Review: Fargo's Self-Identified Libertarian Is No Libertarian
Will Sheriff Roy Tillman replace Ron Swanson as TV's most notable libertarian character? Hopefully not.

Season five of showrunner Noah Hawley's TV version of Fargo tells a violence-filled story exploring domestic abuse, PTSD, the concept of debt (on multiple levels), and the purpose and efficacy of the institutions of marriage and police.
Its villain is designed to cause discomfort for libertarians: Sheriff Roy Tillman (Jon Hamm), who self-identifies as a libertarian and a constitutionalist, and does seem to adhere to a certain peculiar right-wing belief in the county sheriff as the main source of authority. The only libertarianish qualities he evinces are a contempt for the FBI and the ability to recite a few silly, pointless laws. But the writers seem to want his stated ideology to add spice to the audience's dislike of him for being an abusing, murdering, and corrupt bully laundering his own rage and sin through a twisted vision of God.
In one scene, Tillman says he'd rather see orphans fight each other for sport than help them, and another character accuses him of being like a baby—crying for freedom with no responsibility. The whole thing is reminiscent of when on old college pal thinks he is totally crushing libertarianism with a masterful Facebook post.
If Tillman becomes smart quality TV fans' go-to image of libertarians, replacing the weirdly obsessed but well-meaning Ron Swanson of Parks and Recreation, it will be a shame. But hopefully a smart viewer will know, when Tillman calls on the spirit of western resisters of federal power such as Ammon Bundy and LaVoy Finicum, that it's no part of any proven public record that either man ever did anything a hundredth as evil as Tillman does in pretty much every episode.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Fargo."
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
who self-identifies as a libertarian and a constitutionalist, and does seem to adhere to a certain peculiar right-wing belief
Hehehehehe.
You don't even know why I'm laughing, do you Brian.
Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease? Sounds about right.
No, that's incorrect.
So Mr. Hawley was born in NYC and the son of a feminist activist....wow..why am I not surprised. Why do so many "writers" seem to share the same hometown and from very left wing often bolshie families? Is it because they are good writers or just well connected?
People who want to study up on REAL libertarianism need to STOP watching “Fargo”, and come here, to the Reason.com comments, where they learn that… REAL libertarians obsess about the Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells, about the Stolen Erections, and sucking Orange Dick, in hopes of being rewarded with a session or two with Spermy Daniels, Who Art Our Queen, Drenched in Vaseline! And who ALWAYS say, “Butt twat about Hillary?!?!?”
(Also they obsess about worshitting Saint Babbitt.)
High priest Sqrlsy will book no competition to the cult of St. Sicknick.
WTF is wrong with you?
Leftoidism is what's wrong with him. it's like tertiary syphilis
“Butt twat about Hillary?!?!?”
You forgot that part of your post!!! Because THAT is twat justifies EVERYTHING that sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturds think and do!!!
"The only libertarianish qualities he evinces are a contempt for the FBI and the ability to recite a few silly, pointless laws. But the writers seem to want his stated ideology to add spice to the audience's dislike of him for being an abusing, murdering, and corrupt bully laundering his own rage and sin through a twisted vision of God."
Yes, progressive Hollywood hates libertarians as they are part of the political Right. Welcome to being strawmanned Doherty.
NO,Hollywood hates what stands on principles. And you do not evidence principles in your posts.
Hollywood hates what challenges their self-abosrbed limousine liberal agenda. You know, demanding green global socialism while promoting their elite status and privilege. If you oppose either one, you are a seditious fascist.
Yes, progressive Hollywood hates libertarians as they are part of the political Right. Welcome to being strawmanned Doherty.
The whole article feels like a rebuttal or an epilogue to every last one of Robby's "to be sures".
Even by Doherty's own description, it sounds less like the guy is quoting Hayek, Rothbard, or even Rand or robbing from the state to put money back in his people's pockets, and more like he's an Oath Keeper or Sovereign Citizen and they're impugning him for *that* because that's what makes him despicable (which libertarians frequently do find distasteful... to be sure).
Look, when Joe Manchin is judged a right wing nut job, how can Libertarians NOT be Nazis?
Libertarians are not inherently on the right. But many right-wing Americans seem to think there's some kind of cachet in describing themselves as libertarians, or else have a very inconsistent idea about what libertarianism is.
What's libertarianism then? Give us your definition. And then tell us how the Mises-types don't fit it and you do.
I'm content with Wikipedia's extended definition, which recognises different forms of libertarianism. I am sure that there are some forms of libertarianism which, like some forms of Christianity, recognise only themselves as "true" or pure and other forms are either contaminated, heretical, or not even Scotsmen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I'll respond to the latter part of your post later.
The practical definition is broad enough that it may apply to a range of positions, though as I am much more pragmatic than most libertarians I won’t score as highly as the Mises Caucus on a measure of theoretical fidelity to many basic libertarian principles.
IMO the axiomatic libertarians, as so many appear to be, pay little or no attention to outcomes, e.g., if a policy runs counter to their principles, they will reject it, even if the outcome leads to greater freedom than eventuates from the policy they favour. Not being eaten by bears is a freer outcome than being eaten by bears. for example.
My heuristic is that prior to any available evidence, choose the policy that appears to give greater liberty or less government involvement, but if the evidence shows that in terms of outcomes, the other policy choice actually leads to greater liberty, then I have no trouble choosing the evidence-based policy. So-called left-libertarianism, it seems to me, eschews the evidence component and merely claims that a particular policy will produce greater liberty which, as they’re libertarians after all, is a desired goal.
I note that the Mises Caucus seems to be opposed to abortion, and the allegations of links to white supremacy are also concerning. I can certainly conceive of a group which favours individual liberty and limited government for themselves, while banning abortion and denying liberty to other groups, and supporters of such a group might well regard themselves as libertarians but will draw support from the dregs of the right.
But I’m not sure how you score one group against another – it depends on how highly you rank or weight different components of libertarian ideas.
90-95% of working screenwriters were "card carrying" Marxists 10 years before identitarian/intersectional beliefs were imposed as the new buy-in cost for their jobs. They were already mostly ivy-league indoctrinated (with some "diversity hires" holding degrees from colleges like Brandeis, Sarah Lawrence, and Amherst) leftist-authoritarians who go into cognitive dissonance when confronted with the idea of the label of "liberal" having some connection to the kinds of ideas which defined the term from the time of Plato and Aristotle until the mid-late 1990s.
People with that ideology (and more recently, a lot of less extreme self-described "progressives") have for decades had a mental caricature of what they seem to sincerely believe makes a "libertarian", which is generally some combination of the Big Bad from an early Mad Max movie, the "Monopoly Man", and a David Koresh/Tim McVeigh hybrid. How the writers room at Parks and Rec conceived of a character like Ron Swanson as possessing any degree of real humanity could be seen as one of the biggest mysteries in TV history.
If the writers on Fargo were a bit more self-aware, they might well have named the character on their show Strawman instead of Tillman.
Wow you hit it out. Knew a few film production grads (from a top five film school) who came from small towns and had conservative or even Ron Paul libertarian beliefs..they all tried to make a go of it in Hollywood and didn't have the "family" connections or right political beliefs and all had to move on and get other jobs.
Is what he says true or moral or helpful ? Forget whether you should get his autograph or not. If you are Libertarian for a reason(s) use those bases to judge by . Don't just become a cheerleader who loves her team because --- well, I forget--- but they are my team YAY
"If you're so smart, why are you so dead?" or something like that was a good line. this season needed more episodes for depth.
I'm pretty sure libertarians oppose murder.
Also kidnapping, wife beating and rape. Or is that just me?
If anybody wants a great Libertarian-minded series, Mystery Science Theater 3000 is excellent!
The whole premise is about the Host(s) being held captive by the Forresters, a family of Mad Scientists with Hayekian Fatal Conceit and desires for control and world conquest who use the Host(s) as guinea pigs in experiments of forced brainwashing with horrible movies!
The Host(s) don't accept the swill they are force-fed, but question it and defy it with the creation of robot companions and with non-stop witticisms, impersonation, sarcasm, parody, satire, comedic destruction...and possibly escape?
Despite the Forresters being Mad Scientists, MST3K is not anti-science, but uses it to full advantage. Not only does Joel create robot companions that also befriend the other Hosts, but the Hosts always bests the Mads with creative technology in the Invention Exchange.
And philosophical and scientific allusions are made throughout the series. (For example, when the bad guys want to split the loot 3 ways in the movie Beyond Atlantis, one of the characters says words to the effect of: "That's 33.33 Percent into infinity!"
And the Love Theme at the end of each episode is so quietly triumphant and almost brings a tear to the eye! It's like: "Another day of defeating The Forrester Dynasty!"
Best yet, the credits frequently give a tip of the Tin Foil Beanie to: "The Writers of The 1st Amendment!". Sold American!
🙂
😉
and if you think you've seen them all there are new episodes now.
YouTube has a MST3K Forever-Thon. This on top of online crowd-funding and commercial-sponsored channels on PlutoTV and TubiTV. Also, there's RiffTrax channels and Cinematic Titanic made by MST3K Alums and Veterans. They've got it all going on!
The whole thing is reminiscent of when on old college pal thinks he is totally crushing libertarianism with a masterful Facebook post.
That's a potshot at Matt Yglesias, right?
Season 5 is unwatchable.
Season 5 is so woke it makes Season 4 look right wing.
This season really hated on the Trump types. It was the weakest season other than season 4.
Of course the MAGA chuds in the comments here will hate it.
In 4-8 years we need to have a Truth and Reconciliation committee type deal to deal with all the traitor MAGA trash.
The Libertarian idea of Truth and Reconciliation is: I'll Live And Let Live If You Live And Let Live!
Of course, since your name is actually "Kill All Rednecks" and you include Mormons in particular with that, that idea is beyond your miserable pay grade!
I love jibing The Bicycle Boys, Bible-Thumpers, and True Believers of all flavors, but I strive to be a Rational, Moral Being first!
Fuck Off, Psycho! Reason + will be Reason - if it keeps you!
but I strive to be a Rational, Moral Being first!
Except for the whole Peter Pan thing.
Is that some kind of homophobic insult?
We really do need to have some kind of tribunal to get rid of all the anti-American trash like you.
No, he's not gay. He's got some kind of weird Peter Pan fetish.
Both of you can go into Thunderdome and I'll gamble for your garments, assuming they can be deloused and autoclaved.
What kind of masochist watches this show anyway? The only reason I watched the first season's improbable plotting and contradictory characters was in anticipation of checking out news accounts of the real events behind it, once it was over. Turns out it's all a big cheat. Now we're supposed to pay some premium service to get swindled. I'd expect just this sort of political snark from writers who (rightly) think so little of their audience's critical faculties.
The character is intentionally a caricature of what Hollywood imagines libertarians are; they made a strawman to be dismantled. But instead of a libertarian, my takeaway of the Sheriff was "Oh, yet another corrupt elected official who has used the power of his office to enrich himself, enrich his family by nepotism, and to cover up his many other crimes."
We enjoyed the show, nonetheless. After the first episode, I had to rent "Long Kiss Goodnight" which my wife had not seen, but I had been strongly reminded of.
Ultimately, we probably most enjoyed the Munch character arc.
Fargo is a good show but the last season delved deep into propaganda and progressive paranoia. The bit referencing the Bundy standoff with BLM is thrown into the show with no context they did nothing wrong.
Will Sheriff Roy Tillman replace Ron Swanson as TV's most notable libertarian character? Hopefully not.
Why do I get the feeling you'd change your minds if saw him in a dress?
Also, he's not really a Scotsman.