Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why the Resistance Is the Best Thing That's Happened to President Trump

The "you're with us or you're with him" binary approach alienates potential allies.

Sure, it matters that President Donald Trump has a historically low favorability rating. Then again, disliking the president isn't exactly a courageous act. Plenty of Americans—many of whom supported the president during the general election—don't like Trump. They do realize that politics is a trade-off. Here's a more revealing question pollsters might ask people: Do you "like" any better Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), pussyhatted marchers griping about the patriarchy or the totalitarians blocking Education Secretary Betsy Devos from walking into a public school?

That's the choice #TheResistance—whose mantra, let's face it, has synched with the Democratic Party—has created for many moderate Republicans, right-leaning independents and movement conservatives concerned about Trump. That is to say, they offer no choice whatsoever. They offer plenty of hysteria, hypocrisy and conflation of conservatism with Trumpism for political gain.

For pundits on the left, the idea that conservatives can judge the presidency issue by issue is completely unacceptable. As important as attacking Trump is, depicting conservatives as fellow travelers who enable fascism confirms every preconceived notion they harbor about the right.

In a recent Atlantic piece by Peter Beinart titled "The Anti-Anti-Trump Right," the subheadline reads: "For conservative publications, the business model is opposing the left. And that means opposing the people who oppose Trump." As is customary these days, the left, much like Trump, questions the motives of political foes rather than addressing their arguments. Beinart goes on to name the only two honorable conservatives in the entire country (according to Democrats), David Frum and David Brooks. For them, Beinart contends, conservatism is "prudence, inherited wisdom, and a government that first does no harm." Sure it is. Everyone else is a moral coward and a hypocrite for failing to support liberals in their fight to... in their fight to do what, exactly?

It's true that Trump doesn't exhibit prudence, reliance or inherited wisdom. Yet—and I know this is exceedingly difficult for Democrats to comprehend—neither does the alternative. If liberals were serious about convincing Republicans to abandon Trump in toto, they'd have something better to offer than Trump.

What seems to most vex critics of the anti-anti-Trump contingent (and I am mentioned in the Atlantic piece) is that conservatives aren't appropriately agitated about the world that liberals see, a world that has turned out to be far less apocalyptic in the early going than they imagined. But if it's a zero-sum choice they're offering, that includes picking Judge Neil Gorsuch over Planned Parenthood; tax cuts over teachers unions; Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran's Holocaust deniers; deregulation of the bureaucratic state over legislation; or forcing progressive cultural mores on everyone, and so on.

For example, many former free traders are now embracing the protectionist big-government policies of Trumpism. This is the kind of capitulation many fiscal conservatives feared. Again, the problem is that for free traders, Democrats are as just bad. In fact, the popularity of protectionism among populist movements on the left and right is so strong there's a good argument that the only way to possibly counteract it is to elect more conservatives to Congress.

The average resistance fighters might dislike Trump. But they hate conservatism. By treating even the most milquetoast, run-of-the-mill Cabinet nominee as the worst thing that has ever happened to America, The Resistance gives conservatives the space to defend such long-standing political positions as school choice, immigration enforcement and deregulation. I imagine many Republicans would happily hand over the scalp of more Michael Flynns if it meant creating a more stable and experienced administration.

But they also understand that people who treat DeVos like a bigger threat to the republic than Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon will never be placated. Those who spend weeks after the election acting like the Electoral College was some kind of trick pulled on the country are not interested in rule of law. They're interested in Democrats.

Last week, when the president tactlessly attacked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Twitter, the mantra was "Trump doesn't respect the law!"—even though Democrats had spent eight years attacking the Supreme Court over Citizens United. By Monday, when it was reported that there was an uptick in the deportation of illegal immigrants (there probably wasn't), the mantra had changed to "Trump is upholding the law!" (Do Democrats believe enforcing the law horrifies most voters? Do they really believe a temporary travel ban on citizens from Muslim-majority countries that are terrorist-producing nations is as cut and dry an issue as it looks on their Twitter feeds?) These days, "the law" means "policy positions liberals like."

As Thomas Sowell says, there are no solutions—only trade-offs. Trump brings an array of obvious and problematic issues with him to the presidency that may one day make his presidency untenable for Republicans. The Resistance, though, offers them absolutely nothing.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BigT||

    Wow there is so much wrong here I hardly know where to start. So I won't waste anyone's time responding to the troll.

  • Sevo||

    Thank you.
    Feeding vermin only helps them breed and spread disease.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    *golf clap*

  • BambiB||

    Actually, no. The libtards were anti-Trump before Trump did anything. Rounding up and deporting millions of criminals aliens is otherwise known as "enforcing the law". One of Obozo's favorite immigration tricks was to have criminal aliens apprehended during ingress receive notice of an appearance date - then released on their own recognizance, to return on the appointed date. None ever showed up. A Trump rule change that says all criminal aliens apprehended shall be held in custody until a final determination is made on their status would go far to discouraging the wholesale invasion of America. Personally, I favor recalling our military from the middle east and stationing them on the border with orders to kill all invaders. All of them. Every single one. No exceptions. But I'm not up for coddling criminals, or accepting the destruction of America by invasion as the left apparently is.

    A better question might be, "What kind of piece of shit resists Trump?" If you took the criminal aliens out of the crowds, took out the paid protestors, removed those who just want to fight and eliminated those with IQs less than 90 - who would be left? Anyone?

  • Reverend Lovejoy||

    Shouldn't you b trying to impress your fellow Brietbarters or the other neo-con nutjobs at The Federalist, Bambi?

  • Jibby2||

    sigh... things were better around here when Fist was always the first commenter. Can we ban the troll (again) already? Or is everyone already blocking it with some app of some kind?

  • Mongo||

    Yeah - that shithead ruins a lot of commentary threads.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I have it muted so I can see the commentariat responses.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I just scroll past it. I don't even read its posts anymore. Actually I do that with all the trolls.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    there used to be an app to block tulpa ... time for an upgrade

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The Reasonable extension is your friend. Replace those stupid troll-droppings with nice clean blank spaces!

  • MikeT1986||

    Sadly I can't use extensions at work. And not worth the risk considering what I deal with.

  • Jibby2||

    Just tried it. That's not bad! I can even remove everything except the blocking function. Does the remote list of trolls not work anymore? I was going to take a gander just to see who all was honored there.

  • Animal||

    I don't suppose I could prevail on someone to post the link for the Firebox again?

  • Animal||

    Argh. FireFox.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    does reasonable work on chrome?

  • Sevo||

    "Or is everyone already blocking it with some app of some kind?"

    Between my ears; look at handle, don't read.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I use the Reasonable extension.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't remove the entire tree of responses to the troll, only the troll post itself. Maybe if we ask the author nicely, he can change it so that all comment trees disappear for people you have blocked.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    Thank you. I forgot about this. Computers come and go and so do the extensions.

  • mortiscrum||

    I think this article is based on some fundamental misunderstandings. For starters, a political movement doesn't necessarily want to be as "big tent" as possible. Being inclusive might make it palatable to more people, but it also greatly waters down any message, and can make the movement aimless. The most successful movement in recent times was the Tea Party, and they did not go "big tent" - they stayed laser-focused on a few things and pointed it at the figures in government most receptive/susceptible to protest: Representatives in the House.

    Also, pointing out hypocrisies in politics might win debate points, but it's entirely besides the point. Successful political movements are about pressure, and have nothing to do with logical or even ethical consistency.

    RE: As important as attacking Trump is, depicting conservatives as fellow travelers who enable fascism confirms every preconceived notion they harbor about the right.

    Well....when House Republicans vote with Trump 98% of the time, it's kind of hard to conclude anything else. Actions speak louder than words.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    I can't tell who are worse. ^These types or the Trump nut lickers.

  • mortiscrum||

    And what type is that? Please, tell me, I'm dying to hear.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Pants shitters

  • John Titor||

    No Ship of Theseus, you don't get it, either Trump is a Machiavellian genius who is totally the puppet master every time he says something dumb, even when it backfires on him, or he's the Rapist Hitler who will bring about the death of the Republic. There is no middle ground dammit!

  • mortiscrum||

    ....Really? My post looks like pants shitting?

  • DarrenM||

    I'm sure you can handle a little competition.

  • american socialist||

    How have house republicans voted 98% with trump when he has only been an elected official 4 weeks? Have they passed all these bills that i don't know about? I have only seen him sign one thing in congress. seems a bit premature

  • UnCivilServant||

    As far as I am aware the only thing to have reached Trump's desk from the legislature is a motion that killed a regulatory rule from the previous administration under the congressional oversight act (whatever it was actually called). No legislation as yet.

  • mortiscrum||

    I included a link. There's only been 12 votes, so it is a tiny sample size. But the data is there.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Does it not matter to you... at all... what those votes were actually on? Is this the kind of thinking where:

    A) Everything Trump does is evil
    B) Republicans in Congress have agreed with Trump on something.
    Therefore, A+B means that Republicans in Congress are evil.

    It's incredibly stupid.

  • american socialist||

    Yea it is a bit early me thinks. And i looked at the 12 votes....i actually agree with most of them or don't really have a problem with them. Certainly not anything that rises to extent of fascism

    fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/votes/

  • american socialist||

    Messed up link (it is contained within linked article) by mortiscum

    1. Regulations in need of scrutiny
    2. Budget resolution for ACA
    3. James Mattis Waiver
    4. Permanent ban on federal funds for abortion or that includes abortion
    5. Repeal stream protection rule
    6. Repeal of rule requiring federal contractors (some) to report labor violations
    7. Repeal of rule for energy companies to disclose foreign payments
    8. Repeal of rule requiring energy companies to reduce waste and emissions
    9. Repeal of rule to changes of BLM planning
    10. Repeal Dept Ed rule on accountability
    11. Repeal of rule on Dept Ed teacher programs

    I got tired. stuff like that

  • Episteme||

    Because of the 60-day CRA deadline, most of the Congressional votes so far have been about overturning end-term Obama regulations (see the story here last week on using the Socialist Security Disability Registry to ban firearms sales for a specific example).

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's incredibly stupid.

    That's par for the course.

  • mortiscrum||

    Trump's been in office for 4 weeks, and those 4 weeks have been defined by the bungled transition, not by anything he's actually done. So in the sense that Republicans haven't actually voted for anything particularly bad, I agree with you.

    But that's not what it looks like. Appearance matters more than anything in politics. And angry liberals who hate everything about Trump who see Republicans voting a certain way, or hear Rand Paul say things like We'll never get anything done if we investigate our own party, despite pretty objectively concerning ethics breaches, it becomes very easy for them to conclude that Republicans are marching with Trump entirely.

  • american socialist||

    True optics do matter

  • Ship of Theseus||

    If by "appearances" you mean "shit the media is telling stupid people" then yeah, I agree.

    I think Trump is a blow hard fuck-up idiot. I also think the people shitting their pants have way too much invested in what the government does. Rather than thinking "hey - we should seriously consider diminishing the role of this shit-show so they can't really affect us," they think "hey - let's act like monkeys and fling our feces in hopes that people will agree that women are being attacked by... things and stuff."

  • mortiscrum||

    Well...yes and no. Trump ran on some pretty ugly stuff, and if you're a part of a Trump-maligned group, it's pretty rational to be freaking out. It'd be absurd to tell someone who was just locked out of coming back to the country because of an order the Trump administration made that "you should care less about the government."

    Trump IS a blow hard fuck-up idiot - but he's also in the control room. Even if everyone did come to the realization that so much power in the executive branch is bad, it's water under the bridge. People are fearful for their lives and livelihoods NOW.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Optics matter, but angry liberals will never, ever, ever be swayed to support someone like Rand Paul or any other Republican no matter how beautiful the optics are.

  • mortiscrum||

    You realize that liberals say the EXACT SAME THING about conservatives, and thus why would they bother trying to extend an olive branch?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You realize that liberals say the EXACT SAME THING about conservatives, and thus why would they bother trying to extend an olive branch?

    So why not just start the civil war now and get things rolling? It's pretty obvious that about 45% of the country is incapable of accepting what the other 45% wants to happen. If the blue states are that butthurt about keeping red states propped up, what's stopping them from breaking off? What's stopping California on the I-5 corridor from declaring itself a separate nation, or Antifa brigades from invading small rural areas and attacking the inhabitants, if they hate them as much as they do?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Trump's been in office for 4 weeks, and those 4 weeks have been defined by the bungled transition

    I don't think Trump's transition was any more "bungled" than previous ones. The difference is that that the press and the Washington bureaucracy hate his guts, so they are doing everything they can to sabotage him. And Democrats are going even further than usual this time around to try to hurt the incoming president.

    Furthermore, I think Rand Paul is right: ignore the "angry liberals". Republican voters, and even independents, don't care whether anybody in the Trump transition team spoke to a Russian ambassador before taking up their job. The reason that "ethics rule" exist is so that the incoming administration doesn't cause chaos for the outgoing administration, but given Obama's deplorable behavior in his last few months in office, why should anybody give a shit?

  • Zeb||

    Then shouldn't it be 92%? (Assuming 11/12 votes "with Trump")

  • american socialist||

    I think there was more but i didn't include it all. If you look at the scorecard it showed 100% so im not sure where the 98% comes from

  • Zeb||

    I was just going on mortiscum's "12 votes".

    I don't think it means much at this point. I just like correcting people's math.

  • mortiscrum||

    Did anyone read the link....?

    It's an average. There's a whole lotta people in the House, and they voted "in favor" of Trump at different levels. It averages out to 98%. I'm just quoting the article at this point.

  • Zeb||

    No. Nobody read the link.

  • John||

    The most successful movement in recent times was the Tea Party, and they did not go "big tent" - they stayed laser-focused on a few things and pointed it at the figures in government most receptive/susceptible to protest: Representatives in the House.

    To the extent that is true, it is true because they stayed focused on issues that were popular. The problem for the left is they have run out of issues that are popular with the country. There will not be a left version of the Tea Party anytime soon because the left doesn't have any issues that will appeal to the majority of the country.

  • mortiscrum||

    Did the Tea Party really attract the majority of the country? Is opposition to Trump's particular brand of immigration policy really a minority position? I don't think either of those things are very true - or very relevant.

    Like I said above, successful political movements do NOT live or die by how many people they can attract: what matters is how much pressure they can exert. The two are not intrinsically tied.

  • Rhywun||

    Is opposition to Trump's particular brand of immigration policy really a minority position?

    Depends whether you're asking about serious opposition or feelz-based opposition.

  • John||

    I don't think it did. What it did do was get a lot of Republicans elected in districts that had been represented by moderate Democrats. In 2006, Rahm Emmanuel ran a pretty brilliant Congressional campaign where he got all of these moderate Democrats to run for Congress. The Democrats took the House as a result. The problem was once they got to Washington, they did nothing but vote however Nancy Pelosi told them to vote.

    The Tea Party was successful because it mobilized Republicans in a bunch of centrist and right leaning districts to throw out their Democratic Representatives. The only reason the it was successful was because Nancy Pelosi ran the House with an iron fist and ensured every Democrat who ran in places like Tennessee or Ohio claiming to be a moderate ended up voting 100% for the hard left party line.

  • mortiscrum||

    I'd buy that. If that's the case though, there's a very distinct possibility of a left tea party then - Republicans, generally, vote along party lines more so than Democrats do. And if the party continues to (implicitly - see above) back Trump, they'll tie themselves to him enough to cause the kind moderate-backlash you described.

  • John||

    The problem is that the Democratic party is so geographically challenged there are not many Republicans representing blue leaning districts. There are only Republicans representing red leaning or centrist districts. So a leftwing tea party would have no one to knock off.

  • mortiscrum||

    Sorry, that doesn't scan to me. What you're essentially saying is that the Democrats can never win back the House, because Democrats could never pick up moderate seats.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I don't think the idea is "never". A war, a string of ISIS attacks on US soil where the government looks incompetent, a deep recession could cause a shift. They cannot win based on their current position, which seems to be "Let's become the party of Bernie Sanders".

    If Team Blue wants those seats back, they need more Joe Bidens and less Pelosis. They need to quit vilifying the people in the very districts they want to win seats in. They need to fight the fight over popular federal programs rather than over which bathroom 0.000002% of the population uses. They need to tell the greens to STFU about coal being evil and emphasize long term transition from fossil fuels rather than outright bans and carbon taxes.

  • mortiscrum||

    As a political moderate, I'm on board xD

    Still, I think you're saying a few contradictory things here: Bernie Sanders is very left/populist economically, not socially. His "SJW" credentials are not good, and he was criticized for it in the primary. He's not the one leading the charge on the bathroom fight. He can't be lumped with the PC Thought Police that supposedly caused the rise of Trump.

    Why do you lump bans and carbon taxes together? If you do support a transition away from fossil fuels, but don't like a heavy-handed approach, a carbon tax is one of the best ways to go. It's perfectly plausible to disagree with bans and carbon taxes, but they don't traditionally come from the same place, politically speaking.

  • MarkLastname||

    The problem with a carbon tax (aside from being regressive; I'd rather they tax vehicles according to their fuel efficiency or some other way to do it without taxing gasoline consumption as a necessity good) is that once the Dens take over they will restore all the regulations while keeping the tax.

    Republicans are right to be wary of implementing a carbon tax until the Dems seem to get on board with it as a substitute for regs, and not just temporarily.

  • The Last American Hero||

    They also primaried a couple of long-term congress critters to put the others on notice (even if they had no chance in hell of removing most of them).

  • Episteme||

    What the Tea Party succeeded in was altering the conversation by focusing on particular issues (and castigating either party around them) rather than merely be angry/violent (like OWS or the Black Bloc) or focus first on ad hominem attacks (like the Pussy Hat folks). Regardless of any opinion on policy, the actions of the Tea Party-as-protestors circa 2010 affected the body politic in a more focused manner than we're liable to see here (even with more evidence of central operation of protests).

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Tea Party is ku-klux antiabortionists trying to counter the law-changing effect of libertarian spoiler votes by threatening Gods Own Prohibitionists with spoiler votes of their own (as in the Wallace campaign). By stirring in some vaguely libertarian-ish sounding grumbles about big gubmint and spending, they try to eclipse the LP and undo our victory in influencing Roe v. Wade. All they accomplished was the George Waffen Bush EO getting their activists on the faith-based federal payroll. But it did purchase some votes.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Brilliant. Instead of let's burn Giordano Bruno, Joan of Arc, Urbain Grandier and Galileo Galilei at the stake, or exterminate all vestiges of jewishness, they offer instead to shoot and lynch Planned Parenthood doctors. From the Dearborn Independent to Robert Lewis Dear, the Tea Party has at least made its intentions loud. As for clarity... that's not a particularly strong suit with mystical fanatics. Once they join forces with Sharia Law fundamentalists they will be a force to be reckoned with. Till then, throwbacks to the Dark Ages all they are.

  • XM||

    The tea party was successful because the vaunted Obama coalition did not turn out to save the democrats in the midterms. It certainly helped that the core of the movement consisted of the most reliable voting bloc (middle class, older whites) but had the opposition turned out like they did for Obama they would not have been as successful.

    Tea party had like minded people rallying around a singular purpose and tangible goals. White people in this country identify themselves as Americans. They don't identify themselves "Irish / Texan Americans" or "Texan Americans". America is principally their homeland, not some nebulous activist state that exists to provide opportunity and equal rights to people around the world.

    The left's allegiance is on disparate groups and causes. Women. Minorities. Immigrants. Etc. Given that many ethnic groups don't get along with each other and "intersectionality" dictates that random oppression can occur at any gender and racial lines, schisms and divisions are inevitable. At any moment parts of the coalition might just tune out - like blacks who didn't vote for Clinton.

    Nationalism has a proven track record of winning elections. The left's position, which might boil down to "We oppose this policy that exclusively benefits our nation and its people because it might hurt the minority" is fundamentally not a winning position.

  • Hank Phillips||

    "Let's make electric power generation illegal" is the ONLY substantive thing the Dem platform says that the GO-Pee platform does not echo. THAT is why everyone conversant with the work-energy theorem (and not committed to freedom) voted against the soviet econazis that now control the Dems. The LP swayed 124 electoral votes in 11 states, and our 4 million+ popular votes swamp the GOP's loss in the popular count.

  • Woodchipper of the Apocalypse||

    The other thing preventing a left-wing tea party is the fact that every time the left protests, all of the professional weirdos show up (the commies, the unions, the anarchists, code-pink, the greens, etc), and set up their stupid booths, march out their bizarre paper-mache parade floats, and burn down the local Starbucks. With all of the full-time lefty rabble-rousers out there, it would be pretty much impossible for a grassroots left-wing campaign to convey a serious point. Instead, the public just points and laughs at the morons on display, and the greater message is missed.

  • DaveT1000||

    Well said. On a similar note, all the "Not My President" stuff strikes me as terribly counterproductive for the Democrats. It plays with the left-wing base but on a net basis it turns off swing voters.

  • SIV||

    Somebody throw naked Mia Goth in to this bathtub full of trolls.

  • macsnafu||

    The Left are going to scream and whine and holler about Trump, and the Right is going to basically ignore them most of the time. I see little evidence that anyone has learned any important lessons. The left is going to be anti-trump, and use anything that goes against him, but once he's out of office and another "good" politician like Obama is in office, they'll push for more powerful government and abuses of power. They've failed to learn the value of limited government, federalism, or balance of powers.
    The Duopoly has given us a choice: tyranny by the left or tyranny by the right. Aren't we thrilled?

  • mortiscrum||

    I'd like this, but it's not Facebook and I also hate "liking" things. But I agree.

    People are aware enough to care about politics, but not enough to vote or act in principled, nuanced ways. Thus, we get hyper-partisan Red Team versus the Blue Team. An outrage becomes sensible policy to the same person based on who's in the WH.

  • John||

    Contrast this with how the Democrats dealt with the First George Bush. Compared to how they are reacting to Trump, George Mitchell and Tom Foley killed Bush with kindness. The worked with him on things like the ADA and budget control and the clean up of the S&L crisis that both made them look reasonable and like they could get things done and infuriated Bush's conservative base. Bush ended up loved by no one and facing a revolt from the hardliners in his own party the Democrats ended up selling Bill Clinton to the country as a credible centrist.

    Times have changed since them but a few things haven't. The public still expects politicians to shut up and work with each other for a while after the election. Total RESISTANCE to a President who just won an election is never going to sell to the public. Second, the opposition party has to give the country an affirmative reason to turn against the President. It has to have a position and agenda of its own that appears reasonable. It can't just be "but this guy is icky".

    The last month has been a textbook example of how not to react to losing power.

  • Fire Dalmia (DoM5k)||

    What's funny is that a lot of Democratic leaders (including Chuck Schumer and Ben Cardin) actually had been planning to do just that, but the hysterical protestors harassed them into submission.

  • John||

    The thing that makes Trump different from previous Republicans is that he moved left on trade and entitlements. This makes it much harder for the Democrats to attack him. The usual Democratic line of attack is to portray the Republican President as an evil corporate guy who wants to kick grandma off social security and stick it to the little guy so his rich friends can get richer. By walking away from free trade and entitlement reform, Trump took that line of attack away from the Democrats.

  • Fire Dalmia (DoM5k)||

    He was also ahead of Hillbot on social issues, so that was completely off the table during the campaign.

    Granted, now that he's in office, he's apparently a threat to gays and trans people everywhere.

  • John||

    He had been a celebrity for 20 years. So the charge that he was some evil SOCON was going to be pretty hard to make. And, people were sick of social issues anyway.

  • Fire Dalmia (DoM5k)||

    And, people were sick of social issues anyway.

    You say this as though that has ever mattered to the geniuses who run the DNC. Remember how many failed candidates kept going to the "War on Women" playbook?

  • Zeb||

    Pity he's now apparently just as much of a drug warrior as Hillary (to judge from recent comments).

    But I still have no idea where people are getting the stuff about him being some great danger to gay people.

  • Fire Dalmia (DoM5k)||

    Yeah, early on in the campaign, I had a brief glimmer of optimism that he might do something to scale back the drug war. Choosing Sessions as AG killed that.

  • The Last American Hero||

    He told a gay joke once to some guy he used to work with.

  • Episteme||

    The Democrats could have easily co-opted Trump on a number of issues like they did GHW Bush, leading to the same conclusion where (come election time) much of the Right feels betrayed and either turns against or at least is decidedly luke-warm about their incumbent (while the Left gets things like their infrastructure goals through as they did their tax goals then). Instead, we see the behavior than Harsanyi discusses, with the result that more of the Right ends up supporting a flawed incumbent.

  • John||

    A flawed but much better option than any Democrat. And we will see the right actually accomplishing something for the first time since Reagan. Neither of the Bush presidencies accomplished anything that could fairly be called conservative and both signed things that were very liberal and would have made the heroes to the left had they been Democrats.

    It looks like Trump really is going to make some progress rolling back the regulatory state. And that will be the most significant advance for the right at least since welfare reform and probably since Reagan.

  • MarkLastname||

    The Dems, however, are almost sure to catch a break when the next recession happens, as we are probably due for one within the next four years, and the GOP will get all the blame for it. Sometimes it is not good to be king.

  • Fire Dalmia (DoM5k)||

    Whatever. The proggies are doubling-down on fascism, contempt for middle America, and stupidity. It's done so well for them in the past six years, why change?

    A good rule of thumb for opposition is that you should strive to be less detestable than the thing you're opposing. The anti-Trump crowd has not picked up on this yet.

  • SavedByZero||

    The theme of this article reminded me of a conversation last night. At the risk of continually painting a bullseye on my forehead, I'll post two (anonymous) comments from my liberal facebook group:

    "We don't need to listen to each other, we need to win. Which is not to say we shouldn't know how conservatives think, but the reason we need to know how they think is so we can beat them."

    "I feel like we're going to be stuck in an endless cycle of us undoing everything they do, they undoing everything we do, rinse, repeat. Every time power changes hands. Unless we find some way to not see 100% of them as bigots, and they find some way not to see all of us as left-fascists. It's going to be impossible to gain any real permanent ground without addressing at least some of the economic concerns of the other side, IMO."*

    *That last one was me. I received three pretty strong "Hear,Hear"s, for what it's worth.

    That said, roughly 50% of us think like the first guy, so I get it. But we're not all that extreme.

  • Paulpemb||

    I've seen too many liberals openly say how much better the country will be when all the conservatives are dead.

    Admittedly, they weren't talking about putting people in death camps, just saying that it was only a matter of time before all the old white people died off on their own and were replaced by younger, more progressive people.

    But I think more than a few people on the left would happily agree with the proposal that maybe it was time to help nature along.

  • SavedByZero||

    I have seen people on the right say that about people on the left also. Though one could argue "they said it first, this is our response!" for both sides. One disturbing comment I saw regarding the judges on Trump's travel ban was "Trump has the army, the judges don't, so Trump can enforce the ban if he wants to." This kind of thing is exactly why some of us on the left are going crazy, we think he's actually going to do this. I myself am open to the possibility that what we see as fascist statements by him are just unfiltered emotion that most people have when they're passionate about something before they sit down do think about what they mean. But I'm not entirely convinced that he's not dangerous to our democracy, especially with Bannon partially behind the wheel.

  • MarkLastname||

    People need someone to hate. It keeps us warm at night and makes life feel meaningful more than love. 'War gives us meaning' to borrow the title of Chris Hedges' only book worth reading

  • commodious rebrands||

    Beinart goes on to name the only two honorable conservatives in the entire country (according to Democrats), David Frum and David Brooks.

    Kristol has a sad.

  • american socialist||

    David Brooks is liked because he is of the technocratic variety

  • John||

    If you haven't seen Kristol's twitter feed, take a look at it sometime. He has had one of the most epic meltdowns I have ever seen. It is amazing the shit he is saying. A couple of days ago in response to the Flynn resignation he tweeted something to the effect of "I will take the deep state over the Trump state any day".

    He is openly endorsing a coup by the military and intelligence complexes.

  • american socialist||

    Have you looked at Krugman's too? Are these people really this stupid?

  • John||

    Yes. And they are totally arrogant suffering from a severe case of status anxiety. I will never forget Kristol being on one of the news shows last spring and being asked why him and other conservatives didn't just follow Trump and try to influence him to be more to their liking. He said, and I am not kidding, "that would require following and that is not something we do." What a prick.

  • MarkLastname||

    I'm not sure what makes Brooks conservative at all. He thinks the right needs to abandon its limited government ideal (which Trump might do for it); he isn't a socon. He basically strikes me as a moderate Democrat who identifies as conservative because he likes being called 'one of the good ones.'

  • Cynical Asshole||

    These days, "the law" means "policy positions liberals like."

    A lot of progressives fancy themselves to be a bunch of little Judge Dredds. They want the law to be whatever they say it is. They are the law. Or so they want to think.

  • Sevo||

    "...If liberals were serious about convincing Republicans to abandon Trump in toto, they'd have something better to offer than Trump."

    Here's what we get:
    "Dozens of Bay Area businesses close for anti-Trump 'Day Without Immigrants' protest"
    http://www.bizjournals.com/san.....trump.html

    The Chron kept a updated list; of 18,000 restaurants, some 50 were (sorta) closed.
    Certainly, that sort of impotent jaw-flapping would convince any Trump voter that she made a mistake!

  • John||

    If liberals were serious about getting the Republican base to abandon Trump, they would work with him on the more liberal things he wants to do and give Republicans a reason to be angry.

    The problem liberals have is that their agenda as it currently stands is unpopular in large areas of the country. They might be able to command a majority of voters but those voters are concentrated largely in a few states. And under our federal system that is the same thing as being a minority. They haven't figured that out. They still think of themselves as the majority party. So instead of accepting the reality of being the minority party and choosing their battles accordingly and recognizing their limited options, they tell themselves fairy tales about how they were robbed and how if they just resits hard enough Trump will be impeached and everything will go back to normal.

    The Democrats' problem is that they are a minority party. You can't fix a problem until you accept that you have one. And the Democrats have not gotten there.

  • Zeb||

    They've decided that they want to be the stupid party and the evil party.

    I'm sure the Republicans will have something to say about that.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm sure the Republicans will have something to say about that."

    I'll bet it's something stupid.

  • John||

    The Republicans will no doubt do lots of stupid things to piss off the public. The problem is that the Democrats have to be in a position to take advantage of that. The last time they took back the Congress was in 2006. There the public was pissed off about Republican corruption and incompetence. That was only half of it, however. As I said above, Rahm Emmanuel ran a great Democratic Congressional campaign and lined up a ton of moderate seeming Democrats to run in moderate and GOP dominated districts. So the public had what they saw as reasonable options available to punish the Republicans. You have to have both, a public angry at the Republicans and candidates who are in a position to take advantage of that anger.

    The first part will happen because it always does. I am not so sure about the second part. First, I don't think the Democrats are capable of doing what Emmanuel did in 2006. They have gone way left and seem to be incapable of tolerating the kind of moderate Democrats that win in districts they need to win to take back the Congress. Second, Pelosi ruled with an iron fist and used the moderate Democrats who won in 2006 as cannon fodder forcing them to vote the party line all of the time. Even if the Democrats do come up with moderate sounding candidates, I don't think the public is going to believe them after the experience of 06.

  • Personal Liberty||

    That Republican base elected a democrat into the office of governor in Louisiana after 8 years of a conservative run government that had slashed business/rich man taxes while raising poor man taxes and gave away corporate welfare while attacking poor man welfare. The Republicans just need the opportunity to do what they claim to want to do and the public needs to experience it. We'll see how they govern but if they governed like they governed in Louisiana middle class people may turn on them.

  • John||

    And that governor is likely not very far left. That is exactly what I am talking about. No matter how pissed off the public is, you have to have a candidate to take advantage of it. And it is going to be very hard for the Democrats to come up with enough of such candidates to make a difference even when their opportunity arises.

  • Zeb||

    I think you are probably right and the Dems will be in the wilderness for another cycle at least. There's always a chance that something surprising will happen to change that, but I don't see who is going to lead them in a more sensible direction.

    Of course, in 2004, people were still talking about a permanent republican majority, and that changed pretty fast. But unless Trump manages to really fuck something up that matters (like taking the economy or getting into a stupid war), that doesn't seem too likely.

  • american socialist||

    The problem for the dems is trump is essentially a democrat (helps Rs because of R by name so they will overlook)

  • John||

    Nothing lasts forever. But I honestly wonder if maybe it is the Democratic party that implodes and then the GOP splits in two giving us a new major party.

  • american socialist||

    If they just prog harder and don't go moderate i can see this happening.

    The least appealing thing about them is they are dominated by these 3 groups (at least in exposure):

    entitled parasites (free college, free healthcare, free daycare etc)
    SJWs and activists
    technocratic (you are too stupid to manage your affairs) snobby liberals

    They need more of the guy who briefly challenged Pelosi.

  • wareagle||

    They need more of the guy who briefly challenged Pelosi.
    which they won't get. Look at the race for DNC Chair. Ellison may well be the guy, a Progressive Caucus stalwart. Other candidates include a woman whose platform essentially is telling whites to shut up. And another black candidate was effectively tossed overboard for noticing the Ellison's Muslim faith runs counter to party dogma on gays.

  • Episteme||

    It's a dark day when Tom Perez is lambasted as the moderate...

  • Ladylost||

    I think you have both described it. Republicans can be apAthetic/disappointed and independents mad at corruption but when the only alternative is "men suck, go muslims, also trannies in girls bathrooms, we love gays though we want to import millions of those wishing to murder them, free healthcare that actually costs 5k more than you paid before and without your doctor, tax energy"

    So many disparate "factions" to fight it out cleaving off sections depending on the candidate. Appeasing one faction hurts another and on and on....it cannot hold.

    The media also really doesn't help them when everything is a crisis we tune out.

    Maybe 2020 but they are also fighting the left over gerrymandered districts created circa 2010 by successful sweeps of local elections by r's

  • Paulpemb||

    I think the Democrats are heavily invested in the 'OMG Trumpz a raycisss!' meme for precisely that reason. Trump has spoken repeatedly about wanting to reach out to African-American voters, and if the Democrats ever stop getting 90%+ of the African-American vote, they are through as a party.

  • Sevo||

    "...they tell themselves fairy tales about how they were robbed and how if they just resits hard enough Trump will be impeached and everything will go back to normal."

    A local columnist was preaching a line regarding how Trump is 'empowering women' to 'resist'! It took another paragraph of blather to find what they were 'resisting' was the (I swear) 'general tone of his administration'!
    I guess they're hoping that a president can be impeached not only for "high crimes and misdemeanors" but having opinions they don't like.

  • wareagle||

    "if liberals were serious"

    Kinda says it all, no?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    The Chron kept a updated list; of 18,000 restaurants, some 50 were (sorta) closed.

    And note that this is "a day without immigrants", not "a day without illegal aliens".

    The debate between Democrats and Trump is about letting in illegal aliens. Trump is fine with skilled immigrants. In fact, he wants a point system like Canada has.

  • Tony||

    Republicans control the entire country, including a mentally unstable authoritarian at the very top, but here Reason is, bravely fighting the real power and real threat--leftists, feminists and such.

  • Normand Claychur||

    Leftists and feminists are the problems. Destabilizing is the goal of the left.

  • Tony||

    What you call the left are today's conservatives. The right is who wants to upend all aspects of modern civilization, not to mention sit idly by in the face of environmental destruction. You've been fed a bunch of horseshit by fat men on teevee.

  • The Last American Hero||

    The first sentence is true. The left wants to regulate speech, bedroom behavior, supports prohibition, seeks war with Russia. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    "WE SUBVERSIVES NOW"

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, Reason really loves Trump and never has anything bad to say about him.

  • Normand Claychur||

    One of my biggest beefs with the left is their self imposed determination that they are the ones, because they think they are so much more enlightened or educated, who can change the nomenclature of things especially politics and the culture whenever they decide, even in the middle of a debate or protest, if it inflames their side. Now they say conservatism is "prudence, inherited wisdom, and a government that first does no harm." (according to Peter Beinart) or, as Corey Robin (UNY prof.) defines; "a general defense of social and economic inequality" and ""a meditation on—and theoretical rendition of—the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back." but NOT the traditional definition; "retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization" When you change the meaning of things so abruptly how can anyone hold a conversation and come together in understanding.

  • Episteme||

    For some reason, I thought of a quote from center-right policy wonk Yuval Levin while reading all this:

    "To my mind, conservatism is gratitude. Conservatives tend to begin from gratitude for what is good and what works in our society and then strive to build on it, while liberals tend to begin from outrage at what is bad and broken and seek to uproot it."

    Many here will differ on "what is good," and even those of us broadly on the Right will accept our thoughts on what is good and what works can different than others' (or even amongst ourselves), but I think that there's a glimmer of psychological truth here that particularly works in a time when the Left wants to burn it all down and too many on the Right are giving in to populist nostalgia.

  • John||

    You cannot tell the majority of voters to go fuck themselves time and again on important issues and expect to get away with it forever. What you call "populist nostalgia" I call a properly functioning democracy.

    I understand that Libertarians support totally open borders and completely free trade regardless of how other countries behave. And maybe you are right on the substance of those issues. My point is that the public disagrees with you. And even if they are wrong, you cant' just tell them to go fuck themselves and let the various top men do what they know is best for them.

    If you want open borders, figure out a way to convince the public to support that. If you cant', and you clearly can't, then be realistic and give them what they want and try to work on issues where the public does agree with you.

    If your principles are so important to you that you can't understand the need to let body politic have a say in how their own government is run, then you really don't belong in politics. Politics is about persuasion and compromise. If you just care about living by your principles, you should join the church.

  • Barnstormer||

    Wow, John! You actually got a hit. What's your average now, .110 or so?

  • wareagle||

    but even libertarians who favor open borders get that those cannot co-exist with a welfare state.

  • Tony||

    Why not? Immigrants skew young so only bolster the welfare state. That excuse is alternate reality. You can't use it. Try something else.

  • MarkLastname||

    They're also disproportionately poor, and therefore disproportionately eligible for entitlements.

  • Tony||

    Neither your party, your president, or your principles are supported by a majority of anyone.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Ditto for the Dems, minus the "president" part

  • Sevo||

    "Neither your party, your president, or your principles are supported by a majority of anyone."

    Stupid shit can't even read:
    Electoral College Vote Count
    Clinton 232
    Trump 306
    It's not my party, but he was supported by a majority of those whose votes counted, dumbshit.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    That's okay--a nice quake along the I-5 corridor would fix that problem straightaway.

  • MarkLastname||

    And you miss the point. It's not just Republican that progressives insult or demonize. It's many demographic groups, which make up even the majority of the Democratic Party. Maybe someday black/Hispanic lesbians north of the mason Dixon line will make up the majority of the country but not quite yet.

  • Normand Claychur||

    John, you said, "...I call a properly functioning democracy.". And well said you are, and therein lies the problem. We don't have a "properly functioning democracy," we have a broken democracy and the blame for that is on the shoulders of our government. But it didn't happen all at once, it was a slow process that took time. I just read an excellent piece from a speech by Tom McClintock, given to Hillsdale College. He explains the differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate through an example George Washington gave to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson asked Washington, one day over tea; "why the Continental Convention created the Senate", Washington compared it to the hot tea Jefferson cooled in the saucer. "We pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it". McClintock said the Founders designed the two houses to work differently, to have two different perspectives and temperaments. The local voters, more in connection with their representatives bring the hot passions of their desires through the House laws who then quickly pass it, with limited debate (usually no more than as hour for each bill) to the Senate which was designed to offer limitless deliberation; "every Senator has an opportunity to be heard". (Part 1)

  • Normand Claychur||

    (part 2) This simmering of the hot passions of the people is necessary to look at every detail of a bill. But, for the most part, the Senate has stopped functioning like that beginning in 1917 when Woodrow Wilson tried to stop filibustering (the ability of a minority to have their voice heard before they are silenced by being out voted by the majority) but compromised with the creation of cloture (ending debate with 2/3rds vote) and then the death knell came in 1970 when a little known adjustment instituted by Senate Majority leader Mike Mansfield called the "two-track" system of filibustering, pretty much ended debate in the Senate. This procedure allowed the Senate to, instead of debating an issue, bypass it without the messy "WORK" of actual filibustering. They could now just go on to other business by just "threatening" a filibuster. It is the reason they stop most House bills and even can't reach a budget decision. This has caused a 36-fold increase to filibusters -or "virtual" filibusters-, with no consequence for refusing debates. The solution is to go back to the pre-1970 rules.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I understand that Libertarians support totally open borders and completely free trade regardless of how other countries behave.

    The problem isn't how other countries behave, it's how our country behaves.

    If we open borders and give new arrivals free education, food stamps, health insurance, welfare, and affirmative action, it's not going to work. That is, if you coerce Americans to pay taxes and mandatory insurance, you can't give others the liberty of crossing borders. Same for free trade: it's harmful if you coerce American companies to conform to all sorts of costly and stupid regulations and then open the borders to goods that are produced without being subject to such coercion.

    Open borders and free trade are perfectly good libertarian positions once you remove government coercion and exploitation of Americans.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    And yet, the efforts are to close borders.

    Wait what does free trade h Ave to do with welfare?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    And yet, the efforts are to close borders.

    The libertarian position is open borders and absence of welfare/regulations together. Opening borders while maintaining welfare/regulations doesn't make us more libertarian, it makes us less libertarian.

    Wait what does free trade have to do with welfare?

    Little AFAIK. As I was saying: i has to do with regulations.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I think a lot of the 'resistance' is an effort to distract the Liberal rank and file from the basic truth that Trump didn't steal the election from them; Hillary and the party establishment did.

    I may be wrong, but I see the election just past as a double rebellion against business as usual. The Republican rebellion succeeded in nominating a nominal 'outsider'. The Democrat rebellion was crushed using unethical tactics. Now the Democrats establishment desperately needs to distract the rank and file from thinking about that.

    The flap over the Russians is particularly telling; there's no evidence that Trump was in collusion, but the Democrat establishment needs the Liberal voters to concentrate on just about anything BUT the actual content of the leaks.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    cntd.

    The accusation has been made (with some evidence) that a lot of the 'protests' are bought and paid for. Everybody making this assumption seems to assume that the aim is to attack Trump, and is smugly happy that it doesn't accomplish much. But what if the aim is to keep the Left from examining how badly the Liberal establishment FAILED? The Liberal establishment is fighting for its life. And if they win, they will be free to keep doing business as usual in 2020.

    I'm not sure how I feel about that. Shrillary, if nominated again, will only lose harder. Are the Democrat Panjandrums positioning Elizabeth Warren to run? Jesus, what a shellacking Trump would hand HER. Shrillary is at least sort of cunning. Warren is an imbecile.

    A Democrat 'Outsider' might or might not do better. But boring one on the Democrat establishment would begin to break up the lock on power held by a corrupt, cynical, arrogant, and fundamentally poisonous clique.

  • wareagle||

    But what if the aim is to keep the Left from examining how badly the Liberal establishment FAILED?

    it's odd - when sports teams lose repeatedly, changes are made in management, coaching, and personnel. When companies flounder, same thing. In the past 8 years, Dems have lost more than 1,000 state and federal seats, and their response is to derp harder.

    The party has lost its way. I can't stand the left but a healthy republic cannot function as a one-party state, so Dems desperately need to get their shit together. Not insulting anyone who disagrees is a good start but it's like dealing with relative who has a substance problem - nothing happens till the person recognizes that 1) there really is a problem and 2) steps to correct it are necessary.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Shrillary is at least sort of cunning. Warren is an imbecile.

    Warren also isn't married to Bill, doesn't have the party or foreign connections, and doesn't control a multi-billion dollar foundation.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Why the Resistance Is the Best Thing That's Happened to President Trump
    The "you're with us or you're with him" binary approach alienates potential allies.

    ..."you're with us or you're with him..."
    I can't speak for the rest of the people on this website, but I'm not for either group of assholes whether they are for the fascist Trump or the socialist slavers on the left.
    Fuck both of them.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    For my money, the answer to "you're with us or you're with him" is "You jerks have been running riot for decades. Your programs don't work, your diplomacy's a joke, you use military force ineptly, and the cause you espouse that I agree with you are running into the ground. Until Trump proves half as bad as you are, or there's a palatable third choice, I'm with him. He has all the right enemies."

  • Normand Claychur||

    I like how you think. I'm with you.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The palatable choice that denied christianofascism the 4 million votes it needed to sew up both counts is the Libertarian Party. Voting the televangelism & urinalysis ticket only entrenches national socialism, which is all but identical to the soviet version that now controls the Democrats. Our spoiler votes have changed bad laws and altered jurisprudence beginning with Roe v. Wade and shelving the draft. Every looter politician is keenly aware that tax subsidies, psy-ops, disinformation and bottlenecking have failed to kill the LP. Worse, libertarian parties now thrive in Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, South Africa, Uruguay, the UK, Netherlands and even Germany (!). Lack of a libertarian party is a feature distinguishing bandana republic dictatorships and suicide-vest berserker states. Our spoiler votes repeal the very laws that cowardly submission to looter kleptocracy parties helps to enact. You are either for freedom or prefer coercion. Which will it be?

  • Hank Phillips||

    The usual muddled stew one expects from the looter press. Meanwhile in the real world, the GO-Pee and Dems published platforms aggregating 100 pages. There BOTH looter parties promised to preserve the Communist Manifesto income tax, continue civil asset forfeiture, have cops shoot teenagers and dogs to enforce marijuana prohibition, and expand coercion everywhere. Where the parties differ (you can look this up) was in empty promises. The Dems promise to repeal the Second Amendment while God's Own Prohibitionists promise to correct the 14th Amendment to open with "All ova fertilized..." None of that's gonna happen, but teevee vidiots don't know that. The ONLY difference between the two entrenched looter platforms is that the Dems promised to make electricity illegal (or at least unaffordable). Nowhere in the Constitution is power generation a protected freedom, nor does the prohibitionist antiabortion lobby defend nuclear energy. The GOP won on the promise to change the 14th Amendment and the Dems lost thanks to Global Warming pseudoscience.

  • josh||

    see, i think that, while it's a bad idea long term for the dems to move further left, they still stand a good chance of taking back the white house in 2020. i genuinely believe trump's act will wear pretty thin by then, and unless he can show some real results, a democrat who's not hillary clinton could win. trump's biggest strength in 2016 was that he could talk about how horrible she was. now, there's a lot of room for error there, but dems could easily fall ass backward into victory and be dumb enough to think it's the same as the public embracing them.

  • colorblindkid||

    But they shouldn't even be thinking about 2020. 2018 is basically the worst possible scenario for Senate Dems. A Republican supermajority is even plausible. The map is just brutal. The Dems are complaining about the presidential popular vote, but there ignoring that Republicans won the national popular vote for the House by 1.5 million.

  • colorblindkid||

    They're**

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Which Democrat do you think is well positioned to run against him?

  • Xavier T. Sexington||

    This place is no fun anymore.

  • Rational Exuberance||

  • Rockabilly||

    Chicken hawk progs are out in force and are still crying that Hillary Clinton the vicious war monger lost.

  • Fedup1||

    First, I'd like to point out I am not a troll and am new here. I'm here to expand upon my more independent ideas, so try to educate me, not call me a name. Want to question and grow, not get shutdown.
    Does the LP give a damn if Dems win at all? I would think even giving them a winning option would just put them back into power, and then they'll be back to same shit again. I don't trust them as I don't trust Republicans either.
    I think a unifying force for 3rd party is elections - gerrymandering, debates, term limits and then attack lobbyists and push for anti corruption laws. This is a topic everyone can get behind which the Dems will not go after. Yes? No?

  • Rockabilly||

    The democrat Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war and when she was secretary of state supported a surge of troops in Afghanistan and intervention in Libya.
    She also supports the un Constitutional war on drugs and gun control.

    So, I would never ever support a democrat who is a war monger and sworn enemy of individual liberty.

  • CE||

    Historically low, really? Because I remember some pretty unpopular presidents -- Nixon after Watergate, Carter during the gas lines and Iranian hostage situation, Clinton during impeachment, etc.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    "You're with us or you're with him."

    That is going to alienate potential allies?

    Cool. Very cool.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I couldn't finish the article. I could barely get started. Just the tag line was absurd enough.

    "The "you're with us or you're with him" binary approach alienates potential allies."
    Seriously? Harsanyi knows this is being published on Reason, right? 'cause that kind of absolute "you're with us 100% or you're against us 100%" attitude is kind of overwhelming 'round here.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online