Jim Jordan: The Perfect Speaker for a Policy-Free GOP
As long as the Republican Party is a policy-free zone, Jordan might as well be the guy in charge.

Sometime this afternoon, Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) might be elected the next Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Or he might not. Honestly, it's impossible to tell right now.
If he does—and, actually, even if he doesn't—it will be a fitting culmination for the current era of conservative politics in Washington: An era defined not by lawmakers with big ideas and impressive policy accomplishments, but much of the opposite. As long as the Republican Party is a policy-free zone, Jordan might as well be the guy in charge.
For someone on the brink of being speaker, Jordan has a remarkably shallow track record. He's been in Congress since 2007 but has passed exactly zero bills into law, as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has become fond of pointing out. The Washington Post's Aaron Blake writes that other, more comprehensive, metrics of legislative effectiveness point to similar conclusions. According to the Center for Effective Lawmaking, a joint project of the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University, Jordan has been one of the five least effective Republicans over the past four Congresses, Blake notes.
There is, of course, plenty of merit in stopping bad ideas from becoming law—something that doesn't show up in these sorts of rating systems—and it is in that area where Jordan has arguably excelled as a lawmaker. This is, after all, the same man who was once described as a "legislative terrorist" by former Speaker John Boehner—a fellow Republican.
Jordan's tenure in Congress has been defined by his ability to navigate the choppy and chaotic waters of contemporary Republican politics. That's no small feat considering how topsy-turvy the party has gone over the nine terms that Jordan has served. And he's now got the thing that likely matters more than any legislative accomplishment could: the endorsement of former President Donald Trump.
Jordan has been an unabashed supporter of Trump for years. He played a key role in defending Trump during his first impeachment, then was one of the dozens of Republican lawmakers who went along with Trump's plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election. When Trump was impeached a second time for that incident, Jordan again delivered a fiery criticism of the effort.
One might conclude that it is not legislative accomplishments, but fealty to Trump that has elevated Jordan within Republican politics. But, no, that's not quite right, either, because it overstates the distinction between those two things. Lacking a substantial policy agenda for much of the past decade, the strongest organizing principle within the GOP has become Trump himself—and Jordan has hewed closely to that principle.
To be clear, this is a problem that goes well beyond Jordan and today's speakership election. But you can't understand Jordan's potential ascendancy without that dynamic. When the GOP voted in 2020 to abolish its party platform in favor of going along with whatever Trump wanted, it was treated as a bit of a joke. In retrospect, it remains deeply telling.
For a normal political party in more normal times, Jordan's would be regarded as an obviously unorthodox path to the speakership. Historically, lawmakers elected to leadership positions are expected to lead, but it's not clear what direction Jordan is aiming to go.
Perhaps the best way to understand how the Republican Party has evolved over the past decade is to contrast this moment with another fractious speakership fight that broke out when the GOP controlled the House in 2015.
With John Boehner resigning from the top post and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) unable to secure enough votes from the party's right flank—it wouldn't be the last time that happened to him—the Republican caucus turned then-Rep. Paul Ryan (R–Wis.) as a compromise candidate. Ryan did not want the job at first but was eventually persuaded to lift the gavel.
They turned to Ryan in that moment of uncertainty because he was a guy with ideas. Most famously, he'd drawn up plans to balance the budget and overhaul the welfare system, something that even Ryan's critics admitted showed serious policy chops.
Yes, much of Ryan's tenure as speaker was a failure—especially with regard to the budget and deficit issues that he cared so much about as a backbencher. And there is the chance, no matter how slim it may look right now, that Jordan turns out to be exactly the right man for this job. As with most things about Congress, it's best to have an open mind and a sense of humor regarding whatever happens next.
Still, it's telling when Republicans needed a leader nine years ago, they turned to someone like Ryan: a politician with big, yet undeniably conservative ideas. Today, under similar circumstances, they may select a new leader who is known for being in some ways the opposite of that.
Jordan may turn out to be a fine speaker, but his election will be another telling signal that Republicans have abandoned any pretense about pursuing policy.
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
So, let me get this straight: a (officially) Libertarian magazine is complaining that a politician has NOT put more laws on the books...?
Did you bother to read the very next paragraph?
There is, of course, plenty of merit in stopping bad ideas from becoming law—something that doesn't show up in these sorts of rating systems—and it is in that area where Jordan has arguably excelled as a lawmaker.
Libertarians giving a Republican credit for stopping bad ideas from becoming law. Imagine that.
Yep. A carrot-and-stick approach gives spoiler votes their leveraged clout. Libertarian spoiler votes wrecked a lot of Republican campaigns, repealed Comstockism, then shelved conscription when Jimmeh won. Gary's 4M spoilers were a New Deal to 127 electoral votes. After Trumpanzee Hitler reenslaved women, the Dems suddenly got real serious about the practical aspects of women aving the vote. Back when there were only Communist and Prohibition third parties, the ratchet operated in the coercive direction.
Huh, the tone and tenor of this article doesn't come off as a celebration of the GOP, sort of like that "you won't own anything and you'll be happy" essay was "just asking questions". Maybe my LiDar isn't working as well as I thought.
That paragraph nor the rest of the article is offering praise. It is most similar to your claims that the only times you agree with Trump policies were when Trump did something on accident. There is zero praise in that snip.
I didn't say praise. I said credit.
Can you try replying to what I actually say for once? Just one time?
It isnt credit either dumbass. Your entire response was to white knight for the article despite the tone not being one of credit nor praise.
Giving someone credit is akin to giving them praise. Stop being in full victim mode 24/7.
credit - Recognition or approval for an act, ability, or quality.
Your response was meaningless and devoid of intelligent counter arguments.
Your response was meaningless and devoid of intelligent counter arguments.
Your comment was a response to the voices in your head, not something I said. So of course I’m not going to respond with a counter argument. That would mean defending an argument I never made, which I’m not going to do.
If you want me to respond with a counter argument, try arguing with what I actually say for one God damn time.
I literally posted the definition of credit, which means approval you retarded fuck. My comment was in complete response to your attempt at white knighting.
You trying to claim credit and praise cause the post to be meaningless is utter drivel. You know you got caught being wrong and are trying to argue over meaningless shit to avoid criticism.
Credit is recognizing what someone did.
Praise is celebrating what someone did.
They're not the same thing.
For example I give Trump credit for the libertarian-ish things he did and didn't do while in office, though it was mostly inadvertent.
Had he done libertarian-ish things intentionally and for the right reasons then he'd get my praise.
Even after I gave you the entry of synonyms. And the definition. You truly are retarded sarc. Go back to your sock.
And you’re already back to the accidental libertarian shit even though he campaigned on those things. You really are a retard.
Can you even defend your assertions of accidents and wrong reasons? Of course not. You just agree with the liberal narratives.
I meant incidental, not inadvertent.
Which is not accidental because it was on purpose. Again you deliberately misconstrue what I say so you can argue against something I didn’t say.
No. Your attempt at asserting all good unintentional all bad intentional is clear and a bald assertion. Everyone is interpreting your bullshit correctly. It doesn't stop it from being bullshit. See how you ignore he campaigned and spoke on those very things.
Youre just so partisan and delusional you have to try to go to motivations since you can't defend against actions, using bald assertions. It is quite pathetic.
I'm not going to defend arguments I did not make.
You can insist that you know what I really said, what I really thought, and what I really meant, and argue against those things.
I'm not going to participate.
Here's a novel idea! Try arguing against what I said! Then I'll respond with a counter argument!
If you're interested in an actual discussion instead of an opportunity to throw insults like you're in a high school movie, perhaps instead of telling me what you think I think you could express your rephrasing in the form of a question.
Like normal people do.
For example, instead of "This is what you really meant, defend it!" you could say "Your words could be interpreted this way, is that what you meant?"
Oh, and this is going to blow your mind.
Sometimes people are wrong. That’s right, wrong. And wrong can easily be corrected.
Not dishonest, just wrong.
Not stupid, just wrong.
Not even sure if ignorant qualifies since knowing something that is incorrect isn’t avoiding knowledge, it’s just being wrong.
When someone is wrong and you berate them for being dishonest and stupid, if they acknowledge being wrong they admit to being stupid or dishonest. So the correct response is "Fuck you."
Wow. Sarc admits he used the wrong word AND accuses Jesse of misconstruing what he meant when he used the wrong word.
Impressive.
Sarc: Here’s a novel idea! Try arguing against what I said! Then I’ll respond with a counter argument!
Also sarc: I meant incidental, not inadvertent
Truly amazing.
Wow. Sarc admits he used the wrong word AND accuses Jesse of misconstruing what he meant when he used the wrong word.
I don't mind misconstruing if it's in the form of a query asking for clarification and intended to get closer to a mutual understanding.
What JesseAz does is misconstrue on purpose and then argue against any attempt at clarification so he can be a dick.
He inadvertently didn’t start any new wars? Did he inadvertently make that part of his campaign?
Awe, pour sarc.
Here. Because you are functionally illiterate.
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/credit.html
Literally the first entry is praise.
God damn are you retarded.
In my original post I quote from the article and called it giving credit.
You moved the goalposts to praise, which means celebrating, because it's not what I actually said (you're incapable of arguing against what I say, you always expect me to defend something you make up).
Because what I quoted is not praise, though it is giving credit, you claim that I am wrong. But that's only because you dishonestly moved the goalposts from credit to praise.
You have no idea how shocked I would be if you made an honest argument against something I actually said.
Do you really not know what a synonym is? God damn. Triple down on retard. I even gave you the fucking link to try to help you out. But nope. Just pure retard.
Words mean things. That’s why I chose mine carefully. If I had meant praise I would have said praise. But it obviously wasn’t praise so I didn’t call it praise. It was giving credit, so that’s what I said.
Now you expect me to defend calling something praise when I didn’t call it that on purpose.
If you're trying to repeat what I say back to me with different words to show you understand, you're doing a piss-poor job.
If you're trying to twist what I say into something I didn't say and then expecting me to defend it, I won't.
Yes. Words mean things. It is why I provided you the definition and synonyms. Both showing my interpretation and use if praise as accurate and fair. Youre just proving you dont understand what words mean and your initial response was utter nonsense as I stated.
Again. You seem to be functionally illiterate. Words mean what they mean. You think words mean solely what you want them to mean.
I twisted nothing. Why I again provided you a definition and a list of synonyms.
Both showing my interpretation and use if praise as accurate and fair.
Giving credit doesn't necessarily include praise, while praise includes giving credit. Perhaps I should have use the word "acknowledge" instead.
Regardless you're expecting me to defend an idea I did not express, and calling me a liar for disagreeing with you about what my own thoughts were.
Why can't you just have a conversation like a normal human being, instead of telling me what I think and then calling me a liar when I disagree?
One can give credit without giving praise.
"The other day I had a discussion with Mother's Lament and he didn't act like a total cunt."
That's giving credit.
One can give credit and give praise.
"The other day I had a discussion with Mother's Lament and he didn't act like a total cunt, good for him!"
That's giving credit and praise.
You must have English as a second language if you can't understand the different nuances of "credit" and "praise". Praise the lord and pass the credit card.
Yes, sarc, JJ has ‘vetoed’ more laws than Trump. We should be dancing in the streets to see a guy who tries to rein in the government get some power.
But why, then, is Boehm so dead-set against him? JJ supported Trump – when Trump was right, which was quite often compared to 44 and 46. And JJ pushes back on the BS coming out of the Donkeyparty. I don’t particularly like his combative style, but WTF it gets results.
But why, then, is Boehm so dead-set against him?
Because he's been a check on power in general, as opposed to an unprincipled partisan.
Like claiming anything that good that comes from someone you despise being unintentional, incidental, or on accident?
Despise? You're arguing against the voices in your head again.
By “unprincipled partisan” I meant that the person with that job is a gatekeeper, and partisans ideally want a gatekeeper that judges legislation on who wrote it, not what it says. And yes I’m accusing Boehm of having a higher degree of partisanship, or party deference, than Jordan.
Here’s an opportunity to argue with what I say. There’s plenty there. Can you do it without making stuff up?
Can't speak for the other Boehm but I don't believe Jim Jordan is any sort of check on power. Check on D power sure but he'll go all in on his own authoritarian crap. Personally my assessment of JJ is he either plays very loosely with the facts or just ignores them altogether to score political points. Yeah, I know, big shocker there but I find that almost as reprehensible as the folks on the other side. Not a fan but hell why not JJ? It's all just one big shit show anyway no matter which moron we hand the gavel to.
Yep, you got that right.
So does that tell you anything about the magazine?
Reason isn't going to step out of the anti-West marxist narrative. Boehm is an exemplar of that Soros DNC mindset they call libertarianism at Reason these dark days.
Yes, reason DOES need more, better, more persuasive writers!
Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!
So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…
Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:
Hi Fantastically Talented Author:
Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.
At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
Thank You! -Reason Staff
Yes, reason DOES need more, better, more persuasive writers!
And you're not it.
The sky is blue,
The grass is green,
Get off'n yer ass,
And join Reason magazine!
(I'm sure that your writing will enchant EVERYONE, super-genius!)
More then your half-wit ramblings, shitposting and shitty attempts at poesy.
That's not even good enough to write on a toilet stall wall.
Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
Totally regardless of whereever He sits
Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
No matter the words, however absurd!
He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
They say He’ll be impeached by June,
Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
So He sits and jiggles His balls,
Then He Twitters upon the walls
“Some come here to sit and think,
Some come here to shit and stink
But I come here to scratch my balls,
And read the writings on the walls
Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin’
Giving birth to another Texan!
Here I sit, upon the pooper,
Giving birth to another state trooper!
He who writes these lines of wit,
Wraps His Trump in little balls,
He who reads these lines of wit,
Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”
Don’t bring up toilets when shitsy is around.
Yeah, he's not activist enough! He needs big ideas!
I'd prefer those leaning toward smaller, like gutting the EPA, the FBI and several other organizations. And perhaps keeping the DOJ from going on witch-hunts.
So, you didn't get it straight. The article was *commenting*, not *complaining*. There's a huge difference, and the sound you heard was that obvious point whizzing past your head.
Lame attempt at sophistry noted AB.
2023 Reason: Jim Jordan: The Perfect Speaker for a Policy-Free GOP
2019 Reason: Nancy Pelosi: We'd Eat a Mile of Her Shit
Has this rag become like the NR? No new laws and Trump supporter sounds perfect to me.
No chance at all Jim Jordan approves of the policies Trump implemented, and not just Trump himself?
You remember, don't you?
Energy independence
Low inflation
Reduced federal regulation
Improved economic outcomes for ALL demographics
That sort of thing
Energy independence
Perhaps the lie that Fatass Donnie is proudest of.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and 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.
Your man Biden moved to destroy that with the very first executive order he issued.
That's upsetting to the deep swamp and Reason,I guess.
So, is this guy the new John Anderson compromiser? Have the USAF bomb every other Mexican state instead of all of them. Put half the pot smugglers on death row and give amnesty to those pregnant women able to outrun beer-bellied Army-Of-God bounty hunters for a one-mile stretch. Voters will LOVE it, trust me!
pregnant women
Someone hasn't gotten the *checks notes* policy-rich DNC memo yet.
Hank hasn't gotten the memo since 1982.
An era defined not by lawmakers with big ideas and impressive policy accomplishments, but much of the opposite
Bitch harder, you half-assed Democrat
the green new deal is libertarian doncha know
It liberates your money from you and gives it to greenwashing government agencies.
The only way a policy-free Speaker and GOP in Congress could be a good thing is if they send a reduced-deficit comprehensive spending appropriation bill to the Senate and then do nothing else. The Imperial Speakership has reached the logical endgame finally and there is no path forward from that point.
how about a piece on what it would look like if your guy was trying to destroy the country on purpose?
Already been done:
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
eric needs to recognize.
One might conclude that it is not legislative accomplishments, but fealty to Trump that has elevated Jordan within Republican politics.
The Cult of Trump Party has replaced the GOP.
Ken Buck merely asked Jordan to acknowledge that Fatass lost the election in return for his support and Jordan won't do it.
Why should he?
We heard from Democrats for seven years how Trump colluded with the Russians®™ to steal the 2016 election!
Buck's mainly trying to save his job at this point, as his district's been flooded by shitlib Denverites the last three years looking for cheaper housing than in the tranq-addled cesspit of the Denver metro.
Oh, so Buck is just playing politics and not standing on principle?
That GOP, aka Trump Plantation is hard to escape.
Oh, so Buck is just playing politics and not standing on principle?
Correct.
That GOP, aka Trump Plantation is hard to escape.
What's so bad about opposing the Democrats?
turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
"...Fatass lost the election..."
And now FINALLY He admits shit!
STOP THE PRESSES!!! INSERT HOTTEST NEWS FLASH!!! BREAKING NEWS!!!
Trump finally (Sort of) concedes!
My most-senior inside contact at the Shadow White House has surreptitiously slipped me an advance copy of the ex-lame-duck POTUS’s concession speech. Without further ado, here it is:
Friends, non-foreigner-type True Americans, and all who Make America Great Again, lend me your ears! I come to bury Biden, not to praise him. Biden and his minions stole the erections, and we must dishonor that! To Make America Great Again, we must invent the most fantastic, fabulous, YUUUGEST BIGNESS EVAH SEEN, in the ways of truly factually fictitious, but Spiritually and Metaphorically True, NEW Republican ballots! Because I have directed My Generals and My Scientists to research the current and past performance, efficacy, and patriotism of one-party states, versus multi-party states. As I have directed them to, My impartial, unbiased, data-driven council of My Generals and My Scientists have determined that yea verily, one-party states work better! Therefore, we must all strive for the Glorious Day, when America becomes a one-party state, under the One True Party, the Republican Party!
But for now, the courts have sided with Biden and his camel-toe, and Antifa, BLM, and all the Marxist terrorists. We must let the courts have it their way, with mayo on the side. I mean, with Mao Tse Tung on the side, but without the Proud Boys standing back and standing by. Thank you, Proud Boys, for having stood by me. Also, thank you, Steve Bannon, Vladimir Putin, Kim Ill Dung, and Pepe the Stolen-Intellectual-Property Frog. Pepe, watch out for Miss Piggy, she and her “pre-nuptial contracts” will clean your clock, just like Melania is set to clean mine soon! But I digest.
So we can’t disrepute what the nasty courts have said, or there might be civil war. Sad! The courts aren’t very American these days! And if you don’t like what I just said? Well, I’m sorry that you feel that way!
So congratulations to Biden for having stolen the erections! This is America, so we must properly honor the decisions of the courts, in a dishonorable way! Biden can come and live with us in the White House, per the wishes of the courts. He can pour our covfefe for us, for Steve Bannon, Pepe the Frog, and I, and Jill can make sandwiches for us. We promise to call him POTUS, and her, First Lady! POTUS of covfefe, and First Lady of sandwiches, that is! Hey Biden! Get yer butt over here! Pepe needs some covfefe!
That setup will get us by for a little while! Meanwhile, we can schedule the NEW run-off erections, this time without any fraudulent so-called “Democratic” votes being allowed, and we can do this RIGHT the next time!
Meanwhile, congratulations to Joe Stalin-Biden, on being erected POTUS of pouring covfefe for Pepe!
Boring copypasta. It's not even a 2 out of 10 for pathetic Fraudy rants.
He is probably on my side of several issues, but 1) I don't know what he said, and 2) I'm not sure any of it supports our cause.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Looking at the way Army Of God girl-bullying prohibitionists did in the last Congressional election makes anyone hope they keep their death-to-preggers and death-to-potheads planks the way they've been since 2016.
Ah,the"Trump/Teaparty sounds ideal.
Considering that all GOP policies of this century came from wonks who wanted to be part of the managerial class (Medicare part D, No Child Left Behind), thank God almighty that they don't have a say.
Yeah, most of this appeal to "policy" is really just an ode to the managerial state, like the center-right's dumb fetish for the other glittering generality of "ideas." It's nothing more than warmed-over Bush Republicanism that absolutely no one other than the neocon dead-enders longing for the days of 2005 wants.
Wait a minute, the libertarian magazine is mocking a politician that hasn't legislated effectively? Well, color me surprised. That's a departure from the "reluctantly voting for" the "enfeebled president" line.
A "reluctance" which has shown itself to be not nearly reluctant enough. Outright "ashamed" by now.
The second-best situation behind a minarchist Congress that repeals all of the unconstitutional Departments and their legislation and regulations, authorizing spending only on the few mandatory and constitutionally authorized functions of the Federal government would be a policy-free Speaker who cannot or will not pass more legislation or spending bills. Long live gridlock!
How long would you estimate HyR has been concern-trolling libertarians?
Sometime in 2015?
"If he does—and, actually, even if he doesn't—it will be a fitting culmination for the current era of conservative politics in Washington: An era defined not by lawmakers with big ideas and impressive policy accomplishments, but much of the opposite. As long as the Republican Party is a policy-free zone, Jordan might as well be the guy in charge."
sounds like the author is auditioning for vox where every single f*ck*ng societal problem can be solved with more f*ck*ng government
I'm instructed above, that the paragraph you quoted is a celebration of totes libertarian GOP policy direction. I guess that's why they had to follow it up with an "I suppose" rejoinder.
To be sure.
Careful now. Don't use synonyms with sarc or he'll accuse you of misconstruing his posts. Sarc, that means you'll accuse him of not interpreting your clear words correctly even though he is using a synonym of the word you chose. Sarc, a synonym is a word that means the same things.
https://twitter.com/FrankDeScushin/status/1714324102222098735?t=AlZBXO7jhNBq7BrgK1SgJw&s=19
Decolonizers believe the US, Australia, and any white majority country outside Europe shouldn't exist. Yet suggest Europeans should get their land back, and decolonizers will react as though you shouldn't exist. Their worldview isn't principled. It's based on envy & resentment.
[Link]
What's the time limit? DO all Indo-Europeans need to go back to where they came from? Or perhaps all modern humans need to go back to Africa and let the Neanderthals and Denisovans and whatnot have their land back.
The point is that anything that isn't explicity marxist in character is presumed to be bad. Anti-colonialism is just a branch of its "oppressed/oppressor" theology.
colonizing == colonizing.
being colonized == enrichment.
https://twitter.com/matthewdmarsden/status/1714290935813849502?t=Z8_SwfihkV4XRcjvVNM43w&s=19
All of you that mocked me for not taking the vaccine and warning against taking it because “ YOU ARE NOT A DOCTOR!”…
The evidence was there. You chose not to see it and to attack those that did.
Take a long look at yourself, and be a better person in the future.
[Link]
I sure am glad they got a sweetheart deal of 0.000% liability. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1714327712846725271?t=6VAAgRONEqPMWN81aALFVw&s=19
UPDATE: The ISIS terrorist in Brussels is an illegal alien from Tunisia named Abdesalem Lassoed
He was able to sneak into Europe by landing on the island of Lampedusa
Remember when 6k Tunisian men stormed Lampedusa in a single week and were then distributed throughout Europe?
Boehm: "We want the Republicans to pass intrusive, nation-changing legislation, like a good progressive party!"
Useful reforms of government require legislation too. I guess maybe the best we can hope for is nothing happening, but legislation doesn't have to mean more or worse government.
Yeah, well, Republicans are unlikely to pass any "useful reforms".
Best is to just stop. Even most of the worst laws become irrelevant after a while.
Yeah, that's probably the case. It would be nice to see someone at least actually propose some real reforms and reductions in government, Maybe take a whack at a balanced budget or at least one no larger than the previous year's.
I know I'm in fantasy land here.
Reason used to publicize those reforms and hold arguments about which was better.
Remember when the charter school movement was discussed as the most sold-out version of school reform? Now we hardly hear of alternatives to it here.
No, most of the worst laws become cemented in place, accepted as how things are supposed to be, and form a new base to build higher on.
People usually find loopholes in laws. That's why progressives constantly need new legislation.
Without crypto regulation and legislation, for example, the fed and the banking system would become irrelevant within a couple of decades.
Jordan loses round 1. Team R is just a hot mess. Utterly incompetent.
Kay Granger won't let me email "please reconsider your vote" because I'm in Collin Allred's district lol. Dallas need representation too!
Better no policy than the policies of the Democrats the GOP has been supporting all these years. I hate to defend Matt Gaetz since he's such a slimy shitwaller, but he's right about how useless Kevin McCarthy has been. No debt limit, no regular budget, all gab about impeaching Biden, no cutting funds to the agencies stamping out our civil rights....... If you don't oust him now and demand the RINO's gtfo of the party, when would be a good time to do it?
He's been in Congress since 2007 but has passed exactly zero bills into law....
Which puts him exactly one bill behind Ron Paul's record in 22 years. If you're the kind of bootlicking moron who sees fitting in and getting things done in DC as something to brag about.
To be fair, this is Eric "I reluctantly voted for Biden" Boehm we're talking about here.
Justin Amash didn’t do any better but Reason loves giving him a tongue bath every now and then.
Jordan recognized what you've failed to: that Trump got elected and got things done, therefore it's a good bet to back whatever he wants next.
Y'all know that Reason is working out of their spanking new offices right in the middle of the SWAMP. Yes, our 'independent', 'small government', 'free minds, free markets' writers and staff are swimming in the putrid filth of DC every day, drinking it in and spilling it out right here.
Any wonder why this mag has gone woke?
If they had any self-awareness at all, they'd have offices in Kansas City or Dallas or Charlotte or some other near-normal city. But alas, they need to suck the hind teat of Uncle Sam, or is it Samantha now?
It's been in DC before.
And they are now more entrenched. Rather than siting their offices in America, they are in the crapital.
Shame on Eric Boehm for demanding that politicians have legislative records, or ideas. The correct libertarian thing to do is to oppose all legislation and oppose all new ideas. New ideas represent progress, and that means Progressives, and that means AOC and Bernie Sanders and socialism. I want politicians who will not do anything except make America like what it was when I was growing up in the 1950's, which was when everything was perfect.
Still terrible at this sarc.
I'm not sarc, I am your brother and I agree with you and the other libertarians here. I support Jim Jordan for Speaker because he has no legislative record, he opposes new ideas and loves Donald Trump. I am looking forward to when he wins and lefty heads explode!
Sarc or not, this is lame bitch.
It's sarc. See the use of the list and him trying to turn us mocking him as the one true libertarian here.
https://reason.com/2023/10/17/jim-jordan-the-perfect-speaker-for-a-policy-free-gop/?comments=true#comment-10279381
Not me.
Sarc, you pull this sock out whenever you get thoroughly embarrassed trying to play a strawman version of your opponents. It is embarrassing and just prove you don't understand or able to comprehend arguments.
Again, I've criticized Trump more in even the last year than you have ever criticized Biden or anyone from the DNC.
I'm not sarc, I am your brother. And you have criticized Trump? In public? Surely not for his brave stand against the tyrannical forces of The Left, on behalf of the American people! We all must stand together and unite in support of Trump, he is the best hope for all True Libertarians like us!
You're missing the forest for the trees.
What's the main problem in 2023? Too much government? Or too little?
If too much, is "more legislation" the way out of that?
This isn't hard....for a libertarian.
The main problem in 2023 is that there are too many new ideas. We libertarians have a duty to oppose all new ideas and vote no on everything.
You get about a D for the parody. I miss the days of OBL.
I am not sure what you mean. I agree with True Libertarian commenters like Kyol and Sevo and NOBY2 when they reject politicians with ideas. Because those ideas just mean socialism. Libertarians must reject politicians who are pushing things like "ideas".
OK an F. Wanna go for an F-?
I am disappointed that you support politicians with ideas. Are you a Progressive?
My idea is to stop making laws.
Completely agree. Real libertarians should demand politicians oppose all legislation.
More proof this is sarc as he is often mocked as being the one true libertarian by the same list of names he constantly uses in his victimization posts when we demand a list.
Actually, we just reject politicians, period.
So True Libertarians are anarchists? If politicians don't have power, then who would ban Gender Queer from school libraries?
Eat shit and die, asshole.
True libertarians are minarchists.
Schools should be private and paid for privately. Their management makes decisions of what books to put into libraries, and parents decide whether that's the kind of school they want to pay for. Simple really.
At least Red Tony understood the subject he was pardoying. Fucking sad.
"who went along with Trump's plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election"
wtf?
yeah- that caught my eye as well… Wanting legitimate and validated election results is apparently “overturning an election”
Oh yeah, and it was also a PLOT!!!!
So you're saying that Jordan is a rational person who actually defends the Constitution?
Doing nothing is great progress in the present environment. Maybe he will set a time limit on all legislation, and we can just wait for "nothing". One law to rule all other "pork".
Reason is letting the lefttards write their articles now? Not to mention the fact that the author clearly doesn't understand anything about the subject matter or internal GOP dynamics.
No legislative accomplishments except for stopping terrible legislation?
You'd think a "libertarian" magazine would call that a feature, not a bug. Instead it whines about Trump. Again.
I don't even think Trump is particularly good. He's just a guy who got some stuff right because he has a CEO attitude of "Show me something that actually works." And some of it did. But it's overwhelmingly clear that for everyone not on the government teat*, the Xiden regime is a million times worse. And I see nobody in the declared major party fields who is likely to perform any better than Trump.
Everyone told me the orange fatso was going to cause WWIII, runaway inflation, and general chaos and misery, while becoming dictator for life... but that seems to be what the Uniparty is doing RIGHT NOW and has been for 3+ years.
I still say the Uniparty hates Trump because despite him being a total boob, he outperformed all of them on the metrics that matter to the common people. And the last things the Uniparty Establishment wants are the common people doubting their "wisdom," or having any hope for the future at all. Without those two things, their iron grip on control and power is lost.
The most ridiculous thing of all is the Narrative that Republicans "can't govern" and that the only way for them to govern is to keep being Uniparty RINO Democrats or Democrat Lites. Matt Gaetz may look like the creepy love child of Guy Smiley and a serial killer, but the Establishment RINOS have sold out and stabbed their own voters in the back for decades. I say good for him for sticking a fork right back in their eye. For once. FINALLY. Here's to way more of that, and way less bundled-CR bullshit.
It's certainly not like continuing to do the same crap they always do is going to fix anything.
*Government teat includes not just Fedstapo agents, but also corporations, hedgies, lobbyists, and everyone else who gets first crack at what comes off the money-printer.
Couldn’t have said it better.