Glenn Jacobs on Donald Trump, the Administrative State, and Ron Paul's Legacy
"It's the administrative state and the bureaucrats who are actually populating the rules. They're the ones running most of the government," Tennessee wrestler-turned-mayor Glenn Jacobs tells Reason.
Glenn Jacobs, better known to wrestling fans as "Kane," has spent the past seven years as the mayor of Knox County, Tennessee. While many politicians tend to become free spenders the longer they are in office, Jacobs remains a vocal advocate for limited government and fiscal restraint. At former Rep. Ron Paul's 90th birthday celebration in August, he sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to discuss Paul's enduring legacy, the rise (and fall?) of libertarian ideas within the GOP, President Donald Trump's relationship with the administrative state, and how Jacobs has governed at the local level without raising taxes.
Q: How did Ron Paul's message activate a movement, and you specifically?
A: It was tying the fiscal conservatism together with the noninterventionist foreign policy. A lot of Republicans, including myself, were wondering, "Why are we running around being the world's policeman? It's very expensive, and we lose American boys and girls in these foreign conflicts that we don't belong in." That's where the mass appeal came from.
Then for someone like me who's very interested in economics, [hearing him] talk about how the Federal Reserve and central banking is what fuels all of these wrong-headed policies. He was the actual anti-establishment candidate, and with the Bush administration, the GOP had taken a hard turn toward establishmentism. No longer the party of Reagan, but now, the big spending conservatives, big government conservatives.
Q: How does Trump stack up compared to somebody like President Ronald Reagan or Ron Paul?
A: I do think that he believes in what he's trying to do. My hope with this administration, and you saw it at the start, is pushing back against the administrative state and the deep state.
I don't think the average person understands that it's not Congress or the president that are actually running things. It's the administrative state and the bureaucrats who are actually populating the rules. They're the ones running most of the government.
Q: Trump is spending tons of money—he doesn't care about debt or deficit. Do you think he is going to dismantle the way government agencies can go after people for whatever reason they want, or is he part of the problem?
A: I think he is trying to dismantle that. You see it with, say, the IRS and some of the other agencies. They have made moves to limit their authority.
Q: A lot of people are worried about Immigration and Customs Enforcement going around masked, picking up people merely for speaking Spanish. Does this worry you?
A: It doesn't. That's why we have a legal system. People have been afforded due process, and so that's not something that actually does worry me. I think the system is holding up, from what I've seen.
Q: You came into office saying you're not going to raise taxes, you're going to cut spending. Have you been keeping your word?
A: I have, as much as possible. We're very subject to inflation, just like private sectors, just like families. We've seen growth in our budget in nominal terms, but in real dollars, it's about what it was 10 years ago. We've seen a slight decrease in our indebtedness per person, and we have not raised property taxes. Just that alone is a challenge.
Q: You've said part of the Ron Paul legacy is that there's more of a libertarian wing in the Republican Party. I'm not a Republican, but I am a libertarian. We had the Tea Party, and people like you started emerging, along with Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Thomas Massie, and former Rep. Justin Amash. But when I look at the GOP now, especially at the national level, I see fewer libertarian ideas ascendant. I hear people wanting to cut free trade, close the borders, and throw more people in jail, even for nonviolent crimes. Where do you see the libertarian impulse in the Republican Party?
A: The folks you just mentioned came out of the Ron Paul revolution. All these ideas—not everyone's going to embrace them 100 percent. But I think that when you look at the much stronger noninterventionist foreign policy, especially, those things are there and they were not there before.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.
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
Poor Nick. This guy won't take the bait.
Unpossible.
Nick has a PhD and Glenn is just a dumb ex-wrestler. Why don’t the cro-mags listen to their credentialed betters to avoid ending up with orangemanbad? Things were going so well under Dr. Jill’s autopen.
Fun fact: most of the WWE locker room has at least a bachelor's degree. Another fun fact: Orange Man is, in fact, bad. I was never a fan of Biden at any point in his mediocre career, but at least he managed not to actively run the country into the ground the way Trump did and is now doing again.
The Nobel Peace Prize was dedicated to:
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣔⣾⣿⣿⣿⣻⢟⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣗⣦⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⢠⣾⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⢿⣿⣿⣞⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣎⡑⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⣽⡻⣟⣼⣷⣫⢿⡽⣯⣷⣻⣷⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢻⡝⠯⠼⢱⡙⢾⣷⣿⣾⣻⣽⣾⣷⣿⣍⡁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣸⣿⣿⣿⢿⠻⢏⠌⠡⠐⠈⠁⢂⠘⠤⢛⠻⣿⣿⢿⠿⢿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⣿⣿⣏⣤⠷⡈⠄⠀⠀⠄⡀⠠⠘⣰⠈⡐⢄⠢⢍⠎⢼⣏⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⣿⣿⡿⢊⢅⠒⠤⣞⣾⣶⣶⣶⣵⠃⣲⣴⣷⣾⡾⠖⣸⡯⢸⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣾⢹⣿⢣⢉⣪⣽⠷⣟⣛⣛⣻⢿⡿⠀⢿⢿⣿⣟⣿⣶⣾⡷⣽⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢻⣼⢫⣷⡞⣋⡔⠋⠉⠉⠭⣀⣆⡟⠀⠞⣷⠊⡉⠀⡘⣿⣿⡿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢸⣏⠼⣿⣵⢫⡑⢤⣀⣦⣷⣿⣙⣁⠀⡘⣿⣷⣆⡡⢄⣹⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣼⣿⣿⢿⣾⡡⣏⣷⣿⣏⣣⡌⢛⠿⡿⢿⢫⣙⣿⡿⢯⡾⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢿⡇⢹⢾⣿⡷⢇⡆⡈⠈⢿⢿⣶⠷⠾⠏⡿⡏⡉⢹⣾⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣵⡟⢯⣿⣿⣏⠖⡡⢈⠌⠳⠮⢭⠭⠽⣋⠱⢠⢗⡾⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣾⣿⡇⠈⢻⣿⣿⣧⣱⢂⡘⠠⡉⠌⢘⡐⠄⣽⢋⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣾⣻⣶⣧⣵⣪⣴⣼⣾⣽⣏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⢿⡿⢿⡿⣿⢿⡿⠋⢹⣿⣷⣦⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠯⣾⡟⠋⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣦⣤⣀⡀⠀
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣈⡁⠉⢰⡄⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⡀⠔⠙⠓⢬⣇⣰⠟⠓⡄⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡌⠀⠀⠀⠀⡘⠰⡇⡄⠀⠘⠤⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⢸⠁⢀⠇⡃⠀⠀⢸⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠹⡀⠀⠀⠌⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⣳⡀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
Funny how Reason has little to say about Trump bringing peace to the Middle East. They’re more likely praying it falls apart.
After all, what are thousands of dead bodies versus the chance to humiliate the president of our country?
Netanyahu ran out of military targets. And Netanyahu has zero respect for Trump which is why he attacked Hamas in Doha. Qatar is our most important ally and Netanyahu ignored Trump’s warnings. That said, I give Trump credit for placating Qatar so quickly…Trump knows who butters his biscuits!
Donnie and Bibi deliberately engineered this "deal" to fail. It's only a matter of time before there are more bodies on the ground. And nobody does a better job of humiliating and embarrassing Trump than Trump.
Yeah, nothing says "peace" like illegal acts of war, extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity.
Are there any free-market, noninterventionist Democrats who want to reduce the regulatory state that Reason can interview? All the ones I’ve met are Ukrainian flag-waving technocratic authoritarians so it would be nice to see that.
All of them have been exiled.
So they couldn't even if they wanted to.
The Blue Dog Democrats were forced to bend the knee during the Obamacare vote; think some were encouraged to ride off into the sunset on their hypocrisy, go after a senate/guvnah position they likely lost, or possibly sacrificed in a primary.
They’re registered as Republicans now.
Free market non-interventionists are damn thin on the ground in the current GOP.
Nick did not like this guy's answers at all. Nick somehow believes the left is aligned with libertarianism and was basically told that his bullshit narratives are nothing more than TDS and hatred of the right.
Despite the obvious fact that the right is counterculture, Nick will never admit that his leftie booes are now mainstream.
It should concern everyone that conservatives are now the 'counter culture'. It speaks to how insane the world has become.
The very fact anyone can say that healthcare is a human right illustrates the point, and of course the people who believe that can never really understand that universal healthcare will never cover everyone. It simply can't since politicians, however hard they try, can not get around the law of supply and demand.
Some of those who say that are insincere. They're just counting on — maybe reveling in — being winners in the privilege game. Many of them prefer a world where the aristocracy of pull beats that of money.
Others are just naïve. They're not willfully blind, but rather just plain blind, to the facts and think it's somehow being accomplished, or at least close to accomplished, elsewhere in the world.
Those shilling for it the hardest, however duplicitously, know full well they can still pay for the highest level of care anywhere in the world. They simply want the peons out of 'their' healthcare system and would rather those deplorables get shunted into a public option with subpar doctors and universally long lines you might die in before ever being seen.
They will, as a matter of necessity, have to lower the bar for what is acceptable education to become a 'Doctor'. They've done a lot of that prep work already, with NP's doing a lot of what full MD used to do.
To serve 350 million American's spread across the continent, they'll need to suddenly manufacture a shit ton of newly graduated unqualified 'Doctors' that don't live up to the regulations they themselves decided was the baseline for standard of care.
Kind of like how abortion went from 'qualified doctors' doing the procedure to gradually lowering the bar until you can just order one of the internet, no questions asked. It's not exactly coat hangers in alleyways, but it's the modern equivalent.
And nowhere do I even address the notion that a human right that requires action on the part of someone else is simply impossible in the first place. Southern states certainly thought they had the right to the labor of others, curious that so few see the parallel.
They're generally not primarily blind but envious. They'll rail that we could all have healthcare for if not for Elon or Bezos or tech billionaire of the week. Nevermind all the things they have because of these people, that doesn't matter against them having more.
The right wingnuts are currently running the show, what's "counterculture" about that?
The game of blaming any opposition to Donnie's bad policies, lies, and crimes on some irrational hatred was old a decade ago, and it's not getting any better with age. Some on the left may be aligned with libertarianism but it's painfully obvious that the current right isn't.
Sorry Nick but it's time you stopped calling yourself Libertarian.
You are not.
Free trade? What would make free trade, Libertarian? Giving away American made products at reduced prices putting US producers out of business in favour of cheap crap from other countries which simultaneously reduces national security is Libertarian?
Closing the border? You're suggestion that the Soros/Globalist/UN Open Borders ideology is Libertarian? Destroying individual countries and their self reliance by removing borders is Libertarian?
Throwing more people in prison, even for none violent crimes? I am sorry but allowing to remove the pursuit of happiness and safety from citizens, taking their rights through criminal activity, is supported and is a Libertarian ideal because charging and convicting criminals is authoritarian?
I'm a true "to each their own, whatever floats your boat, don't step on anyone's toes" Libertarian. That does not include letting someone get away with assault, theft, fraud, violence, abuse, looting, destruction of property. These are not victimless crimes. They cause inflation and harm to legal residents and citizens.
It seems to me you let the "liber" in Libertarian turn you into a socialist liberal, you re no longer Libertarian.
My judgment could be off on this, but I suspect Mr. Gillespie's impulses are still libertarian. It's just that he doesn't want to sound libertarian any more, because over a long period of time he's come to identify libertarianism with, and now maybe as, dissidence. Longtime libertarians are so used to an oppositional role, many of us can't handle being on the winning side and/or having powerful allies.
No other explanation I've seen makes as much sense. They're plausible but not convincing. Could it be that Mr. Gillespie was never actually much of a libertarian, but put on such a guise for years? I suppose so, but there doesn't seem to be enough squeeze in that. Could he just be an intellectual lightweight, and some guru is pulling his strings? Maybe, but The Jacket has been here a long time. Got anything else?
He tried to tie postmodernism to libertarianism a decade ago. He's a lefty with some libertarian impulses.
It's called getting old, I suspect. Which is a little weird to me since the older I get, the more libertarian I get. Some people go the opposite way, I suppose.
It’s a product of the Reason gang spending too much time on the political cocktail set. They want to be liked so they get to be part of the cool kids set. This is why Nick will rip into Trump regularly but didn’t say much when Biden occupied the Oval Office. He’s also sold out to Koch.
Whatever libertarian principles Nick had, he sold out a long time ago.
Nick has spent far too many years in the Beltway. These people never realize that DC\NYC is not the country. It’s like all the handwringing over who gets the ‘blame’ for the shutdown. Most people are barely aware of it now, and in a year no one will remember it. The only people who vote on that are people like us who have already made up our minds.
Nick and Reason should move to the Midwest and see how real people live.
Free trade means your own government doesn't get in the way of trade. It is for the benefit of the consumer, not the producer. When your government doesn't set up trade barriers, you are free to purchase what you want from whomever you want. Consumers win. That's free trade.
As opposed to protectionism, which is when the government favors producers. It sets up barriers to trade to protect producers from competition. It's a system of taxes and subsidies. This gives those producers a captive audience, and eliminates the need to improve and innovate. Producers win. Consumers lose. That's protectionism. It's what economists have been fighting against for 250 years, and it is Trump's favored economic policy.
No borders is a strawman. Most "open borders" people do want there to be control over who comes into the country. We don't want criminals or people with diseases. Nor do we want leaches. But if someone wants to work, what's the problem? Let them enter legally and add to the economy, and let border agents focus on actual criminals instead of people who want better lives. High fences and wide gates. Everyone wins.
Your paragraph about putting people in prison is nonsense. I'm not even sure what it is based upon. My guess is that it's a strawman argument claiming that anyone critical of Trump (that would be most libertarians) support everything that a few Democrat prosecutors did, and then arguing against it. Either way it's retarded.
I'm a true "to each their own, whatever floats your boat, don't step on anyone's toes" Libertarian.
*snort*
You're not a libertarian. You're a binary thinker who only sees two political possibilities. Trump supporter or Democrat. Your world view isn't even open to the possibility of libertarianism, because you reflexively equate criticism of Trump, a man who doesn't have a libertarian bone in his body, with support for Democrats who you hate with the passion of a thousand suns. You're just someone who is driven by blind hatred for "the left" (anyone who disagrees with Trump), not love for liberty.
Free trade doesn’t mean allowing every other government on earth to destroy our exports and hollow out our economy, which is what you want. All so you can save an extra 5% on cheap Chinese shit.
Just admit you bow to the left. At least we could respect you for being honest. So maybe your daughter ( if she exists at all) might hate you slightly less.
But you’re far too selfish for that. Hence your raging alcoholism.
Free trade made the country richer, and not just for the rich. Restricting trade makes a handful richer at the expense of everyone else.
"No borders is a strawman. Most "open borders" people do want there to be control over who comes into the country... My guess is that it's a strawman argument claiming that anyone critical of Trump"
And Sarc continues his unbroken streak of misusing "strawman argument" in his rantings as invective.
What makes this so odd is that Sarcasmic himself is one of the finest strawman creators to ever grace the internet.
For example:
"Most "open borders" people do want there to be control over who comes into the country. We don't want criminals or people with diseases. Nor do we want leaches. But if someone wants to work, what's the problem? Let them enter legally and add to the economy"
Here, Strawcasmic is once again pretending that the issue for Neutral not Neutered, and for the rest of us, isn’t illegal immigration, but legal immigration.
Because apparently, an administration led by two men with immigrant wives, and backed most prominently by a South African immigrant, just can’t stand legal immigrants.
Strawmanning at its finest.
To be fair “No Borders” is a strawman. Because the globalist don’t want there to be no borders, just no American borders.
They're against all 1st world borders. Europe and the UK have it worse than we do but nobody is allowed to talk about it.
Which is really impressive if you think about it. Since he doesn’t really understand the concept of strawmanning.
Unmuted the Canadian Cunt.
It is too stupid to understand that when I say "Let them enter legally" I mean change the law to allow those who want to work to enter the country. That however is something that it and the rest of it's Trump-sucking ilk cannot understand. Back in the 1990s some comedian joked "In the future old people will have tattoos, piercings, and listen to rap music." I thought it was a hilarious and wise observation. CC would have said that's stupid because there's no way old people were going to get tattoos, piercings, and start listening to gangster rap. It simply wouldn't get it. Which is why I'm putting it back on mute. It doesn't get it. Never will.
Is your thinking that if we did that, illegal immigration would dry up?
Why should they work when they can get govt benefits?
Even most self-proclaimed socialists aren't calling for actual socialisn. Meanwhile Donnie is demanding (and getting) more government control and even ownership of private companies, which smacks of real socialism.
Like many commenters around here, you make it clear you wouldn't recognize actual libertarian principles if they walked up and bit you on the ass. Better not fall asleep, I'm pretty sure I saw Soros hiding under your bed.
And that is just how modern Reason (and the Democrats and the RINO mainstream) like it. Its why Trump is so hated - he's taking control and they'd rather have a faceless committee control everything.
he's taking control
And that's how the Trumpian cult wants it. They reject the Constitution with its checks, balances, and separation of powers. They'd rather have a strongman in total control of the entire federal government. No constitution. No laws. No congress. No courts.
Only el presidente por vida.
Like leaving the millions (and millions!) of illegal alien rapefugees in the country while providing them with govt goods and services?
That’s Sarc’s dream come true. Tens of millions of illegals receiving endless government assistance until the whole country collapses under the weight of it.
If you want a picture of Sarc’s dream come true, imagine a blue boot stamping on a human face—for ever—but getting Jesse and Tulpa first.
Just what I needed, more of the same tired SCROTUS bullshit.
If you have to lie, could you at least get some new lies? You're boring me to tears.
No, what bothers you is that he’s wresting control of everything away from your entrenched democrat overlords. Everything belongs to them, just like how you belong to them.
They’ve certainly given cover to the deep state and their collaborators.
The RINOs are currently running the GOP, and Donnie is the RINO in Chief. I'd rather have anybody but him and the evil minded idiots he's surrounded himself with control everything. (Ideally I'd prefer not to have anyone trying to control everything.)
"I'm not a Republican, but I am a libertarian (lol)... when I look at the GOP now, especially at the national level, I see fewer libertarian ideas ascendant." - Goth Fonzie
Ultimately there are far more libertarian ideas and ideals being put into place by the administration right now, than at any time in the last sixty years. But maybe Reason doesn't know that because they sure as fuck don't report on them.
In the meantime they play footsie with a party who demonstrated that they were totalitarian as fuck in the last four years.
Could you at least get some fresh bullshit? You're boring me to death here. What's libertarian about a lawless President who seeks endless power, or a lazy, spineless Congress who enable him? Illegal acts of war aren't libertarian, nor are extrajudicial executions or crimes against humanity.
None of the things this former wrestler said is true. Although Trump may have had a few impulses towards deregulation and smaller, less intrusive and less expensive government initially, what he has actually done is massively weighted towards the opposite impulse. Although Jacobs may have held the line on spending in his own fiefdom there is nothing in this article to suggest that he has in any way decreased the intrusiveness of his own authority - and even then he's still whining about how hard it is to cut spending with inflation. So not buying it! And almost everything said about Reagan is myth: he was only a little less monstrous than the other authoritarians although he preached a good game.
Hate to say it, but I have to agree. After hearing Linda as Education secretary, I've come to suspect Kane may have dropped her on her head for real. If Jacobs believes any of the things he said about Trump, then maybe Undertaker dropped him on his head once too often.
"It's the administrative state and the bureaucrats who are actually populating the rules. They're the ones running most of the government," Tennessee wrestler-turned-mayor Glenn Jacobs tells Reason.
Whaat? What crazy new insight is this? I've never heard of such a thing! This is new information, it's stunning to even consider it!
Largely true. That's the real "Deep State", not some cabal of baby-raping devil worshipers. But since Donnie doesn't understand anything about how it works he won't change anything. Any cuts he makes are aimed at punishing those he sees as enemies, not making the government smaller or less intrusive.
It is NOT necessarily un-Libertarian to want secure borders. as long as we have MASSIVE socialist policies and programs, more people mean more taxes and less individual freedoms, particularly when many of them after receiving such will vote for representatives who offer more.
Of course we should want people who want to come here and work for a better life, and immigration policy should be different. But we are NOT setup to bring them all in that way.
No it is necessarily unlibertarian to want secure borders. It is unlibertarian to want a drug-abuse free society but it does not justify the war on drugs and filling our jails and prisons with low-level drug dealers and abusers. Of course you can WANT anything that floats your boat. What makes it unlibertarian is enforcing unconstitutional laws that always massively fail while inflicting massive unintended collateral damage.