Kim Kardashian's Love of Lower Taxes and Individual Rights Has Made Her Politically Homeless

It's a fairly benign thing to say. And yet it's a landmine in our media landscape.


Whether you love her or you're sick to death of hearing about her, Kim Kardashian is, by every meaningful definition of the word, an "influencer." So I was struck by a snippet in her recent interview with Bari Weiss, the New York Times staffer turned Substacker. Asked if she identifies as a Democrat, Kardashian said: "I believe in the rights that the Democrats want, but I believe in the taxes that the Republicans want….I'm a mix of both."

It's a fairly benign thing to say. Or at least it should be: About four in 10 Americans identify as political independents. And yet it's a landmine in our media landscape, where there isn't much room for the politically homeless. Instead we're encouraged to conform to a polarized, nuance-free, one-size-fits-all approach. Her comment to Weiss hasn't attracted much attention yet; it'll be interesting to see if it gets much pushback.

Because if any woman can get away with saying that—and perhaps even teach people it's OK to buck the status quo—it's Kardashian, whose whole life is a lesson in how to leverage the media. She isn't just one of the many influencers flooding Instagram; in some sense, she was the first.

Kardashian's political views have been the subject of tabloid gossip for years, particularly as her then-husband Kanye West transitioned from a supporter of former President Barack Obama to a figure aligned with former President Donald Trump. Kardashian herself raised eyebrows when she worked with Trump in her efforts around criminal justice reform. That ultimately culminated in her convincing the president to release Alice Marie Johnson, a nonviolent drug offender who received a life sentence without parole. But many people took her willingness to associate with Trump as a blanket endorsement of everything he did—another indication of our broken, fragmented approach to both politics and media.

"I really don't care about the criticism," she told Weiss. "I mean, my reputation over someone's life? Destroy me then. I really don't care. It was not even an option."

Kardashian has gotten quite a bit of flak over her career. A great deal of that, in my view, stems from the fact that she achieved omnirelevance without a traditional path. She was neither a movie star nor a singer. Instead, she carved out something new: influencing.

Being politically homeless isn't new, but it's certainly out of fashion. And if Kardashian has done one thing in her career, it's put things in vogue.

NEXT: Cops Held Two Innocent Boys at Gunpoint, Forced Them to Lie on the Ground, Handcuffed Them, and Searched Them. That's Fine, the 8th Circuit Said.

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. I believe in the rights that the Democrats want


    1. She can. She just can't to choose to kill randomly after 5 montgs w it. She uses surrogates anyways.

      1. ◄ WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►
        ★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek 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. Actually the Roe V Wade court decided what "rights her vagina has" (a phrase so stupid repeating it makes me feel retarded), and they were explicit: Those rights aren't unlimited.

      1. Roe v. Wade still didn't make it murder. And I feel intelligence-inhanced in saying that.

        1. Roe v wade left it up to the state lost viability, confirmed further in Casey.

          1. Augmented might be better.

    3. How many babies reside in a vaginia, you physically and scientifically illiterate stooge?

      1. Parroting the "My Vagina" dialog chant of myriad protestors isn't being illiterate it's paraphrasing the illiterate. It's only polite to make a distinction that one can paraphrase an idiot without actually being an idiot.

        1. None of which is to say they aren't an idiot regardless of whether they actually are or not. Besides, last I checked vagina's aren't actually a sentient entity so it can't have any more rights than a thumbnail.

      2. Women. Turn them upside down and they all look the same.

    4. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

  2. influencing for good. bueno.

  3. Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.


    1. A little too close to home, eh?

      1. "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

        Weird. He hated socialism and didn't yell both sides

        1. This insight of Bastiat's should be called The Socialist Fallacy. He would say "Both Sides" when it factually applies, which, of course, is not a fallacy.

          1. I love when people speak for dead people. Makes their arguments rock solid.

            He had many essays directed solely at socialism and communists.

            1. Well, there were many flavors of Socialism and more broadly Statism, both in Bastiat's time and now. And Bastiat clearly spoke against all of them in The Law and especially against Mercantillism in his other economic works.

              1. Yes, but unlike sarcs assertion he didnt write both sides arguments in everything he wrote. He would in fact focus at times on what he felt was the biggest threat, it often being socialism. He didn't scream both sides.

  4. Good for her, glad she can think for herself.

    She was neither a movie star nor a singer. Instead, she carved out something new: influencing.

    Um...Billy no matter how you spin it, blowjobs aren't something new.

    1. It's how kamala Harris became an influencer

      1. If only Monica had been a WOC.

        1. If only the body positivity movement had been a thing then she could have victimized herself into not just fame but fortune as well.

        2. I think you misspelled WOKE. Oh wait.

    2. She was a copy cat. Release a sex tape. Claim you didn't. And then, monetize your ego.

  5. "I believe in the rights that the Democrats want, but I believe in the taxes that the Republicans want….I'm a mix of both."

    Unfortunately, the " mix of both" that most Americans seem to fit is, "I want all the free shit that both the Democrats and Republicans promise but I'm not willing to pay taxes at the level that are needed to actually provide them."

    I've often said on this forum that you can have Swedish levels of benefits if you are willing to pay Swedish levels of taxation. It turned out that even the Swedes were not willing to pay "Swedish levels of taxation." In their favor, when faced with reality, Swedes accepted cuts in benefits along with cuts in tax rates.

    I see no such willingness in the American body politic.

    1. Doesn't matter what the American body politic actually wants. Only matters what the Deep State can convince them to vote for.

      We don't even live in that majority-rule tyranny known as a democracy. We live in an elitocracy.

      1. Paranoia runs deep.

        1. your idiocy does as well.

      2. Hillary isn't on this forum. Is she?

    2. Here in Colorado, we have been watching The People elect Democrats to state and federal offices, and then rejecting taxes on multiple state initiatives. Its almost like their choice of party and candidate derives from some idealistic emotion, but their choice of tax level is more practical.

      1. You are always most conservative on what you know. You may not know shit about icky guns or icky homeless people. But you sure as fuck know what gets taken out of your paycheck.

        1. Funny you should say that. My two nephews were both indoctrinated to liberalism and all the politically correct outpourings of that, in their early college years. One to an extreme and, even though he was a white, middle class kid, aligned himself with several non-white, minority groups on campus and campaigned for all sorts of leftist agenda items along with them.

          The, he finally started working. And he demanded to know what all this was that was being taken from his paycheck. He was just shocked that a government could do this.

          Sadly, although his leftist leanings have moderated, he's finished law school and is clerking for some state level, leftist politician these days. He'll never learn.

      2. Repeat a million times: "Spoiler votes brought prohibition and the income tax, but that was then. Now they are wasted and repeal nothing." A public service ratcheting announcement from Both Looter Kleptocracy Parties.

    3. Democrats don't seem real keen on protecting individual rights these days:
      Free speech? Only if it's not too hateful or too whatever-phobic or not deemed misinformation this week.
      Due process? Depends on which mostly peaceful protest you participated in.
      Smoking? And drive up our single payer health care costs?
      Running your own restaurant? When people might get sick?
      Medical decisions? Get the jab, or face the consequences.

    4. A new party offered Weimar Germany a mix of both. A religious conservative return to school prayer, persecuting Jews and invading other countries PLUS socialist regimentation, fines, taxes and confiscation and the usual racial collectivism. People voted for it!

      1. Nailed it. Even if the Nazi comparison is so overused.

        1. I actually knew a couple of Germans that lived through it. One, very, very young and heavily influenced by the party takeover of the schools. Although he lived here in the U.S. he hated Americans because their military bombed and destroyed Berlin (his hometown) towards the end of the war and he couldn't accept that.

          The other was already in college when they invaded Poland. He was a brilliant student who wanted to be an engineer. They forced him into hard labor. Then, because he had learned to fly, they forced him into the Luftwaffe to train pilots. He knew what was coming. So, he stole an airplane and flew to Switzerland.

          He wanted to come to the U.S. but could not gain admittance until long after the war. He still leans left but, he thinks America is a pretty great place.

    5. We don't have a tax structure like Sweden. If we did I'd wager Americans would opt for lower taxes as well. With their VAT and gas taxes I think most USians would balk at their current rates.

  6. Kim and all the other Kardashians are classic celebrities: famous for being famous.

    That said, at least some of them must be pretty smart to turn all that celebritiness into so much money.

    1. Bruce laughing all the way to Terry Dubrow's office.

      1. Who?

      2. Exactly.

  7. If only there was a president who lowered taxes AND did sentencing reform....

    1. He cannot be named!

      1. Did you ask them their pronouns sir?

        1. Sir?

          1. Oh shit. Back to the gulag

  8. It's a fairly benign thing to say. And yet it's a landmine in our media landscape.

    Saying benign things has been getting a lot of people in trouble over the last decade. But we were always told to go build our own internet if we didn't like it.

    1. Luckily, your prayers are answered. You now have TRUTH Social!

      1. I'll look it up, but now that fact check opinion social has just admitted what it is, can it really be any worse?

        1. Everyone and anyone is now an expert via the internet.

          And yet, so many still want to achieve celebrity.

          I've got a nine year old, precocious nephew trying to be a Youtuber with self produced, weekly videos about the latest Roblox releases. It's almost scary.

          My seven year old granddaughter asked for a laptop for Christmas. She's had an iPad since she was two or three. I love that she is so interested and capable. But it scares the crap out of me to let her have full access to the internet too.

          I'm O.K. with security and parental controls. But not savvy enough to think I could set up a laptop for her that her parents and I could trust enough to keep her out of trouble or exposure to things that a seven year old should not be exposed to.

          What's up with that.

        2. High school cliques on steroids?

      2. Can we get a link?

  9. Politically homeless eh?
    I wonder which side can’t tolerate her.

  10. It's not really clear that Democrats are against lower taxes, at least not for the rich. See the whole SALT deduction thing for instance.

    1. Not for SOME rich.

  11. Paris Hilton 2.0

    1. Paris Hilton seems pretty refined and classy these days, at least by comparison to other celebrities.

  12. "I believe in the rights that the Democrats want"

    Aside from the right to kill your kid or assfuck strange men in bathhouses, the Democrats aren't that big on rights, Kim.

    How far does bodily autonomy go with the big (D)'s when it comes to mandatory vaccines? Or free speech that some minority representative finds offensive? Or political speech that reflects poorly on the Democrats? Or freedom of movement during lockdowns? Or freedom of religion for icky stupid Xtian's? Or gun ownership rights?

  13. Maybe Libertarian Party candidate potential?

    1. I'd something something her Libertarian something, IYKWIMAITYD.

      1. She'd never be homeless, for sure, politically or otherwise! 😉

    2. Shhhhh! You know what happens when someone yells "Libertarian" at a Travis Scott rap-o-rama!

  14. I believe in the rights that the Democrats want

    This is so dumb it isn't worth repeating.

    1. I find it interesting, and I'd like Kardashian to elucidate.

      1. A Grayson Hugh one-hit wonder comes to mind 😉 :

        Grayson Hugh--Talk It Over

      2. Better acceptance of anal sex?

        Free shit for everyone?

        The Robinhood complex?

  15. She’s not great, but her ideas are better than a lot of both politicians and the electorate.

  16. Although I agree that women who want abortions should be free to get them, on the principle of bodily autonomy (i.e. "my body, my choice"), and I agree that people should be free to buy and use whatever drugs they want, these are almost the only issues on which Democrats are more pro-liberty than republicans. But is this just an appearance? We can't consider Democrat support for the right to abortion without also considering that Democrats also expect everyone else to pay for it. (They even want to punish doctors who don't want to make abortion referrals). We can't take seriously Democrat drug legalization efforts, when they don't want to let you buy fairly harmless pharmaceuticals over the counter (codeine and ivermectin for instance) and they also want to *force* you to go on an endless treadmill getting jabs you don't want.

    The worst aspect of Democratic rule is their desire to tax everyone, every which way (income tax, employer deductions, sales tax, property tax, *inflation*, etc), and then take the money for themselves. When you are paying over 50% of your income in taxes, that makes you a slave.

    The "libertarian" notion that the Democratics are more pro-liberty thant the Republicans strikes me as a 180 degree reversal of the truth. That's why never call myself a libertarian. I am a conservative that agrees with some of the principles that libertarians claim to uphold, but I often do not agree with them.

    I don't think that the Republican party is anything wonderful and I understand the impulse to want to vote Democrat because at least sometimes they approach honesty with their wish to impose Marxism and rule over civilization's ruins, whereas the Republican party sells its base a bill of goods at election time and stabs its voters in the back the rest of the time.

    1. What do you think the Democrat interest in drug reform is? Vote buying from certain interests?

      1. Yes, precisely. Democratic positions are mostly about little besides who/whom.

        1. Then why do their grass roots, who seemingly need please nobody, have such positions? Or are their grass roots nothing but interest groups and those who aspire to lead them?

    2. On abortion, yes, they are fanatical but on bodily autonomy, not even close. If anything they are worse than the republicans these days.

      1. Shexis naive on where The Democratic Party is on both hodily autonomy and civil liberties, but I she'sxaiming invthe right direction.

        Hey, I won't kick her out of the bed for eating Donkey-shaped crackers. 😉

    3. Democrats are so pro-liberty on drugs that the last 3 Dem Presidents couldn't even be bothered to remove marijuana from Schedule 1 under the Controlled Substances Act. And Dems with control of both houses of Congress don't bother to try any steps toward national legalization.

      1. POTUS doesn't have that kind of power or influence. Like so many, you seem to be seeking a benevolent dictator and ignoring the lawmaking bodies.

    4. Spitgot,
      Are you new here?
      That was very well written, and I agree with every word.
      I am going to steal your entire third paragraph and use it to describe myself.
      I have left the republican party but I do not have a home in the Libertarian party.

      1. Hi docdurat,
        Yes, I am relatively new here. I only started commenting a few weeks ago. I didn't think that my comment was terribly well written. In fact I wished that I could make some edits moments after I hit submit.

        As for recycling anything I wrote or working it into your own writing, I do not object at all. I'll take it as flattery.

    5. Democrats = Robinhood
      Republicans = Eastwood

      Equally threatening to personal liberty.

  17. A lot of irrational hatred for her in these comments, sheesh....

  18. It's a fairly benign thing to say. Or at least it should be: About four in 10 Americans identify as political independents. And yet it's a landmine in our media landscape,

    It's coming right at us! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam!

  19. Being peed on in a porno doesn't make you a movie star?

    1. Well, not usually.

      Porn has a dark side you know. It's not all fun and games. The stories of abuse are numerous.

  20. Libritarian moment!

  21. Very few of the “independents” are truly independent - they usually go to the red flock or the blue one out of fear of the extremists of the two sides. It’s probably better to call them “switch hitters” or “bi-political.”

    1. "Suckers" is perhaps too strong a word. But picture a voter who wants so badly to join the crowd and watch dumb brutes bully women that he votes to bring back Comstockism, get his own kids shot over plant leaves and his car confiscated for faith-based "equitable sharing." Then turns around and votes to double electricity prices, lick the blacking off of Red Chinese jackboots, eliminate take-home pay and help looters break into stores. Maybe "bipolar disorder"?

      1. More like insanity.

        Rinse and repeat.

  22. She isn't politically homeless. Her views are very similar to Libertarian views. How did a writer for a libertarian opinion magazine miss this?

    1. from Wikipedia:

      • During an interview with Caity Weaver of GQ for the July 2016 issue, Kardashian...declared support for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
      • In January 2017, she tweeted a table of statistics that went viral, highlighting statistics that show that gun violence in the United States kills 11,737 people annually while terrorism in the United States kills 14 people annually.

      Yeah, that's some libertarian...

      1. This is America. One does not have to be bright to become rich. Just controversial.

    2. She's POLITICALLY CONFUSED. If her other positions were consistent with lower taxes and more individual freedom, she'd be a libertarian - and Binion appears to be unaware of this. However, it appears that when the discussion comes down to specifics, she wants bigger government in many respects and increasing infringements on many rights. That makes her a Democrat who is confused about the relationship between government powers, taxes, and the loss of rights. If that makes her "politically homeless", it is only because many Democrats have become narrowly doctrinaire with less tolerance for variating opinions than Torquemada.

      1. Oops - "variations of opinion"

  23. As just discussed in another tread --- The fastest way to tell if a person is a Democrat is by their 'party loyalty' as demonstrated here by Binion. This is no secret; The tight-nit left has been a phenomenon of the right.

    "But many people took her willingness to associate with Trump as a blanket endorsement of everything he did—another indication of our broken, fragmented approach to both politics and media."

    ...and by [our]; it is completely not only a sign of a democrat but also their very foundation of thoughts. Which is perfectly summed up by their 'gangster' affiliation mob mentality.

    Sell your individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because you don't own you, [WE] own you.

    Democrats champion 'democracy' over everything. It's all about 'gang' affiliation......... They don't recognize a Constitution or Branches of government. It's all Gangs and Mob affiliation.

    Republicans on the other hand differ because they DO recognize a US Constitution ( Supreme Law over Government Mobs ) and also recognize the division of power ( *All* being against the 'gangs' mental foundation ).

    In Summary; Binion isn't doing anything but PROJECTING his own democratic mentality onto 'baoff sidez'...

    1. I really thought it was Kayne that was the Trump affiliate. And she just went along for the ride. Literally and figuratively.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.