Politicians Go Out of Their Way To Make Political Tensions Worse
Nobody should be governed by people who despise them.
At the Arizona memorial service for Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated two weeks ago, President Donald Trump acknowledged Kirk's character, saying, "he did not hate his opponents; he wanted the best for them." And then he added, "That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents. And I don't want the best for them."
It was an honest moment if an awkward comment to make at a memorial service for a man murdered (to all appearances) by a political opponent. Like too much of the political class across the ideological spectrum, Trump is prone to despising those he disagrees with. It raises questions about why people should ever submit to the governance of those who hate them—and whether politicians realize that they're a big part of what brought us to this unfortunate moment.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
"It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree," Trump had told the nation on the day of Kirk's assassination at a kinder and, perhaps, more self-aware moment. "This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today."
In truth, that day Trump also put the blame for Kirk's murder on "the radical left" and promised to "find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence," hinting at something nastier than a criminal investigation. But for a moment, the president seemed to recognize that hating political opponents and wishing them ill might have unhappy consequences. For a moment.
Years of Politicians Despising Their Constituents
Trump isn't alone in the political class when it comes to villainizing those who disagree or treating them as aliens in their own country and unworthy of respect. In a bizarre address to the nation in 2022, then-President Joe Biden lectured the country that "MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution" and "fan the flames of political violence."
By that time, Biden had already accused his opponents of "semi-fascism."
Kamala Harris, Biden's unsuccessful successor as Democratic standard bearer in the 2024 presidential race, dropped the "semi" and went with "fascist" to describe her opponent.
That wasn't the beginning of the dismissal of half the country by politicians courting the other half. Trump and his allies regularly accuse their opponents of anti-Americanism—"I really believe they hate our country," Trump said in July. Trump's 2016 Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, dismissed her foes as belonging in a "basket of deplorables" characterized as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it." And, as a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama sniffed at small-town dwellers as "bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."
The result is that no matter which of the big political parties wins national office, around half the people over whom the victors exercise power know they're governed by people who hate them – and they return the favor.
"I think that is something to be fearful of, the normalization of what can devolve into dehumanizing, inciting rhetoric," James Druckman, a professor of political science and co-author of Partisan Hostility and American Democracy: Explaining Political Divisions and When They Matter, commented last year. "It has consequences for what people think of other groups. It has consequences for what people think of democracy."
America's Political Tribes Loathe Each Other
In terms of what Americans think of each other, we already know partisan hostility is intensifying.
"About three-quarters (73 percent) of voters who identify themselves as Republican agree that 'Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree,'" a poll by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics found in 2022. "An almost identical percentage of Democrats (74 percent) express that view of Republicans."
In summarizing YouGov polls, Eli McKown-Dawson noted last year that "Democrats and Republicans are increasingly likely to dislike each other and to feel hostile toward members of the other political party." Specifically, "85% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party, an increase of 16 percentage points since February 2023. The share of Republicans who view the Democratic Party unfavorably rose by a similar amount: 88% of Republicans feel unfavorably toward the Democratic Party, compared to 74% last year."
Maybe it was inevitable that a political culture that has normalized "demonizing those with whom you disagree," as Trump put it in the day of Kirk's murder, would turn to force to settle disputes. That's meant vandalism, arson, vehicle attacks, attempted assassinations, and murders, such as those of Yaron Lischinsky, Sarah Milgrim, Brian Thompson, Melissa Hortman, and Charlie Kirk.
There Has To Be a Better Way
This is insane, and it's dangerous. Americans—people in general—should not be subject to the whims of those who despise them. We deserve better than to be governed by those who disdain what we believe and how we live. This is a big enough country that there's no need to live at daggers-drawn alongside people whose values and preferences are so different they'd rather fight than find common ground.
For years, Americans have been moving to live in neighborhoods where they feel politically comfortable. "Our analysis suggests partisanship itself, intentional or not, plays a powerful role when Americans uproot and find a new home," Ronda Kaysen and Ethan Singer wrote last year for The New York Times in a piece on Americans' moving patterns. "In all but three states that voted for Mr. Biden in 2020, more Democrats have moved in than Republicans. The reverse is true for states Mr. Trump won."
Rather than seethe at "deplorables" or those who "hate our country," and instead of fighting with opponents for a brief opportunity to force policies on the unwilling before they do the same in return, perhaps our political class could turn their attention to those localities dominated by people willing to buy what they're selling. They could leave the rest of us alone to live by different rules. That was, after all, how our federal system was designed to work—as separate experiments in laws and governance.
At Kirk's memorial, Erika Kirk, Charlie's widow, had a different message than that of Trump. "That young man," she said of her husband's assassin, "I forgive him.
That's a kinder sentiment than I could summon in such circumstances. But nobody would be asked to extend such forgiveness if members of the political class could keep their loathing for people who disagree with them unvoiced and confine themselves to inflicting their views on willing followers.
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
Reason’s own Matt Welch called for the “red wedding” against conservative writers, but keep ignoring that.
https://x.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12
I stopped listening to The Fifth Column podcast because of the constant dismissal of certain public figures as idiots without hardly an explanation of what they think that makes them idiots, while laughing knowingly.
It's PBS without the fake civility or reverence.
Or Curious George. The shenanigans that little monkey gets involved in, my goodness.
BiCurious George
Tuccille calls out President Trump--as well as two past Democratic presidents and two past Democratic presidential candidates--for employing rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes the "other side's" rank-and-file voters. This is somehow a manifestation of "TDS"? Does the diagnosis of "TDS" apply to everyone who lacks fierce loyalty to Donald Trump?
Whoops, replied to wrong comment, and for whatever reason I can't delete it. See below.
The Filth Column?
Yeah. I really like Kmele but Welch and Moynihan are impossible to watch.
They do a weekly piece on the Megyn Kelly show. I wonder if she was on the list for Welch's conservative Red Wedding?
I am sure his personal integrity would not allow him to show up on her huge channel if he wished her dead a few years ago. /sarc
Same. Moynahan has an iq about 5 standard deviations lower then he thinks, and Welch is plain evil Marxist.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12 “Now would be a good time to throw a big cocktail party in New York or Washington, and invite every single conservative writer you know. #RedWedding2”
That’s the full quote. Did Welch call for “…all conservative writers be invited to a red-wedding style mass-slaughter…”? If in your fevered dreams, he WAS calling for that, was it for the party-going writers to be the dishers-out of the violence, as the victims, or as mere spectators? If as spectators, for their amusement, or to demonstrate the real horrors of real violence to them? Or, to see MOVIES about red weddings? … Y’all LOVE to rush to judgments, without any data, don’t you? Whenever doing so, fits YOUR story line!
https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Red_Wedding for reference
Are YOU criticizing Welch for this questionable-meaning(s) allusion? I, for one, would urge adults who want to understand the ugliness of violence and revenge, to see “Clockwork Orange”. That has ZERO to do with me threatening ANYONE!!! Hello?!?!
“Party at my place. Invite your teenaged relatives and friends. #StarWars”
Did I just issue an invitation to blow up (“I sense disturbances in the Force”) entire planets full of teenagers, using Death Stars? … Well, yes, if you hate me and my kind, and honesty means NOTHING to you, I could see you using my party invitation that way, sure…
I’m sorry that you suffer under the illusion that you know exactly what Matt Welch meant by that. There are MANY possible interpretations!
Below is my interpretation:
He meant that the conservatives should be invited to a party in which “Red Wedding” is screened for all viewers, so that conservatives (ESPECIALLY Trump-cultist conservatives) could learn exactly WHAT it is like, to be invited to a party, in order for KILLINGS to happen! And then maybe the Party of Trump Cultists will STOP inviting YOU to THEIR POLITICAL Party, in which democracy is deliberately murdered!!! (I know that it is WAAAAY too much to ask, that they should actually STOP trying to murder democracy, there in the Trump-Cult Party.)
Haha, you think you’re fooling anyone with this? Haha!
SSqrlsy likely doesn’t even fool sarc or Tony.
Scumby Chimp-Chump and Shit's side-slut Penguin Poop can snot POSSIBLY imagine that their tinfoil magic mind-reading hate-hats could EVER malfunction! Twat am I thinking right now, right-wing wrong-nuts?
Having played no children's games since Leisure Suit Larry IV, Red Wedding meant nothing to me. Thanks to Plucky I now know whatever it is, it makes mystical bigots masterdebate and carpetbite in apoplectic fits. That's enough to make it interesting.
It's a television show. Take a few more hits of windowpane and call us in the morning.
In the book series A Song of Ice and Fire and its adaption Game of Thrones, several important characters are gathered for a wedding. After the ceremony, they are brutally betrayed and murdered. That is what calling for a "Red Wedding" means.
Keith Olberman just threatened another journalist. After receiving backlash he swiftly removed his thread but it's already archived.
Way to go Keith, you really told him.
Olberman should expect a visit from the DHS or maybe Patel's FBI.
Like with Kimmel, the left will see Oldermann as the victim.
He was forced to protect himself with words of violence and/or Keith is really MAGA.
Was there some other victim we don't know about?
Just Kimmel and Oldermann.
Reason is nothing if not inconsistent, full of both-sidesers. Except for the TDS crowd, who are very consistent.
Reason has reached the point where I’m actually finding this fascinating. It’s like some sort of wild sociological phenomenon.
Like a zoo for those infected with long TDS.
Like 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, and 28 Years Later, where the first movie teases studying how the Rage zombies are going to live for more than a few weeks without their higher cognitive functions... and then the second and third movie near completely ignore.
Tuccille calls out President Trump--as well as two past Democratic presidents and two past Democratic presidential candidates--for employing rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes the "other side's" rank-and-file voters. This is somehow a manifestation of "TDS"? Does the diagnosis of "TDS" apply to everyone who lacks fierce loyalty to Donald Trump?
"I really believe they hate our country" is not in the same universe as getting called 'fascist' or 'deplorable' or being dismissed as a 'bitter clinger'
Trump is talking of his personal beliefs.
The leftists are spewing personal invective at voters.
The definition of TDS applies when you engage in twisting things so that you can apply a 'both sides' narrative when none applies.
Or twisting matters to blame Trump where he has no involvement.
This is a new Reason tactic if feigning concern about team D having done wheat they currently allege team R is doing so they can appear impartial in their boaf sidez attempt. The issue is did they call out the team D behavior at the time? See ENB’s article from today. For years it was crickets but now that appears to be used as a cudgel to push the “Trump cancelled Kimmel” narrative.
See that attempt as well as the tariffs articles as examples of what is happening here. When the premise begins through the lens of orangemanbad, then moar testing needed to check for TDS.
Note I called out DJT in the Afghanistan article.
^+1
There weren't crickets when team D was censoring, ENB and the rest were actively defending it with their "private companies" excuse, now it's just some mysterious "some people".
I was about to say this.
They covered the bannings and censorship.
Favorably.
MUH PRIVATE PLATFORMZ!!!
Do the political positions of the Democrats leave any room for them to leave alone the people who disagree with them?
Look at the case of the Little S8sters of the Poor, who were harassed by the Obama and Biden administrations for insufficiently bending the knee to progressive morality on contraception. Look at how they reacted to the overturning of Roe v Wade, when all it did was reestablish federalism to the question of abortion. The very solution you propose is against the ideology of the Left.
Parody. The both sides thing is not evidenced here in spite of how much they try to make it a thing.
It's Tuccillie; don't presume cupidity where stupidity will suffice.
Too chilly is better than most. Recall that ALL of them live in deep blue areas, so they are swimming in fetid waters and cannot help but become infected,
If KMW had half a brain she’d move Reason HQ to somewhere less perverted, maybe Columbus or Indianapolis .
They could leave the rest of us alone to live by different rules.
Impossible to do so without having separate national governments.
I've always favored a total divorce with the left, as it is a truly peaceful solution, but that spells the end of niche ideologies like libertarianism, since they have nowhere to go.
Also impossible with progressives, by definition. Their version existence is based on the compulsion to change you, even if that means forcing change.
Their version existence is based on the compulsion to change you, even if that means killing you
FTFY
Anybody can generalize the behavior and beliefs the the worst examples seen on TV or the internet and claim it represents all 'conservatives' or all 'progressives'. Most people are in the middle and just lean one way or another. However a lot of people are fooled by the projections of the internet.
The federalization of decisions like abortion bans, what vaccinations are available etc. will further split the country. Liberal-leaning families won't move to red states with abortion bans because they want their daughters to be in a place that has enough OBGYNs. OBGYNs are leaving the abortion-ban states in droves because they don't want to be prosecuted for helping women who need care after a miscarriage. People who want abortion bans will move to abortion ban states. Anyone who cares about vaccines will leave states where insurance doesn't cover them etc. As laws become more and more different across states, people will move with their values.
Like in Libertopia, if you wanted to live where drug use, prostitution, and gambling weren't allowed, you could? Or you'd be forced to live under Libertopia's rules?
This whole shtick is so silly, even for a concern troll
The left dots the country by concentrating in every city. We might be content to let them govern the cities independently, but they will aggressively assert their will everywhere with any power they can get.
Which is why the cities, if all else fails, can always be sieged.
Running a city when you can get no food nor power might be a challenge.
It is inevitable that the ruling, non-productive class despises the productive class. This is why the Constitution is designed to restrict as much as possible the powers of the federal government. It is a safeguard against tyranny.
Wrong verb. It WAS a safeguard against tyranny. Even that was called into question by Lysander Spooner while lampooning the explicit tax-collector's oath. I have not yet found a better or shorter constitution, but this failed one could be shortened for a change. Delete Amendment 11. Delete male from 14A so female stands in 15A. Abolish 16A, expunge 18A and Section 2 of 21A. Impeach all Comstockist judges or try them for treason with flaming gowns. Shorten all laws to fit legibly on one letter-size sheet of paper.
I blame Trump’s rhetoric:
BREAKING: ACTIVE SHOOTER REPORTED AT ICE FACILITY IN DALLAS, TEXAS — SEVERAL INJURED.
https://x.com/NexaNews_/status/1970822917522088363
If Trump had not been reelected, none of this would be
happeningnecessary.You're joking, but an idiot streamer named Destiny literally made that argument about Charlie's assassination.
That was what I was channeling.
Ah, sorry.
Well done for making the connection.
I am sadly aware of the retards on the internet.
Unfortunately, we are all not aware enough.
Jeffsarc and Tony/Molly remind us daily.
They do serve a purpose, or sorts.
as a daily reminder I am in fact sane.
Right wing violence, MAGA gang responsible.
A sniper critically wounded at least three people at an ICE facility in Dallas early Wednesday, authorities said.
Police were called to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office just before 7 a.m. local time (8 a.m. ET) to reports of shots being fired, law enforcement sources told WFAA.
A shooter was found dead on the roof of a nearby immigration attorney’s office, but it isn’t clear if others were involved in the attack.
Bets it's another tranny with buyer's remorse?
How many left-wing attacks does that make just since Kirk's assassination?
Reason either won't cover them or play the "both sides are bad, but we really need to focus on protecting the left"
Make sure to include the attempted bombing of the Fox News van which included the threat that Trump is next.
Perfectly consistently with my expectations the left media has not covered this at all.
Let me guess.
The shooter was an ICE agent who was pissed off over being passed over for promotion. /sarc
That is actually not a bad guess; harkens to the original intent of "going postal."
Doesn't make sense that a conservative would shoot at an ICE facility for detaining the objects of his or her scorn.
Makes sense that a lefty would do this, especially given that they missed their intended targets and killed the objects of their sympathy.
Of course my presumption, that is "makes sense," is likely totally off the mark here.
"FBI Director Kash Patel posted a photo on X of what he said were the suspect's unspent shell casings that showed one with the words "ANTI-ICE" written along the side."
Definitely an extreme left wing terrorist who managed to shoot the wrong people [detainees and not ICE agents]. I'm sticking with the disaffected tranny looking for intersectionality in all the wrong places.
""who managed to shoot the wrong people ""
I'll just let that simmer.
What the odds that anti-ICE people praises this guy and ignores he killed one of the people they think they are trying to protect.
Didn't he kill two of 'em?
And the Left will blame Trump. Just like they blame that short dress for them raping women.
WTF is up with the Left leaving etchings in shell casings? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, but their love affair with Luigi is well known.
"Nobody should be governed by people who despise them."
You will never admit that the left doesn't govern, it rules.
The left rules much the same way Stalin ruled.
If one death is a tragedy, I'll take a statistical million...wait, make that 60 million.
And yet communism remains "cool;" like it's kind of original and edgy if someone sports a Che Guevara shirt; radical chic as opposed to wearing little swastikas.
These people even compare Antifa to D-Day soldiers, unaware of Antifa's Communist roots.
Being "unaware" is an essential requirement to participate. One must be an idiot in order to be useful there.
The problem with liberals is that in their own twisted way, they believe in their own moral superiority. The same moral superiority that allows dangerous criminals to roam freely and commit more mayhem, allowing millions of unvetted illegal aliens into the nation and the disappearance of more than 325,000 children. Yup, that's real liberal morality.
The best that Trump did was give the leaders of all those failed western European nations for destroying their own country by allowing millions of third world savages, most of them Muslims. into their nations and destroying their own societies, a good reminder of how they failed.
Oh I almost forgot, Trump made that little French wannabe dictator, married to a man, walk the rest of the way to the U.N. LOL!
With MAGAs having zero morals, it is not hard to have moral superiority over them.
Exhibit #1
Words from MAGA supporters = violence, right Tony?
We manage to not murder people we disagree with.
Your side cannot say the same.
Was the US war on Nazi Germany murder?
Was the US war on Nazi Germany merely a disagreement?
Reason: "both sides"
Cultists: "No! Our hate is jusified and laudible. Their unreasoning hate justifies ours"
Uh, sure.
Now which side is built on a foundation of forcing change on society justified by claims of moral superiority and allegiance to "experts"?
The murdering side.
Don't forget "studies show." When confronted with such incontrovertible evidence you need not read beyond the headlines to know everything you need to know.
Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun. His shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
Reason: "Both sides".
SRG2: "No, only my enemies are cultists. Our hatred is perfectly reasonable."
Yes, we know how the left feels, thanks for pointing it out.
Observe that "both" the Christian National and Communist congregants of socialism are convicted that altruism is a standard of value for discriminating good from evil. Their quibbling spawn of Dems and JeOHpeez differe only from these through lack of integrity. Republicans agree with all of the Hitler program but quail at the extermination of Jyooz as a liiitle too Mohammedan/Lutheran. Democrats vouch for 99% of the Communist Manifesto but hesitate to put immediate unconditional surrender to China or North Korea at the top of their platform, Instead they insist on banning fuel and electricity so that no other outcome is possible. The Jesus Caucus had to do SOMETHING to make the LP disgusting compared to even those four.
Republicans agree with the Hitler program, really?
Why don't you prove that by making a little chart with positions in the rows and Republican, Democrat, Nazis, and Communists for the columns?
Fun fact: if we did this, we would see there's significant agreement between Democrats and Nazis -- because there is significant agreement between Nazis and Communists, and as you had just pointed out, there is significant agreement between Democrats and Communists.
Fun fact: Nazis really admired Democrats and their policies, but when Nazis were trying to decide who should be purged as "Jews", they looked at the Democrat "one drop rule" and said "whoa, that's too racist!" and settled on "we'll just check four generations instead".
"Nobody should be governed by people who despise them."
Even deplorables?
Killary had a plan for that.
Hey jd,
Where was this article when Biden literally stated that all people that disagree with him is an enemy of America?
Fuck you, you lying cancer. Move to Canada, ask for maid
Yeah, you'd think these people were not in the US for Biden's "Triumph of the Will Part 2" speech.
That was just bad lighting!
Funny how you never take this tone when it's Democrats doing a nationwide roundup and long sentences for a protest or the FBI targeting conservatives over school board disagreements. Fuck you, I reject your position that the Right should just quietly submit to being murdered consequences free.
Tuccille omitted Biden telling a black NAACP audience "[Mitt Romney Republicans] want to put ya'll back in chains" probably because this comment creates a link to how our political culture evolved into this and his both-sidesism doesn't want that discussed. The truth is that hatred has been a staple on the left since they (wrongly) took credit for the Civil Rights Movement and cynically exploited, extended, and expanded race conflict to achieve their political goals. This program has greatly expanded as their march through our institutions put them in position to do so, and the simple truth is that they can't win elections without this hatred because their ideas are so obviously failures.
Sowell has made similar arguments; he's of the opinion that Obama is the worst POTUS we've ever had for specifically this reason.
I consider Obama the result of this process rather than the cause. It started in the 70s after the end of the Vietnam draft cost the far left its ability to organize mass protests. In response they changed tactics to infiltrate academia and media and corrupt them from their original function into left supporting activist institutions.
It's true Obama's government was the worst ever, with their complete control of government they managed to waste trillions of dollars to achieve none of their stated goals, embedded a sex police apparatus on campus, and created the largest refugee crisis since the Mongol invasions which both enabled the ISIS takeover and effectively destroyed Europe as a result.
But all this happened because the left itself pushed it. A Dem President is the tip of a spear, the spear drives the results. I doubt there would have been any material difference if Clinton had won the nomination and presidency. This is simply what the left was interested in and capable of achieving at the time. It doesn't work the same way for Reps because they don't have legions of activists who have spent the prior decades embedded in academia and NGOs developing their program.
I'm not sure Hillary would have enacted Obama's "whole of society" approach in nearly the same manner, only because the Clintons have always operated around the principle of their own enrichment and self-aggrandizement, than in pushing something along the lines of a neo-Maoist cultural revolution the way Obama did. She's certainly supported various features of it, but only to the extent that it might increase her own personal power or put more money in her pocket.
And her failures are an indication of how sclerotic the Clinton machine had become in just a short amount of time after Bill left office. No way in hell would an insurgent like Obama have stepped over her in the early 2000s, but by the time 2008 rolled around, enough Democrats had decided they were tired of the constant drama around the Clintons to give him a chance.
"...And her failures are an indication of how sclerotic the Clinton machine had become in just a short amount of time after Bill left office..."
Fairly screams "personality cult", don't it? Which other POTUS would have gotten pass (BY WOMEN!) for cheating on his wife in the Oval Office?
Two of the three worst Obama initiatives were Clinton priorities: Obamacare and the Arab Spring that led to ISIS, the refugee crisis, and the continued immigration problems in Europe and eventually here. So there's no way these change. Weaponizing Title IX was almost entirely an activist-bureaucrat led movement, and there's no reason to believe she opposed it much less would have spent the considerable political capital required to stop it.
I'm not sure what the "whole of society approach" is referencing specifically so correct me if you mean something else. But if it in general means politicizing every instance of life this is another long-term activist movement we arrived at during Obama's term. Dems have asserted this goal as "the personal is political" since the 1960s. It gained steam outside academia then because the activist base felt they would never lose another election due to mass immigration and their institutional control and therefore no longer needed to hide what they really believe. This would have played out the same for any Dem President, it's not specific to Obama.
True. The Clintons were / are disgusting on a Machiavellian level. Obama was / is disgusting on a Marxist radical starfucker level.
The obnoxious part is that Dems just hand wave away their DAMNED NEAR 2 CENTURIES OF RACISM by saying "Well, the parties switched".
In spite of the GOP specifically not changing and a total of 2 segregationists becoming Republicans.
The Democrats were racist and still are. They still love the slave labor they get from their illegals. They love getting people here who cannot complain about their horrid work policies or else they get deported because they can act morally superior while being the lowest of the low.
The weaponization of the FBI and DHS during the Obiden administration or more accurately as maladministration was one of persecution of anyone who dared to object to the orthodoxy of the radical left. That included parents who objected to a serial rapist being allowed to remain in school while their young daughters were in danger of being brutally raped by a dangerously mentally ill boy who managed to convince the school board he was a she.
A nice little visit by Biden's Gestapo (FBI) taught them a lesson in humility.
Never has the rule of law been so twisted and perverted as to the way it was during those four dangerous years.
The term "lawfare" was accurately used to describe the Obama run Biden maladministration.
Obama claimed he was going to radically alter America and he did so for at least 12 years. Those years are over and Obama belongs in the hall of one of the worst presidents ever.
One of the stupider aspects of contemporary political discourse is whinging about "weaponization" of government. I thought only leftists were dumb enough to believe the State was fundamentally good, but remain amazed at how thoroughly MAGA has adopted leftist thought.
Government - at its heart - is the threat of "or else". No institution that gives itself the rightous use of violence and imprisonment can be a net positive... no matter how many kiddies it saves from the horrors of men wearing dresses.
One of the stupider aspects of contemporary political discourse is any comment from TDS-addled slimy piles of shit like you.
Fuck off and die.
Both the cowardly Nationalsocialists and communists lacking integrity who make up the Nixon-subsidized Kleptopcracy in These States agree that altruism is the ultimate value justifying the initiation of deadly force until the last miscreant is oven-baked. But their own habit of defining the ONLY existing alternative (Libertarians don't count) as "not really" altruist is what justifies their extermination in a war to make the world safe for totalitarianism. It's as though voters for each looter party had signed an Aggression First principle.
I'm really tired of the "but your principles!" argument. Principles only work when both sides adhere to them, but when Democrats always resort to things like "weaponization of government" every time they get into office, the Republicans would be very foolish to say "that's not who we are!" and leave the Democrats alone until they get in power again, when it's clear that the Democrats will pick up those very weapons again as soon as they could.
No! Democrats have re-written the rules. They have carefully nurtured the environment. They sincerely believed they would never have to answer to anyone, because they sincerely believed they would never lose that power. Now that they are out of power, let them live in the environment they established, but pointed at them now.
Perhaps they'll learn a lesson from this -- but if not, perhaps the people who believe this will be rooted out of power, and replaced by people who actually have principles -- and once that happens, perhaps we could return to the saner, kinder principles Republicans prefer.
Oh, and one final thing: what makes you think MAGA has adopted the leftist thought that "the State is a fundamental good"? President Trump is gutting government and deregulating at a record pace. That's a funny thing for people who believe "the State is a fundamental good" to do!
"Nobody should be governed by people who despise them."
Perhaps you shouldn't be the despicable steaming pile of TDS-addled shit you are?
It's odd and wrong that Tuccille focuses the attention on politicians, probably because his focus is Trump and he doesn't like the implications of looking at the bigger picture. As someone famous often says politics is downstream from culture. The people who drive this hatred are not politicians but rather academics, media figures, and the activists they use to drive their political preferences.
This group are the leading indicators and they have long reveled in their hatred. Anderson Cooper, a well liked and supposedly non-extreme media figure famously referred to Tea Partiers by a gay sexual slur long before Trump was a candidate. Anyone on campus since the mid-seventies knows the culture is to believe all deviations from leftist orthodoxy are motivated by racism and sexism.
It's this group that normalized hatred among enough of the population for politicians to start using the same language without being shunned. But of course this was never ideologically balanced. Remember Hillary Clinton incorporating the right's supposed "mean-spiritedness" in her campaign messaging. Meanwhile Clinton berated a longtime campaign ally and supposed friend in a meeting including his subordinates and peers in such belittling fashion he literally killed himself. Naturally she claimed she was the true victim. All this is before the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and "basket of deplorables" but no mainstream media figure ever called out these contradictions because she was merely repeating what they already believe. Meanwhile Mitt Romney (of all people) was portrayed as "the American Taliban" who was going to create a literal Handmaid's Tale in modern America.
The Handmaid's Tale is such a perfect example of the neuroses and schizophrenia of post-60s AWFLs. The whole story centers around a dystopian society where the human population is actually dying off because hardly any women can get pregnant. The few women who are supposed "sex slaves" are literally ensuring that the human race doesn't die out, and in a real-life situation like that, you better fucking believe they would have extremely high social status because of that fact. The alternative to them not having kids is extinction.
It's why the book is really nothing more than a slightly more literary bodice-ripper in the guise of a sci-fi dystopian novel. Women like Atwood don't actually think of sex in any other terms than physical pleasure, rather than acknowledge the fact that the reason it evolved that way was to incentivize mammalian evolutionary reproduction.
Wait, so the “bad guys” in that story are elitist women who either refuse to or can’t have children, enslave women that can and breed them with their elitist husbands to perpetuate the species?
"And I don't want the best for them."
Holy shit, can we calm down with the violent rhetoric?!
Tennis players think the same way about their opponents. Most likely anyone "battling" will.
The difference of course is not pointing at one individual as the left always does. Schumer calling out conservative Judges and threatening them. Democrats calling out ICE agents and now the mentally unfit are fulfilling the democrats desired outcome from their words. The left going after what they deem as a threat and literally killing them...
Yes the violent rhetoric needs to end. Sadly this is all the left has to try and take power with since their policies are so abhorrent which matches their speech.
If a politician says something stupid in D.C. and no one bothers to report it, does it make a sound?
I don't know. What's the sound of money disappearing from your paycheck?
Trump bragging about tariff-taxing us yet some MORE?!?!?!?
Having seen the tariffs other countries have put on us, I have a difficult time getting worked up over President Trump raising tariffs in an attempt to get other countries to lower theirs.
And if those tariff increases manage to increase employment here (and so far, there's evidence that this is indeed happening) -- particularly in manufacturing, which would be good to build back up anyway, in case one of our trading partners (cough China cough) decides to declare war on us.
But you do you!
The “Red Wedding” analogy was really awful. Who in their right mind would even suggest such a thing?
We’ve gone from Mr. Trump, to Mr. Biden, and back to Mr. Trump again—each time the rhetoric ratcheting higher. Can we not land somewhere in the middle? Lower the temperature, devolve more matters back to states and localities, and let people live under rules they actually consent to.
And please, let’s not respond like children with “but they did it first.” That’s the reasoning of a child, not a republic. If we don’t break that cycle, all we’re doing is taking turns with the whip hand.
Matt Welch
https://x.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12
Scumby Chimp-Chump, get Your Pervfectly Slutty and Shameful Ass a NEW Repetit-shit-ive Schtick one of these days!!! I am BORED with Your PervFected HORDE of lame shit!!!
https://mobile.twitter.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12 “Now would be a good time to throw a big cocktail party in New York or Washington, and invite every single conservative writer you know. #RedWedding2”
That’s the full quote. Did Welch call for “…all conservative writers be invited to a red-wedding style mass-slaughter…”? If in your fevered dreams, he WAS calling for that, was it for the party-going writers to be the dishers-out of the violence, as the victims, or as mere spectators? If as spectators, for their amusement, or to demonstrate the real horrors of real violence to them? Or, to see MOVIES about red weddings? … Y’all LOVE to rush to judgments, without any data, don’t you? Whenever doing so, fits YOUR story line!
https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Red_Wedding for reference
Are YOU criticizing Welch for this questionable-meaning(s) allusion? I, for one, would urge adults who want to understand the ugliness of violence and revenge, to see “Clockwork Orange”. That has ZERO to do with me threatening ANYONE!!! Hello?!?!
“Party at my place. Invite your teenaged relatives and friends. #StarWars”
Did I just issue an invitation to blow up (“I sense disturbances in the Force”) entire planets full of teenagers, using Death Stars? … Well, yes, if you hate me and my kind, and honesty means NOTHING to you, I could see you using my party invitation that way, sure…
I’m sorry that you suffer under the illusion that you know exactly what Matt Welch meant by that. There are MANY possible interpretations!
Below is my interpretation:
He meant that the conservatives should be invited to a party in which “Red Wedding” is screened for all viewers, so that conservatives (ESPECIALLY Trump-cultist conservatives) could learn exactly WHAT it is like, to be invited to a party, in order for KILLINGS to happen! And then maybe the Party of Trump Cultists will STOP inviting YOU to THEIR POLITICAL Party, in which democracy is deliberately murdered!!! (I know that it is WAAAAY too much to ask, that they should actually STOP trying to murder democracy, there in the Trump-Cult Party.)
Just because you post this copy-paste every time Matt Welch isn't going to change anyone's mind about the interpretation you are trying to spin.
Particularly in this environment where threats and outright violence are so often directed at conservatives.
That fig leaf has been used up.
Rilly! "We" should respond like moderate responsible adults to initiators of force the way Czechoslovakia did in 1936, and Poland in 1939. After that there would be no problem reestablishing ancient Italian traditions. Government could be funded in part by ticket sales at the Colosseum for Communist vs Christian gladiator matches--with no cruelty to lions,
You cannot extend an olive branch to someone who swears they will stab you in the neck with it. There is only violence from one side so go talk to them numbnuts.
"Everyone complains about politicians. Everyone says they suck....so where do these politicians come from? They don't fall from the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American families, American homes, American schools and churches, American universities and American businesses. This is the best we can do folks. This is what our system produces: garbage in....garbage out and it ain't gonna do you any good to elect new ones because you're gonna end up with the same corrupt politicians, so maybe, just maybe something else around here sucks....like the public....yeah, there's a good campaign slogan, The Public sucks, f*** hope, f*** hope 'cause if we really had someone to step in and save the day.....we don't have people like that in this country. They're all at the mall, scratching his ass, picking his nose and reaching into his fanny pack to pull out a credit card to buy a pair of sneakers with lights in them..
George Carlin/ why I don't vote
The biggest problem we have -- and this is the problem with all organizations, because it's a problem with the human race -- is that all human organizations are susceptible to psychopaths who will stop at nothing to get power.
No one is coming to save us, we have to fix this ourselves. Today is a perfect reminder that there is no cavalry on Calvary Hill.
How apocalyptic do you want to be?
Just a little, I'm not apoplectically apocalyptic.
Got a prophylactic for that?
I just googled prophylactic for the apocalypse: the AI response leaves no doubt that whomever is programming those has more than a bit of an agenda.
First up is "address climate change and environmental collapse," followed by "reduce global inequality" and "investing in education and [gender] equity."
This is going to require some painful remedies, lest we inherit some very painful consequences.
"Nobody should be governed by people who despise them." --Sez the mathematical genius who sacrificed 25 votes worth of law-changing clout to suck up to Donald Trump's girl-bullying minions!
This "words kill" crap is getting really, really old! No, hate speech is NOT directly responsible for Charlie Kirk's murder ... the MURDERER is directly responsible for his death. Most of these murders have been committed by seriously deranged people who FIRST decided that they wanted to go out in a blaze of glory and THEN decided on a target to take out with them. There has always been some person or persons handy to give them the plausible excuse to act violently; or they simply start shooting or stabbing random people nearby to make a point.
Motive is only a legal point in this context. It makes a difference to the Prosecutor and the Judge when deciding on a criminal charge in court, not to the victims or to some larger narrative.
The wing nuts have echo chambers now; it foments the growing of snakes in their heads.
Seriously, let's just have our elected government representatives not call their opponents fascists, for a start. The bozos take that literally.
So Et Tu, QUOUSQUE? You want them to lie instead?
Slut's just get Dear Orange Leader, Bleeder-Taxer-Tariffer-Torturer-Executioner-and-Pussy-Grabber of the illegal sub-humans and the peons (which pretty much encompusses ALL of us), to SNOT be cuntstantly calling for "Hang Mike Pence" and "Execute General Milley"! I know I am dreaming, butt wouldn't THAT be a good place to start?
They don’t just call Trump a fascist, oh SQRLSY one. In fact, they consider anyone not part of the orthodoxy a “conservative”. Don’t believe me, just ask Robby “conservative pundit” Soave. And we all know they think conservatives are all secretly fascist.
The speech of the democrats against ICE seem to have spurred violence against ICE agents. When is it that their words can be used against them to try and end the violence that their words are purposely inciting?
Stick and stones may break my bones, butt turds will never hurt me.
You hurt MY Precious Baby Feelz with YOUR ugly turds!!! YOU are inciting ME!!!
So now I am justified in using VIOLENCE, since YOU purposely incited ME? WHAT THE FUCK, violence-lusting totalShitarian Asshole?!?!?!?
(I seriously doubt that your proposed "fix" is to talk persuasively to the Demon-Craps. If THAT is twat you mean, then say so!!!)
"When is it that their words can be used against them..."
IN TWAT WAY shall we use their words, vague and nebulous violence-luster?
Sorry, MWA, but there are LOTS of Leftists CONVINCED that Republicans are Nazis and Fascists. Convinced beyond all words and more than willing to discuss murdering them (or hoping for their death) in any situation, whether people agree or not.
The Left ALSO decided to pursue "punching Nazis in the head" with them alone defining who a Nazi is. They have been ramping up the violent rhetoric and their followers live in an absolute bubble. That's why so many had no problem fucking recording videos celebrating his murder and trying to destroy memorials and then act stunned when they lose their job or get expelled for doing so.
At this point, the Left has to tone it down. And they will not. So the Right has to make them scared to death to do a damned thing at a conservative ever again. Assure them that death is their best case scenario if they pull a gun on anybody ever again.
>>There Has To Be a Better Way
not assigning yourself a tribe is a good start
One of the tribes will assign you to the other tribe if you do not join their tribe loudly and openly.
The lone wolf usually starves; tribes have a purpose.
Certainly the case here. Nothing more encouraging than the comments section of a (supposedly) libertarian magazine breaking down into left and right shitposting.
Note to individualist readers: Pay close attention to what nameless, unverifiable infiltrators from other parties have to say about each other in this Libertarian forum, and remember those things when you see an opportunity to wield a law-changing libertarian spoiler vote.
It is not divisive politics to correctly point out that MAGAs are fascists. If they don't like it then they should not be fascists.
This is the issue Molly. You have NO EVIDENCE to back your assertion that MAGA is fascism.
Your false accusation does piss people off but no one is trying to destroy your life for speaking out loud the delusions in your head.
On the other hand. You back open border, soft on crime, no bail, lawfare, communist, stalinist, marxist policies and want to see this sort of agenda forced upon people. This is fact. It is true.
Unlike your delusional assertions of over 50% of the population people, folks calling you out for your personal desires and hate is far different.
Maybe just take your time and work through my words and try to discern what they mean verses ignoring fact and spewing lies?
Upholding the law is fascist if you disagree with the law. That seems to be the definition of fascist being used these days.
"It is not divisive politics to correctly point out that MAGAs are fascists."
No, MG it's simply a lie; you are abysmally ignorant and have no idea what the word means.
Fuck off and die, shitstain.
More "non-violent" violence courtesy the leftists: https://slaynews.com/news/dallas-anti-ice-shooter-identified-epidemic-leftist-political-violence-must-end/
Molly's crowd.
It's interesting the lone wolf the left inspired was so ill disciplined he seems to have killed and wounded only people the left pretends they want to protect. Karma.
I doubt it changes anything though, in their minds every life is an acceptable loss if it advances the narrative.
I see policies pushed forward that are antithetical to the founding of the nation and very comparable to policies pushed by communist, socialist, despot governments and I call them out.
Communists don't like being called communist? So they lash out and call me racist, deplorable, misogynist, and try to destroy me.
Why is it so difficult for the masses to understand the difference and where the real hate lies and where the truth unfolds?
""Why is it so difficult for the masses to understand the difference and where the real hate lies and where the truth unfolds?""
Because they are absorbed by the political machine.
Are you of the body?
Best line ever: After the mind-controlling "Landru" had self destructed, Kirk says to the hooded "lawgivers" with their now-useless metal tubes, "...and if I were you, I'd start looking for another job."
And yet you were all set to 'strategically but reluctantly' vote for those people *multiple times.
Also, what about Nazis? If politicians hate Nazis does that mean Nazis are free to reject those politicians for Nazi-lovrrs? And how does this work on practice? Nazis just are free from government control?
"There Has To Be a Better Way"
There is. It's called a *Constitutional* Republic.
NOT a [WE] Identify-as gang WINS 'democracy'.
Democrats have been pushing the wrong side all along.
And their only rebuttal is Self-Projection.
Nobody should be governed by people who despise them.
Why didn't you follow that up with a photo of Barack? He's really the one that turned things up to 11 in that regard.
It raises questions about why people should ever submit to the governance of those who hate them
Because that's what you do in a Constitutional Republic with Democratically elected representatives, JD. That was never more stark to me than in 2016 where I had a "choice" between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Both of whom I had reason to believe did not have my best interests in mind even slightly.
I didn't like it - but y'know what, I was in the tiny indie minority. And I was outvoted by both Republicans and Democrats. It got even worse at the legislative and state levels.
But I accepted that. Like a grown up. Instead of a mewling prattling child having a tantrum that things didn't go my way, I accepted the will of the majority and I made do. And when I stopped accepting it, after also realized nothing I ever said or did would make much difference to change it for the better, I didn't get angry - I just packed my bags and moved to a place with more likeminded folks.
Because that's the responsibility of the American citizen. Will of the People. If you get outvoted, get over it. Try again next time around. Or seek a change of venue.
What you said verbatim there - that is precisely the kind of agitating that leads to political violence, tucked into an article pretending to decry it. It screams of an entitlement that you deserve what you want 100% of the time, and the unspoken follow-up to the sentence is "they shouldn't, they should attack them - kill them even, to get what you want."
There Has To Be a Better Way
There isn't. Y'know why? Because you can't fight crazy.
And it pains me to say that, because all throughout the Obama years, and even more so during Trump's first term - I was actively and vocally against the "us vs them" mentality that's taken over this nation. Obama poured rocket fuel on the fading embers that were quelled by tolerance and civility, and then Trump ran on a platform of one-upping him. Back then, I still believed there was a way back.
I don't anymore. It really is us vs them now. And I, for one, don't intend to to be us.
After Charlie Kirk, there's a simple reality that we all have to acknowledge: the left has completely jumped the shark and there's no bringing them back to reason. So many people on the right underestimated just how much the left truly hates them and wants them literally dead. Now they know, and now they're on guard.
On the plus side, there's now little chance that they'll ever control the federal government in my lifetime ever again. So, really, it's just the matter of keeping the baboons in the street at bay.
A good carry piece will ensure that.
"On the plus side, there's now little chance that they'll ever control the federal government in my lifetime ever again. "
True- Red states have done a much better job of gerrymandering than blue states. The work the RedMAP project did on state legislatures was brilliant. Plus, we have the Senate which provides equal representation to California and Wyoming. The electoral system was also designed to keep the plebians from tipping the boat too much and that is really helpful for minority rule.
A national divorce would be great, but I don't think it's feasible without violence. Too many blue islands in red states which would need to be expelled/ejected. I suppose one could create some sort of loyalty pledge and politically cleanse those who did not agree with the local agenda. Might end up with empty cities. That should be no problem for the political class because the red state politicians hate cities. Mow the cities down and turn them into suburbs with big highways connecting.
Plus, we have the Senate which provides equal representation to California and Wyoming.
Uh huh, and what about the House?
A national divorce would be great
No it wouldn't. Because nobody wants to actually put in the effort it would take to achieve that. On top of that, if we actually sorted out the important stuff - like who gets what share of the national debt - the moment the blue country came into existence they'd be a failed state akin to Somalia, and they'd want to declare war on the Red republic who has all the guns and military bases.
A national divorce is a retarded idea that belongs in the bowl of retard noodles that people like AOC and MTG like to call their "brains."
THE ELITES' PARADISE - INTRO:
More than a century of pointless bickering over socialism, communism and fascism has finally come to an end. This is the brave new world where all three - and probably a few others - have seamlessly merged together into pure tyrannical bliss - for those at the top anyway. Welcome to The Elites' Paradise!
It is quietly referred to by some as The Libertarians' Hell, since that modest prescription for a sane world was carefully edited out by a certain group of ersatz libertarian writers to please their Elite Globalist overlords, all for the privilege of attending upscale Washington DC cocktail parties. Unfortunately for those writers, they are now living in "The Mosaic", a fanciful name for the poorly camouflaged, global patchwork of fifteen-minute factory/cities between which travel is regulated with diabolical precision, and within which pretty much every other natural human right has been vanquished.
The are far from lonely, but that comes with a cost: Living mostly on bugs, and scattered among the numberless communes of festering humanity, they live in constant fear that someone might recognize them. That is not likely; ironically, they just weren't Elite enough to begin with, and starving peasants all tend to look alike after awhile.
THE ELITES' PARADISE - PRELUDE: ARE YOU HERE FOR THE FESTIVAL?
The Players:
KVW - Raison Editor-in-Chief who bears an uncanny likeness to an old VW Beetle
ENV - Raison Senior Editor, believes her feminist cred disguises her being a dumb blonde
Nick Gilooly - Raison Editor at Large who strives for largess.
Chuck Schmoozer - A Buffoon from NY who is also a US senator
Security Guard - A security guard with dark aviator sunglasses
In an alternate universe, on the eve of what would become known as the "Greatest Displacement", some of the Elite and their minions are gathered at none other than the Watergate Hotel, for an event some will remember as "The Last DC Cocktail Party." The mood is upbeat, despite the sound of explosions and sporadic gunfire in the distance.
With cocktails in hand, KVW, ENV and Gilooly are standing together chatting. Presently Chuck Schmoozer enters the room, his beady eyes scanning for opportunity. While most attendees ignore him, Gilooly casts a glance toward him. That is all Schmoozer needs to invite himself into their midst.
Schmoozer (with a wink): Are you here for the festival?
Gilooly: Festival?
Schmoozer: Oh come on. Didn't you ever see that old Start Trek episode, "Landru"? They visit a planet where all the people behave like mind-controlled robots, but it turns out that the entity in control of the planet, a super computer known as Landru, has figured out that because all of the primal urges of the population are being constantly suppressed, they must have at least one day to cut loose. That's the Festival. Landru shuts down for 24 hours, and absolute mayhem, death and debauchery ensues.
ENV: Ah! Like what happens when all your sexual urges are suppressed for long periods.
Schmoozer (winks at ENV): Well, you wouldn't have a problem like that, would you?
(KVW rolls her eyes)
Gilooly: Are you saying that's what all that gunfire is out there?
Schmoozer: Antifa.
Gilooly: No shit...
Schmoozer: I shit you not. We've taken a page right out of that Star Trek script and applied it. We like to give our chosen goons a lot of free reign when it comes to creating violence. It keeps them easy to control and less apt to question our authority. Don't you worry, we have six ways from Sunday to keep these mobs on our side. And it makes Antifa feel really powerful.
ENV: I must say, they all look rather menacing in their all-black garb, masks and goggles.
KVW (rolls her eyes again): Oh come on. Have you ever seen them without the costume? They all look like Far Side kids. Soft, pink. Near-sighted mouth breathers.
Schmoozer: But they do a lot of damage. Billions of dollars worth.
ENV: Yeah, tell me about it. I've had to gloss over that shit for years at Raison.
Gilooly (looks at Schmoozer): ENV is the best gaslighter we have on staff.
Schmoozer: Well, you've all done a great job on the psy-op. You've worked six ways from Sunday to keep the libertarian movement from ever coming together.
(KVW Rolls her eyes yet again and giggles. Schmoozer excuses himself and walks away)
Gilooly: Did you notice how he kept referring to our efforts in the past tense?
ENV: Nick, you're just being paranoid.
After a moment a security guard walks up to the trio
Guard: Excuse me, Mr. Schmoozer has instructed me to escort the three of you out to the parking lot where has a car waiting. He has invited you to a bigger and better cocktail party across town.
The three Raison staff look at each other and one by one, follow the security guard out of the room.
Upon arrival at the parking lot they come upon not one, but three Town Cars, lined up single file, Schmoozer stands by the open door of the lead vehicle.
Schmoozer: Here we are, then. I hope you will all enjoy the next, rather special party. Mr. Gilooly, you will ride in the second car. Ms KVW, you will ride in the third. And Ms. ENV, you will ride in the lead car with me.
ENV (sighs heavily): Ah well...