Politics

Politics Has Too Much Posturing and Not Enough Problem-Solving

During a speech to a conservative group this month, Hawley depicted a decline in masculinity as one of the nation's foremost problems. Really?

|

As someone who tries to evaluate specific public policies based on their merits and adherence to my long-held libertarian philosophy, I've been increasingly dispirited by the crazy partisanship that has consumed our political debates. These days, we're supposed to simply pick a team and cheer as it runs up the score on the other team.

"Don't you know that politics is binary?" conservative friends would ask whenever I criticized some misbegotten Trump administration policy (e.g., tariffs). In their view, Republicans always are better on balance than the Democrats, so I need to join their side and fight—even when they promote idiocy. To partisans, it's always about winning the next election.

When I call balls and strikes—those Supreme Court justice nominations are great, but trying to steal an election endangers our democracy—I'm apparently a sellout. Even though I routinely criticize California's Democratic politicians, I'm thrilled on the rare instances that they advance sensible ideas—such as when Gavin Newsom signed a package of long-overdue police reforms.

The end goal is good public policy, and it shouldn't matter who champions it. But when we view politics as a grudge match, we lose our leverage to change the way that "our" allies operate. Perhaps holding both Republicans and Democrats accountable for routinely violating their stated principles might push them to reconsider the positions they take. Well, hope springs eternal.

Writing about Democratic responses to the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse in the Kenosha, Wis., shootings and a police shooting in the city, The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes complained about "The tyranny of ideological narratives." That's a crucial observation. Indeed, both sides jump to tribe-based conclusions about specific events and their hot takes always are so banal and predictable.

Yet when everything is hardened ideologically, we lose the ability to make nuanced distinctions. We can never even agree on the basic facts of any given situation (even if it's caught on video) and end up advancing morally dubious and even clownish positions.

This self-imposed ideological tyranny leads politicians to spend their time posturing rather than governing. They mainly try to energize their base. They eschew reasonable ideas but seek only to heighten the partisan anger. Few politicians do this more consistently than the populist Republican Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.).

During a speech to a conservative group this month, Hawley depicted a decline in masculinity as one of the nation's foremost problems. "I want to focus tonight on the deconstruction of men, not because men are more important, but because I believe the attack on men has been the tip of the spear of the Left's broader attack on America. And because this attack on men is already far advanced," he said.

The populist right has long had a weird, almost adolescent view of manliness. Men are half the population and some of them always have struggled with something, so it's goofy to depict us as the targets of some orchestrated attack. The politics of victimization, whether it comes from conservatives or liberals, has become so tiresome.

There's a legitimate argument that, say, a rapidly changing economy, a government-run educational system that sees college (rather than trades) as the one-size-fits-all approach and the spread of government-assistance programs, has led many men into a life of idleness, substance abuse, and despair. That pox has devastated some poor and working-class communities.

But instead of addressing a cultural/economic problem that's been analyzed for decades, Hawley is using it to bludgeon his opponents and accuse them of attacking half the population. He takes a serious societal conundrum and turns it into a political battle cry rather than a search for practical solutions.

Of course, leftists aren't looking for solutions to any problem beyond their go-to answer of increasing government spending. When that spending leads to an easily predictable and painful bout of inflation, they stick to their usual ideological narratives. First, they told us there is no real inflation, then they cast blame on everything other than their own policies.

Now, with oil prices up 59 percent, meat and poultry prices up 12 percent, and overall inflation up 6.3 percent, they can't ignore reality. They tell us that inflation actually isn't such a bad thing. "It's the predictable product of the economy's rapid recovery, and its cost has been offset, to a large degree, by robust wage growth and government policies," argued MSNBC columnist James Surowiecki.

We obviously can't address an inflation crisis if we're arguing that the erosion of Americans' savings and their inability to buy homes and cars actually isn't that big of a deal. But that's what happens when politics becomes totally binary. The "inflation is OK" crowd would no doubt make the opposite argument if the GOP team were in power.

There's not much we can do other than commit ourselves to viewing the world more as a referee and less like a cheerleader.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Donate Today To Support Reason's Hardworking Journalists

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. "Hawley depicted a decline in masculinity as one of the nation's foremost problems."

    Yes, this! REAL men make the liberals cry!

    Less well-known is the following...

    REAL women make the conservatives admit that they are deplorable!

    1. Gotta keep up with Xi.

      1. ◄ WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►
        ★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I…go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…
        ══════HERE► ........... Visit Here

    2. The hilarious thing about this is that Donald Trump, whom Hawley kisses the ass of, is one of the most delicate, unmanly flowers out there.

      1. Yeah, real men (and women) are good sports; NOT sore losers. The Donald (Legend in His Own Mind) STILL hasn't lost the elections (in His Own Mind). Sad!!!

      2. LOL

        Love the leftist denial. As if Mike "everyone needs to get vaxxed to protect me from a mild cold" Laursen would ever have any credibility on the subject.
        Take your lead vaccine, dickless simp.

        1. Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online.JHG Last month i have exactly received $17529 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here.

          Here’s what I do…>>> WorkJoin1

      3. The fact is that in a two-party system, with 90% of issues being identifiably conservative/constitutionalist or liberal/progressive 90% of politics is binary. If I loathe 90% of what “X” side wants to do to me I’ll vigorously support “Y”, and if it makes you unhappy - deal with it.

        1. That was a non-sequitir. Did you accidentally reply to the wrong comment?

        2. Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by DSq just working online from home in my part time. Every person easily do this job by

          just visit.............BizProfit

    3. REAL women make the conservatives admit that they are deplorable!

      Hillary, is that you?

    4. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers.DXn Multiple sources combined. Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..
      GOOD LUCK......VISIT HERE

  2. If you don’t like the problems government attempts to tackle, wait until you feel the impact of their solutions.

    1. Why does Greenhut look to the government to provide a solution to high gas prices, food prices and inflation generally? Is Greenhut actually a libertarian? One wonders.

      I like a lot of his articles but this one...not so much. It is a confused muddle.

      1. "Why does Greenhut look to the government to provide a solution to high gas prices, food prices and inflation generally?"

        Please point out to us, where Greenhut proposed to "fix" things by making Government Almighty larger and more powerful?

        As Dave Barry wrote a (seeming-to-be) billion years ago, "Conservatives are in favor of smaller government... Except when they're not!" Like abortion and drug laws for example, and tearing down Section 230, in the fantasy that THEY (not liberals) will "do" the entire replacement laws for Section 230, to... Yeah, ya guessed it... Make the liberals cry!

        1. Not Enough Problem-Solving

          Are you an idiot sarc? The only way government can provide a solution is with authority or tax dollars.

          1. Government Almighty can "solve" the problems that might arise from Government Almighty getting too large, by deliberately making itself smaller (think about the Bill of Rights, especially the 1A and 2A). And think of "Section 230", which is the "1A of the internet era".

            But power pigs like Der JesseBahnFuhrer lust after killing Section 230, thinking that they can pussy-grab the libs... And the libs will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing Der JesseBahnFuhrer right back!

        2. I'm not sure that it was Dave Barry, but some smart ass suggested that Republicans insist government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it. All I know is that we're faced with the existential threats of global warming, Covid, opioids, terrorism, immigration, gun violence, poverty, childhood obesity, racism, white supremacy, overpopulation, lack of rural high-speed internet connections, food deserts, the tyranny of Big Tech, corporations, the mainstream media, and billionaires, too many choices of deodorants, Republicans, Democrats, the extinction of the polar bears, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Eritrea, Palestine and the Solomon Islands, the paucity of Clark Bars, the damnable continued existence of Necco Wafers, and a thousand other problems and the government hasn't fixed a goddamn one of them.

          1. They still make Necco wafers?

            1. only made them once like 115 years ago and sold from the same stock until they were gone

              1. They used them as poker chips once in a Doonesbury story.

                1. That was back in the Seventies and I haven't seen Necco Wafers but once since then.

                  1. I have a roll I never ate.

                    1. Keep it in a cool, dry place and future Archeologists might have a field day with it.

          2. Well, government fixed Brittany's problem so there's that major victory for mankind.

            1. That's after the govement put her dad in charge of her estate, so that one is at best a wash

            2. But the Government itself will still never leave her alone.

              LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
              https://youtu.be/WqSTXuJeTks

          3. Shorter jerry:

            Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair!(tm)

    2. "I want to focus tonight on the deconstruction of men, not because men are more important, but because I believe the attack on men has been the tip of the spear of the Left's broader attack on America."

      Just the tip?

      1. Just the tip until you get shafted.

  3. I think we can do with a little more posturing and a little less problem-solving from the government.

    1. Amen.

    2. I think the posturing Josh Hawley wants us to do is prostrating...whether he's your type or not!

    3. I doubt government can even manage to posture straight. But that’s just a hunch.

      1. You are no slouch at this, which is why I stand straight with you.

  4. This is a great inspiration. I am pretty much pleased with your good work. You put really very helpful information. online education marketplace

  5. The end goal is good public policy, and it shouldn't matter who champions it.

    No, silly! For the tribalists, the end goal is POWER, power to enact whatever policy they want, good or bad, but *more importantly*, the power to keep the other side out of power.

    With rare exception, such as with some of the police reform initiatives, neither team really is proposing anything that might qualify as new or innovative policy ideas that are actually *good*. MMT is baloney. Tariffs, i.e., taxing ourselves in order to "punish China", are stupid. Whatever ideas that either tribe has, they are old and recycled. State-run health care? Tax cuts forever? It's all just recycled from 40+ years ago. Continually raising the minimum wage? The idea is literally 100 years old from when the economy was much different than it is today.

    The two tribes, when they don't have outright bad ideas, have instead stale and musty ideas. They don't want 'good public policy', they just want power so that the other side is kept out of power. It's really as simple as that.

    So those of us who really DO want good public policy, that actually speaks to the current times that we live in, we aren't going to get it from those clowns.

    1. Of course jeff supports government being the agent to solve his issues. Now everybody mask up and self quarantine before government makes you!

      1. And pass the trough for seconds.

    2. “Tax cuts forever?”

      Lol. If that qualifies as a bad thing right alongside “State run health care?”, you really are hopeless.

      “Radical individualist”, indeed. Haha.

  6. the first paragraph criticizing one side (Republican of course), 2nd paragraph praises the other side (democratic of course, but Newsom?!?!?). But the so called journalist of this piece is bitching about partisanship. How rich!

    1. Greenhut didn't cuddle up to Trump, in hopes of sufficiently boosting Trump's ego enough, such that Greenhut might score some "sloppy seconds" from Trump's Babe, Stormy Daniels. Greenhut sometimes engages in "both sides".

      It PROVES that Greenhut is a MARXIST, dammit!

      1. It's almost like you didn't actually read the article, Sqrlcasmic. Greenhut barely mentions the Trump administration and Libby Terry-Ann doesn't at all.

        Admit it, you're just here to shitpost and troll.

        1. MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer-style, I perfectly refute all that MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer has written by NOT reading it!

          Also I refute MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer's shit by writing GREAT poetry!!!

          The following poetry is dedicated to MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer, AKA, the Chthonic Cunt:

          [Verse 1]
          I am a victim of the slutty age, uh
          A whore of the storm, whoa yeah
          I can't remember when I was your age
          For me, time's no more, no more

          [Chorus]
          Nobody walks these streets at night but MEEE!
          The Chthonic Cunt!

          [Verse 2]
          Whoa yeah, wow
          I am the ruler of these nether worlds
          The underground, whoa yeah
          On every wall and place my slutty name is heard
          Just look around, whoa yeah

          [Chorus]
          Nobody walks these streets at night but MEEE!
          The Chthonic Cunt!

          (Ooo, Ahhh)
          My name is Chthonic Cunt, Twat of Twits,
          Look upon My Yeasty Twat, ye “Mighty”, and despair!

    2. Calling a spade a spade is not partisanship.

      If one side sucks far more than the other it's just speaking truth to it. Sorry to hurt your tender feelings.

      1. Greenhut just wrote an entire article to the contrary.

        He just said "it is not partisanship when I do it.". Or perhaps by corollary, "it is not partisanship when I agree with it.

      2. “If one side sucks far more than the other it's just speaking truth to it. Sorry to hurt your tender feelings.”

        Agreed. Now, which side wants more government control over energy & transportation? Which side has been using the IC and federal law enforcement for political purposes, including lying to FISA to spy on their opponents and having the FBI investigate parents who dare speak out as terrorists? Which side wants control over who can earn a living and who can move freely? Which side wants to take more of my money and give it to their cronies? Which side has a caucus of socialists with outsized control of their party? Which side threatens more regulations if social media doesn’t censor their political opponents? Which side has an army of brownshirts that rioted every night all over the country, doing billions of dollars in damage, while that sides prosecutors allow it in the year leading up to the presidential election? Which side continues to violate their oath to respect the 2nd Amendment?

        But then again, the other side just POUNCED on the current status of millions of young men in a political speech.

        1. And which side has recently demonstrated itself to be a threat to democracy itself? Which side has lusted after replacing democracy with hordes of Trumpanzees gone apeshit, and mobocracy?

          1. “a threat to democracy itself?”

            Lol.

          2. Hey sarc, is there anything in my post that you don’t think applies to Democrats?

            1. I'll let Sarcasmic speak for himself, Satan! (Ooops, sorry I ID-confused you for a second there, R Mac).

              As for me...

              Which side wants control over who can earn a living and who can move freely? Which side wants to take more of my money and give it to their cronies? Which side has a caucus of socialists with outsized control of their party? Which side threatens more regulations if social media doesn’t censor their political opponents?

              As for THESE particular items... Excluding the others, where I suspect the "libs" are more guilty, as you charge... I say... "Both sides!!!" In spades!!!!

              1. I don't speak to R Mac. He's an insult troll who adds nothing of value to any conversation.

                1. Stop talking to yourself.

                2. Yet you speak ABOUT me regularly.

              2. So not gonna answer.

                1. That's true; You hardly EVER honestly answer questions posed to You and Your Fellow Perfect Tribespeople!

                  You brought up "freedom of movement" issues, implying that libs want to control your travels, and conservatives don't. I can think of MANY ways that BOTH parties try to TAX you more, every time you move (state driving licenses and plates, and professional licenses, and more). WTF are YOU blathering about?

                  1. "So not gonna answer."

                    Pot, meet kettle! R Mac, you are an utterly empty-headed troll! Sarcasmic is 120% (or more) correct... You are NOT worth the waste of time in trying to engage you in ANY meaningful exchange of ideas, opinions, or facts, with you, who STILL isn't eating enough "smart pills" from under the rabbit hutch!

                    1. So why respond in the first place then? You typed more bullshit than it would have just taken to answer. That makes you and sarc (but I repeat myself) the trolls, shit eater.

                    2. R Mac / Satan, I answered questions, and you did NOT answer mine! STILL did not! Empty-headed troll! Now FUCK OFF!!!

      3. Prove his point, dude. Prove his point.

    3. This is Greenhut's M.O., we're supposed to pretend he is wise and nod along.

  7. I dont want the government solving my problems. Get the fuck out of here with that.

    1. Section 230 gets Government Almighty our of our hair... Yet you want to kill S230 to get Government Almighty to "solve" your "problems" when your FREE posts get taken DOWN from a site here or there! Lying crybaby!!! WAAAAAAHHH!!!!

    2. How about just stop creating problems?

      1. Yeah, that's the one way government can help. Stop fucking with us.

        1. They need a few billion and a new czar to figure out how to do that.

    3. and it would be nice if they stopped making the problems they created even worse.

    4. Wait till the streets in front of the house is full of snow. You might want that plowed.

      1. Simpsons did it

      2. Right... The National Armed Forced came out and plowed the snow in front of my house too?? WTF! UR retarded.

        The only place the 'feds' have any authority to plow snow is in Washington D.C.

      3. Are you just completely helpless in life? Is that why you need gov't to do everything?

  8. When I call balls and strikes

    The hubris of idiots who think they are the perfect center. Nobody elected greenhut the nations empire. Greenhut has biases. He thinks he does not. He is in fact posturing, what he accuses Hawley of.

    1. Pot calls kettle black BLM monster! More news at 11:00!!!

    2. The full paragraph:

      "When I call balls and strikes—those Supreme Court justice nominations are great, but trying to steal an election endangers our democracy—I'm apparently a sellout. Even though I routinely criticize California's Democratic politicians, I'm thrilled on the rare instances that they advance sensible ideas—such as when Gavin Newsom signed a package of long-overdue police reforms."

      Instead of addressing specific listed issues, Der JesseBahnFuhrer just issues a generalized hissy-fit! "All members of MY tribe ALWAYS right in ALL ways! ALL enemy tribesmembers ALWAYS purely Satan-inspired!"

      Der JesseBahnFuhrer Has Spoken! All hail!

      1. Sarc, why are you so angry and drunk this morning?

        1. JesseBahnFuhrer, why are you so arrogantly wrong this morning?

          (Well duh, you are damned nearly ALWAYS arrogantly wrong!).

      2. And yes. The full paragraph doesn't support him being the nations umpire you ridiculous idiotic drunk. His rationalization of him being the golden mean doesn't make him the actual golden mean you retarded fuck. He just lists what he agrees with as an absolute truth. That is hubris you retarded drunk fuck.

        1. Who, temper, temper, Tantrumish One! And STILL no specifics! WHAT did Greenhut write that you disagree with, and why?

          (OTHER than, NOT enough POWAH for JesseBahnFuhrer and His Perfect Tribe?)

          1. Why do you stroke the master baiter? That's gross.

            1. Creepy when you talk to yourself.

        2. He says "They falsely accuse me of being a sellout for calling balls and strikes." like an abject retard. At least the 'citizen journalists' have the dim awareness and thin technical accuracy to say "They falsely accuse me of being a sellout for calling balls and strikes for no pay."

          Greenhut would hear half a phone conversation consisting of a single word, "Yes." and declare the person to be innocently calling balls and strikes. Wouldn't matter if the other half of the conversation was a mafia don asking, "Would you kill Steve Greenhut for $5,000?" After all, "Yes" is just giving an accurate answer.

      3. When "trying to steal an election" means questioning questionable election results and wanting to make sure they are accurate, and then wanting to put in place common sense safeguards to make sure that in future elections voters are eligible to vote, he's not being as impartial as he thinks he is.

    3. The obliviousness is literally laughable.

      Greenhut may as well have just said he's an honest cop trying to do an honest day's work.

    4. He's a typical libertarian: Stands on the sidelines pretending it's the high ground.

      1. stands on the sidelines.....POSTURING

  9. "Politics Has Too Much Posturing and Not Enough Problem-Solving . . . . During a speech to a conservative group this month, Hawley depicted a decline in masculinity as one of the nation's foremost problems. Really?"

    I don't know if you're entirely aware of this, but our entire government is presently under the control of socialists. Not only is problem-solving the very last thing we need from a government under the control of socialist politicians, but the reason our government came under the control of socialist politicians is because too many people were concerned about the president hurting people's feelings on Twitter and elsewhere.

    Yes, really!

    Actually, I'm giving this Hawley guy a lot of credit for accurately pointing to the true, ultimate source of America's problems--which is what's in the American people's heads. There is a whole list of valid definitions of libertarianism, and one of the better ones is that libertarians are people who don't think politicians are the solution to our problems.

    Libertarianism isn't about Libertarian politicians winning elections to seize the reigns of power and inflict libertarian policies on the unwilling. Because of single member districts and Duverger's law, the path of least resistance for libertarian policies is through persuasion. Once enough of the American people decide they want libertarian policies, the politicians we already have will start falling all over themselves to be more libertarian than each other.

    To whatever extent we associate manliness with taking responsibility for your own problems and solving them yourself--refusing to cry about being a victim of anyone or anything--yeah, we need more manliness in this country from our men. Nothing wrong with using the government to protect your rights, but socialism is for people who are too pathetic and weak to solve their own problems without the government. Time for America's men to stand up and be manly.

    1. Yeah.... Writing an entire article about how right-libertarians and libertarian republicans lack self awareness while loudly shouting that you are entirely devoid of self awareness is hilarious.

    2. Hawley's not entirely wrong, either. Just a quick google search produces tons of papers, articles, opinions, etc, on "gender equality" aimed at young boys in school. A quick read thru of some of the articles shows that they are aimed at essentially feminizing boys from the minute they enter school, with a lot of hyperventilating talk of damaging gender norms, "violence and domination," and other bullshit. The education-industrial complex has built itself around squashing any boy-like impulse out of boys from the earliest opportunity. All the geneder equity material is also focused around demonizing boys, and what boys must be taught NOT to do. Boys must be taught not to sexualize women; girls need not be concerned with sexualizing themselves. In fact, secualizing yourself as a girl is considered empowerment. Boys must be taught "not to rape," as if they have some sort of natural inclination to go around raping girls. But girls don't need to be taught to take responsibility for their own safety. There's a whole host of other anti-boy bullshit being peddled in academia as well.

      1. Jordan Peterson has made an entire career of this issue.

        1. The issue has been in the light well before Peterson was around. Christina Hoff Sommers has been talking and writing about it for decades. Greenhut is biased on this topic, and his disdain for those with whom he disagrees, presented as 'calling balls and strikes,' is risible.

      2. We've got an entire generation of men who spent their childhood doped up on Ritalin because female teachers couldn't tolerate them acting like... boys. When my son was in elementary school 25 years ago the majority of his buddies were on it. Not a single girl. Now people wonder why they can't get their shit together. We can pretend that this is not happening or we can face the fact. At least Hawley is willing to have the conversation.

    3. You can see my disagreement with Greenhut below, but if you look at Hawley's speech, he isn't arguing against the notion that "politicians are the solution to our problems." While he points out several policies in the government that should go away, including CRT and the disastrous Title IX actions under Obama, Hawley also has several policies that are textbook examples of politicians "solving problems".

      These policies include giving tax credits to married couples and command and control economic mandates that require manufacturing to take place inside the US.

      But again, the point here is that Greenhut argues we should be less focused on ideology, and more focused on policies, and then spends an entire article criticizing Hawley's ideological beliefs, while saying nothing about Hawley's policies.

    4. Libertarianism isn't about Libertarian politicians winning elections to seize the reigns of power and inflict libertarian policies on the unwilling.

      Libertarian policies are basically "Hey government, leave me alone." How can that be "inflicted" on people? That word implies injury. The only people injured by libertarian policies would be those who initiate force on others and those who live off of wealth redistribution.

      Libertarianism is not an infliction, rather it's an absence of infliction.

      1. But quarantine camps forced on citizens is all good right?

        1. Where the fuck did he say that? Geez, if you can't even argue honestly......

          1. That's why I've got the jackass on mute. All he does is accuse me of things I never said nor did, and then call me a liar when I attempt to set the record straight. There is nothing honest at all about JesseAz. He's best left on mute.

            1. Lol. So youre saying you haven't called the forced government camps quarantine camps a few times over the last 2 weeks?

              Dishonest shit.

              Bevis, this is the shit youre defending out of ignorance. A known liar. Good work buddy.

          2. He has done it multiple times dummy.

            https://reason.com/2021/11/24/ahmaud-arbery-alleged-murderers-almost-escaped-charges-prosecutorial-misconduct-jackie-johnson-george-barnhill/?comments=true#comment-9228119

            A few days ago he was also defending them as just quarantine camps.

            Why are you defending him dumbass? Especially doing so from ignorance.

          3. Sarc is a chronic drunk who can't keep up with his shitposting socks.

            He defends fascism on the left multiple times a day anf then tries to weasel back with bowf sidez.

      2. well said (trying to move down the enemies list a bit)

        1. I don't have enemies. Well, they may consider me to be an enemy. I just think of them as attention whores who use lies to bait people into responding. IOW losers.

          1. Lol. Self awareness is not a traits you possess.

    5. Libertarianism isn't about Libertarian politicians winning elections to seize the reigns (sic) of power and inflict libertarian policies on the unwilling.

      That would be nice though, for once.

    6. I agree. Modern boys are, predominantly, noodle-wristed sissies. And its not just pthalates and other chemicals leading to the development of Sarc's microdick, it's a culture as well.

      Karens have been cursing "toxic masculinity" so long that a whiff of chest hair is gulag-worthy. Never mind all the other positive masculine traits, the whole thing has been conflated with our paralyzing cultural fear of the slightest violence.

      And honestly, allowing some fights would be good for civil conversations... People keep a more civil tongue after the first asskicking. Works for kids and adults.

      1. our paralyzing cultural fear of the slightest violence

        Which somehow manages to coexist with excusing / ignoring serious violence by certain actors.

  10. Politics Has Too Much Posturing and Not Enough Problem-Solving Problem-Solving has too much political posturing.

    Politics is not the source of problem-solving.

    1. And most libertarians don't need to be reminded of that!

    2. Politics solves the the problems of... Not enough lopsided power-allocations to MEEEEE and My Tribe!!! (Which is, of course, always right, for ALL of the Right Reasons.)

  11. Is water still wet?

  12. Oh, and Fuck Joe Biden.

    1. Fucking Brandon...

  13. I don't know how much of a crisis of masculinity there really is. But the idea that there is something inherently wrong or toxic about masculinity has certainly gained some currency in recent years. I don't think it's something that can just be dismissed.

    1. Not just that masculinity is toxic, but that it is the sole source of any/all toxins and that anything else is the antidote.

      Nothing at all toxic about Sebold mistakenly identifying her rapist and a system, well before Weinstein even assaulted anyone, feeling pressured to #believeallwomen and #catchallrapists, and then a population at large slopping up her rape-fantasy memoir. Just the inherent toxicity of boys being boys.

      1. You are being kind. I am willing to say she may have mistakenly identified Broadwater, but it seems as likely that she decided that someone needed to pay for what she considered her pain. And here was a black man she could victimize at no cost to her. This is true toxicity, the vindictiveness and destructiveness of grievance feminism.

        1. I am willing to say she may have mistakenly identified Broadwater

          She identified someone other than Broadwater. They decided Broadwater had to pay for her pain.

          This is true toxicity, the vindictiveness and destructiveness of grievance feminism.

          I could agree that it's a related instantiation, but Emmett Till, Jackie Coakley, Emma Sulkowicz, ENB's warped views of female/human agency, thousands of girls committing suicide because of Instagram... are more sterling examples of the true toxicity.

          1. They decided Broadwater had to pay for her pain.

            'They' being her and the people around her, not the other person she misidentified.

      2. Femininity can be toxic too, but we can't talk about that.

        1. Wait a week.

  14. This is another bizarre article where Mr Greenhut attempts to redefine words and meanings in a sloppy way to ideologically paint people as villains in his passion play. I first noticed this when Mr Greenhut tried to assure us that "authoritarianism is exemplified by ...refusal to embrace facts".

    https://reason.com/2021/08/13/conservatives-are-asking-you-to-disbelieve-your-own-eyes/

    So having redefined what authoritarianism is, Greenhut is now here to tell us that he is mad at Senator Hawley because he isn't looking to get "good public policy." No, Hawley evidently wants to only talk ideology.

    And what is Greenhut's evidence? Well, you see, Greenhut laments that in a stump speech, Hawley lamented an attack on masculinity. You would think that Greenhut disagrees that there is such an attack...but no, Greenhut actually agrees: "There's a legitimate argument that, say, a rapidly changing economy, a government-run educational system that sees college (rather than trades) as the one-size-fits-all approach and the spread of government-assistance programs, has led many men into a life of idleness, substance abuse, and despair. That pox has devastated some poor and working-class communities."

    So Greenhut agrees. But Hawley is wrong to bring this up because...uh....reasons? "The populist right has long had a weird, almost adolescent view of manliness," says Greenhut. Proof? Greenhut doesn't have time for proof. He says, "Hawley is using it to bludgeon his opponents and accuse them of attacking half the population. He takes a serious societal conundrum and turns it into a political battle cry rather than a search for practical solutions."

    So what is the real problem here? If you read Hawley's speech, he points out several very specific policies pushed in the Obama era that he believes are dangerous to masculinity. These include Title IX, CRT, and policies that discourage marriage. But to Greenhut, this doesn't count, because Hawley blames Democrats for these policies.

    So again we have more of Greenhut's sloppy reasoning. Was the Dear Colleague letter from the Obama Admin on Title IX a bad policy or not? Greenhut doesn't want to answer that- just say it is wrong to point out that it was Democrats who pushed it. Is CRT a bad thing or not? Greenhut doesn't want to argue those merits, because Hawley is an icky populist.

    What is so ironic about the article is that Greenhut is doing *exactly* what he blames Hawley of doing, and he doesn't see it. Greenhut thinks he is somehow above criticism because he supports democrats when they put out a policy he likes. But here is Hawley suggesting policy changes that should address a problem Greenhut agrees is serious, and Greenhut wants to argue style over substance.

    I don't agree with Hawley's policy proposals, including "requiring that half of all goods in the US are manufactured in our borders." But see, that is me arguing the merits of policy. But instead of arguing policy, Greenhut wants to paint Hawley as wrong because of his ideology...you know exactly the thing Greenhut was complaining about. It is such a bizarre case of the pot calling the kettle black that one wonders who the hell is reading Greenhut's article proposals down here at the OC Register.

    Between Greenhut's attempts to redefine "Authoritarian" and this bizarre attempt to attack the ideology of conservatives for being too focused on ideology, Greenhut is giving mounting evidence that he lacks the intellectual chops to find the right way to criticize the populist streak in Republican politics. He throws around "Authoritarian" and "Ideologue" like some on the left throw around "Racist"...not to actually describe something as racist or authoritarian, but to end any debate by labeling it as untouchable.

    1. Shorter Overt: Greenhut sez, "Republicans Pounce".

      1. No it is more, "Greenhut haz a sad because everyone wants to talk ideology instead of policy, and as proof he criticizes Hawley's ideology instead of the policies in his speech."

    2. And it is an ideological struggle we're talking about.

      1. An ideological struggle to what end? To fuck shit up?

        Our political elite(lol) are certainly good at accomplishing that.

    3. Greenhut is giving mounting evidence that he lacks the intellectual chops to find the right way to criticize the populist streak in Republican politics.
      There's only a 100 percent chance that he hasn't actually spoken to anyone who does consider themselves populist, so it's unsurprising that he argued against a caricature.

    4. Good analysis Overt. Lots of headlines trashing Josh Hawley in Reason these days and damn few about say Anthony Fauci or Covid camps in Australia or maybe the well documented Clinton/Obama attempts to use the FBI to bring down an elected president. I don't know much about Hawley and considering the fact that Republicans have zero power at the federal level until at least 2023 I'm not going to waste time worrying about him at this point. So I can only assume that all of the Hawley bashing is meant to generate clicks. And it's pretty obvious which side those clicks will come from.

  15. "Don't you know that politics is binary?" conservative friends would ask whenever I criticized some misbegotten Trump administration policy (e.g., tariffs). In their view, Republicans always are better on balance than the Democrats, so I need to join their side and fight—even when they promote idiocy. To partisans, it's always about winning the next election.

    You're friends with Ken?

    1. Aww, bowf sidez?

  16. Being a bitch never got anyone anywhere in life. Masculinity is ridiculous, until you are face to face with Russian shock troops and tranny manning the mortars is frozen in a flaccid panic because her penis is infected.

    1. Go wolverines.

    2. Or you can look at the declining birth rates in Europe and now the US and compare these with nations where men are still men like most of Africa and South America.

      1. All brawn, no brain? No good. All brain, no brawn? No good. Brain and brawn? Good.

        Freedom depends on brain and brawn, so it should not be shocking that our totalitarian overlords are intent upon diminishing both characteristics in the population among men.

        1. we can always build robots

          1. That's what I'm doing.

        2. Seems like there are pretty significant risks associated with encouraging intelligence. Bit of a tightrope – encourage IQ yet avoid the temptations of reason.

          e.g. it's not exactly hard to see through "election was stolen from me" – if you encourage warriors to use their brains will you retain sufficient ability to manipulate in pursuit of power?

          1. People who think that intelligence correlates with reaching certain ideological conclusions are the stupidest of all.

            1. Perhaps. Up there in the rankings for sure. Arguably there is another level we should reserve for those who think that objective or empirical assessments of reality are inherently ideological and can be labeled and rejected as such.

              1. Those people usually have no clue where they left reality.

      2. would appreciate you flagging comments like this with a trigger warning. You completely kicked in my racial replacement panic.

    3. "Being a bitch never got anyone anywhere in life."

      Kamala Harris is VP...

  17. One caveat - it's politicians who ought to play a role in digging us out of the hold they and their corporate buddies dug. Corporate statism.

    Or I should say, it's people who ought to tell the politicians "we no longer want these policies, we want policies to get rid of the existing policies."

    If you see what I mean.

  18. Josh sure looks like the ideal masculine man in that picture.

  19. Booothsideeeeees! (But of course those damn conservatives... they're the worst!!!)

    1. Good observation. It's not like he ripped into progressives for government spending and inflation. He totally ignored those things and only talked about conservatives.

      1. Right, rather than dismissively referring to a vague collective group of Democrats, he called them out by name and explicitly excoriated each one and in relative measure to the harm or expense their enacted or inevitably to-be-enacted policies caused. Then once he got done with that, he managed to eek out a sentence that only incidentally, even maybe on accident, named Josh Hawley, very thoroughly documented the harm and cost his anti-anti-masculinist bill has caused and will cause, and passively admonished him for the relative harm his bill would do.

        Oh no, wait, he did the opposite of that. Almost like he's not calling balls and strikes but saying foul balls by one player are unacceptable to the sport of baseball while simultaneously saying the rest of the league might have to own up to the consequences of spending billions on hitters using corked bats, loading up on steroids, betting on games, and threatening to pack the field with umpires.

        1. Another good point. Just because the author was writing about a speech by a particular individual doesn't the author should have only mentioned that individual. The author should have called out all the Democrats bad guys by name. Only mentioning the individual who he was writing about is totally unfair.

          1. Sarcastic, these guys are proving the point of the article but their brains are too corrupted by partisanship to understand that.

            1. When did you start stanning for an ignorant leftist like sarc? Are you another true believer in being the golden mean? Hint. You aren't.

          2. This is one of the axioms of the Reason comment board:

            Any criticism of a Republican must be accompanied by an equal if not greater criticism of a Democrat.

            1. Anyone who criticizes a Republican is a Democrat. Thus libertarians are Democrats because we criticize Republicans.

              1. Anyone who says politics is the problem and then names republicans by name for speeches they made and then says leaves leftists to answer to other forces for the consequences of their policies is part of the problem.

                1. So you're confirming jeff's axiom. Gotcha.

                  1. Drink less paint thinner you blind fuckwit.

              2. Anyone who defends Democrats against any and every charge, no matter how serious or how slight, is a Democrat.

                That being you.

            2. What I love is the following logic:
              - If someone criticizes democrats for saying/doing anti-libertarian things they are cheered on with some kind of inanity like "preach it"
              - If someone criticizes republicans for saying/doing anti-libertarian things they are excoriated for only attacking republicans (i.e. they must be secret democrats in disguise)
              - If someone criticizes democrats and republicans both, but criticizes democrats more heavily, they will be met with "BOAF SYDES"
              - If someone criticizes democrats and republicans both, but criticizes republicans more heavily, then it's an endless parade "whatabout"-ism of all the awful things democrats have done
              - If someone criticizes democrats and republicans in exactly equal measure they are attacked as useless libertarian zealots who cannot appreciate that one side (republicans) is better than the other.
              - And of course, if, instead of attacking democrats or republicans being terrible, someone starts talking about what actual libertarian ideas or candidates they would prefer then it's derisively mocked for being impractical and unelectable. Third parties are deeeeaaaad.

              One might almost get the impression that something less than objective is going on here.

              1. “One might almost get the impression that something less than objective is going on here.”

                Well said.

                1. It's easy to see when you're on the sidelines. But to those on the field everything is totally objective.

              2. Except none of that happens, and instead we get a circlejerk to the left with the resident drunk, pederast and their collective crusty socks.

                So yeah... Bowf sidez boyo.

          3. Just because the author was writing about a speech by a particular individual

            So we agree that he was whining that Hawley has a right to free speech.

            1. Um, no. The only whining I see is from people mad that the author criticized their party without sufficiently criticizing the other party.

              1. So are you blind to party or is that just a lie you spout when you're shitfaced?

                1. Both parties are terrible. Republicans suck slightly less, but "slightly less terrible than completely terrible" isn't a ringing endorsement.

                  1. They suck less but deservr 98% of your ire and comments? What the actual fuck? Biden is the most anti libertarian president in a century. And a grave threat to future liberty bur you only bitch about the guy who gave lower regulations and taxes. Do you see why people call you a leftist? You only attack one side often in seemingly g defense of the left. Because you do this on any articl

                    1. Article critical of the left with histrionic strawman shit. Lying about your opponents who recognize the left is far worse, not just slightly. Nothing on the right comes close to GND you ignorant shit. Nothing on the right comes close to cultural marxism. Youre blind because you're mad at conservatives or those you perceive as such pointing out your hypocritical bullshit.

              2. Through your mystical political third eye, which party is the 'masculine speech party' and which side is the 'pro-spending party'?If both sides are the 'pro-spending party' is Greenhut's 'anti-masculine speech party' the libertarian party?

                1. What kind of dressing do you put on your word salad?

                  1. My apologies for using two sentences in the same post.

                  2. If both sides are the pro-spending parties, what party is Greenhut's 'anti-masculine speech party'?

  20. Hey Hawley, George Carlin was ranting about the "pussification of the American male" over thirty years ago. You're a little late to the party.

    1. And yet still wrong?

    2. Adam Carolla wrote a whole book on the topic. "in 50 years we will all be chicks"

      As events developed more quickly, he went on to claim he was right on the whole, but off in the timing by about 48 yeas.

  21. Think it really depends where you live. Sure, in some places like SF and Brooklyn, you have a few parents raising their kids to be non-binary, but most boys are still boys. The problems come later when they get shut out of educational and job opportunities because girls do better in school and the service economy favors women.

  22. A Freudian slip by Communist Reason. Libertarians don't look to government for problem solving. Government is the problem.

    1. It's not a Freudian slip when the next several paragraphs charge that Hawley is beyond the pale for his personal views and passively admit that his peers might have to answer for the negative consequences of their enacted policies.

      And to think that I used to get chided about my ability to grind an axe.

    2. So then, no point in Biden easing up his restrictions on drilling for oil and gas so as to increase domestic supply. That would undo some of his fuckups that have contributed to inflation. A lot.

      But nope, that would be the government doing something to solve a problem (that they caused). Can't have that.

      1. Double digit IQ provides us comedy!

        Thanks, bevis

      2. So, he’s going for the bandaid, kick the can down the road measure of releasing some oil from reserves.

      3. You do realize those things are the solving what the climate warriors(which plenty of people writing for this magazine voted into office) consider a problem right?

        1. Of course I realize that. Unfortunately the climate warriors are mostly full of shit. Also unfortunately, our current overlords aren’t capable of discerning that.

      4. You do not get points for fixing a mess you made. It merely subtracts existing demerits.

        My three year old understands this.

    3. Not so unless one is an anarchist libertarian. I would like effective, competent minimalist government, not anarchy.

      1. Me too. But granting permits and allowing pipelines to be built isn’t anarchist. It’s just letting the market work.

        Biden:

        1. Wants supply reduced to increase prices and reduce hydrocarbon use so he makes changes to affect that.
        2. Bitches at the oil companies when he accomplishes his purpose.
        3. Celebrates and brags when gasoline drops enough to save people 25 cents a tank.

        The magnitude of the stupidity and dishonesty is mind boggling.

        1. Don't disagree, but not sure what your comment has to do with "A Freudian slip by Communist Reason. Libertarians don't look to government for problem solving. Government is the problem."

          1. that is because you are very dumb.

  23. Mr. Greenhut, it's one thing to umpire a game, and another to pick a lineup for your team. The question is, which job needs doing here? I think the audience here can be assumed to recognize the obvious balls and strikes. What we need is a scouting report on who to call up from the minor leagues to assemble our team.

  24. Shorter Greenhut: "Both sides!"

    Yes, it's easy to find examples of crazy in both parties, but you need to ask yourself if these examples are outliers, or if they are the coordinated policy aim of the majority of that party, and what the magnitude of the impact is on the budget deficit, the tax burden, the national debt, and basic constitutional rights.

    1. No, I do not. I can reject both major parties out of hand for not coming close to meeting my minimum standards. Also, I do not live in a swing state, so I effectively have no voice in national politics, anyway.

      1. But you have discovered that Dem grundles are more to your flavor, though you TRY to remain an impartial, moderate totalitarian progshit to equitably call bowf sidez.

  25. Hawley's not wrong he's just a terrible pitchman

    1. If he's so bad at pitching, how'd he get into office?

      1. know thy customer

      2. meh. Missouri's (R) party is not a national endorsement ... dude comes off like (R)AOC

      3. Maybe he’s a decent catcher?

    2. Hawley's been wrong and it was correct to criticize him on those points/acts. Criticizing him for his speech does not advance a libertarian ideology and undermines the past and future credibility of even correct criticism.

  26. Reason again failing to understand the central cultural role of grievance signaling.

    How are beta males going to signal the degree to which they are victims – and the depth of their desire to find a safe place in hierarchy beneath someone they admire as alpha – if you dismiss posturing as frivolous? This is essentially contributing to the significant oppression individuals like Hawley already face in society.

    1. You've found plenty of ways to signal your grievance though

      1. lol. In fairness I do try to state it pretty plainly.

  27. Sure, Hawley is a blowhard and possibly only paying lip service to the issue, but I think Greenhut fails to accurately identify what that issue is. The real issue is bullying.

    Regardless of whether people were more less civil (i.e., less partisan) in the past, which I not convinced is true, at least there was an understanding that 'getting in someone's face' would get you pushed back. Today, with a camera in everyone's pockets, those willing to drive a narrative can easily do so, and pushing back will get you cancelled, if not arrested. They start filming when the reaction takes place, purposefully neglecting to show the incitement.

    People who are behaving assertively, the proper reaction in civil discourse, are particularly susceptible to this kind of provocation because assertiveness means escalating only after the other party escalates. It is a planned political tactic to engage in bullying in order to make civil people look like bullies when they react. Hence we see Boomers driving around handing out bricks.

    Remember being taught that the best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them? So do many other men and women. And they are all tired of the real bullies garnering sympathy by contriving to portray themselves as victims.

    Watch the videos of Rittenhouse the night of the shooting. Do you see him bullying anyone? Nope. All he does is assert that he will defend himself, which is why he gets targeted by bullies. Bullies who, because they are ignorant bullies, don't expect real resistance. When he actually stands up to said bullies, suddenly he is a racist murderer? Fuck that.

    Hawley's only mistake is attributing the angst to only men.

    1. the real bullies garnering sympathy by contriving to portray themselves as victims

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crybully

      1. From the comments on a Minneapolis Star Tribune op-ed re: Ilhan Omar: "Omar attacks others while complaining on being attacked."
        The op-ed itself is a fine example of the crybully tactic.

  28. During a speech to a conservative group this month, Hawley depicted a decline in masculinity as one of the nation's foremost problems. Really?

    *shrug*

    Here's one of the world’s leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologists and a professor of environmental medicine and public health on this subject. I'm sure Hawley is clumsy about the issue, and is probably politicizing something that appears to be measurably happening scientifically. And I'm sure his (non)solutions are as dumb as any politicians. But it's happening, and unfortunately for conservatives (and libertarians) we might need to get control of Phthalates to reverse it.

    1. I'm not going to sit through an entire video while a woman espouses her toxically feminine nonsense about men's reproductive rights.

      1. You've got nothing to worry about. Nobody would accuse you of lacking in masculine virtues.

      2. Seen this one before, she's informative and unintentionally funny. Worth watching.

    2. Doesn't Hawley talk about the disappearance of 'masculine virtues' as the problem rather than something biochemical? There will be resistance to getting control over phthalates for the same reason some resist doing something about CO2 in the atmosphere: why sacrifice our standard of living for some pointy headed scientific stuff?

      These chemicals also seem to affect frogs too. I read about an observation of a male frog being transformed into a female frog with full reproductive capabilities after exposure. With humans it's not so dramatic. Only a world wide reduction in sperm counts and other undesirable consequences.

      1. Definitely clear evidence pthalates affect sperm count. I don't think Hawley mentioned fertility though, just other commenters.

        1. He didn't mention fertility, but it probably is a variable in the seeming decline of masculinity writ large.

          1. Population growth rates mostly reflect poverty and women's access to reproductive health care and birth control, it's not that the men in say Africa are more masculine (though of course white rightists have a long history of panicking – and according to pornhub, pulling up related search terms – on the topic.)

            But perhaps the tie to testosterone affects more real aspects of masculine traits.

            1. Sigh, that was unnecessary. I'll suspend myself for a bit...

      2. Doesn't Hawley talk about the disappearance of 'masculine virtues' as the problem rather than something biochemical?

        If you believe that "masculine virtues" may actually extend, at some level from biology, (like womanhood might actually be real, maaan) then he may be on to something. If Adam Carolla says that "in 50 years, we'll all be chicks" he may be right, even if accidentally.

        1. "we'll all be chicks"

          Male and female budgie chicks are sometimes impossible to distinguish. And I don't count having a high sperm count as a virtue. It's better than a low sperm count, but there's nothing particularly virtuous about it, aside from the whole boxer short thing.

          1. JFC, you add nothing to the conversation.

  29. Hawley depicted a decline in masculinity as one of the nation's foremost problems. Really?

    Greenhut depicted a Senator depicting a decline in masculinity as one of the nation's foremost problems. Really?

    Q.E.D.

    1. They're both wrong. The nation's foremost problem is Q-anon.

      While he is awaiting the return of JFK Jr., the Times does not believe (at this time) that any crimes have been committed. But they will be monitoring the situation. State lines, however, were crossed.

      1. I thought it was PCR test mandates... the tyranny of big gov't shoving that q-tip up our noses.

        So many nation's foremost problems though, makes my head spin.

        1. Three generations of imbeciles is enough.

      2. Arguably the white supremacists who show up at Area 54 every so often are a greater threat to our beloved democratic institutions. But I did learn from the link that there is a whole new area of inquiry that has produced Qanon experts. How exactly you turn that expertise into a paycheck I don't know.

    2. lol

    3. Greenhut has made it clear that he wants to see big, bold legislative action.

      None of that wussy appeal to voluntarism. That's for libertarians, not for Greenhut!

  30. Getting the government away from posturing and back to solving problems means getting the centers of both parties back in control. Josh Hawley talks about things like masculinity because it is easier than doing actual work. He not alone and there are people on both sides of the aisle doin this same thing with their own pet issues.

    1. I suppose it comes down to whether there are more voters who enjoy the team sports aspect of Red vs Blue, or more who are growing disgusted with it all and would like some adults in charge and some competent governance.

    2. No, even that wouldn't really work. You would still have the Democratic center posturing against the Republican center.

      No, the problem is posturing wins elections, actually solving real problems doesn't.

      If you want to eliminate posturing from politics, we don't need better politicians, we need better voters.

    3. Josh Hawley talks about things like masculinity because it is easier than doing actual work.

      On this we agree. Talking about "systemic racism" is easier than addressing the real problems. Everyone has a politician we like to make fun of. On the right, we have Josh Hawley, on the left we have... well, everyone else.

  31. It's funny... just saw David French wrote an article about the right's "false" masculinity too.
    Seems the talking points have gone out.

    1. They barely even try to hide the coordination. Chris Cuomo's firing story was almost word-for-word identical on AP, Fox and NPR.

  32. Just to be clear, am I seeing a purportedly libertarian magazine with an article advocating for a much more actively interfering government monolith? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

    1. Didn't really see "much more actively interfering" but feel free to highlight the passage. I suspect this is just the ongoing conflict between the older concepts – reason, virtue, small-l libertarianism – with cap-l Libertarianism which is often just a masquerade for far right conservatism. There tends to be a lot of co-opting of terms like "libertarian" and "skeptic" because people want to slipstream on the positive historical meanings of those terms (while often actively opposing the actual concepts.)

      1. All actions the government takes are by definition interfering. Whether interfering with other parts of the government, corporations, or individuals it's still interference. By advocating for more "problem solving" you are advocating for a more active government interference, and unless you have some way to guarantee the direction that interference goes, and with the current people in power the answer to that is a RESOUNDING no, advocating for a more active government goes in the category of REALLY FUCKING STUPID.

        1. "All actions the government takes are by definition interfering"

          No, that's not the definition.

          Providing infrastructure for contract law, for example, accelerates market activity vs. "interfere" with it. Laws that prevent one citizen from murdering another (or not dumping toxic pollutants on one another) promote and enable what we mean in the U.S. founder framing by liberty, they don't interfere with it.

          Doesn't make government good, but it's not really one black and white thing, the black and white ideas are mostly constructs of ideologies, causes and tribes.

          1. At which point did I say all interference is bad? Some forms of interference, like those you use as examples, provide better outcomes. Doesn't change the fact that unless you can guarantee the direction the interference goes in advocating for a more actively interfering government goes in the category of fucking stupid. At least if it's slow you have a chance to get in front of the bad interference and push back.

  33. "We need men who will shoulder responsibility"

    I mean, not for grandstanding on horsesh*t 'stolen election' claims to egg on credulous followers to attack the Capitol in order to boost political standing, but you know, not be responsible in a loud and visible way.

    1. Except the exact words were more like "go home in peace..." But yeah, brilliant to incite a mob with that to storm the hallowed halls of democracy and steal Pelosi's lectern. I mean the election. With violence.

      Because Brandon winning more 11th hour votes than Obama while Trump posted gains in minorities greater than any other Republican makes perfect sense. It's even more of a clear and honest victory when you can't challenge the results and everyone hid their Biden signs and flags.

      I am convinced, my friend. CNN has explained everything.

  34. I’d think some sections of DC, Chicago, and Baltimore could actually use a little less macho.

    1. Ah, but it's only some people's toxic masculinity that needs to be checked!

  35. At the very foundation of it all sits the [WE] gun-gang mentality (unlimited democracy). When Gov-Guns have unlimited Gun-Force over everyone's lives it's only common-sense that the most in DEMAND resource for people will be Gov-Guns.

    It's like watching the USSR fall all over again. Greenhut is right that the, "The politics of victimization, whether it comes from conservatives or liberals, has become so tiresome."

    The fact that after decades of consistent lefty victimization wheeling the power of Gov-Guns for entitlements Greenhut only finds it a problem when a single member of the right starts to play the game is a question of Greenhuts prejudice [WE] gang affiliation on full display.

    1. ...and the seed that planted the foundation of destruction?

      "Sell your individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don't own YOU -- [WE] own you!"

  36. It's all but completely illegal to be a male in America right now unless you're homo. I demand that it's a disruptive conspiracy. No where else in the world are women as free in America and nowhere else in the world are they as radicalized either. Feminists catholics and lbgtqxyz are all behaving as fascists, enemy combatants, and terrorist insurgents complete with propaganda and radicalising criminals. They attack all our civil rights and all our natural rights the whole while fueling the hard narcotic trade and prostitution. They attack the first amendment to protect pederast heroin cartel and smugglers. They riot and revolt the whole time they try to completely deny the right of self defense. It's absolute madness. There are people trying to kill us. How did Americans get to be so sheltered? South America threatened to flood us if we tried to put up the south smuggler invader stopping border wall. We shouldn't even be required to prove our citizenship in order to vote. It's madness and it needs to stop. Let roe v wade be sacrificed on a hillside for all to see I say. In no way shape or form was it ever a core American founding principle.

    1. Watching the left defend Islam and its treatment of women was the last shred of belief I had in Dems not being flaming hypocrites.

  37. Sorry, government has way too much problem solving too. Most of it revolves around 'solving' problems created by prior 'solutions'.

  38. With the 1971 Nixon law subsidizing looter candidates, posturing evidently suffices to solve the remaining problems those politicians care about.

  39. Politics Has Too Much Posturing and Not Enough Problem-Solving
    During a speech to a conservative group this month, Hawley depicted a decline in masculinity as one of the nation's foremost problems. Really?

    Apparently, Reason prefers more top-down legislation and less voluntary changes and less persuasion.

    You know, like your typical progressive.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.