MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Will 2020 Be Oprah vs. Trump?

The reaction to the media mogul's Golden Globe speech opens a window into our increasingly absurd politics.

Carlos Amaya/Sipa USA/NewscomCarlos Amaya/Sipa USA/NewscomThe next presidential election is almost three years away, and yet it appears the race already has its frontrunner: Oprah Winfrey.

Center-left Twitter, where endless optimism about government in general mixes with apoplectic rage and fear about the government we currently have, is suddenly swooning over the idea, with numerous media personalities and fans tweeting out their endorsements:

This isn't the first Oprah-for-president boomlet. (Reason covered similiar musings last March.) This latest Winfrey craze was sparked by a speech the media mogul gave at the Golden Globes last night about sexual harassment and the role of women in society. That set off a sycophantic chant of "run, Oprah, run" on Twitter, complete with a trending #Oprah2020 hashtag.

Adding fuel to the fire was a tweet NBC issued during the ceremony displaying a picture of the anointed one with the caption "Nothing but respect for our future president."

That was more than enough to trigger a bevy of right-wing twitter voices, who responded to the obviously light-hearted NBC tweet with pure disgust:

NBC was sufficiently shamed so as to delete the tweet and issue a new one explaining that no, this was not an actual political endorsement.

Just a few years ago, that kind of follow-up would have hardly been necessary, as no one would really take the idea of Oprah being a viable, mainstream political candidate seriously. But with Donald Trump shattering every political, constitutional, and sociocultural norm in sight, a lot more seems politically possible, even acceptable. After all, Winfrey does have a lot to offer over President Trump, including a compelling rags-to-riches story and a far more impressive record of business success.

And just as many on the right found something oddly compelling about the "tough guy" boss persona Donald Trump cultivated from his years hosting the apprentice, many in the center and on the left seem decidedly primed for candidate Winfrey, whose vapid feel-good ideology mixed with lots of sweet prizes seems tailor-made for today's political times.

Even Donald Trump himself suggested Oprah would be a decent vice-presidential candidate when he was running for the Reform Party's presidential nomination in 1999:

And in 2015, he floated the idea again.

Winfrey herself might even be starting to believe some of the hype generated from her Golden Globe speech. CNN cites two reportedly "close friends" of Winfrey, who say she is "actively thinking" about a presidential run.

Libertarians have been hoping for the breakdown of the two-party system for a long time. Whether a presidential campaign between two TV stars will be the thing to tear it asunder remains to be seen. At the very least, such an outcome should kill any veneer of seriousness our partisan politics once possessed. If smaller government isn't in the cards, at least we could get a more transparently absurd one.

Photo Credit: Carlos Amaya/Sipa USA/Newscom

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.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The golden what now?

  • Zeb||

    This story manages to combine all of the things I am least interested in in contemporary culture: Twitter, Oprah and the Golden Globes.

    That said, I say we give having only TV personalities in government a shot. Couldn't be much worse than professional politicians.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    First off, she doesn't have any experience, she's nothing more than a TV personality.

    B) Golden Globes was my nickname at the nudist colony.

    And Three, I didn't realize people were actually seeing this as her first campaign speech, it took a pass-by NPR while I ran out to get my Teriyaki to figure that out. I guess people are quite serious about this.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    First off, she doesn't have any experience, she's nothing more than a TV personality.

    Didn't stop Trump.

    And Oprah at least pulled herself up by the bootstraps unlike the Con Man who inherited NYC real estate from Daddy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I rate your sense of humor at around that of Al Franken.

  • Kevin47||

    Dude wrote some good sketches in his coke-addled days.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But enough about his Senate days...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Oh, but someone would have said it seriously anyway (like LoveCons).

  • Brian||

    I vaguely remember some people... saying something like that.... and expecting to be taken seriously....

    Wait. It'll come to me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Butt: Referring to me when I am not even commenting on this thread and acting like you have any sense of humor at all.

    You weren't kidding. You really believe what you say, don't you?
    Oprah was given a job at WVOL based on affirmative action. But yeah after that she pulled herself up by her bootstraps. Oh wait, she was recommended by Roger Ebert for a syndication deal.

    After that, she pulled herself up by her bootstraps.

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    >Inherit $1,000,000 from your father as an initial investment in your real estate business
    >Multiply it by a factor of 3300x to $3,300,000,000
    >This is a bad thing
    Me thinks you don't understand business or economics in general, PB.

  • Paloma||

    But had he lost it all and ended up in debt, what do you think his dad would have done? Tell him to go live in the projects?

  • BYODB||

    And what if the Earth had fallen into the sun? Ever think about that?!

    ^_-

  • DarrenM||

    So, you're saying Oprah wears boots?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    She has a business empire. Not, maybe, as big as Trump's, but bigger then me. And the really tempting thing about this is we would get to see Her Shrillness having to decide if she wants to go head-to-head with the Big O. Even more fun if Shrillary decides to fight for it.

    Not altogether sure Oprah would be a good President. But I'm sure she would be a better first female President than Her Highness Shrillary the 1st. She would also almost have to do a better job than Obumbles, which might take some of the curse of the First Black President experience; ok the first was a dud, but #2 didn't do too badly for a Progressive Statist.

    Can she beat Trump? Especially a Trump with four years of economic growth behind him and the Left still having conniptions about him (which I can't think does them much good with the undecided).? Who knows. Might be fun to watch, as we wind down to the inevitable one-terror-attack-too-many and the following Imperial America.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are far more women that would make better presidents than a lady who got fooled by the Million Little Fibers guy.

    To Oprah's credit, she milked those saps who need someone to tell them what to read and think and made billions off them.

    Technically Oprah is an entrepreneur but we used to call people like her snake oil salesmen.

    As you say, Trump will have a stronger economy under his belt and it will be almost directly resulting from tax reform and lessening of the government stranglehold on the economy. People in swing states will know who was president when that happened.

  • nina33436||

  • Paloma||

    I don't really count Obama as African American. He wasn't raised in the ghetto, most of his time wasn't even in the United States. His stepdad, the guy who raised him was Asian. Now this by no means disqualifies him as Black. But his Black American experience is nowhere close to typical.

    All it did was prove White Americans would vote for a guy who had Black skin and features. But an African American with a background like Oprah's or his wife Michelle's or even Clarence Thomas would be more typical.

  • gormadoc||

    What do you mean "even Clarence Thomas"? When you consider his background, his achievements are ludicrously impressive. Far more so than the others you mention. He came from a poor Gullah family unable to speak non-creole English and is now part of the Supreme Court. I would also argue that his early life was atypically difficult, even for a black man in his time.

    But yeah, African American studies people don't usually consider Obama African American unless they're in full idolization mode.

  • gormadoc||

    For clarification and edification, African Americans are usually considered to be descendants of West African slaves with their cultural history shaped by chattel slavery and later by Jim Crow.

    It's a sad thing when an entire people's identity is based on their relationship to an oppressive government.

  • p3orion||

    "African American studies people don't usually consider Obama African American unless they're in full idolization mode."

    The point is, they don't consider Clarence Thomas one either, simply because he has the gall NOT to be a liberal Democrat.

  • Paloma||

    Exactly! That's the point I was trying to make, but you made it better!

  • Paloma||

    I admire Clarence Thomas. The "even" was because he was educated by Jesuits, (as I was), not in the typical Black church. He is conservative in the best sense. But yes, his background is much more typical African American than Barack Obama.

  • SimonP||

    Can she beat Trump? Especially a Trump with four years of economic growth behind him and the Left still having conniptions about him (which I can't think does them much good with the undecided).?

    I'm amused that you think that Trump's going to get a straight four years of economic growth. No one is expecting that. The most optimistic forecasts put a correction into 2019.

    This is why Trump's election was a disaster for Bannon. He had no intention of getting Trump elected. What he wanted was a bold run, a Hillary victory, a Trump New Network in partnership with Brietbart, four years of propaganda, and then a recession leading into 2020 for which Hillary would receive the blame. That would set the stage for a true autocrat to get elected, and not just an incompetent buffoon. Trump's winning required a massive acceleration of the program to destroy America, and look at how it's turning out for him.

  • Paloma||

    That Bannon must be a real Svenjolyl

  • JFDeplorable||

    Experience didn't stop "The One" - as Oprah nicknamed Barack Hussein Obama. This was a candidate who rarely participated when he was elected to the Illinois state senate, who had no private sector experience and was barely a player in the "community organizing" game! Even the hacks at the New York Times couldn't make his resume look palatable to anyone who would be in a hiring position (they glossed heavily over the fact that he left after two years on his sole "community organizing" gig and accomplished NOTHING.)

    Two, Oprah does have what BHO did - melanin. That alone makes her bullet proof. Add to that she is female, and you have a two-fer for the Democrats. If only she would convert to Islam, then she would be the trifecta of oppressed minorities, and just perfect to parade in front of the gullible sheeple who buy the lie that America is nothing more than a racist, misogynistic colony determined to keep da folks down.

    People are serious about this, because 1) most people are tired of professional pols and 2) people believe that the only reason Donald Trump won the presidency was due to this celebrity status. Oprah has that, she actually does have some executive experience (altho' her success plummeted after her endorsement of BHO) and she has enough money to launch a campaign if she so chooses.

  • DarrenM||

    It's been pretty well established by now that "experience" is completely optional.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I guess that means you have some interest in Youtube and Instagram celebrities influencers.

    And the Grammies and Tony Awards.

  • Zeb||

    I don't even know what Instagram is, so it's hard to say.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I thought the Oscars took care of our once-a-year Hollywood virtue-signaling fest. You're telling me we've broken them up into half a dozen venues? Ye gods...

  • Kevin47||

    Not enough virtue. Greta Gerwig didn't get a directing nomination because women are oppressed and not, you know, because she is an unremarkable director. The Oscars will make us whole again. You'll see.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Hey, now! Twitter is a great resource for technical daily pointers.

  • DiegoF||

    Please allow Sgt. James to explain the institution for you.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So, Hollywood is rife with gropey creeps, so Hollywood responds by pillorying itself?

  • Jerryskids||

    Oh man, is Kanye ever going to be pissed you failed to mention His forthcoming presidential campaign anointment. You think it's bad getting on Trump's shwitter list, wait'll you see the pain getting on the Yeezy list brings.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Oh Dotard, look at the absurdity you have unleashed. Anyone with TV celebrity now thinks they have the credentials to be POTUS.

  • William Freid||

    "Dotard"

    Is this an attempt to be pithy? Can one be pithy when… borrowing someone else's insult?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    It is short for Donald Trump + Retard.

    (and if you're offended by "retard" and prefer some PC label like "otherly abled" then I don't give a shit.)

  • William Freid||

    Thanks, but that didn't answer either of my questions.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, I "borrowed" it.

    I usually come up with my own (see Bushpigs) but like "Dotard" for its brevity and accuracy.

  • William Freid||

    Yes, I'm sure you came up with "Bushpigs."

  • swaged||

    PB used to go by "Shrike" (original and clever) and was frequently fond of calling people he disagreed with "christfags" ( not homophobic at all).

    I wouldn't expect much from him.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I don't do PC. "Fag" is just another word.

    And this is Reason. A grown man who say he loves Jesus/Mohammed deserves ridicule.

    I can understand a child who loves Santa.

  • swaged||

    And he's a rape apologist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Butt, you love Obama and you deserve ridicule.

  • gormadoc||

    Obama loves Jesus. He mentioned Jesus and his faith more than Bush did. Why don't you ridicule him for that?

  • Paloma||

    Why would anyone ridicule Obama for his faith in Jesus? Oh, I know. Because he was a Secret Mohammedan!

  • DarrenM||

    The work "homophobe" is itself "homophobic" if you think about it. "Homo" used as a prefix, means "same", so "homophobe" would really mean fear of sameness. When it's meant to mean fear of homosexuals (which is another issue since most people who have an issue with homosexual practices do not *fear* anything about it), then anyone using it is calling homosexuals "homos", which used to be considered derogatory, but I guess it's OK to call someone a queer (or anything else derogatory) if you mean it in a nice way. That's progressive reasoning.

  • geo||

    Do you actually define using a word from the English dictionary as "borrowing"? You must really be a dotard. It has nothing to do with Donald or retard.The word dates back to the 14th century and simply means old and senile. It has no connotation of being retarded.

  • Brian||

    Oh, look: you just said it.

  • DiegoF||

    I'm for it! Hillary believes in space alien visits (as did Goldwater, by the way, for what it's worth), summoning ghosts to communicate with, and enough weird New Age gurus' pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and bastardized, shallow, self-absorbed, morally libertine "spirituality" to make Cherie Blair blush. She needs the one woman on this planet capable of doing her better. (And I ain't talking about Vani Hari. She's too hot to be president.)

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Reagan had his batshit nutty wife bring in astrologists to consult with.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Michelle Obama would have been better off had she used astrologists.

  • DiegoF||

    Her mom could have used astrologers to warn of inauspicious days for hiking when STEVE SMITH's presence was sensed in Illinois.

  • DiegoF||

    Excellent call; I forgot about that!

  • Number 2||

    Reagan's wife never claimed that the Russians stole the presidency from her.

  • DiegoF||

    Well, she kind of, you know, never even suggested that she was suitable to do anything besides be First Lady in the first place--let alone take it as a point of deep injustice that anyone would ever question what she herself deserved.

  • Kevin47||

    Does anyone seriously believe Oprah has never consulted an astrologer?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    She probably has.

    She was an anti-vax sympathizer (IIRC).

    She probably has other nutty beliefs.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Like government can solve your problems, govt should push social engineering, govt should tell you what to buy and when, men and women are equal in all respects, America is a racist country than needs fixn, Clintons are not corrupt, Obama was a good president, etc.

  • Paloma||

    That's because he was an Aquarius!

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Astrology is nothing. Myers-Briggs is what we use now. Because consensus.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    What, did the aliens steal her offspring?

  • DiegoF||

    No, sired her offspring. Then, based on seriously faulty intelligence about human dimorphism, ran under disguise for Florida Attorney General. Get your shit straight.

  • Paloma||

    Aliens sired Hillary's offspring? Are we talking illegals here? Because Chelsea does not look Mexican, not at all.

  • Zeb||

    I'm still sad that Kid Rock isn't running for anything.

  • Anomalous||

    How anyone can be a grandfather and still call himself "Kid" makes no sense.

  • DiegoF||

    Young MC must be getting up there, come to think of it. As must, well, Kid.

  • Episteme||

    Benjamin Buttons?

  • Anomalous||

    Odd that he's a grandfather yet still calls himself "Kid."

  • Rhywun||

    That's doubly odd.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    He's his own grandpa?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    He tried changing his name to "adult contemporary", but, meh.

  • DiegoF||

    Oh that is good

  • tlapp||

    He can do his own campaign concerts to raise funds.

  • Rhywun||

    I am no more "moved" by the prospect of her running than I was for him. Or I would be for anybody.

    W in T everloving F is wrong with people?

    Reese Witherspoon, Winfrey's co-star in "A Wrinkle In Time," introduced Winfrey and said her hugs could end all wars.

    I mean, this is the kind of mentality we're dealing with here.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    And we can assume they honestly believe that. It's like they all live in Neverland.

  • DiegoF||

    In her defense, I am even more sure Oprah herself believes it. She's a media genius, but I do think she honestly believes the shit she shovels on the air, even if it does change every few months as she moves on to her next spirituality like they were diet plans. She's in her own way an earnest, principled woman, not a cynic. (The cynics are the ones who design shit to fit the egos of people like her. In that she also deserves credit, in a sense, for her strength of character and confidence in herself; someone whose ego was mixed with more insecurity would be vulnerable to manipulation by a savvy guru, but hers is too strong to ever be tricked into putting herself second to anyone and their sweet words. She'll take what she wants from their message and discard the rest and eventually move on, without ever once really being close to being under any one person's thumb. She'll die rich, fat, happy, and in control, not the pathetic plaything of some Dr. Feelgood in her final years.)

  • Kevin47||

    Kevin Spacey isn't a predator. He's just a belligerent pacifist.

    But yeah, beyond parody, these people.

  • Robert||

    Well, her hug could kill any enemy, so yeah.

  • Paloma||

    I'd be happy if hugs could pay my utility bill.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    What a terrible idea for her.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I say go for it Oprah. Stedman for VP.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Stedman will be the First Beard.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Steadman serves only at the pleasure of his mistress and is only allowed to accompany her when she desires. If their genders were switched, the proggies would have a very different opinion of her.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That does seem to be true.

    Maybe Steadman is the "cuck" that conservatives have been pining for.

    (I don't understand their fascination with cucks at all)

  • Paloma||

    Steadman for First Cuck. I'm down.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Either way it will be a Trump win in 2020. The Democrats are going down in flames and they know it too.

    The left actually think they "won" Alabama senate seat rather than Moore losing the seat.

  • Eric||

    To delve into modern team politics is to ensure that half the country thinks you're worse than Hitler. Why would Oprah ruin her brand this way?

  • NoVaNick||

    I don't think Oprah can ruin her brand, and I don't think Trump will ruin his either.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Look, Oprah's main audience is white women, and... wait, this isn't going where I thought it was going.

  • NoVaNick||

    But with Donald Trump shattering every political, constitutional, and sociocultural norm in sight, a lot more seems politically possible, even acceptable.

    The time is now for Vermin Supreme!

  • DiegoF||

    We laugh, but that is because he has not yet managed to join forces with Jimmy McMillan.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Ahahahaha, Donald Trump is president, what the fuck

  • William Freid||

    Indeed.

  • NoVaNick||

    How many has Oprah killed from the emissions produced by all the cars she has given away?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    "you get muh roads, you get muh roads, errybady getting roads today!"

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Someone is going to have to un-hack the election to turn all the former Hillary voters back into Oprah voters. This seems difficult to do.

  • Kevin47||

    So Hollywood spends decades elevating rapists and generally treating women like meat and the solution to this is for Hollywood to subject us to one of their own in the name of women's rights? Yeah, that will play in Peoria.

    It will take the Trump administration about a week to compile a list of creeps on Oprah's payroll. If that is her campaign's raison d'etre, it's a non-starter.

    After two disastrous election cycles, you'd think the Democrats would move away from this preachy war on women nonsense. The average woman in this country does not believe she is at war, and certainly does not believe she is on Hollywood's side in any such war.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I was in my car around noon and Fat Rush (Praise be unto Him) Limbaugh was already tying Oprah to Harvey Weinstein.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Haha. Butt listens to Rush Limbaugh.

    Butt thinks by listening to Rush he has his finger on the pulse. Even most Republicans don't listen to Limbaugh.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Oprah became a billionaire with a daytime talkshow. Who do you think her target demographic was?

  • Kevin47||

    "Oprah became a billionaire with a daytime talkshow. Who do you think her target demographic was?"

    The unemployed?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Illinois voters?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Trailer trash?

    Oops, this could get interesting since the Donald polled well in the trailer parks. Does this split the double wide vote, mostly along gender lines?

  • ||

    Oprah became a billionaire with a daytime talkshow. Who do you think her target demographic was?

    Yeah, you'd be hard pressed to find anybody in Hollywood who made it big through their seemingly intimate associations with the commoners only to find themselves at the top, detached from the little people. /sarc

    If I'm not mistaken Harpo closed its doors and OWN has been losing money and market share nearly since inception. Last I heard, it was claiming major victories like "#1 Cable Network on Tuesday evenings among Women" and getting ratings with their 'hit shows' that would've been booted off of other networks (indicating more women are likely watching GOT and Football than anything Oprah even remotely has a hand in). She may've been at the top at one point but she's out of that business now and I don't think it's unfounded to question whether she could do anything similar (if only for the fact that 2 seemingly-impossible rises would be even more seemingly-impossiblier).

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Assuming Hillary doesn't run again, my top 3 choices for 2020 are Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand. However, if Oprah gets the Democratic nomination and supports open borders, I could see myself voting for her as the best libertarian option.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You really imagine that the Reason staff thinks like that, don't you?

    Maybe they are like Penn Jillete and just despise the Con Man for being a piece of shit. Would you come out of character to answer that?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    What "character"? This is just how I think. I've noticed you frequently bring up abortion in topics that have absolutely nothing to do with it; why is it so surprising that I mention my enthusiasm for unlimited immigration even in unrelated topics?

    I never claimed Oprah would be 100% perfect from a libertarian POV, by the way — just "the best libertarian option." With the GOP now mostly controlled by white nationalist Russian intelligence assets, voting Democrat makes more sense than wasting my vote on third party candidates. That's why I voted for Hillary in 2016 even though I can admit she's slightly more of a hawk than I'd prefer.

  • Kivlor||

    "With the GOP now mostly controlled by white nationalist Russian intelligence assets"

    I can't wait for the Trump 2020 slogan switch. No more MAGA because mission accomplished. "Blood and Soil! Blood and Soil! Blood and Soil!"

  • vek||

    I'd vote for "blood and soil" before I'd vote for "unlimited half illiterates from every third world shit hole in the world"...

    So would lots of people. For me I'd want to keep out idiot white immigrants too, but I'll take what I can get. Everybody forgets that people wanted Mussolini and Hitler because THEY WERE the better choice available at the time, as compared to rabid communists. The best option is frequently not on the table... I mean Ron Paul didn't exactly win the Republican ticket any of the times he tried, so lesser of two evils argument and all that.

  • I'm Here, for MOAR Hihn||

    You think that a bunch of 'Merca First-ers are controlled by the Russians? Just want to make sure I read that right

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    At least Butt-Plug is a more or less honest asshole; you just come here to dick with people.

  • swaged||

    PB fell for it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're assuming Butt and Openborders are not the same.

    They have been known to troll each other...if you know what I mean.

  • Nuwanda||

    It's call a reach-around if I'm not mistaken.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I don't know what gives people that impression. I agree with the official Reason magazine position (and Shikha Dalmia's position especially) that open borders is a wonderful thing with absolutely no downside, and every self-respecting libertarian must support it.

    If a commenter agreed with everything Sullum or Doherty wrote about guns, would that also be dicking with people? Or agreed with everything ENB wrote about abortion?

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Yes.

  • Zeb||

    See, you are still overdoing it. Retire this sock and try again.

  • BYODB||

    Whoever this is, they're not wrong when it comes to Reason's position virtually across the board on immigration. Which is fine, because that will literally never happen.

    For what it's worth, the place where virtually everyone I know divorces from the Libertarian party is on immigration. No other 'libertarian' position causes such a huge disconnect. Sure, it's anecdotal but it's a thing.

    If we busted the welfare state I don't think most people would have a huge problem with a virtually free immigration system. In Reason's defense, they don't often run blogs that are in favor of the welfare state so perhaps this is just a case of simultaneously endorsing two things even while there's a certain order of operations in how they would need to actually be done.

    Needless to say, it's probably even more unlikely that the welfare state will be abolished over and above absolutely free immigration. They're both more or less politically impossible, but fun to think about. Maybe that's libertarianism in a nutshell? ^_-

  • vek||

    LOL

    "absolutely no downside" LOLOLOLOLOL

    Other than disintegrating the fabric of an entire civilization, causing massive internal infighting, losing our form of government because new immigrants don't get it, lowering the average education level, lowering the average income, I could go on...

    In surveys done globally something like 3 billion people have indicated at least some interest in moving to America. After the first 100 million or so we'd be about as fucked up/poor on average as Mexico or Brazil (which let us remember are not all that poor by global standards, although we love to mock them), so the next 100 million would come slower... But once they were here we'd probably be more like an India or China or some other shit hole that has some wealthy people, but a mass of uneducated and poor folks making up the bulk of the population.

  • DarrenM||

    You don't understand. Open borders is about increasing the population, so we can increase the size of the military, so we can invade and control other countries more effectively. Our leaders don't care about trivialities like "culture" or "values". Just keep in mind that it's about power and it will make sense.

  • vek||

    Well, it's not that particular type of power IMO, but power is what they are after. I don't think they want military recruits, but they want useful idiots for a number of other things. People from abroad don't "get" freedom in the hardcore American sense, because none of them have ever known it. So they will vote for bigger and more powerful government. They will also keep the ponzi scheme of Social Security etc going longer. There are a lot of reasons.

    Part of my biggest problem with the USA is we're playing at being an empire... But doing it wrong. You CAN be successful at being a big evil empire, but you have to be a total dick to do it. We're incurring all the costs of wars and such without all the looting that made it profitable for Babylon, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, Spain, Britain etc. Which is why we're crumbling so fast. I wouldn't prefer we were an evil empire, but if we're going to do it we had better start doing it right at least!

  • JoeBlow123||

    Consistently the best posts. Nothing but love from me OBL.

    (Same initials as Osama bin-Laden).

  • DarrenM||

    I'd prefer OW to any of those three.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I read Reason for the embedded Tweets.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It isn't even entertaining.

    Tweet references are scratching the chalkboard of life.

    Remember when we used to have discussions about whether there were any differences between professional and citizen journalists?

    Look what I found on Twitter today!

    Those arguments are soooooooooooooo over.

    If I wanted to see what was on Twitter I'd go there myself. It isn't hard to find.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Advice to journalists everywhere: Turn off your Twitter feed.

    I doubt we'll ever see an interesting article again about anybody's tweets, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility--maybe years in the future when Trump is no longer in office.

    In the meantime, as a general rule, whenever someone is writing a story, as more references to tweets are added, the likelihood of the journalist in question having shit the bed approaches one.

    If you can't think of anything better to write about than somebody's tweets, maybe you should quit and become a trash man, a janitor, or something else that makes a more worthwhile contribution to society.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In a contest between Hillary and Oprah, I would vote for Oprah early and often.

  • Ken Shultz||

    At least Oprah didn't accept money from foreign governments while she was secretary of state, right?

  • BYODB||

    ...why not have Oprah choose Hillary as her VP? Their slogan could be 'Pepper, Salt, and Vagina'.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Meh. Hillary would serve in some cabinet post for Oprah and it would be closet servers all over again.

    Oprah is being foisted out there because Democrats know they have nobody else. That and Trump is becoming more popular.

    Did you hear McDonalds is lowering their prices. Certain people who eat there have been told who caused that calamity.

    Of course, there are racists who would vote for Oprah just because she is black like they did for Obama. There would also be sexists who vote for her because she is a woman like they did for Hillary.

    Imagine that- there are racists and sexists that are Democrats.

  • Episteme||

    Advice to journalists everywhere: Turn off your Twitter feed.

    That's the problem of media only hiring fresh-out-of-college folks in NYC, DC, and LA to "report" on things by reading tweets and AP blotters. They have no experience and father no context (outside of what they see on late night TV and assume is straight news because they grew up with it). Especially with copy editors being the first thing cut in the newsroom, no one circles anything in a reporter's copy and asks about sourcing or about getting comments from other parties involved (or asking follow ups beyond what's tweeted).

  • BYODB||

    In fairness, there are plenty of examples of blatantly false shit hitting publication even while there were copy editors.

  • ||

    "Magic Michelle - This fall, Hillary's not the only one bringing women too the poles."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You get a magic garden and YOU get a magic garden.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • DiegoF||

    I love how baby food animals look both adorable and mouthwatering at the same time. Quite a bizarre mixture of emotions.

  • ||

    The shoes are killing me.

  • Kivlor||

  • Kivlor||

  • Brandybuck||

    Center-left Twitter, where endless optimism about government in general mixes with apoplectic rage and fear about the government we currently have, is suddenly swooning over the idea, with numerous media personalities and fans tweeting out their endorsements


    This. This is why I have lost all faith in humanity. We need to declare public schooling an absolute failure if these are the sort of people it pumps out.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    You know who else gave a populist speech that had the left ecstatic?

  • DiegoF||

    William Jennings Bryan?

  • Episteme||

    You get a Cross of Gold! And you get a Cross of Gold! And you get a Cross of Gold!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)?

  • C.T. Westing||

    "YOU get free health care, and YOU get free health care, and YOU get free health care!"

    Meh. Trading one celebrity billionaire in the White House for another one is the new normal, I guess.

  • Ron||

    I think Oprah would be harder to beet than Clinton but not much

  • Will Nonya||

    It's things like this which point out he genius of idiocracy.

  • Crask||

    Why not? Democrat supporters are more than dumb enough to vote for Oprah. Just keep pushing Trump=end-of-the-world nonsense and that Oprah is the world savior like they did with Obama, there isn't a Democrat supporter in the nation that wouldn't vote for her. Even if she shot one of their family members in the head on public television, Democrat supporters would still vote for her.

    Democrat supporters are pretty much a program at this point.

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    >Democrat supporters are pretty much a program at this point.
    Yeah, the hard core Clintonian/progressive Democrats probably would. But the core of their fucking party, the bluedog Democrats, was taken from them by a steak salesman and they haven't actually done anything to court them in the past year since the 2016 election concluded. If this trend continues and the Democrats keep ignoring their base, they're pretty fucked in the long run, since not even the Republicans, fuckups that they are not even being able to repeal Obamacare, managed to do something as brainlessly incompetent as to not pay attention to their own base. That's why I find it unlikely the Dems take back the House or Senate or Trump loses in 2020, the Democrats literally haven't done anything in Congress except say Trump is Hitler and this tax bill (which is basically Reagan's tax cut in 1981)is bad for all Americans (despite all the evidence to the contrary). They can't continue running on the "but the other guys are worse" narrative until they actually fucking propose some sort of bill that actually benefits their base in the Rustbelt, which they are either too stupid or too arrogant (probably both) to actually do.

  • SimonP||

    If, god forbid, Oprah somehow has the audacity to run and manages actually to win the nomination, and if Trump hasn't resigned in disgrace-spun-as-victory before then, I would have no choice but to vote for someone who might be more willing to allow establishment politicians and experts dictate policy. That is really the only scenario in which I would vote for her. Any generic Republican would get my support before this political newbie.

  • p3orion||

    Say what you will about her, she's probably not much worse than anyone else who could win the Democrat nomination, and better than many. Lord knows she's got more real-world experience than obama ever had, and only 143 fewer days in the US Senate than he had under his belt when he announced.

    Sad to say, she'd be tough to beat, especially by Trump if she gets drafted for 2016.

  • Will Nonya||

    What isn't being said by "Oprah vs. Trump?" is which trump. I doubt it will be Donald or his male heirs.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I guess the left has given up on Trump being impeached before 2020 then.

  • Harvard||

    Just musing here but how will Trump refer to her going in to the debates? Fat Opie? Black Opiod? Dr. Philopie?

  • Robert||

    What does Scott Adams say?

  • JuanQPublic||

    The anti-Trump media and tweeting politicos have officially lost their minds. This is in no way an endorsement of Trump, rather a verification of what has already been apparent. Swooning at rhetoric not seen since Obama 2008.

  • Mark22||

    After all, Winfrey does have a lot to offer over President Trump, including a compelling rags-to-riches story and a far more impressive record of business success.

    Oprah Winfrey is an emotional snake oil salesman. Yes, you can get very wealthy that way. No, that doesn't make her a good businessman or a good candidate for president.

    Libertarians have been hoping for the breakdown of the two-party system for a long time.

    Not libertarians with any sense.

  • ||

    Pretty much.

  • RenaD||

    "Emotional snake oil salesman" nails it. Manna for the hoi polloi.

  • ||

    So Oprah gives a speech about #metoo (or something I don't. I didn't listen nor do I care) but there are pictures of her kissing Weinstein floating around on the Internet. There was nothing brave in doing this among her peers; especially considering they all knew. But they act like this is a 'new dawn' after the fact. What a joke these people are. It's like how sports journalist talked all tough AFTER the steroid story broke by....bloggers and investigative journalists.

    Jesus, are people this shallow in their intellectualism?

    Oprah: The path to (faux) enlightenment 2020.

    Meanwhile, Trump just killed the estate tax for farmers I just saw and seems to have put in place a deal - or the framework anyway - for immigration reform - among other things - like African-American unemployment at all time lows and the economy chugging along.

    If all this keeps up Democrats are going NOWHERE. Even with celebrities squawking on.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Jesus, are people this shallow in their intellectualism?

    Jesus: Yes, my son.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Jesus, are people this shallow in their intellectualism?

    There is no intellectual angle to this. It's merely a symptom of a larger anti-intellectualism sweeping the country on both sides of the aisle.

    We're now at a point of widespread delusion, where feelings and mere reaction to stimuli dictate the national conversation. This has no regard for addressing complex issues in a nuanced way. Rather, it's a devolution into primitive impulses. What makes one feel good is "right." What makes one uncomfortable is "wrong."

  • Tony||

    "Libertarians have been hoping for the breakdown of the two-party system for a long time. Whether a presidential campaign between two TV stars will be the thing to tear it asunder remains to be seen."

    You people are so fucking stupid it hurts.

  • JeremyR||

    Oprah is pretty much solely responsible for Tyler Perry and Dr. Phil being things.

    Tyler Perry you can excuse, he just makes bad movies. And shows. And I think plays. But Dr. Phil peddles quackery to the gullible

  • JuanQPublic||

    Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz.

  • tlapp||

    I hope she runs because then the establishment of both parties will have been overrun. All the years of trading favors and money, all the campaign donations will be meaningless. It will completely overturn business as usual with the 2 parties.

  • DarrenM||

    Zaphod Beeblebrox 2020 !! (This is probably a better candidate for the LP ticket.)

  • Ned Netterville||

    "The next presidential election is almost three years away, and yet it appears the race already has its frontrunner: Oprah Winfrey."

    Who dat?

  • Ned Netterville||

    "The next presidential election is almost three years away, and yet it appears the race already has its frontrunner: Oprah Winfrey."

    Who dat?

  • Kenrm||

    Right now there are multiple pics of Oprah laughing and cozying up to, both, Weinstein AND Bill Clinton, two of the most notorious abusers of women on the left. Think those pics, especially the one of her kissing Weinstein on the cheek at a social gathering might do damage to her "flawless" image when it comes to campaigning?

    She was willing to be cozy with those two high profile predators as long as Weinstein donated to the DNC and the Clintons were in power. She preferred the power and money connections over individual women's rights. Her trying to claim ignorance won't work either, as most in Hollywood have said it was an "open secret", so she is tied too closely to both men.

    She did NOT lead the march for women's protections against those to high profile predators. Rather, she was a johnny-come-lately follower of the group uprising. We don't need followers, we need a leader.

  • tombstone||

    Oprah, if elected, would be more willing to "act out" on the scripts handed her by the folks behind the scenes. It would be a far more polished "act" than Trump, but an act none the less. Trump is genuine. You get what you see. I imagine he has quite a few folks tearing their hair out, and I for one find that refreshing. Oprah will get the lonely fat housewife crowd to vote for her, her Weight Watches entourage begging for free "points". It will bring politics to an all time record low level, while boosting the left wing mania for all things feel good.

  • Widhalm19||

    Trump vs. Winfrey .... that should keep the mob amused in 2020.

  • tlapp||

    She would choose a new victimized person to interview at every State of the Union address to call for ever more taxes and redistribution of wealth. Wait she already does that for a living.

  • Pat001||

    If Oprah wins everyone gets a free car!

  • Lester224||

    Candidates for president should have some political experience and understand the constitution. Reagan was an actor but at least he was governor before he was president. Oprah is smarter and more eloquent than Trump but they were/are both bad candidates.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    "Libertarians have been hoping for a breakdown in the two-party system for a long time."

    Have they? Last I checked, Libertarians have done next to nothing to take advantage of such a breakdown. The Libertarian Party had absolutely no ground-game whatsoever in 2016(and no truly libertarian candidate), and I really can't expect anything better in 2020, can I?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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