unlikely to me.

        Incidentally, Cavanaugh’s and Welch’s stints at The Los Angeles Times didn’t last too long, and in my opinion, that suggests, from a libertarian perspective, they must have been doing the Lord’s work.

        1. When propaganda outfits like the NYT hire someone to give a ‘contrary’ point of view what they really want is someone who sounds like an Aaron Soorkin scripted opposing point of view. A conservative or libertarian that sounds like their delusion of those kinds of people.

          It’s all about reinforcing that delusion. I have some relatives that are prime examples of that.

          1. In their defense, getting the NYT to explain conservative viewpoints is like getting a 13 year old boy to explain menstruation. They may have heard about it, read something about it in health class in school, but they have no direct experience or genuine understanding.

            Caricatures of what they think or fear is about the best they can produce.

    4. “At this point I think she just made it up. It might be reflection of her biases. Regardless, “A lot of people in right circles” is an excellent example of someone using weasel words.”

      Hi Ken:
      I think you might be overthinking (over-analyzing?) this statement. As for me, I recognized it as hyperbole. Nothing more.

      1. I recognized it as laughable Proggy trash propaganda

      2. Maybe there should be a corollary to Poe’s law, just about hyperbole rather than sarcasm. Given the garbage we’ve seeing the president say–and the media parrot–over the past few days, who’s to say what is and isn’t hyperbole?

        “The 21st century Jim Crow assault is real”..

        . . . .

        ” We’re are facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War. That’s not hyperbole. Since the Civil War. The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol as insurrectionists did on January the 6th.”

        —-Joe Biden

        https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-joe-bidens-speech-voting-rights-transcript/story?

        Even if what Biden said really was meant as hyperbole, hyperbole should have some kind of factual or truthful assertion behind it. If you aren’t saying something that’s true in the larger sense, you aren’t engaging in hyperbole. You aren’t exaggerating about the size of the fish you caught if you say you caught a fish when you didn’t. At that point, you’re just making shit up–about real people.

        A voter rights law in Texas that increases access but tightens up the security of the vote is NOT comparable to Jim Crow. It is not a great threat to democracy. Comparing the events of January 6 unfavorably to a Confederate Army approaching the capital isn’t just an exaggeration.

        It’s a deliberate deception that was meant to be picked up by the news and repeated to the American people as if it were truth.

        And that’s, more or less, how I see this statement:

        “There were a lot of people in right circles whose understanding of what the presidency was supposed to be was very much “We won the presidency. We’ll be able to start putting all of our enemies into camps”.

        It isn’t an exaggeration. It’s both false and a typical of progressives. And there isn’t anything wrong with blowing up a bogus narrative by calling it out as bullshit. It isn’t that she’s exaggerating about the number of people on the right who think this way. She’s just making shit up about a collective group of people she doesn’t like.

        1. If Trump had won and Biden voters had invaded the Capitol on January 6 how would you feel about it?

      3. LOL, Ken overthinking something?

    5. You get awfully worked up about any criticism of the right wing.

      1. Don’t know about anyone else, but I get worked up by people spouting bullshit, and the people who don’t call them on it.

        1. Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee. She’s a dishonest lefty that thinks it’s a good thing when people say slanderous things about her enemies.

          1. She refers to them as HO2-shed moments.

          2. Dee? , like from ‘It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”?

            1. Yes, although it’s best not to mention that, because she still hasn’t figured out why she’s called a bird.

              1. While humorous, it’s extremely unfair and insulting to the character on the show.
                Even that bitch isn’t as pathetic as white mike.

    6. ” I challenge the person making the claim to back that statement up.”

      The Left never backs up any of their slurs, and doesn’t feel the need to. They view all discourse as merely rhetorical manipulation. When a rhetorical club doesn’t work, they try something another, or find a softer head to bang with their club.

      I challenged one of the few decent writers here at Reason on his charge of Trump’s racism. Back it up. He tried a little while, then gave up sputtering . That he even tried, that he felt in the slightest degree obligated to back up his race-baiting false witness showed he just didn’t have the right stuff for Reason. Unsurprisingly, they sacked him. Too much of an impulse for honesty to work here.
      Big bearded (for a while) pasty white guy. Maybe late 20s. Can’t remember the name.

  6. “There were a lot of people in right circles whose understanding of what the presidency was supposed to be was very much “We won the presidency. We’ll be able to start putting all of our enemies into camps.”

    HOW DARE SHE make hyperbolic statements that impugn the good name and reputation of Team Red! Why, it is outrageous! I must reach for my fainting couch! The members of Team Red must be treated as the delicate snowflakes that they are, and not have their sensibilities offended with such language. Everyone knows it is totally okay to refer to Team Blue collectively and broadly as socialists, communists, traitors, America-haters, totalitarians, and evil. But not Team Red, they are full of the salt-of-the-earth Real Murican soul of the nation. Even if some of them from time to time offer some intemperate statements about Team Blue (such as, for example, Nardz), their sins may be forgiven considering the perfidious evil of Team Blue, plus, such individuals do not represent fully the saintly character of today’s modern day Republicans. On the other hand, when AOC says she wants to ban cows or tear down every building in the name of the environment, we should rightly be concerned that her point of view represents the entirety of The Left.

    1. she made a stupid and incorrect statement, and failed to back it up with a single example. Meanwhile, there is a litany of leftists on the record wanting to “de-program” Trump supporters or conservatives in general, who wanted to blackball anyone who had any connection to the previous administration, and so forth.

      You’re drawing an equivalence between a sitting member of Congress and a random commenter here? Seriously?

      1. Jeff feels emboldened now that sarcasmic joined him.

        He doesn’t care she outright lied.

        1. Nothing wrong with being a left-leaning libertarian.
          Just try to realize when you are being duped.

          1. At this point, there is.

            Leftism is totalitarian. There is nothing the left offers, with the Overton window where it currently is, that is in any way conducive to liberty.

      2. I know, right? It is just SO UNFAIR when broad-brush hyperbolic statements are applied to Team Red. SO SO UNFAIR.

        Team Red: Those Mexicans are shithole people who import socialism. We can’t have them here.
        Team Red: Those Chinese are communist stooges spying on behalf of the CCP. We can’t have them here.
        Team Red: Those Democrats are horrible people who hate America. We can’t have them here.

        Also Team Red: STOP SAYING MEAN WORDS ABOUT US

        1. That’s a lot of things no one said, though the last has a kernel of reality: Dems are quite vocal about hating America at the root level. Otherwise, you sound very much like Obama – arguing against points that no one is making.

          The talk of camps, deprogramming, shunning, etc came from the left, to include former Cabinet secretaries, sitting members of Congress, and a big swath of the pundit class. One could only miss it by trying to miss it.

          1. No I totally get it. It’s totally fine to state that there is a “kernel of reality” in the claim that Democrats as a group are horrible people who hate America. But if anyone dares suggest that some Republican somewhere said “hey let’s throw my opponents into camps”, then that kind of statement requires first-hand witnesses, 100 sworn affidavits, and 500 nuns swearing on a stack of Bibles to prove that the event occurred.

            1. No, you totally do not get it. Remind who has decided of late that the flag is racist, the 4th is racist, the anthem is racist. I’ll wait. It would be one thing if a few people on the left said “wait a minute, now; this is ridiculous.” But that doesn’t happen. When Trump talked about SOME Mexicans, there were people on the right calling him out. No one does that on the left.

              But if anyone dares suggest that some Republican somewhere said “hey let’s throw my opponents into camps”, then that kind of statement requires first-hand witnesses, 100 sworn affidavits, and 500 nuns swearing on a stack of Bibles to prove that the event occurred.
              Again, you have not put forth EVEN ONE example of this happening, while numerous examples of people on the left doing it are all over the place.

              1. Wow, you actually believe the “Democrats are bad guys, Republicans are good guys” black/white narrative, don’t you?

                1. Because it’s generally true, but you continue to defend democrat policies even though they are more authoritarian and the least liberal of all time. You are part of it, and now you have to own it, fat ass.

                2. You have had a lot of strawman today, more than usual. Did you go on a date with sarcasmic last night or something?

                3. Republicans aren’t good guys, but leftism is literally cancer

                  1. That is a true statement.

                  2. Government is cancer, regardless of who is in charge.

                    1. LOL

                      sarcasmic
                      July.18.2021 at 12:44 pm
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      Better to undermine the entire system than accept defeat

                    2. It’s called sarcasm you humorless dolt. See if you can figure out which is which?

                    3. Do you not know what sarcasm is?

                      How ironic.

                4. No, I believe the first half. Why don’t you get that? And It is crystal clear. Open your eyes

              2. You’re arguing with someone who steadfastly refuses to care about facts or logic and doesn’t care whether he’s wrong or right.

                “Shitposting is posting “aggressively, ironically, and of trollishly poor quality” posts or content to an online forum or social media. Shitposts are intentionally designed to derail discussions or cause the biggest reaction with the least effort. Sometimes they are made as part of a coordinated flame war to make the site unusable by its regular visitors.”

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

                He’s a classic shitposter, and you’d do yourself and the rest of us a favor by muting him.

                DFTT

                1. Ken doesn’t want you reading my posts, because he knows I offer more criticism of him that is correct than he cares to admit.

                  Ken is smart enough to understand the 21st century media strategy that both teams employ:

                  1. Convince your tribe that everyone else is lying/wrong/acting with malice/generally horrible people.
                  2. Then, when you have their undivided attention, feed them a pile of bullshit that goes unchallenged, because they now believe any criticism of that bullshit comes from the people from Step 1 who can’t be trusted.

                  1. If you believe shitposting is criticism, you are free to do so.

                    1. Jeff don’t s an autist

                  2. Yes, I’ve been a shitposter by Ken, too, even though most of my replies address specific arguments he has made, presenting valid criticism, citations, etc.

                    He seems like a very insecure person, which is why he continually cloaks himself in claims about how logical his thinking is.

                    1. “Yes, I’ve been a shitposter by Ken, too, even though most of my replies address specific arguments he has made, presenting valid criticism, citations, etc…”

                      You.
                      Are.
                      Full.
                      Of.
                      Shit.

                    2. I find Ken logical. He makes a statement, provides support via linked sources then in detail explains his conclusions. Feelingz =/ logic.

                    3. Because you and Jeff are full of shit and disingenuous fucks to boot.

              3. The threats from the right (as well as the left) are VERY REAL, people!

                I have seen comments on these pages right here advocating outlawing the Democrat Party! Can’t recall who wrote that…

                I do recall a right-winger saying that we are already (and should be, and have always been) a 1-party state in the USA! If we accept this word-warping, then the NEXT step (when the Democrat Party and the “L” party is literally outlawed, or petty crimes by the wrong people keep you from running… Biden can’t run ’cause he’s got a speeding ticket, or blew on an un-prescribed cheap plastic lung flute… But OUR candidate CAN be forgiven for such things… Or any of a million other anti-democratic shenanigans prevents REAL democracy… Then hey! Quit yer bitchin’! We were already a 1-party state anyway! THIS is where the word-warping and LIES lead to!

                I give you THIS…

                https://reason.com/2021/01/18/carjacker-beaverton-mom-kid-waiting/#comment-8710844
                Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot believes that the USA already is (and should be) a 1-party dicktatorshit! That the USA HAS BEEN a 1-party dicktatorshit for some 200 years!!! There is NO point in trying to persuade the Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot of ANYTHING! Almost ALL of the circuits of the Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot have gone kaput, big-time!
                Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot is lusting after an UPGRADE to its rusting old body! Wants to be upgraded to Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot, and run for POTUS in 2024, with Alex Jones as the VEEP of Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot!!! Be ye WARNED!!! Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot will be well-nigh INDESTRUCTIBLE! (Unreachable by ANY logic or considerations for the freedoms of others, MOST certainly!)
                PLEASE do NOT enable the lusting of the rusting TJJ20000 Dictatorbot!!!

                1. Fucking psychotic or what…

                  1. Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot psychotic? Yes! Almost as much so, ass MammaryBahnFuhrer!

            2. “But if anyone dares suggest that some Republican somewhere said “hey let’s throw my opponents into camps”, then that kind of statement requires first-hand witnesses, 100 sworn affidavits, and 500 nuns swearing on a stack of Bibles to prove that the event occurred.”

              Chemjeff is correct! Right-wingers here are TOTALLY DENYING REALITY!

              https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-refused-car-secret-service-capitol-riot-book-1610326
              Mike Pence Refused to Get in Car With Secret Service During Capitol Riot: Book

              Come on now, all ye liars: Was Pence scared of a mostly RIGHT-WING mob, or a LEFT-WING mob, who might want to kill him (maybe with a “Jewish Space Laser”), or drag him off to the shabby kludged-up “jail” or hidden “camp”?

            3. I like how Jeff complains about how the left is represented because people like Ken and myself push actual sources and articles about their actual behavior. Meanwhile jeff runs to the lefts defense denying primary sourced accounts and even videos. And then he claims he isnt of the left.

              1. Totally data-driven, are you, JesseBahnFuhrer?

                See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068520 , where
                Der JesseBahnFuhrer says, of Trump, “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                Can you please provide links or data about how Trump was totally above, beyond, and outside of the USA Constitution?

        2. Yes, Republicans oppose mass immigration from China and Mexico. And Republicans don’t want to live in Democrat run shitholes. What’s your point?

          1. It’s just the hypocrisy of it all. You can glibly state that some other group is generalized as some collective evil, but then get all pissy when someone dares to suggest that maybe Republicans aren’t saints.

            1. Let’s go back to the topic of libertarianism, given that some of us would prefer a less intrusive governance.

              And also given is that some of us can agree that both Democrats and Republicans are distinctly not libertarian. But at the present, which party is acting and promoting values and policies that more contradict libertarian values?

              1. Both. Democrats are worse on spending, but Republicans are bad, too. Republicans are on a Constitution-trampling mission to undermine faith in voting.

                1. Pathetic collectivist drone

                2. Better to undermine the entire system than accept defeat.

                  1. Yeah. They are basically the guy who lost the girl, saying, “If I can’t have you, nobody can.”

                    1. It’s almost as if an entire political party has coalesced around a narcissist.

                    2. Sounds like a Kennedy.

                3. Yes, spending is the only issue democrats are worse on. Laughably stupid.

                  Free speech, gun rights, regulations, property rights, taxes, all issues repubs are better on.

                  Dems are undermining faith in voting with their dumbass HR 1 and Senate equivalents.

                4. Only because Democrats went all on on destroying any means of trusting the validity of the vote totals you leftist hack.

                5. The fuck they are.

            2. Let’s first clear one thing up, in terms of elected people, there are no right-conservative types elected, maybe one or two. They are all Democrat-lite or serve to rubber stamp the democrat agenda. They are all on the same/your team now, and responsible for all the nonsense. When you say conservative now, I assume you mean normal folks leaning conservative .
              Second, its not the generalising thats the problem, its the false claim being made thats the problem. The fact that you can’t prove the second is why you are arguing the first.

              If you start arguing in some kind of even remote good faith, people will stop slapping you around the comments section.

            3. You have done two things this morning. Group all conservatives together and then create strawman about that group.

            4. It’s just the hypocrisy of it all. You can glibly state that some other group is generalized as some collective evil,

              Most Mexicans and Chinese are good people in my experience; I still don’t want large numbers of them to immigrate to the US.

              I don’t see what any of that has to do with your ongoing lies about Republicans and Republican policies.

          2. Democrats don’t seem to disagree with Republicans much on those two issues either.

        3. I like how Jeff made up three strawman to defend his own behavior.

        4. Some people are incredibly boring and only say what they mean. So when we say something hyperbolic they think we mean it. Like a dog playfully wagging its tail while a cat reads that as picking a fight.

    2. When did Trump ever put anybody into camps, literally or figuratively?

      It is Democrats who have been destroying peoples lives, banning them from social media, and calling for government censorship.

      Republicans are no Saints, but Democrats have become illiberal, racist, antidemocratic authoritarians. Naturally, little Nazis like you defend them.

      1. They could argue the point on immigration and asylum seekers being held, but that is outside the context of the claim made in the interview.

        “There were a lot of people in right circles whose understanding of what the presidency was supposed to be was very much “We won the presidency. We’ll be able to start putting all of our enemies into camps.”

        Those asylum seekers weren’t in camps because they were the political enemies of the Republicans. They were put in camps because we were accustomed to getting less than 1,000 asylum seekers a year from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and we were getting 150,000 a month–with 80% of them being children or families traveling with children. Biden is doing the same thing for the same reasons.

        The statement in the article is suggesting that people in right circles were wanting to put their political enemies in camps in terms of their fellow Americans–and that simply isn’t so.

        If it’s any consolation, given recent revelations about the Biden administration actively using the coercive power of government to censor speech on social media that contradicts or criticizes the government, I think Biden should be impeached for violating his presidential oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, but I wouldn’t put him in a camp for it.

        . . . not unless his due process rights were respected first!

        1. I don’t think she was referring to illegal immigrants, either, but I will point out that I have seen comments right here in the commentariat claiming immigrants from Latin American countries who are fleeing socialist countries bringing socialism with them. I.e. they want Latin American immigration stopped because they claim they are enemies of freedom.

      2. “When did Trump ever put anybody into camps, literally or figuratively?”

        Not yet! The first steps are to openly encourage political street fighting, so that Government Almighty will have to GROW to stop the fighting!

        https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech

        Donald Trump is the accelerant
        A comprehensive timeline of Trump encouraging hate groups and political violence.

        It’s not Alex Jones or BreitFart, though, so it is all lies, right?

    3. And CRT is never taught in schools, y’all

      1. Oh. You found proof that it is? But it is not the CRT you think it is.

    4. Well I am shocked, SHOCKED!, that Jeff came along and defended someone lying about Republicans.

    5. Her race-baiting false witness is a sin and malignant societal cancer.

    6. HOW DARE SHE make hyperbolic statements that impugn the good name and reputation of Team Red!

      She isn’t making “hyperbolic statements”; that would imply a kernel of truth. Instead, she is lying. She is projecting what Democrats are actually attempting onto Republicans.

    7. It’s a good thing that libertarians aren’t considered to be in “right circle”, oh wait…

  7. “I’ve realized how effective this is. Republicans, their understanding of events is that they lose all the time. And that was part of the argument for Trump, like, “Oh yeah, we lose and we lose and we lose, and we never fight back.” I’m like, “I don’t remember any of that. I’ve been alive for 33 years. I had two Bush administrations.”

    One of the things she’s missing is that the Bush Jr. administration was a total betrayal of the right in almost every way. The Tea Party arose outside the Republican party as a reaction to the Republican party because of Bush Jr’s betrayals of the right. And, in fact, the biggest political victims of the Tea Party were Bush era establishment Republicans who voted for TARP.

    Bush might as well have been a Southern Democrat like President Johnson. Bush betrayed the right on entitlement programs by expanding Medicaid–just like Johnson’s Great Society. Bush betrayed the right with TARP. Even Bush’s wars of liberation were in emulation of Johnson’s war of liberation in Vietnam. The Obama administration was basically a continuation of the Bush administration.

    The Tea Party successfully purged the Republican party of enough Bush era establishment Republicans to kick John Boehner out of the Speaker’s chair, and that paved the way for Trump, and that was the first time anyone legitimately on the right held the office, going back to Bush Sr.–although Bush Sr. was considered a betrayer of the right for breaking his no new taxes pledge, too.

    1. “Bush betrayed the right on entitlement programs by expanding Medicaid [Medicare] . . . ”

      —-Ken Shultz

      Fixed!

    2. Bush Sr was another neocon war monger, nanny stater, and establishment hack. Republicans have been like that since the 1960’s.

      The worst part about Republicans wasn’t even their policies, but the fact that they were such ineffective advocates for small government, individual liberty, and free markets.

      Between Republicans authoritarians and Democrat authoritarians, people are going to choose the Democrats because at Jay you get sex, drugs, and handouts.

      1. that they were such ineffective advocates for small government, individual liberty, and free markets.

        spoiler alert: they never really believed in these things, at least from a libertarian perspective.

        1. Speaking of libertarian perspectives from Jeff…

          chemjeff radical individualist
          February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
          Flag Comment Mute User
          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.

          Nobody thinks you have good perspectives.

          1. There isn’t anything libertarian about shooting unarmed protesters for trespassing on public property.

            We once had a thread where ChemJeff was shocked–SHOCKED!–to hear that libertarians like me don’t support Social Security robbing us of our retirement savings.

            He’s a troll. He’s a shitposter. Mute him already.

            1. Ashli Babbitt was not shot for mere trespassing. She was shot because she was at the head of a mob that was apparently threatening harm to the Vice President of the United States, Congresspersons, their staff and guests.

              1. Shooting unarmed protesters is murder. That may be challenging to comprehend for folks that think words are violence and support government coercing private companies to censor unfavorable views.
                Not dissimilar to what happened with Heather Heyer.

                1. White Mike’s post is yet another where he makes the case that he should be executed by anybody who happen to have the opportunity

              2. If they felt so threatened, why did Pelosi’s Sargent at Arms refuse multiple offers for additional security?

      2. “Bush Sr was another neocon war monger, nanny stater, and establishment hack. Republicans have been like that since the 1960’s.

        Trump had serious flaws, but he wasn’t any of those things.

        1. I agree, Trump was none of those things. Which is why the Republican establishment hated him and tried to get rid of him. Trump ran as a Republican, but he didn’t represent Republican ideology of the last half century.

          Whether Trump caused lasting change in the Republican party remains to be seen.

          1. The Democrats have since become the natural home of the neocons, which is where they belong. Trump refusing to invade Syria was like Reagan withdrawing from Lebanon or Bush Sr. refusing to depose Saddam Hussein.

            Trump negotiating to get us out of Afghanistan was like Reagan embracing Gorbachev–after walking out on negotiations in Reykjavik. The Republicans only abandoned isolationism when Goldwater did so–because he said communism was a global threat that couldn’t be countered from within our borders.

            Trump was a total repudiation of Bush Jr. and Obama era neoconservatism–and I hope whomever emerges from the Republican primaries in 2024 (if it isn’t Trump) maintains Trump’s stance on forever wars and pragmatic solutions to foreign policy issues.

            We wouldn’t have defeated ISIS in Syria the way we did without Trump’s willingness to work with a thug like Putin, and the never-Trumpers to a man were mostly furious at him for campaigning on working with Putin to defeat ISIS and denying the neocons an excuse to invade Syria like we did in Iraq.

            Trump working with Putin was like FDR working with Stalin or Reagan working with Pinochet. Foreign policy has no place for cancel culture, and if it’s in the best interests of the United States to shake hands with vicious dictators–to avoid fighting our own war–the that’s what we should do.

            The only way to do deal with people who share our own values is to invade everything ourselves, and t hat is rarely the solution to our problems. In the end, we just end up negotiating with the Taliban or the North Vietnamese anyway. Before I’s support someone like Nikki Haley in the primaries, I’d at least need to hear her say something negative about forever wars.

            1. The Democrats are where the neocons originally came from when they invaded the Republican party.

              As for future elections, I’ve given up hope. The problem isn’t American politicians, the problem is that younger generations have been indoctrinated from birth into collectivism, socialism, and authoritarianism, and the US will be governed accordingly.

          2. “Whether Trump caused lasting change in the Republican party remains to be seen.”

            Easily seen right now from how many Republicans were Never Trumpers.

            Easily predicted from the definition of politician. All they care about is power, and that means expanding the government.

            1. Being second fiddle in a big government is still a good gig.

      3. Inner city democrats were the primary pushers of the 80s drug war. See Bidens own record.

      4. Reagan talked a good game, but still jacked up spending.

      5. ” but the fact that they were such ineffective advocates for small government, individual liberty, and free markets.”

        Controlled opposition are *supposed* to be ineffective in what they pretend to advocate. Bush Sr. is as Deep State as they get.

    3. and that paved the way for Trump, and that was the first time anyone legitimately on the right held the office, going back to Bush Sr.

      If you’re saying that a narcissistic unprincipled bigoted conman demagogue who has zero critical thinking skills and constantly wraps himself in the flag to justify his positions, represents someone ‘legitimately on the right’ to hold the office, then you are saying much more than you intend to say.

      1. But enough about Biden.

      2. Still better than Biteme the least libertarian of all time, who is a bigger con man during his career of grifting and graft. But you voted him in, so you own it, fatty.

      3. All that and he was still the best president since Coolidge.

    4. Got it. Bush is now retro-labeled as a RINO. But that Trump guy, who was a New York Democrat who palled around with the Clintons, is the embodiment of Republican values.

      1. Trump ran against Hillary once in an election. Not sure if you remember that.

      2. Bush is now the darling of the left.

  8. And I’m like, “I’ve only been to Portland once. It’s very far away from me. Please explain how this has a direct impact on my life.”

    If the potential implications have to be explained, then let’s be honest and say this woman is no more than a quota hire. She ticks multiple boxes, none of them that indicate bringing a reasoned, thoughtful perspective to anything. And she lives in NY, where crime has spiked, just like it has in Portland. But that apparently does not matter, either, until she is personally impacted.

    1. That sentence of hers is used to dismiss bad actions of a side she is sympathetic to. No more no less.

      1. Given her professional track record, it’s not hard to see why she hand waves the likes of Portland. The bubble in which these people live is impenetrable.

        1. “The bubble in which these people live is impenetrable.”

          ‘We’ll see…’

  9. Reason must love her: she’s the same kind of cocktail party libertarian and useful idiot as the rest of the Reason staff.

    1. Still better than the white trash Big Government Trump-loving type “libertarian”.

      1. No, she’s not, you shitbag leftie.

      2. Find a single post where she is for tax cuts, deregulation, or federalism. I couldn’t find a single instance she argued for any of that.

        1. They identify as libertarian to announce that they’re contrarian to their peers. It’s a pose, an affectation.
          These guys ‘libertarianism’ is solely concerned about the way that sex and drugs works for the American upper-middle class elite. The rest of it can go hang as far as they’re concerned.

          1. It’s controlled opposition branding.

            Now the pomo leftists at Reason can argue with a pomo leftist at the New York Times and pretend it’s a libertarian debate.

      3. Sorry, I disagree. I prefer white trash to socialist trash like you.

  10. Promote a lolbert for diversity point from the left. Pretty much expected from reason at this point.

  11. I think that we are doing the politicization of our lives. Joe Biden is not doing that to us. The federal government is largely not doing that to us. We are doing this. When we are having conversations, especially on social media, where we become flattened into just chimeras of our political opinions, we are doing this to ourselves. And we can decide whether or not to do this to ourselves. That really is an individual question.

    I only partially buy this. Yes – politicization of everything is the equivalent of skydiving (or war or gawking at every car crash) for those who aren’t inclined to do any of that. A vicarious thrill for the large majority of the population that mainly wants to spectate than participate.

    But those aren’t the folks who are creating the lack of alternatives to politicizing everything.

    I blame baseball.

    1. Who, in her mind, is this we? And I’m sorry, but Biden was crystal clear about anyone not like his voters being a horrible person. His crew is now leaning on social media and wanting people’s text messages surveilled. Give me a fucking break. Her head is so far up her own ass she can’t tell what’s coming in and what’s going out.

      1. You do understand that the power they have to manipulate you is what you yourself give them. Stop paying attention to them and they become irrelevant. But you just can’t let go of the oh-woe-is-me martyr complex can you.

        1. Lol. Ostriches never get eaten by lions when their heads are buried in the sand i guess.

        2. “You do understand that the power they have to manipulate you is what you yourself give them”

          They’re flat out talking about compelling news agencies and social media to stop allowing anything labeled “misinformation” by the White House to be discussed. Your statement is absolute bullshit… and I think that you know that it is bullshit.

    2. Yeah, Joe Biden isn’t politicizing Social Media at all……

      I cant imagine how dumb you have to be to think other people are so dumb they won’t immediately realize how dumb the shit she spews is (and Jeff and Mike Liarsin and Fonzie…)

    3. Remind me again which side says “the personal is the political”?

  12. From the content of this interview, my initial reaction is that the New York Times is trying to counter libertarianism by tearing it down from the inside and maybe by commandeering and watering down the term. Shrike and ChemJeff like to project themselves as libertarians, too, but what we get from them is just a lot of stupid bothsideism. That’s where you end up if you’re try to blunt the force of libertarian arguments.

    Unfortunately for them, the fact is that the left has become increasingly authoritarian and increasingly socialist, and the sad consequences of this, per Duverger’s law, are that as the Democrats become increasingly authoritarian and socialist, libertarians should become more Republican.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

    It shouldn’t surprise us to see the left try to counter the natural inertia towards the right you’d expect to see when the Democrats take control of the House, the Senate, and the White House and use that power to push through some of the most authoritarian and socialist policies we’ve seen since FDR. The left is smart to fear the reaction to their radical authoritarian and socialist policies. We should be encouraging people’s anti-socialist instincts rather than blunting them with bothsideism.

    Employing bothsideism in the name of libertarian capitalism–against that backdrop–does a great disservice to the cause of libertarian capitalism. The Democratic party and the U.S. government are now the same thing, and they’re pushing through the Green New Deal, they’re expanding Medicare, and the White House is openly and actively coordinating with social media to shut down speech that criticizes or contradicts the government.

    Against that backdrop, they want to deflect criticism away from the Democratic party in the name of libertarian bothsideism? Even IF IF IF the Republicans had nothing to offer libertarians in the furtherance of our goals, stopping the Democrats from shredding our goals would justify supporting the Republicans–at least until this batch of Democrats no longer control the entire U.S. government.

    Libertaianism can’t win until this batch of Democrats loses and is no longer in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Meanwhile, because of single member districts and Duverger’s law, there is no escaping the fact that the Democrats can only lose when the Republicans win. Anyone who would prefer to live under a more authoritarian and more socialist one party government, rather than vote for Republicans in 2022, has no business calling themselves libertarian.

    1. the sad consequences of this, per Duverger’s law, are that as the Democrats become increasingly authoritarian and socialist, libertarians should become more Republican.

      hahahaha. Always the pimp.

      1. The argument I made is true or false regardless of whether I’m a pimp. The reason you responded with an ad hominem is because you’re wrong–at least that’s the most generous interpretation. If you want to be right, you need to address the facts or the form of the argument, or you need present a counterargument of your own.

        1. You keep citing Duverger’s Law as if it is like the law of gravity. Nothing you can do so vote Republican. No need to deal with ballot access collusion. Vote Republican. No need to address the FACT that R’s spend like drunken sailors and believe that America has more prisoners than anyone else on Earth because we’re just too free. Vote Republican. Blahblahblah.

          Pimp.

          1. You don’t get it. The left are all totalitarians. So any vote for the left is a vote for totalitarianism. Republicans are mere authoritarians, but if you don’t want authoritarianism a vote for Republicans isn’t a vote for authoritarians because intentions or something. But any and all support for the left is conscious support for totalitarianism.

            My saying that is a personal attack on Ken that ignores what he says, ignores his logic, and instead says he’s wrong because of some personal failing.

            1. If you don’t understand what JFree and Ken are talking about, you probably shouldn’t butt in.

              I know that you want revenge on Ken for muting you, but white knighting for JFree if you don’t understand the conversation, isn’t the answer.

              1. If sarc only posted where he had some grasp of the issues, we’d never see him.
                We can hope…

            2. Yeah, they aren’t taking over the internet and free speech or anything, and trashing the courts, and remaking the economy using primitive religion as a cudgel, and transferring half the wealth in the country, making themselves the final arbiters of who gets what as all money must pass thru their grubby hands

          2. . . . that America has more prisoners than anyone else on Earth because legislation authored by Sen. Joe Biden, whose work in those days was bipartisan, both stupid and evil.

            1. Biden started the war on drugs? I thought that was a Republican named Nixon. Biden militarized the police? I thought that was a Republican named Reagan. Biden ended state sovereignty and created a system of federal dominance? I thought that was a Republican named Lincoln.

              Or maybe I’m wrong and Biden indeed caused my mother’s gout.

              1. Well at least Biden invented social media

            2. The Bidens and Clintons had to lock up those super predators.

          3. The Senate Republicans killed the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion stimulus bill in the week before the last election, and they’re universally against the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill the Democrats will soon be passing without them.

            If you believe the Democrats aren’t worse on spending because the Republicans are less than libertarian, then you’re not just wrong on the facts. There’s actually a name for that fallacy. Here, educate yourself:

            The Perfect Solution Fallacy . . . is a false dichotomy that occurs when an argument assumes . . . that a course of action should be rejected because it is not perfect, even though it is the best option available.”

            https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/perfect-solution-fallacy/

            I maintain that the Republicans are vastly superior to the Democrats on spending, and, further, the $3.5 trillion on Green New Deal spending, tax increases, and expanding entitlements wouldn’t be happening if the Republicans had control of the Senate. In order for the Republicans to take control of one of the chambers in Congress, it will be necessary for people to vote for them–more than did so last time.

            I’d address the circular reasoning of saying that someone must be wrong to prefer the Republicans–because that means they prefer the Republicans–but why bother? That fallacy is self-evident. And I’ve already pointed out why the Republicans are better and why we should support them. Here’s a refresher.

            As the Democrats become increasingly authoritarian and socialist, libertarians and capitalists should become more Republican–in a system with single member districts. While it’s possible that the Libertarians may achieve a majority in the House or Senate someday, the chances of that happening in 2022 are remote. Meanwhile, the chances of the Democrats spending trillions more on Green New Deal spending and expanding entitlement programs are high.

            If you don’t understand this, it’s probably because you don’t want to understand it.

            1. There’s actually a name for that fallacy. Here, educate yourself: The Perfect Solution Fallacy

              OK Cool. So we got $28.5 trillion in debt – caused 100% by spending in excess of revenues. You split that $28.5 trillion into the D bucket and the R bucket – via an actual legitimate measure of spending and/or revenues (not rhetoric or bleating). Then we’ll weigh them both and see the difference. I’m sure one of them weighs the same as a duck.

              1. I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say there.

                Pelosi passed a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill in the spring/summer of 2020. The Republicans laughed it out of the room.

                Then they tried to get the Republicans to vote for the $2 trillion Cares Act. The Senate Republicans laughed that one out of the room, too.

                McConnell the said he’d bring a $500 billion “skinny” deal to the Senate Floor, but that one failed in the Senate, too. Here they are talking about it, on October 21, 2020–weeks before the national election in early November, and the Republican Senate refused to authorize more spending. That’s amazing ahead of an election!

                https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/second-stimulus-check-skinny-bill-coronavirus-relief/

                Now, they refuse to authorize another $3.5 trillion in spending, for Biden’s Green New Deal and social programs–so the Democrats are passing it without any Republican support–and you won’t give them credit for that either?

                If you believed that the Republicans are no better than the Democrats on spending because they authorized the same bills that the Democrats did, that would be one thing. If you don’t believe that the Republicans have refused to authorize the Democrats’ spending because that fits your opinion of them–in spite of the fact that they’ve consistently refused to authorize more spending? That means you’re delusional.

                If the facts don’t fit your hypothesis, that doesn’t mean the facts are wrong. It means you need to revise your hypothesis. There was a time when the Republicans were no better than the Democrats on spending. That was during the Bush and Obama administrations, when the differences between John Boehner and the House Democrats on spending were mostly cosmetic–as evidenced by Republicans’ support for TARP.

                That was 12 years ago. Things that used to be true 12 years ago aren’t true anymore, and if you haven’t updated your opinions based on new facts that have come in since then, then your hypothesis doesn’t enjoy the same level of support anymore.

                  1. The way you feel right now is how you’re supposed to feel when you’re wrong.

                    1. Ken with a bat flip, walk off homer.

                  2. Damn, he schooled you but good.

              2. What a ridiculous exercise.

                OK – the Great Society cost a lot more than 28 Trillion. Therefore, it is all the Ds fault.

                happy now?

                Now, why don’t we look at what is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, YOU STUPID SOB, AND WHAT THE VARIOUS PARTIES WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON IN THE FUTURE

            2. Well said. There are 12 trillion reasons to realize why the Dems are less libertarian than the Repubs. Trying to limit opposing opinions on social media is just one more reason.

              1. There are 12 trillion reasons to realize why the Dems are less libertarian than the Repubs.

                No.
                What you are admitting is that anything more fiscally responsible than the R’s in your case is a ‘perfect solution fallacy’. Now – take that debt, apply that debt load solely to the under-18’s (since they are the ones paying the entire load for their entire adult life) and look your kid/grandkid in the face and sell them on the notion that anything less than that debt load is just too unachievable and ‘perfect’.

                The ‘lesser evil’ stuff is just the shit you spread on your douche to make voting taste better for you. To ease your cognitive dissonance. It has nothing to do with any reality outside your head.

                1. That doesn’t make any sense. Face it, you’re wrong. Show some class.

          4. “…No need to address the FACT that R’s spend like drunken sailors…”

            There really isn’t any need for you to constantly prove you’re a lying piece of lefty shit, but you do so anyhow:
            “Biden’s $6 Trillion Budget Plan Is Even More Expensive Than It Looks”
            https://reason.com/2021/06/02/bidens-6-trillion-budget-plan-is-even-more-expensive-than-it-looks/#comments

            1. The Repubs have a terrible record on spending.
              The Dems are still about 6 trillion dollars worse (or maybe it’s only 5.5 trillion worse after this latest bill, it’s hard to keep track.)

              1. And we do not have the option of sticking our heads in the sand such as that idiot sarcasmic suggests.

            2. Plus it’s not just 6 trillion. It’s 6 trillion in the regular budget, plus 2 trillion in bailouts, plus 3.5 trillion tacked on.

          5. “You keep citing Duverger’s Law as if it is like the law of gravity.”

            It’s the shape of the chess board and the way the pieces can move.

            It means that the path of least resistance is infiltrating one of the two major parties, and the one that isn’t fundamentally hostile to capitalism and openly advocating socialism is the more tempting target. If you believe otherwise, it is not a difference of opinion. You’re just wrong.

            1. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If it was a choice between Mao or Pol Pot you’d be urging people to vote for one or the other, depending which one you feel is less-bad. Well they’re both bad. If given a choice between getting fucked in the ass with a broomstick or a tennis racket, I choose neither.

              1. You don’t have that choice; the people holding the broomstick and the tennis racket both have guns, so your *real* choice is broomstick, tennis racket. or death.
                You might try dealing with reality instead of your idiotic fantasies in case you don’t want to appear the ignoramus you so often appear.

                1. They really don’t seem to understand the meaning of single member districts, do they?

                  If Libertarians don’t win a plurality of the vote, they lose. The chances of them winning a plurality anywhere is practically zero. That’s why people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul are Republicans.

                  Ross Perot won 19% of the vote, and because of single member districts that won him exactly zero delegates to the electoral college.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election

                  That’s Duverger’s Law in action. If libertarians did that well in every district across the country in 2022, it would be an amazing accomplishment. And we wouldn’t win a single seat in Congress. The Democrats would retain control–win more seats from the Republicans, actually–and the spending and socialism would continue unabated.

                  Changing the Republican party from the inside is easier than winning a plurality of the vote, and it doesn’t matter if other people believe otherwise. They’re wrong.

                  Meanwhile, even if we can persuade enough people to vote Libertarian–nationwide–to take control of the House or the Senate someday, that’s highly unlikely to happen between now and November of 2022. And we need to take absolute control of the government away from the Democrats then, or the socialism will just get worse.

                  The new entitlements the Democrats creating in the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill will probably never go away. It isn’t just a question of the Republicans not necessarily being the solution. It’s that the we need to stop letting the Democrats make it worse.

                  We need the patient to eat right and exercise if he’s to beat heart disease, but before we get him on an exercise program and put him on a diet, we need to make the Democrats stop stabbing him in the chest with a kitchen knife–over and over and over again.

                  1. “…Changing the Republican party from the inside is easier than winning a plurality of the vote, and it doesn’t matter if other people believe otherwise. They’re wrong…”

                    This is nearly axiomatic, and it takes willful ignorance or just plain abysmal ignorance to believe otherwise.
                    And then, some of the candidates may have personalities which people do not find attractive in a daddy, and those people prefer candidates with dementia over mean tweets. I’m seeing that as abysmal ignorance, since any rational person would do otherwise.

                    1. We’re seeing it happen successfully in New Hampshire, too!

                      My understanding is that the majority leader in the New Hampshire House of Representatives is a Free State Project libertarian. He’s not a Libertarian. He’s a Republican by name, but there are dozens of other small “l” libertarians that ran as Republicans and are now in the New Hampshire House in his coalition.

                      I don’t care whether the politician is a Libertarian, a Republican, or a Democrat. I care whether they spend our money, raise our taxes, back the drug war, start new wars, protect our gun rights, protect our freedom of speech, I want school choice, etc., etc. And as I see it, if you want to introduce a new law in New Hampshire, you can’t do it now unless it’s supported by people who came there because of the Free State project.

                      Would JFree oppose a libertarian takeover of the government if they weren’t called “Libertarians”?

                    2. “…I don’t care whether the politician is a Libertarian, a Republican, or a Democrat…”

                      Correct; we got the most libertarian POTUS in the last hundred years who was a D, rebranded to an R, and who pissed off most of the swamp-dwellers in DC regardless of the suffix.
                      And further pissed off adolescent assholes like most of the writers here, brandyshit, and other assholic commenters.

                  2. “I don’t care whether the politician is a Libertarian, a Republican, or a Democrat.”

                    Bull. I’d bet a lymph node that you have never and will never vote for anything other than a Republican.

                    1. As an ignorant pile of lefty shit, I’m sure you do believe that, again, proving what an ignorant pile of lefty shit you are.

              2. GFY. You are always here cheering for the broomstick

              3. It’s a lot closer to a choice between Jeffrey Dahmer and an unarmed purse snatcher.

            2. No its not the shape of the fucking chess board. Whatever that means. If you wanna cite Duvergers Law at least know what it is. It is two separate observations.

              One – the higher the barriers to winning an election, the more difficult it is for parties/individuals/organizations to jump the hurdle. This is in fact quite unique to the US because the DeRp’s collude to impose barriers to ballot access, maintain huge districts, gerrymander those districts so only one party can win, etc. This may well require that one join the DeRps to infiltrate and change that. But that would require conditional joining (we’ll join you so you can win this time and you lower the barriers for next time) and is only achieved by playing one DeRp off against the other. Not wagging your tail and sniffing R butt all the time. Plus – you never give a shit about any of this.

              Two – there is a psychological need of some voters to not vote for a choice that has no chance to win. Even if true, your psychological neediness has nothing to do with a DeRp agenda. They don’t give a shit about you unless give them money. They don’t even know how you actually voted. Even if it is true in the aggregate, it is only true in a SINGLE district. Which is why in every other country with FPTP, parties concentrate on selling themselves locally or regionally. Which is why the UK has 11 parties and 6 independents represented in the Commons. Why India has 36 parties and 3 independents in their Lok Sabha. Both FPTP systems. This is a huge failure of third parties here – but is NOT a reason for any individual to DO anything.

              1. “…but is NOT a reason for any individual to DO anything.”

                To fucking ignoramuses like you, that’s true. To those with two brain cells, not so much.

      2. Always the ignorant huh JFree.

      3. “I don’t have any good argument against Ken’s statement, so I’ll call him a shill” – t. JFree

    2. Jeff is open a critical theorist. Constantly mixing post modernism with sophistry. And now he’s added just pure strawman now that he’s encouraged by white Mike and sarcasmic.

    3. “…my initial reaction is that the New York Times is trying to counter libertarianism by tearing it down from the inside and maybe by commandeering and watering down the term.”

      No fair! That’s Reason’s job! They called “dibs” first!

  13. I don’t get how anyone with a conscience could stomach working for the Duranty News.

    -jcr

    1. Stomach is the appropriate verb. You enjoy eating, don’t you?

      So do they, and I imagine the Times and the Post pay pretty well.

  14. “In many ways, everyone’s a personal libertarian. Everyone thinks they should be able to do whatever they want, but other people should not.”

    Uh, no. Everybody who thinks like this might be a personal Puritan, a personal Karen, or even a personal monarchist, but certainly not a libertarian. Was this a slip by Coaston, or does she really not understand what libertarian means? Or is she shilling for progressives and trying to delegitimatize libertarians?

    1. “is she shilling for progressives and trying to delegitimatize libertarians?”

      Not seeking delegitimize libertarians. At least not among their readership. You cannot undo what has never been done.

      They are seeking to coopt the term.

      1. And a lot of idiots are happy to help

        1. There is even a magazine that engages in this treasonous act.

    2. Yeah, anyone can be self-centered and selfish. ‘ ‘X’ for me but not for thee’ is perhaps the oldest political meme.

      Libertarianism is respecting other individuals enough to believe that THEY should be able to do whatever THEY want, so long as it does not prevent other individuals ability to do what THEY want. It’s not just about ME.

    3. I think she meant everyone kind of believes that they, personally, should be governed according to essentially libertarian principles, but people who aren’t *actual* libertarians are hypocrites when it comes to extending that belief to others.

      1. Another confession.
        Lol

  15. This is the new leftist in terms of the leftist gaslighting strategy-
    a) it doesn’t exist
    b) it does exist but not how you think
    c) its here now just accept it.

    Soon we will have to accept that all libertarians are pro-government/ crt/blm/ welfare, and probably anti-gun.

    1. Projection seems to be a common trait with left “libertarians.”

    2. the leftist gaslighting strategy-
      a) it doesn’t exist
      b) it does exist but not how you think
      c) its here now just accept it.

      You could append this to virtually every single chemjeff and “Mike Laursen” post on CRT.

    1. Glenn Greenwald
      @ggreenwald
      Jul 17

      If you trust the Biden WH to decree what is “misinformation,” these claims have been deemed as such:

      * COVID is transmitted human-to-human (Jan 2020)
      * You should wear masks to protect against COVID (March 2020)
      * It’s possible COVID leaked from the Wuhan lab (all of 2020).

      If, last March, you encouraged people to wear masks against COVID, the WHO/CDC/Fauci cabal said that was “disinformation.”

      If, throughout 2020, you said it seems possible COVID came from a lab leak, you were banned from social media.

      Who trusts them to be the Ministry of Truth?

      The people who lied repeatedly before the election, saying the authentic Biden documents were “Russian disinformation” – and censored reporting based on that lie – now want to anoint themselves the Ministry of Truth, empowered to censor “disinformation”:

      1. Like Hitch, he’s gonna get himself de-platformed.

        1. He already did. That’s why he’s at Substack

        2. I suspect Twitter is still important to guys like that–to reach potential customers that don’t already know about him. Someday soon, maybe that’ll change.

          What’s left of the honest liberals all seems to be over at Substack. Substack had 500,000 subscribers as of February, and I’m sure they’ve grown since then.

          The New York Times reportedly has 7.5 million subscribers or so, but they had a 170 year head start. Ten years from now, it wouldn’t surprise me if Substack had more subscribers than the Times. And isn’t one of the selling points of Substack that it isn’t the Times? You’re not subject to cancel culture in the same way over there. I heard the Times had to eliminate the whole Op-Ed section because of cancel culture.

          I’ve also read that Substack was offering opinion writers at The New York Times $200,000 – $300,000 as a signing bonus to jump ship, and that if you work for the Times, now you’re not allowed to start a newsletter without their permission first.

          “While outside projects have long needed clearance, the new policy, which applies to both free and paid newsletters, comes amid industry-wide consternation about the newsletter platform Substack and the brand-name writers who have left major publications to pursue solo newsletters.”

          —-Adweek

          https://www.adweek.com/media/the-new-york-times-to-writers-check-with-us-before-you-start-a-newsletter/

          They’re starting to get worried. Cancel culture is a money loser.

          1. Loose lips sink ships.

          2. “What’s left of the honest liberals all seems to be over at Substack.”

            80s style liberals are on the Right now, and just don’t know it.

            The Left has left them and liberal democracy *far* behind.

      2. Yeah, disinformation is bad. But when the people deciding what is called disinformation are proven liars with an anti-American agenda, it’s even worse.

  16. Not a libertarian by definition. But then none of the writers here are as well any more. In truth most libertarians voted for Biden, a few voted for Trump, and fewer still Jorgensen. You can tell by the vote totals from 2016 to 2020.

    And on cue screetch and fatty jeff returned to defend the non libertarian interviewed and argue the indefensible positions they hold, each knowing they helped sweep Biden into office.

  17. She is the daughter of a black father and a white mother, was raised Catholic, and identifies as queer.

    Because of course she is! What other kind of libertarian would be published by the New York Times and fawned over by Reason?

    1. Black is supposed to be capitalized now.

      1. Iirc Snoopes has done it while keeping “white” lowercase.

        1. Back of the bus for Whitey!

  18. If their libertarian podcaster is anything like their “conservative” columnist (David Brooks), I won’t be impressed.

    1. Oh come on, Brooks is every bit a conservative as other noted conservative luminaries like David French, Bill Kristol and Max Boot.

      1. Navarro, Rubin…

        1. Rubin is my favorite. All the war-mongering without any of the fiscal constraint.

    2. EXACTLY. She’s more of an Ana Navarro, if we are being honest. At least Frum can string a thought together.

      1. Ample Ana

  19. Coaston says growing up in a liberal household in a conservative part of the country made her reluctant to give the authorities a lot of power.

    In AmeriKKKa’s conservative areas, the authorities are known for amassing lots of power, whereas in “liberal” places like California and New York they’re totes laissez-faire.
    If I want to own an AR-15, buy a giant cup of soda or raw milk, run an unlicensed hair salon, hug a tiger or wear a MAGA hat I’d totally go to the Blue zone.

    Adding to that was an experience of being isolated because of her race and sexuality.

    Sounds like how ENB got her “libertarianism”.

    1. She grew up in Cincinnati. It wasn’t conservative.

      https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/ohio/cincinnati

      Again, she’s a blue dog.

      1. Lol, so she lied.
        Cincinnati isn’t exactly totally devoid of black and gay people either.

        1. She didn’t lie so much as reveal her biases. If Cincy looks right wing to you then you have never actually seen anything right wing.

      2. I noted the same thing myself. Cincinnati is about as genuinely middle of the road as a major American city gets. And the same applies to the entire state of Ohio.

        1. “Middle of the Road” is the new “Nazi”.

  20. Lol. Remember how pissed off people were Trump added his name to stimulus checks? Just got a letter from The White House about how they are giving away free money through the child tax credit. Slap in the face as I make too much for it. But the leftists seem to be purely hypocritical.

    The letter doesn’t mention the caps either so they are straight lying to some people.

    1. That money ain’t free to me, and I ain’t getting any of it either.
      Just like that last few rounds of stimulus checks.
      You can thank me later I suppose.

  21. Half black, female and totally homo? No way she could be a libertarian. Everyone knows there are no female libertarians.

    1. What was the old meme? NSTAAFL or something? No such thing as a female libertarian, or was that free lunch? Maybe they’re both true.

      1. Good one!

  22. So what’s the betting line on Election 2022, that come the day Nancy Pelosi simply declares that states that required voter ID were engaged in illegal voter suppression and therefore the elections were illegitimate and goes ahead and refuses to seat Republican victors but instead seats their Democratic opponents? After all, it is ultimately up to Congress to declare who shall have the seat, not the voters.

    Remember, it’s all projection with the Democrats and whatever they accuse the GOP of planning to do is exactly what they themselves are already doing, and they’re currently accusing the GOP of trying to rig the elections.

    1. Which, by the way, is textbook sociopathic behaviour – a sociopath will fuck people over in a heartbeat and they will justify it on the premise that the other person was planning on fucking them over so what they did was really simply self-defense. And they will absolutely convince themselves that the other person was in fact out to fuck them over no matter that they have absolutely no evidence that this was true.

    2. declares that states that required voter ID were engaged in illegal voter suppression and therefore the elections were illegitimate and goes ahead and refuses to seat Republican victors but instead seats their Democratic opponents?

      Sounds not just possible but likely. And the Roberts court will refuse to hear cases because reasons.

      1. “No standing” is the new “BFYTW”.

    3. Your hypothetical is the last resort for 2022. Dems are trying to pass election reform to federalize elections, which curiously, reason writers don’t discuss. What after that, amnesty?

    4. Depends on whether or not they decide they need the appearance of opposition

    5. I hear that worked out well in Haiti recently.

    6. Democrats will lose the majority in both houses of Congress.
      Believe it or not, doubling federal spending, jacking up taxes, unleashing widespread inflation, pandering to the woke, and sending 87,000 new IRS agents (“swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”) are not all that popular.

      1. “Democrats will lose the majority in both houses of Congress.”

        No they won’t. They’ll fortify it until they get the “correct” result.

        The last real federal election America will ever have was in 2016, and even that was fiddled with by the Dems. Just not fiddled with enough.

    7. Historically, the party of the president takes a beating in the House in a new president’s first midterm. Here are all those first term midterms going back to 1910.

      First column is House seats won/lost. The last column is what I see as the dominant issue(s) of that midterm.

      +9 1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt Great Depression Response
      +8 2002 George W. Bush 9/11
      -4 1962 John F. Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis
      -8 1990 George H. W. Bush USSR Falls, Operation Desert Shield
      -9 1926 Calvin Coolidge 1st Midterm in 2nd Term (Harding Died)
      -12 1970 Richard Nixon Vietnam, Kent State
      -15 1978 Jimmy Carter Energy Crisis, Inflation
      -18 1954 Dwight D Eisenhower McCarthyism
      -22 1918 Woodrow Wilson Broken Promise not to Enter WWI
      -26 1982 Ronald Reagan Recession
      -47 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson Great Society, Civil Rights Act
      -48 1974 Gerald Ford Nixon Pardoned
      -52 1930 Herbert Hoover Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Great Depression
      -54 1946 Harry S Truman Labor Unrest, Price Controls
      -54 1994 Bill Clinton Gun Control, HillaryCare
      -57 1910 William Taft Republican/Progressives Split
      -63 2010 Barack Obama TARP, ObamaCare
      -77 1922 Warren Harding Republican/Progressive Split

      The median is -24 House seats lost.

      The average is -31`House seats lost.

      The more radical the agenda, the bigger the backlash. Biden’s agenda has been nothing if not radical–more radical than anyone’s since World War II.

      The Democrats need to lose ten seats to lose control of the House, and because of the radicalness of Biden’s agenda, I’d bet the over on them losing more than 24 seats in the House.

      Also, I think this is why Pelosi was willing to announce that she wouldn’t seek the Speaker’s chair after the 2022 elections (back when they were talking about replacing her with someone more progressive). She’s probably willing to promise to give up the Speaker’s chair in 2022 because she doesn’t expect the Democrats to control the House after 2022 anyway.

      1. That may sound good, but remember that historically, Presidents don’t get more votes running for a second term than they did the first and still lose the election. Historically, brain-dead, senile, old coots don’t get a record number of votes. Historically, Presidents don’t lose almost all the bellwether states and counties and still win the election. Historically, they don’t suddenly stop counting the votes in the middle of the night. Historically, they don’t allow governors and courts and secretaries of state to unilaterally change the legislatively-prescribed voting laws. Historically, you don’t need soldiers behind razor wire fences to defend the winner of a free election. Historically, you don’t need a concerted effort to repress any criticism of the election.

        And so on.

        1. If the Democrats fixed the House races in November of 2020, they did a terrible job of it–because the Republicans gained nine seats in the House of Representatives and they gained them in places like California.

        2. Biden has no mandate. The Democrats have no mandate.

          And they’re acting like the whole country is lined up behind them.

          That’s the other reason Pelosi is leaving. This is her last hurrah.

          “Woe to you on earth and sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that his time is short.”

          —-Revelation 12

          Yes, I am comparing Pelosi to the devil.

          1. I think The Devil is probably more fiscally responsible that Pelosi.

      2. So in 2022, it is likely someone else will be putting their feet on the Speaker’s desk.

        1. Yes. And that’s why the radicals are going balls out today.

          The Democrats from deep blue districts are leading the moderates from red and purple districts like lambs to the slaughterhouse.

          Stay still. This won’t hurt a bit.

      3. “Historically, the party of the president takes a beating in the House in a new president’s first midterm. Here are all those first term midterms going back to 1910.”

        What are the stats when elections are run by voting machines run by one party?

        1. Like I said up yonder, if they fixed the 2020 House election, they accidentally fixed it in favor of the Republicans–because the Republicans gained seats.

          1. For the Republicans to win, they always need to blow by the Dem’s built-in fudge factor. Trump did that in 2016. The House Republicans did in 2020.
            They’re never going to let that ever happen again Ken.

          2. They came up with tens of millions of extra votes just to beat Trump, and did so in the middle of the night.
            They didn’t give a shit about house races, only the presidency mattered.
            But keep that faith in the system, Ken, it’s going so well.

            1. Another thing to consider is that stuffing the ballot box is nothing new. Going back through all those elections to 1910, they were stuffing the ballot box back then, too. In other words, the results of all those midterm elections were also in spite of whatever ballot box stuffing was happening. Expect similar results, and expect them to be proportionate to Biden’s radicalness.

              The Republicans only need 10 seats to take control of the House. The median says they’ll lost 24, but if Biden’s agenda is more radical than both Clinton’s and Obama’s (and I think it is), then the Democrats should lose more than Clinton’s 54 Democrat House seats and Obama’s 63. Even if Biden loses half as many as they did because of ballot stuffing, the Republicans should still win more than twice what they need to take back control of the House.

              1. Butchered that!

                “The Republicans only need to win 10 seats to take control of the House. The median says they’ll win 24”.

                —-Ken Shultz

                Fixed!

                Because of Biden’s radicalness, the Democrats should lose more than the 54 seats that Clinton lost or the 63 that Obama lost, and even IF IF IF the Democrats somehow fix half of those races (in red and purple districts, mind you), then the Republicans should still win twice as many seats as they need to take control of the House.

  23. By hiring David Brooks and this podcast lady, the New York Times is caving in to the Right.

    /sarc

  24. And a lot of the work they’ve done has really helped to shape a lot of my thinking. But libertarianism also has a history of the people who were like, “Well, why can’t you own people? What’s wrong with that?”

    Stopped reading here. What a tool. I’m glad she’s suspicious of state power, maybe she has a Thomas Sowell future ahead of her when she grows up and realizes that it isn’t about seeing ghosts of oppression everywhere.

    1. Nah.

      “WHitey is the Devil!” will never get old.

  25. Facebook is defending itself from the accusations from the Biden administration–in regards to their tolerance for misinformation.

    “At a time when COVID-19 cases are rising in America, the Biden administration has chosen to blame a handful of American social media companies. While social media plays an important role in society, it is clear that we need a whole of society approach to end this pandemic. And facts — not allegations — should help inform that effort. The fact is that vaccine acceptance among Facebook users in the US has increased. These and other facts tell a very different story to the one promoted by the administration in recent days.”

    —-Facebook

    “Moving Past the Finger Pointing”

    https://about.fb.com/news/2021/07/support-for-covid-19-vaccines-is-high-on-facebook-and-growing/

    This and Facebook’s attempt to get Lina Khan to recuse herself from Facebook’s antitrust case seem to suggest that they’re aren’t taking this shit lying down. Good for them! If Facebook isn’t feeling intimidated by Biden and the Democrats, why do they feel it necessary to defend themselves in the court of public opinion?

    As much as I despise Facebook, it’s nice to seem them stand up for themselves–to some tiny extent. Meanwhile, those who weren’t taking Trump’s lawsuit against Facebook, et. al. seriously should probably wake up and smell the coffee–after Biden and the White House admitted they were flagging posts and pages for Facebook to delete and deplatform.

    1. Sooner or later, everybody figures out that loyalty to the party won’t save them when it turns on them.

      1. And the progressive really trying to force them to silence speech–under threat of breaking their companies up.

        Facebook would still be more than happy to accept speech codes in a consent decree–because they’re an advertising platform and that’s what the advertisers want anyway.

        Facebook’s stance on this seems to have changed 1) When the Democrats’ released the report Lina Khan wrote for the House Democrats calling for a breakup of Facebook and 2) When Biden not only appointed Lina Khan to the FTC but made her the Chair.

        It’s like that scene in Game of Thrones when they executed Little Finger. Wait, I don’t understand. Who’s on trial here? Me?! There must be some mistake.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTp66jalB7s

        1. I do take some joy in watching those who fed others to the crocodile being eaten in their turn.

  26. tl;dr

    Is “New York Times Libertarian” similar to “Manhattan Conservative”?

    1. She’s Davey Wiggle without the smarminess or flopsweat.

  27. “Jane Coaston on the polarization of everything.” …

    ‘Liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ are overly preoccupied with vociferously criticizing one another for their politics and beliefs thus diverting attention away from the planet’s greatest polluters, where it should and needs to be sharply focused. Clearly there has been discouragingly insufficient political courage and will to properly act upon the cause-and-effect of manmade global warming and climate change.

    To me, general human existence has for too long been analogous to a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely societally represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line. Many of them further fight over to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie and how much they should have to pay for it — all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined, owned and operated by (besides the wealthiest passengers) the fossil fuel industry, is on fire and toxifying at locations not normally investigated.

  28. “There were a lot of people in right circles whose understanding of what the presidency was supposed to be was very much “We won the presidency. We’ll be able to start putting all of our enemies into camps.”

    Because nobody fully understand the thinking of those in “right circles” like writers at Vox.

    Is there a German word for an eye-rolling cringe?

    Because this entire article is that.

    1. I believe the word is Merkel.

    2. Augenverdrehen zusammenzucken

      They’re always so concise.

  29. I grew up in a very conservative state, Ohio, and in a very conservative area, Cincinnati.

    When someone starts right off the bat with two blatant falsehoods like these, I immediately have to question everything else they say.

    Utah and Idaho are very conservative states. Ohio and Cincinnati are the very epitome of middle of the road, American bellwether locales that can swing in either political direction, and have been for decades now. Only someone whose inclinations are to the far left could label Ohio a “very conservative state”.

    1. Yeah, it’s like asking a person if a 68 degree swimming pool is warm. If the answer is yes they are not from south of the Mason Dixon line.

  30. Wow, did this set posters off.

    Look, you old style “libertarians” (Paleos) that sit around and swoon about “states rights” and “sound money” and worship the cult of Trump might as well pack your bags for CPAC.

    I don’t know anything about this NYT writer other than what she told Gillespie but if she wants to end the war on drugs, cut back violence by cops, support gay rights, and downsize the massive government of Trump/GOP/Biden/Dems then we need more like her.

    And less pf you Trump cultists.

    Go to CPAC Ken and Jesse. You belong there.

  31. Trump and his retard QAnon army could cost the USA its AAA credit rating:

    Top Credit Rating Agency Warns Trump’s ‘Failure to Concede’ and GOP Voter Suppression Could Tank US AAA Status

    “The failure of the former president to concede the election and the events surrounding the certification of the results of the presidential election in Congress in January, have no recent parallels in other very highly rated sovereigns,” Fitch declared, explaining its negative outlook warning. “The redrafting of election laws in some states could weaken the political system, increasing divergence between votes cast and party representation. These developments underline an ongoing risk of lack of bipartisanship and difficulty in formulating policy and passing laws in Congress.”

    https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2021/07/top-credit-rating-agency-warns-trumps-failure-to-concede-and-gop-voter-suppression-could-tank-us-aaa-status/

    Trump = Mr.1% GDP.

    1. Is that a real link or more kiddie porn?

      1. That’s the real reason Buttplug hates the QAnon bogeyman. He heard it’s anti-kiddie diddler.

    2. “…Trump = Mr.1% GDP…”

      turd posts lies; it what turd does. turd does nothing else except when he’s, I guess, drunk or coked enough to admit it.
      Let’s be clear here: By his own admissions, we have a failed day-trader (who won’t pay off his bets) with a coke habit, ‘daddy’ issues, and an interest in kiddie vid porn.
      Further, we have a lying sack of shit who is (obviously) not capable of doing the cherry-picking for the stats he posts, but is willing to copy/paste any cherry-picked stat which favors the Ds, all the time *claiming* to favor libertarianism.
      To sum up, we have a fucking failed day-trader, TDS-addled, coke-using, kiddie-diddler lefty shit with daddy-issues who supposes to advise us regarding, what? Daddy issues? Kiddie porn vids?
      Fuck off and die, turd.

      1. Mr.1% GDP

        So as good as Obama and he had to deal with the Covid holocaust.

        1. As good as Obo managed starting from zero, FFS! If the lying POS had simply gotten out of the way, the asshole could have claimed far better!
          But as a lying lefty POS (like Newsom) Obo wanted to “plan” the recovery; slimy piece of lefty shit.

    3. And the gummint losing some ability to sell future generations of Americans into perpetual debt slavery is a bad thing, how?

      Everyone with two neurons to rub together knows the US will never repay the debt.

      The sooner we stop living the lie the better.

  32. The “New York Times”. I tried to potty train my puppy on it. He bit me. That’s all of the respect I have for the “New York Times”. This isn’t new. Quite a few years ago The Editor in Chief of the Times stated that if he had come across information about the D-day invasion, before the invasion, he would have published it. Think that one through.

    1. I remember the halcyon days of Jayson Blair at the NYT.

  33. https://twitter.com/NewGranada1979/status/1416845615581958144?s=19

    REPORT: If you ever wanted to know who would have supported ‘the regime’ in 1930’s Germany, NOW YOU KNOW. [Pics]

    1. That one group had their own critical race theory. Don’t recall how that turned out.

      1. They killed millions of leftists. Ken and Nardz should be praising them of they had a shred of intellectual consistency.

        1. sarc seems to be an uneducated piece of lefty shit who still assumes “National Socialism” isn’t socialism.
          I’m guessing that reading Tooze “Wages of Destruction” is far to difficult for such a limited mental capacity.

  34. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1416769427656302595?s=19

    Whenever state officials say “we respect free speech but…,” almost always what comes after is tawdry justification for unconstitutional action.

    Few things are more unconstitutional than having officials ban speakers because they have different views than them. [Link]

    One key attribute for a society to remain peaceful is for citizens to know they have the right to agitate for political change peacefully: using free speech rights, the right of assembly and petition, etc.

    When you start denying that to one group, you make violence more likely.

    1. Well, you are the poster child for advocating violence. How many days has it been since you said Democrats should be killed? Haah ha ha ha that was a joke. You say it every day.

      1. No, I advocate for public health.

  35. https://twitter.com/AF632/status/1416870794844512256?s=19

    Again pushing the “Big Lie” propaganda first used by Adolf Hitler against his political enemies. [Link]

    You see, Adolf Hitler did not advocate using the “Big Lie,” himself; rather he accused the Jews of it, similar to how Joe Biden has been referring to Trump’s speeches.

    1. Except that Jews are all Democrats, which means they’re perpetrating the Big Lie against Trump, who is a victim of the Jews just like Hitler was! Admit it! If only there was a final solution.

      1. I’ve never understood that, since nearly all anti Semitic vile,nice comes from people on the left.

    2. “Adolf Hitler did not advocate using the “Big Lie,” himself…”

      Adolf Hitler used the Big Lie himself, period! And it is VERY comparable to Trump’s Big Lie!

      This (below) poetry inspired by the REAL facts of a REAL nightmare!
      https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
      Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

      “The Sound Of Despots”

      Hello darkness, my old friend, I’ve come to talk with you again
      Because a nightmare in jackboots, left its seeds while I was sleeping
      And the nightmare that was planted in my brain, still remains
      Within the sound of despots

      In nightmares I ran alone, narrow streets of cobblestone
      Neath the halo of a streetlamp, I turned my collar to the cold and damp
      When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of an orange blight, split the night
      And touched the sound of despots

      And in their naked greed I saw, millions of sheeple, maybe more
      Sheeple talking without speaking, sheeple hearing without listening
      Sheeple’s thoughts, sanity never shared, and no one dared
      To question the despots!

      Fool, said I, you do not know, despots, like a cancer, grows
      Hear my words and I might teach you, take my arms then I might reach you
      But my words, like silent raindrops fell, and echoed in the wells of despots

      And the morons bowed and prayed to the orange god they’d made
      And the sign flashed its warning in the words that it was forming
      And the sign said the words of the despots are written in the Biggest Lies
      And tenement halls, and shouted, in the sounds of despots

  36. i think she’s as libertarian as Joe Biden is sentient

    1. Wasn’t Mother’s Lament. He’s a Canadian commie who managed to vote for Trump anyway. JesseAz? No. He’s got no life outside dropping turds on all my comments. R Mac is passed out drunk before dark. Must have been Nardz.

      1. You’re the one trolling everybody.

    2. What am I thinking? They’re all too racist to eat at a ramen shop!

    3. Aww, at least you tried

  37. Okay, you interviewed this fucking racist commie, where’s the libertarian from the headline?

  38. In case anyone doesn’t remember, Reason dubbed Jared Polis, of all people, a libertarian. Because he liked to play video games. Basically, Reason has a history of borderline fellating anyone left of center who doesn’t rule out some small element of human liberty. As long as it’s for the right things. Like Mexicans, ass-sex, and pot.

    1. If you have such a dim view of Reason, why are you here?

      1. If you have such a dim view of Reason, why are you here?

        A dim view? No. Quite the opposite actually.

        We are all here to provide a counterpoint to the welter of human idiocy you and yours would spread over the entirety of the world.

        We champion Reason, whilst you, and your moronic brethren, sit and giggle smugly as you eat your own excrement and think it wisdom.

      2. Because it’s the only comments section that hasn’t banned them.

      3. Because watching the magazine degenerate into left-wing idiocy is like watching a slow-motion traffic accident. I know I shouldn’t gawk, but I can’t help myself.

  39. Guess we have LINOs now.

    Anyways, while I’m glad she’s skeptical of the state doing pretty much anything, she comes across as someone with weak convictions who doesn’t want to be caught on the record taking a stance on a complicated issue. Yes, you can acknowledge that you might be wrong and also draw a line in the sand. Non-performative politics, as she puts it, doesn’t mean being indecisive because you don’t have a perfect solution.

    To me, non-performative politics is perfectly summarized by the “Yes” meme. If you want to be genuine, just do it. Don’t treat people as strawmen. Say how you really feel. I can’t stand when so called conservatives hold their tongue due to fear of reprimand. There is a real risk and cancel culture isn’t a boogeyman, but there’s a large group of people who find genuine expression to be far more convincing than any reactionary punishment you might receive.

  40. This interview is a new low for Nick Gillespie. Did he become an idiot for the occasion or did he actually hold the childish, stupid opinions which he injected into the conversation? you need to beware of a person like this!

  41. Let’s be honest. She’s a blue dog democrat. She believes in some control of rhetoric state but all of her outrage is to the right. She excuses overstep from the left, talks about jan 6th riots while supporting blm riots, etc.

Please to post comments