Pay Attention to Policy, not 'Narratives'
Punditry ought to be less important than wonkery.
As a policy wonk, I view each election as a calculation of which candidate is most likely to advance the limited-government policies that I favor. It's rarely an easy choice given that neither of the major parties is particularly libertarian and smaller parties tend to be goofy and have almost no chance of winning.
Republicans sometimes talk like libertarians on issues related to taxes, regulation, and spending, but promote police-state policies (asset forfeiture, the drug war), tariffs, tech regulation, and other nonsense that ramps up federal power. I'm far from simpatico with Democrats, but they have been decent on deregulating housing and promoting justice reform. So, it gets complicated.
As a voter, I look not just at the totality of issues, but their importance. For instance, property rights mean more to me than tax policy. The particular office matters: I don't care about the controller's abortion views any more than the insurance commissioner's foreign-policy ideas. Mainly, I don't have an emotional connection to any party.
This policy-oriented approach has left me at a disadvantage. I never saw Donald Trump coming because I found it incomprehensible—still do, actually—that anyone would support a man with so little substance and so much narcissistic blather. I never understood how Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), a socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, came close to getting the Democratic nod.
The reason comes down to "narratives." Economists have a term called "rational ignorance." I'm paid to write about policy, but most voters don't have good reason to invest hours into learning about candidates' voting records and positions. It's not worth the time given the limited value of one vote. I can't blame them.
Instead, opinion leaders create narratives about how the world works—and then voters essentially buy into one that suits their biases. They pick a team. Social media reinforces each side's thinking habits. As the election arrives, most voters aren't doing a cost-benefit analysis—but embracing the candidate who touts the story their team tells (whether it's true or not).
"Narratives … provide a rich source of information about how people make sense of their lives, about how they construct disparate facts and weave them together cognitively to make sense of reality," explains a 1998 UC Irvine study. They can be helpful for understanding the world, but they can also send people down a rabbit hole.
"Yes, totalitarian states that prescribe a narrative orthodoxy against which no deviation is quartered are nothing new," wrote Daniel Rothschild in Discourse magazine. "What is new is that today, in otherwise liberal societies, people are voluntarily enclosing themselves in intellectual prisons…Obviously, factionalism in a free society isn't the same as totalitarianism. But both thrive by providing absolute certainty in a complex world and declaring dissidents to be treasonous."
Therefore, fewer people can be persuaded by evidence. If you subscribe to the narrative that your opponents want to destroy everything that you find holy and dear, then you'll put up with anything from a candidate from your tribe. During the 2016 election, Republicans embraced the "Flight 93" theory—it's time to rush the cockpit because a Hillary Clinton presidency would crash democracy.
Democrats believe something similar about a Donald Trump re-election, although they're on more solid ground given that he did indeed try to steal an election and his election-denying acolytes filled the GOP ticket this year. Polls show most GOP voters have bought into that denialism narrative—and no evidence likely will sway them from their vote-stealing fantasies.
Writing about "The Death of the American Political Scandal," National Review's Christian Schneider notes that voters largely shrug at flaws that would have derailed candidates a few years ago. This involves the movement away from my perspective—analyzing candidates' positions—to one that's based on accepting broad political stories.
Republicans' focus on culture wars has transformed "American politics from a battle of ideologies to a raw contest for power," he added. "If you truly believe that the last thing keeping your child from being forced to attend a drag-queen story hour at his or her school is which party controls Congress, then it makes sense you'd be willing to accept a Senate (or House) candidate with dramatic personal flaws."
Narrative also helps explain why so few conservative pundits and Republican politicians could—without caveats and "whataboutism"—simply condemn the recent hammer attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, at their home in San Francisco. Many people have spread bizarre conspiracy theories, with some conservatives even joking about the attack.
Jumping on the narrative bandwagon can take you to some morally dubious places. I don't expect voters to adopt my balls-and-strikes voting strategy. But unless there's a movement back in that direction, the story of our democracy might not have a happy ending.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply (ygf-11) by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
I’m far from simpatico with Democrats, but they have been decent on deregulating housing and promoting justice reform.
Was this said with a straight face? Banning gas appliances. San Francisco. Polis adding 70k to the cost of new construction for energy restrictive buildings.
The only thing they attempt to deregulated is single housing zoning to create mini apartments or duplexes. But then they make the requirements for building much higher.
And promoting justice reform? Letting violent offenders out with no bail is not reform. See the red suv released. Meanwhile reason barely mentions First Step Act or the politicization of the DoJ or FBI. Glad contempt of congress and non violent parading is reform.
For instance, property rights mean more to me than tax policy.
Yet the paragraph before you make it seem as if you prefer democrats. Democrats actively campaign against property rights. Telling you what types of houses you have to buy, what type of insurance you have to buy, what type of car you have to buy, etc. Some of the biggest asset forfeiture abuses still occur in blue controlled areas. Etc.
I will even add here the apex of property rights. Children. The left wants to control your children. Especially childless left. Indoctrination, hiding things from parents, going after parents for letting them play in parks, forcing ineffective vaccines on kids not at risk, etc.
Democrats have never been pro property rights. Even with corporations. They constantly advance government regulation and literally endorse technocrats to control industry.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> ???.????????????.???
But, greenhut is entirely a policy guy, not a pundit. Because he says so. I’m taking this is his new claim, to replace his ‘umpire of what is fair & just’ mantle that he touted while trotting out the same lines, propping up the same canards. Perhaps if he sussed california conservative = left-leaning, especially if trump-bashing is the modus operandi, then he might not come off like social media loon.
Greenhut has always been a craven, evil liar.
I am currently earning an additional $33,440 over the course of six months from home by utilizing incredibly honest and fluent online sports activities athletics. This domestic hobby provides the month. Given the stats system, I’m currently interacting fast on this hobby’s road and earning,
HERE====)>https://www.pay.hiring9.com
Mainly, I don’t have an emotional connection to any party.
.
This policy-oriented approach has left me at a disadvantage. I never saw Donald Trump coming because I found it incomprehensible—still do, actually—that anyone would support a man with so little substance and so much narcissistic blather.
Lol. Back to back sentences. You don’t care about narratives is your open, no emotion your follow up, then ignore policy and react emotionally to trump. Hilarious.
Democrats believe something similar about a Donald Trump re-election, although they’re on more solid ground given that he did indeed try to steal an election and his election-denying acolytes filled the GOP ticket this year.
Lol. Don’t trust the narrative.
What a shit article. You should be embarrassed.
Yeah this is straight up parroting the D narrative.
“…given that he did indeed try to steal an election.”
I guess saying “indeed” make it true. Jesus.
Ana Navarro was on MSNBC and literally said DeSantis stole the election in Florida last night. By not allowing voter fraud.
The same could be said for the Idaho elections. I had to vote in person, show my ID, they scanned the barcode, and asked me to verbally verify my name, address, and zip while they held my ID.
Same happened to me in Michigan. What do you want to bet everyone an hour south of me in Detroit had to do the same to vote?
I live in PA and when I went on Tuesday, the only thing I had to do was give my name and sign their ledger. The guy with the book covered up the previous signature with his hand, I guess so that I wouldn’t try and copy it.
That was the extent of any identification/verification. Seems a bit lacking in my opinion.
They didn’t even go that far as to cover the signature in my Illinois county. I could’ve easily copied it if I wanted to.
Not so in Illinois. In my county, at my precinct, I showed up to vote. Technically, I don’t have to show any ID, but I did anyway – it helps with spelling my name. All they wanted was for me to sign the receipt and have them compare it with my signature on file. That’s it. What a fucking joke.
That sounds like Jim Crow 2.0. Or maybe 3.0.
Nah, it’s Jim Eagle.
Tribal cunt.
“Yeah this is straight up parroting the D narrative.”
That’s pretty consistent for Greenhut. It’s what he, and Reason, is here for. Lying to sell totalitarian leftism to libertarians.
They must think libertarians are pretty stupid…
What do you call a reanon writer at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
Seriously they have become straight up progressives its not even funny.
Narrative also helps explain why so few conservative pundits and Republican politicians could—without caveats and “whataboutism”—simply condemn the recent hammer attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, at their home in San Francisco. Many people have spread bizarre conspiracy theories, with some conservatives even joking about the attack.
Headline about not trusting narratives, then accepts every narrative of the left. Can’t make this up.
And those conservatives arent responding to, I dont know, initial widespread MSM coverage of this as the result of right-wing violence, the result of MAGA, the result of Trump, the result of Republican rhetoric.
So simple rebuttals that he was an illegal immigrant, a green party member, a BLM/pride supporter, and involved in a Berkeley nudist colony…those things apparently werent allowed to be said.
Republicans need to be attacked, take it, and say thank you can I have some more. Any defending themselves with ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’ is apparently insensitive and means they support the crazy man.
Theu want the old status quo amd are angry at Trump for showing everyone how easy pay it is to tell the leftists to go fuck themselves. Peole are finally coming to the realization that a democrat is nothing more than a filthy hippie in dire need of a savage beating.
American Rights > democrat lives
And take the converse of this.
“because I found it incomprehensible—still do, actually—that anyone would support a man with so little substance, who is a complete puppet for the fringe of his party, because his brain is so dementia addled that he poops his pants, cant stay awake, gets lost every 5 minutes, cant remember how his son died, and has trouble speaking in coherent sentences.”
At minimum I would have expected a ‘bof sides’ here, being that Biden is so uniquely demented and a terrible authoritarian president
But that’s not the proper narrative.
Fuck, their “criminal justice” reforms neuter property rights as if somebody can assault you and take your property with no repurcussions — then you do not HAVE property rights.
San fran does not arrest shoplifting under a certain amount. Property rights! Seattle forced Starbucks to let homeless use their restrooms leading to closing of stores. Property rights!
Right. Arbitrary enforcement of the law is not “Reform”.
You can riot without consequence, while we prosecute the deplorable who defended himself, is not REFORM.
Declaring non-prosecution for crimes that actually, legitimately have a victim, is not reform.
Yeah, I pulled up when I read this. Perhaps Greenhut is talking about a different decade, say, the 1950s. Or, more likely, he is indulging his own narrative.
Was this said with a straight face?
Yup. Joe “Crime Bill” Biden and HUD.
Per Greenhut’s own recommendations he should fuck off with his narrative and adopt a policy of acknowledging reality and/or not lying.
Rent Control?
We need oxygen control. Where progressives are limited in their air consumption to no more than 1,000 gallons of air per day. This will rapidly limit human greenhouse gas emissions.
The whole justice reform topic is how you know Reason writers are so full of shit. They should be pissed at Democrats for the “reform” they’ve done that will probably set real criminal justice reform back a generation.
The goal behind the new building codes is to discourage new construction. Keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Same as it ever was.
You can’t have the field hands thinking that some day they might own the plantation.
Purge America of the democrats and related Marxist groups. Then start over.
You do not favor even one such policy, you faggot fucking fraud. Proof of which you readily provide 2 sentences later:
No one has deregulated housing, what you support is federalizing zoning laws because you’re a government worshiping totalitarian cunt. And “promoting justice reform” has thus far entailed releasing murderers and rapists to reoffend within the same week, sometimes within the same day, in places where self-defense is impossible because your party has outlawed guns. Go fuck yourself you lying piece of shit faggot.
a government worshiping totalitarian cunt.
He said so when he described himself as a “wonk”.
I’ve been meaning to ask, is your handle a reference to the film ‘Bad Words’?
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
🙂 GOOD LUCK.:)
More here>→→→→→ http://www.pay.hiring9.com
Sorry, I’m new here. Whose “sock” are you?
I could probably extrapolate, from your evidently limited, foul-mouthed choice of vocabulary, but comparing it to others would require a modicum of effort.
We know whose fap sock you are, SoCkSoCkPeDo.
Your standard of “knowledge” is quite amusing.
(But probably more amusing to this “Shrike” person. You do realize that every single time you maliciously and recklessly accuse someone of being him/her, you give your mortal enemy an emotional boost?)
I usually agree with Greenhut, but this is drivel. Democrats want a $6 trillion Build Back Worse plan, would forgive $50,000 or more per person in student loans if they could, want to (and will) destroy the economy to eliminate internal combustion machines, want much higher tax rates, kowtow to made-up “science”, etc. These aren’t narratives. They are policies.
I mean. There was almost zero actual policy in an article about choosing policy over narratives.
Republicans are so into “policy” they didn’t even bother to draft a platform document in 2020.
Their only policy was Dear Leader Donald Trump.
Election documents aren’t policy shrike. How dumb have you gotten the last 2 years? They are narratives. See the DNC platform.
Most often claiming to be a policy wonk rather than a narrative pusher is a branding choice rather than a true difference. Consider that Ezra Klein also developed himself with this brand despite the revealed reality that he is a conventional left-narrative pusher. The goal is to convince the public that there is an objective analysis which happens to support all the same conclusions as the narrative.
There are several places to note the logical failures in this article. For example we see the oft repeated claim that Republicans choose the culture war. In this fantasy people who create drag queen story hours aren’t engaging in the culture war, only those who object to it are. Unstated but clearly relevant is that people who implement CRT in schools are not engaged in culture wars, that label is reserved only for those who object to CRT. This obvious misrepresentation is then used to support the claim that Republicans support power politics rather than the obvious fact that Dems developed these tactics decades before the Reps and still do so at a far greater level.
Similarly if we accept Trump’s efforts to interfere in the election process are appropriately characterized as stealing an election then we should also conclude Dems tried to steal the election two decades before Trump in 2000. In that election they tried to change rules so votes from Dem stronghold counties were allowed under more lenient rules than other counties. One assertion was that a vote for Gore should be inferred and counted even if no vote for President was made if the ballot included a vote for the Dem in the Senate race.
But no one hyperventilating about Trump feels the same way about 2000 even though the Dems institutional corruption meant their effort to steal the election was far closer to success. In the Dems case we interpret their actions as checking to see where the legal boundaries were. But once we characterize the Dem actions this way we see it equally applies to Trump’s actions.
We also see Greenhut adopt the left narrative stance whenever convenient, such as that Reps need to “condemn” the hammer attack on Pelosi. What does this have to do with policy exactly?
While the argument that policy is better than narrative is true his argument that this applies to him or his conclusions is weak.
In this fantasy people who create drag queen story hours aren’t engaging in the culture war, only those who object to it are.
A fair example but not as intuitively obvious who the initiators on public space are. Now, a trannie walking into a cake shop and insisting the baker bake them a transgender cake against their will…
>>transgender cake
always felt like banana bread inside.
The only way to handle the cake issue is through tort law.
Nice try. I recall the Dems using legal challenges against a much much closer vote count. When the courts decided for Bush I don’t recall anyone trying to take over the formal transition processes with violence.
It’s revealing that you’ll grasp at such straws to claim this is “different”. The riot could never have had any impact on the election result and so is irrelevant to any comparison. Even had it been 100 times bigger they would have convened another day with sufficient security to protect the process. In order to “steal” an election the event has to lead to the election result being changed.
This is how the left maintains their narrative. Because they engage only in motivated thinking any justification is sufficient to support the conclusion they want.
from a Wall Street Journal column from a year ago:
Implicit in accusations of Republican culture wars is that some uncouth person, probably motivated by hate, is raising an issue that American liberals have deemed beyond discussion in polite society, whether it’s abortion, public-school curriculums, guns, crime or something else. So instead of honest political debate, we get what we saw in Virginia—Mr. McAuliffe’s claim about Mr. Youngkin’s “racist dog whistles,” [and so on]. … [P]rogressives often shout “Culture War!” to avoid debate.
I don’t think Reason writers have a single fucking clue what conservatives or people on the right in general say or believe. Using the Paul Pelosi attack as a cudgel here is especially ridiculous. I saw people on the right making jokes about it and speculating on what actually happened because the initial reporting (and the still evolving story) is insane and difficult to believe at face value. While I am sure there are some who wished death on him, I only saw conservatives wishing him well in recovering from what has been reported as some brutal injuries.
I don’t think any of the Reason staff actually listens to anyone from the right. It seems like anything about the right that they “know” or report on has been filtered through left-wing media and personalities.
The authorizes are doing a bad job of covering up whatever actually happened. As they keep changing their bullshit story.
It’s hardly the normies’ fault you can’t keep up with the ever-evolving understanding of reality.
For example, the “Depape was found in his underwear” story was initially provided by a Fox-affiliate TV station, not the police. The station realized its error within a couple of hours and included a correction at the bottom of their revised web page, but the Alt-Right seized upon it and ran with it for days–even today, I’m sure half the GQP still believes it to be true. (By the way, do you?)
This was not even the absolutely normal authorities “filling in of gaps” or correcting of initial errors; this was a third party actually manufacturing a false story, perhaps through incompetence rather than malice, but the effect was the same either way.
Another example is the Alt-Right’s promotion of Michael Shellenberger’s early “scoop” reporting about Depape’s home and living arrangements in Berkeley. Shellenberger had claimed that Depape was a drug-addled left-wing hippie living Berkeley, but subsequent information released by the police and prosecutors showed without any doubt that Depape had been living in a garage in Richmond for at least two years–not in a schoolbus in Berkeley. I’ve checked Shellenberger’s Substack and I cannot see where he has corrected his original claims in view of the subsequent evidence–and therefore had only interviewed people who hadn’t noticed Depape’s two-year absence.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-31/shocking-new-details-blow-up-conspiracy-theories-about-paul-pelosi-attack
Pay Attention to Policy, not ‘Narratives’
Refreshing! Reason could stand to do with more articles titled “Ignore My Narrative”.
So fuck Greenhut.
But I suggest there is a fundamental contradiction in the desire for “rational” governance and broad democratic participation. Humans are illogical, emotional beings, full of contradictions and biases, and prone to feelings and decisions based on anything but facts and reasoned interpretations.
I would like to think that a minimalist libertarian approach to society and government accommodates people best by not trying to interfere, AND not trying to take advantage of our susceptibilities to both demagogues and our own contradictory urges to live as we please but use government to restrict others. As always, the question is how to promote this and discourage those who want to seize power.
Minimalist libertarian approach to me is federalism. Let small groups of people argue without implementing the outcome on everybody on the nation. Small laboratories of society.
No, bud, that’s pointless. We vote for candidates once every few years. We do not vote for policies.
The only thing we have to base our votes on is some ill-defined impression of character, trying to guess which politician will lie the least to us, who will handle the future government-cause crises better.
Concentrating on wonkery is a waste of time.
At this point, I have to say, I don’t get it. Do the staffers here think they’re fooling anybody? At least half the articles I see here are unlibertarian progressive cheerleading. And pretty much any time the right has a libertarian issue, the staffers desperately evade it. And the vast majority of the commenters see it for the claptrap it is. So, what the hell is Reason’s point? I mean, if I were Charlie Koch or George Soros, I’m pretty sure I’d be having my people calling Katherine Mangu-Ward saying something to the effect of “Come on, guys, we at least have to maintain at least a patina of plausible deniability…”
Or does the staff have enough independence that they can only best function with the level of thoughtfulness of a high school social climbers clique?
They need more writers that don’t live in leftist bubbles.
Well, maybe.
The thing is I’m not convinced it’s just they don’t know any better. I mean, at some point, someone would have looked at the comments and seen their arguments are going over about as well as a turd in punchbowl.
Lol, this comments section does not have very many libertarians commenting in it.
This is where you go if you want to see what the semi-literate Alt-Right thinks about it.
nothing has very many libertarians.
True, dat.
Youre not a libertarian shrike. Youre a soros globalist democrat.
They acknowledge how much they hate us (Reason commenters) on twitter now and again. I doubt they look in very very often and their actions show that they give zero shits about the fact that they have been called out for obvious bullshit daily
So, what the hell is Reason’s point?
Get subscribers to pay for advertisements and cheaply-delivered comments, just like the rest of the internet.
It’s been pointed out before, Reason is best reasoned: articles -> comments, comments -> articles.
I feel like they will just shut down the comments eventually and that’ll be that.
Possibly. They’d need an alternate income stream if they did. I suspect clicks would plummet at the same time they lost any donations from the commenters.
Ignoring Reason’s quality of articles, I don’t like news sites without comment sections and tend to drop them from my rotation. Even with youtube I hate political or news videos that drop comments. The content has more value when differing facts and opinions are presented alongside it. Reason writers have become unbearable and it is rare that I read a full article (or even beyond the intro paragraph.) If they get rid of comments then I will stop coming here completely
^ This
“At least half the articles I see here are unlibertarian progressive cheerleading.”
And I’d say that is well over half of that articles that are progressive cheer-leading.
>>And the vast majority of the commenters see it for the claptrap it is.
I show up every day only to laugh at the offerings and read the comments. NRO was claptrap too that’s how I ended up here in the first place
What is new is that today, in otherwise liberal societies, people are voluntarily enclosing themselves in intellectual prisons
Those poor fools! Locked in the prisons of their own small minds. So inferior. Not like me, with the freedom to explore my own boundless intellect.
It’s called a heuristic: Over recent decades, Republicans have been far better for liberty, all told between economic and personal, so it’s a very good bet now that those labels are significant to libertarians. Don Ernsberger noticed this in the middle 1990s; if Don Ernsberger says it, you can’t say it’s blind partisanship.
Liberty for who? Gay people have had to fight Republicans just to get married. Want to consume Marijuana? Don’t count on the Republicans. Get arrested on suspicious charges and want to fight it in court? The Republicans don’t have your back unless you are rich. Find yourself pregnant and want to terminate your pregnancy? Good luck with that, the Republicans don’t want you to be free to decide. This is the narrative the author is talking about. The GOP has constructed a myth that they are defenders of freedom but it’s not true. They defend some freedoms but trounce on many others.
Um, you might want to take a look at party profiles in the 21st century, especially which one has embraced the super-rich and the upper class.
Lol. You poor lefties are funny to me.
Oh. Obama campaigned on gay marriage? The dems in the senate passed a law legalizing it?
Leftists gotta lie. It’s all they’ve got.
>>Gay people have had to fight Republicans just to get married.
slave to the license.
It’s true, any gay couple has to defeat a Republican in hand to hand combat to be eligible for a marriage license.
Getting married is not without cost to society and the legal system generally. Libertarians applaud the general thrust of Anglo law, which is to treat individual adults as legal entities unto themselves. We grudgingly acknowledge families as a necessary exception to that rule because they potentially have kids. We allow infertile couples to get married because inquiring into their fertility would be an infringement on their privacy. Same sex marriage would be an unnecessary exception to that rule.
Even on the personal liberties you raise, Republicans are only marginally worse than Democrats. Outside those few, Democrats are decisively worse. You’d have to cherry pick to make Republicans come out worse on personal liberties overall when it comes to ones that’ve actually been on the agenda in recent times. If you don’t believe me, check out Don Ernsberger’s analysis. And you can’t say the co-founder of the Society for Individual Liberty doesn’t know individual liberty when he sees it. It’s not like Republicans have gotten to be great, but by the 1990s the Democrats had lost whatever advantage they had on personal liberty a few decades earlier.
Besides, if the Republicans had had their way there’d be fewer charges anyone could be arrested on!
In 1970 there was little to choose between Democrats and Republicans when it came to freedom generally. By 1995 and increasingly since then, Republicans have emerged as by far the better choice, from the grass roots to the politicians. Don’t blame me, I didn’t make it that way.
“Find yourself pregnant?” Is that like finding yourself a dollar on the street?
Which totally justifies unquestioned infanticide!
Policy over narrative only works when there is hardly any departure from “party discipline” in Congress. See what happens when a Manchin or a Cheney – reliable votes for most of their party’s legislation – goes a bit off the reservation. Fetterman can prattle all he wants about “I’m in favor of fracking” (and maybe fool a few voters in Penna. into backing him for this policy) but we all know when the Democrats vote to severely restrict or ban fracking, his vote will be right there as his party leaders demand.
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1591075335768272897?t=VGTybi8A64HgRiufCGRxdA&s=19
Day four and we’re still counting votes in Arizona and Nevada. Completely and totally unacceptable.
The steal is on!
Note how he treats “justice reform”. Justice reform is not a policy, it’s a label. In that sense literally everyone is for justice reform. Some people want to put criminals in jail while others want them to go free. Both are “reform”.
Reform a libertarian could support would include eliminating unions whose primary function is to hinder effective management and protect corrupt police. Is there any chance Dems support this? But by hiding policy behind the label “reform” Greenhut maintains the fiction that libertarians and the left agree on this issue.
Similarly compare the policies leftist AGs have implemented with libertarian principles. Refusing to enforce laws against property rights is a “reform” libertarians should sign up for? Basing enforcement of the law on whether the accused is a political ally or opponent is a “reform” so we should support that?
Never accept their hiding behind labels. Always look through them to specifics.
You are aware that gay marring was decided in a republican court. And even Obama was against it circa 2009. Pot legalization? You think the dems a good on that? Obama had the most raids on dispeciaries, and look at California. Weed is “legalized” but the laws around it are awful. For criminal justice, have you heard about the j6 protesters? They have been kept in solitary for 2 years for walking around a public building. Did you hear abothe the kid in South Dakota who was killed for being republican? The killer was gonna be let off until a huge push from people made the procecuters do his job.
You are free to abort yourself at any time. I recomend you do it today
Ment as a reply to hereitia
Policy Trump
Energy independence.
Foreign policy, no new wars. Actually talking to guys like Putin and Kim.
Deregulation.
Culture wars. Not personally very interested but willing to do what he thinks his constituents want.
Policy Biden
Shut down energy production, ban vehicles that burn hydrocarbons.
Foreign policy. WW3.
Reregulation.
Culture wars. Jam every leftist fad cult idea down our collective throats.
Tough choice for a libertarian. Easier to just pick a narrative.
I agree with almost everything Greenhut says here, and find the framework to be very useful in my estimation of our sociopolitical environment lately. But I take it one step further to the REASON narratives and team affiliations have had such an impact on politics: I believe that it is the election system – AKA “the two-party system” – that overwhelmingly results in focus on elections instead of policies. For example, whenever the Democrats have control of the Congress and the White House they almost always implement one or more socialist agenda planks. But when the Republicans have control of the Congress and the White House they almost never repeal any of the Democrat agenda. The only solution I can see that has any chance of reversing this situation and returning the focus to a discussion of policies is to change the election system for representatives to the legislatures and the Congress to a proportional representation system. If 33% of the Democratic representatives want to pass a law, they would have to get at least the 10% of Libertarian representatives to agree, for example.
LOL
^this is why Reason doesn’t even hide their totalitarian progressivism. The barest fig leaf of labeling allows them to gaslight people like the above
Voters don’t want sensible policy. If they did, the libertarian party would be doing better.
>>given that he did indeed try to steal an election and his election-denying acolytes
credibility. out. window.
“Polls show most GOP voters have bought into that denialism narrative—and no evidence likely will sway them from their vote-stealing fantasies.”
And yet no discussion of democrats swallow RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA whole. K.
I think a lot of this comes from the old idea of what candidate would you like to sit and drink a beer with. All this overlooks the fact that you are unlikely to be asked to have a beer with either candidate.
Policy would be a good thing to consider but it seems limited to one party at this time. While the Democrat’s ideas are too big, they at least have ideas. The Republicans don’t seem to have any ideas at this time. In terms the Republicans big issue were crime and inflation, but it was the narrative, because I never heard any ideas on how to address these issues.
My one hope is that once Republicans have put Trump behind them, something I expect in 2024, they will again start to have policy ideas.
While the Democrat’s ideas are too big, they at least have ideas. The Republicans don’t seem to have any ideas at this time.
Amusingly this is both a narrative and a lie.
Yes, the only problem with Democrats’ ideas is that they just DREAM TO BIG. We’re just not ready for them yet.
And what is the very CORE of their DREAM?
NATIONAL SOCIALISM…. A nation ruled by Nazi’s.
In the ‘filtered’ news section some have compared and contrasted the DNC platform/motives with Hitlers and found it 99% identical.
I’ll bet they work too hard, and care too much too.
Goddamn you’re such a dishonest fuck.
No, no, no, he’s a moderate, you see, who just happens to support all Democrat policies even if they’re “too big”, whatever that means.
If I stuck to this I’d never visit Reason at all.
Republicans sometimes talk like libertarians on issues related to taxes, regulation, and spending, but promote police-state policies (asset forfeiture, the drug war), tariffs, tech regulation, and other nonsense that ramps up federal power.
AS-IF Democrats don’t do tariffs or want to regulate tech..
I’m far from simpatico with Democrats, but they have been decent on deregulating housing and promoting justice reform.
LOL… Democrats are deregulating housing??? Really?
Oh please do explain that one….
And what is “justice reform”?? Killing justice for a USA invasion?
Woke policy is bad policy, and for the past few decades, ALL democrat policy has been woke policy. There is not one democrat politiican who hasn’t bent the knee to the woke, progressive agenda to some extent, and if they’ve bowed to wokeness, they can’t be “good” on any policy. It’s the nature of wokeness- you can’t separate any issue from social justice.
The difference between wokeness and “election denialism” (which has about as much meaning as the term assault weapon) is that it CAN be separated from other policy. It’s an entirely separate issue.
“Pay Attention to Policy, not ‘Narratives’”
Gee, if we did, what would TDS-addled assholes hang their hats on?
+100000000000000 Well Said………….
This is what’s fun about left-leaning thoughts (by Greenhut)…
“the story of our democracy”
[WE] mob RULES – governing.
You are here complaining about “culture wars” but are completely ignorant about what brought on “culture wars” was [WE] mob RULES governing ideology struggling for **UNLIMITED** POWER…
**UNLIMITED** POWER <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<————- IS THE PROBLEM!!!! But anyone compulsively propping "democracy" is propping [WE] mob RULES UNLIMITED POWER….. It's KING-OF-THE-MOUNTAIN game with Gov-GUN dictation as the prize…
A Constitutional Republic is WHAT the USA is……
Stop trying to propagandize our very governing structure for [WE] mob RULES..
Iran is a Constitutional Republic, North Korea is a Constitutional Republic. Both the old USSR and the new Russia were/are Constitutional Republics. So what is the difference? Democracy. We choose our leaders, they are not imposed upon us.
No, we are not a true Democracy, but a limited Democracy. As witnessed by our Election system which includes the Electoral college and our Bill of Rights. Also the separate but coequal branches of government. The Executive, Legislative and Judaical. We are not a dictatorship, which you seem to advocating for, and we are not a Theocracy.
The biggest difference is free and fair elections, called democracy. Which is why election integrity is so important. Democracy has always been called a “messy” form or government, but still the best form so far.
Where we are failing is the executive branch (president) has become to powerful with the use or Executive orders (or as I like to call them royal decrees) and our elections are no longer believed to have integrity. The USSR also had elections, you could vote yes or no, and would probably be subjected to punishment if you didn’t vote yes. What we are seeing with un-secure elections like in Arizona and other places and a powerful executive, plus one party pushing to Federalize elections, pack courts and admit liberal states and cities is certainly a drift away from a functioning democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship. For now until the executive power is limited and we can have secure elections the best we can hope for is divided government. The less the government can get done, the better off we all are for now.
I meant only liberal territories and cites as state, without balancing conservative territories or cites, like when Hawaii and Alaska were admitted.
I agree. Until the cancer which has metastasized within the GQP is eradicated, I cannot support their victory and therefore welcome the ensuing legislative deadlock in Washington, D.C.
Which, thanks to Trump’s continued malign influence over the Party, has been the result. Obviously, that was not the Dems’ goal, but probably the best they could have hoped for under the circumstances. For those who love liberty (rather than loyalty), a divided government is the best outcome available right now.
I welcome the Supreme Court’s refreshing deference to the Constitution, and while control of the Senate and their consent for judicial nominees remains with the Dems, the next two years are unlikely to see any change in the composition of the Court.
Shame about the economy, though…
Shrikey poo, you voted against gridlock by voting for Warnock. You’re not fooling anyone, you pedophile asshole.
The difference is the USA’S Constitution was written on the principles of Individual Liberty and Justice for all. Unlike Constitutions of other nations.
For Example; Mexico’s Constitution *entitled* all citizens to housing.
So don’t give me this rubber-ducking B.S. about “democracy” is what makes the USA great. The USA Constitution is what made it great until UNLIMITED “democracy” conquered the USA. ([WE] mob rules governing.)
You can understand that respecting the people’s LAW over their government (The US Constitution; which instructs uses of democracy) isn’t a dictatorship can’t you???????
Humorously it’s same excuse Pro-Lifers and the Party of Slavery uses.
“The US Constitution is federal over-reach!!” /s
[WE] mobs RULE! /s
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here………>>> onlinecareer1
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here………>>> onlinecareer1