Donald Trump

Jonah Goldberg on Why He Left National Review, Dislikes Sean Hannity and Seb Gorka, and Is Inching Toward Libertarianism

The conservative critic of Donald Trump and author of Liberal Fascism and Suicide of the West is launching The Dispatch, a site for principled conservatism.


Today's podcast is a "very special episode," though not in the way old TV shows did very special episodes, like when a character we'd never heard of would be introduced and then immediately die tragically, or we'd learn about a terrible new disease such as AIDS, or when Nancy Reagan or Michelle Obama would guest star just to bring everyone down.

No, The Reason Interview's very special episode is a two-part cross-over conversation with Jonah Goldberg, the former longtime National Review editor and bestselling author of Liberal Fascism and Suicide of the West. The first part appears here and the second part will appear on Goldberg's podcast, The Remnant, on Thursday, December 5 (go here to subscribe).

Goldberg is a prominent conservative critic of Donald Trump and just a few months ago announced his departure from National Review, where he worked for over two decades. He now hangs his hat at a new media venture called The Dispatch, which involves another prominent conservative, the former editor in chief of The Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes, and another National Review refugee, David French (go here for The Reason Interview with French, which came out earlier this year).

Nick Gillespie talks with Goldberg about the reasons why he left the flagship publication of the American right wing, why he has little-to-no respect for right-wingers like Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, why he's moving in a libertarian direction, and what he, Hayes, and French hope to achieve with The Dispatch. To listen to the second half of this very special podcast when it drops on The Remnant on Thursday, go here, Apple podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, Soundcloud, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Update (12/5): The second half of this conversation is now live at Jonah Goldberg's podcast site. Go here to listen and subscribe. Or click below!


Today's podcast is being released during Reason's annual webathon, when we ask our readers, viewers, and listeners to support our journalism via fully tax-deductible donations. Reason is published by a 501(c)3 nonprofit and we help cover our costs through the support of people like you, who believe in Free Minds and Free Markets, producing great journalism, and bringing a libertarian perspective to all debates about politics, culture, and ideas.

Reason started in 1968 as a mimeographed monthly magazine and is now a full-fledged media operation that reaches millions of people a month via print, the web, and our videos and podcasts. We're your voice in the public arena and we're also a source of cutting-edge news and opinion from a libertarian point of view. We've got great swag associated with different giving levels, too, so please go to and donate what you can so we can keep on keeping on.

NEXT: The Free Trade Dream of the '90s Is Dead

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We get it. The Dispatch = The Cuckservative Review.

    1. Neocon Warpig Review.

      “and Is Inching Toward Libertarianism”
      So libertarianism is globalist interventionism, who knew.

      1. Reason !

        They do their part for economic central planning too.

      2. If Reason will blow Socialists, why not NeoClowns?

        As long as they’re Globalists, they’re all good with Nick.

        Nick declares @Reason’s “core value” as Open Borders:
        In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

        Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.

    2. God, you are like 15%-20% of a dick.

  2. Is Goldberg moving towards old-school libertarianism or new-school libertarianism?

    1. Well I hope he’s moving towards a rational libertarianism.

      I remember when his book Liberal Fascism came out, he had a book blog about it at the time, and on the blog he made some comment about how researching the book caused him to think about libertarianism more favorably. So he’s been at least libertarian-adjacent for a while now it seems.

      1. Rational libertarianism is called being a Republican.

        1. Except when Republicans are prosecuting the drug war.
          Or when Republicans are wanting to ban flag burning.
          Or when Republicans are starting trade wars.
          Or when Republicans are starting foreign wars.
          Or when Republicans are licking the boots of cops.
          Or when Republicans are *defending* entitlement spending.
          Or when Republicans are defending eminent domain, even for purposes of private development.
          Or when Republicans are shredding the Fourth Amendment.
          Or when Republicans are blowing up the deficit.

          Yeah, totally rational libertarianism.

          Oh but now you are going to list all the ways in which Democrats aren’t libertarian either, and I’d likely agree with every one of those too. Neither one is particularly libertarian.

          1. and I’d likely agree with every one of those too

            You haven’t ever in the past, not even once, but hypothetically you always might!

            1. Don’t you have some more tiki torches to polish?

              1. racebaiterjeff gonna racebait

                1. I have no idea where you get this “racebaiter” crap from.

                  1. From you, Pedo Jeffy. You constantly call oriole racist. Then insist you don’t. This has been covered a dozen times over.

                  2. No one else here is puzzled.

            2. Shut the fuck up, Tulpa.

              1. Or what, eunuch?
                What will you do to Tulpa if he doesn’t shut up, tough guy?
                More crying, perhaps?

                1. Thank goodness Tulpa has you around to defend him. Not that Kris is Tulpa anyways.

                  1. It’s almost like if bignose didn’t have that pair of dickless progressitarians to white knight, he’d have nothing to say at all…

                    1. See, what is the point of this type of juvenile insult nonsense?
                      Oh yay, you can act like a raging asshole. Do you think that accomplishes anything?

                    2. What’s the point of being a dishonest hack?

                    3. You should probably ask Jesse that question.

                    4. Well Pedo,Jeffy, it’s better than being a shitweasel and child rape enthusiast. Like you.

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist
                      December.4.2019 at 10:33 pm
                      See, what is the point of this type of juvenile insult nonsense?

                      Specifically, making it clear to you, eunuch, and anyone reading that I have 0 respect for you and hold you in contempt.

                    6. So you’re virtue signaling. Got it.

          2. //Or when Republicans are licking the boots of cops.//

            Is that better or worse than when Democrats lick the buttholes of FBI agents?

            1. You mean, they’re BOTH authoritarian statists? Huh! That’s why I don’t support either one!

              But you on the other hand, presenting Republicans as “rational libertarianism”, please try to convince us why we should have to put up with cop-sucking authoritarian assholes in the Republican Party.

              1. You shouldn’t. But if libertarianism is going to take a hold anywhere, it will be the Republican party.

                And, for the last time, stop pretending to be a libertarian.

                1. “if libertarianism is going to take a hold anywhere, it will be the Republican party”

                  So, wishful thinking. Sitting around hoping that one day they’ll stop being conservative and turn into libertarians.

                  1. Hey – it’s been 50 years. It’s bound to happen any minute now.

                    1. Someday he’ll see me for the true beauty I am!

                  2. Hey look, it’s mike, who’s definitely not Little Jeffy, showing up out of nowhere to join Little Jeffy’s side of an argument!

                    1. Everyone should just call him Pedo Jeffy, like I do. He is a booster for letting child rapists into this country, by his own admisssion.

                    2. You must think that if you repeat a lie often enough, that it will somehow become true.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist
                      December.5.2019 at 1:16 am
                      You must think that if you repeat a lie often enough, that it will somehow become true

                      That would be your m.o. jeff

          3. But Chemleft didn’t mind when it was:
            Clinton and Obama prosecuting the drug war.
            Or when Obama was executing people by drone… or Bosnia, or Libya, or Iraq in the 90s, etc.
            Or when Dems were pushing Title IX.
            Or when Dems are *defending* Obamacare.
            Or when left is shredding the First Amendment and trying to outlaw the Second.
            Or when Obama blew up the deficit.


            1. You’ve kept records of chemjeff’s positions on all those issues? Or are you just making up a history for chemjeff in your head?

              1. If he does it often, you should be able to find him doing it once Mikey.

              2. Hey look, it’s mike, whose definitely not Little Jeffy, showing up out of nowhere to defend Little Jeffy!

            2. Jesus, you people are insane.

          4. We get it baby Jeffrey, you’re a liberal.

        2. I would say grade A trolling, but I fear you are serioud.

          1. Well, considering there is absolutely no semblance of libertarianism among Democrats, and give the fact that the libertarian party is a stumbling joke in high heels, the home for rational libertarians is the Republican party.

            1. Democrats have “a semblance” of libertarianism, just like Republicans have “a semblance” of libertarianism.

              Neither one of these “semblances” are big enough to matter.

              1. //Democrats have “a semblance” of libertarianism.//

                Must have missed that in the debates. Any more stupid things you want to say?

                1. Tulsi Gabbard on interventionism. Of course the rest of the party’s treatment of her kinda negates it.

            2. Put another way:
              It’s not enough to say “Republicans aren’t as bad as Democrats”.
              In my mind anyway, you have to make an affirmative case for why those who favor liberty should have to put up with all the unlibertarian, authoritarian, bullshit of the Republicans.

              1. //It’s not enough to say “Republicans aren’t as bad as Democrats”.//

                Yes. It is.

                1. C’mon.
                  There’s no way totalitarianism is any worse than not celebrating trannies!

                2. Maybe to you it is, but it isn’t to me.
                  I am completely done with choosing between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. I will no longer play that game.
                  I don’t care if Giant Douche is slightly less evil than Turd Sandwich. They’re both evil and I’m not voting for either one.
                  You could help your case if you stop peddling fear of Democrats and started instead advocating an affirmative case for Team Red.

                  1. Just curious:
                    How much influence do you think you’ve had since posting here?

                    1. He’s completely influenced Mike.

                    2. I have no idea.

                      I don’t expect to convince Trump cultists like yourself that Trump is not worth supporting.

                      I would like to think, at least on the case of immigration, I’ve at least gotten some people to think about the issue in terms of *liberty*.

                      How much influence do you think you have had?

                      All you seem to do is hang out with your Mean Grrlz set of right-wing shitposters and fling insults when you’re not writing ludicrous essays about slaying dragons and attempting to psychoanalyze people across the Internet.

                    3. “I would like to think, at least on the case of immigration, I’ve at least gotten some people to think about the issue in terms of *liberty*.”

                      Now do Chinese people.

                    4. Lol
                      Good to know I’ve left a mark.
                      Have fun with that

                    5. “He’s completely influenced Mike.”

                      Also that ‘De Espresso’ character. Although that one seems to have been curiously absent of late.

                      Funny that.

                  2. Hey Pedo Jeffy, you’re not voting for either one anyway. You’re just a Canadian.

              2. Baby Jeffrey literally applauds the exploitation of individuals in china as long as he can get cheap plastic goods from China. And he has the gall to call himself a libertarian.

                Here’s a hint baby jeffrey, being a libertarian is supporting liberty for everybody, not just getting cheaper crap for yourself. You have no actual intention to actually look at negative externalities. You peddle in sophistry and fortune cookie philosophy. And you do this under the guise of “neutrality” of the major parties, yet only ever criticize one side. You’re a joke of a person.

                1. being a libertarian is supporting liberty for everybody

                  That’s right. That includes everyone. You might stand to learn that lesson yourself.

                  Oh wait, you’re not even a libertarian! You’re just another garden-variety Republican who somehow wandered here from Breitbart and evidently got lost.

                  1. “That’s right. That includes everyone.”

                    Except Chinese people, like he said. Way to not respond to his specific point.

                    1. That includes Chinese people. That includes all people.

                    2. You’re on record for putting cheap Chinese shit above the poor workers in China in the name of free trade.

                      Or have you changed that opinion?

                    3. What I said was, if the Chinese government decides to subsidize their exports by taxing their citizens, it’s a terrible decision to make, but it’s ultimately their decision, and the US government shouldn’t use trade policy to coerce them to make some other choice.

                      Jesse then proceeded to twist that into me supposedly ADVOCATING for Chinese subsidies to their exports SO THAT I could selfishly get cheap shit from China. That is a dishonest interpretation of what I said.

                    4. Pedo a Jeffy, you proved once again that you are a huge piece of shit. Kill yourself.

            3. If one is so desperate to have a major party as a “home” that you’ll overlook all kinds of non-libertarian behavior.

                1. If one is so desperate to be so purist that they refuse to take one step towards liberty because it wasn’t a giant leap, and then criticize the person making the single step, maybe you’re an unserious ideologue.

                  1. Mmmkay. Not sure why that obligates me to join a TEAM, but your observation is duly noted.

                    1. That’s because it’s not about liberty, principles, values, or anything else. It’s about TEAM TEAM RAH RAH TEAM

    2. “Is Goldberg moving towards old-school libertarianism or new-school libertarianism?”

      Which one pays better?

    3. Goldberg only hates Trump because Trump appears to not be as warmongery as GOP Classic. Fuck this polemomaniac douchebag. He’s as far from libertarian as Trump or Pelosi.

  3. >>>why he’s moving in a libertarian direction

    duh, for money?

    1. I wonder how much money is in the right-libertarian niche.

      1. whatever NR was paying + or he wouldn’t be there I assume … he crossed “insufferable” 10 years ago

        1. The other annoying thing about Goldberg is that he genuinely seems to prefer living in a country where the government is firmly under the thumb of a perfect, unwavering coterie of deranged, leftist Democrats rather than spend a single second living under a government controlled by imperfect Republicans. Goldberg would prefer railing impotently about the excesses of a liberal-fascist government, as their soldiers carry him off to the labor camp, rather than admitting that his unwavering fealty to pure conservative principles and, above all, unflinching dedication to civility, will never produce a candidate capable of winning an election.

          Stated differently, Goldberg would definitely prefer to taste the salt of his tears streaming across his face, as he is being anally raped, because the raping would inspire him to write passionately and convincingly about the evils of rape. On the other hand, pulling the dick out of his ass and fighting back would reflect poorly on his character.

          This is my best take on Goldberg.

          1. Sure, that’s why Goldberg was such a fan of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Right?

            “He doesn’t like Trump, that means he’s no different than Bernie Sanders!” gets old after a while.

            1. That you think this a retort is just a smidgen of what makes you a dolt.

              1. Oh you’re right, I misread what Geraje wrote. My bad.

                He’s not saying that Jonah Goldberg is no different than Bernie Sanders.

                Still I think it’s wrong to think that Goldberg would *prefer* to live under “deranged, leftist Democrats”.

                I think Goldberg understands that conservatism is not just a set of policies, but also a way of thinking about the world. Yes, civility is a part of it. Because that’s just the right way to treat (most) people.

                If you let your opponent start defining YORU OWN rules of proper behavior, then what does that make you?

                1. It makes you a sensible fucking human being that understands the meaning and necessity of compromise.

                  1. It makes you morally indistinguishable from those you oppose.

                    1. I don’t give a fuck about morally distinguishing myself. Suicide is immoral, in my book. Between me, and them, it is going to be me every single time. If getting steamrolled is the price of being a nice guy, you can be assured that I am going to be the biggest asshole in town.

                    2. Here is the irony of our purist sophistry baby jeffrey…

                      In order for your view of uncompromised libertarianism to work, every single libertarian would have to completely agree with you 100% in order to not violate any part of your philosophy. You have put as much thought into liberty as the average sophomore che guevera wearing dolt communist has put into their ideology. In order for your version to work you have to basically ignore all of humanity and the variances and chaos that can change behaviors from person to person. You are a finger painted version of libertarianism because you refuse to actually engage in any thought deeper than a bumper sticker.

                      By following your path the libertarians will continue to get 2% of the vote and continue to not advance even a single step towards liberty. All the while you will criticize the non purists who actually do achieve that step towards liberty. You’ll criticize the president who actually reduces regulations because he did one thing you don’t agree with, while oddly remaining silent on the president who did more to regulate and increase government oversight of your daily life.

                    3. Wait, Jesse, I thought I was supposedly an SJW progressive. Now I’m supposedly a naive idealistic purist libertarian? Which is it?

                      In order for your view of uncompromised libertarianism to work, every single libertarian would have to completely agree with you 100% in order to not violate any part of your philosophy.

                      That is not even close. Libertarianism does not require 100% conformity. Libertarianism is the only philosophy which permits wide divergence of views. You do what you want and I’ll do what I want. The only ground rule that does require acceptance is the NAP. And that’s not a terribly controversial *idea*, at least broadly speaking. It’s not like the NAP has to be shoved down everyone’s throats when it is, for example, a moral tenet of every major world religion, e.g., “The Golden Rule”. So that’s about it. Everything else – do what you want. If you want to go live in a hippie commune, libertarianism totally permits that. If you want to go hang out among Nazis, libertarianism totally permits that. Neither Team Red nor Team Blue permits that. Team Blue wants to force everyone into a giant commune, and Team Red wants to force everyone into a quasi-fascist state worship.

            2. It’s hilarious how stupid you’re capable of making yourself look

            3. Seems like you missed the point entirely.

              The point is that Goldberg prefers relinquishing political power so that he can write scathing articles about the evils of the left, rather than sacrificing some of his principles under an imperfect man of the right. In other words, unless Goldberg himself ascends to the throne of American conservatism and drifts to political power on the zephyrs of his magnanimity, he would prefer to give it all away to the enemy out of spite.

              Goldberg is a narcissist, first and foremost, which is why he took Trump’s victory as such a personal affront.

              1. The point is that Goldberg prefers relinquishing political power so that he can write scathing articles about the evils of the left, rather than sacrificing some of his principles under an imperfect man of the right.

                You do realize Goldberg was a fan of George W. Bush, right? He was definitely an “imperfect man of the right”. So no I don’t think your characterization is accurate.

                I doubt he is opposed to sacrificing *some* principles. But there does come a point when the sacrifice is just too great. Trump represents that point to Goldberg, and to others as well. Perhaps you could possibly understand why Trumpism might represent a bridge too far especially for those heavily invested in movement conservatism.

                Contrast that to, say, people like Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity, who never had any principles and just sniff the throne of any right-winger in charge. Which would you rather see as the shining light of conservative thought? Hannity, or Goldberg?

                1. Hannity.

                  And I’d trust him with a gun, too. I wouldn’t trust Goldberg with a sandwich.

                  I will take an imperfect asshole that can fight over a principled dandy that can’t throw a punch without spraining his wrist any day of the week.

                  1. LOL. Hannity would point that gun at you the moment you said something bad about Dear Leader Trump.

                    You’ll take grifters who get you emotionally worked up about TEH EVUL LEFTISTS than serious people who make serious arguments. Got it.

                    1. Please tell me more about “serious arguments.” Fucking clown.

                  2. It’s pretty darn clear Goldberg knows what to do with a sandwich, or several sandwiches.

                    I just wouldn’t trust him with my sandwich.

                    1. I bet his wife’s lover appreciates those sandwiches. Jonah’s tears make them extra delicious

                2. Ugh! To Goldberg George W. Bush was a “perfect man of the right”.

          2. Here’s the thing about the NR crowd that Goldberg made his name with–their entire worldview is based off of the political aftermath of the Reagan years and was influenced by having to defend the policies of George HW Bush and, later on, attacking Bill Clinton. Not coincidentally, this was the period that the neocons finally gained control of the party and its pundit class.

            So ultimately, they were fine with losing ground everywhere else, as long as taxes remained low and the military robust enough for endless foreign adventures, particularly in the Middle East. Trump was a rebuke towards their worldview not because he ultimately won, but because that win itself represented a dissatisfaction amongst the party’s own voters with 25-plus years of neocon party administration, which they should have seen coming with the Tea Party candidates that basically reversed the entire 2006 midterms.

            They don’t want to accept that the Republicans are growing more populist and nationalist in response to the hyper-populism and hyper-globalism of the Dems, which really went into overdrive during the Occupy Wall Street protests and resulting rise of the SJWs within the American Left’s cultural cathedrals.

            They’re desperately clinging to the belief that they’ll regain their relevance, but Republican voters don’t trust them anymore, and Democratic voters hate their guts but are fine with them being gadflies against their own party, just like they were with McCain, because they prove useful in advancing the left-wing agenda from the “right.”

            1. Perfect. Well said.

          3. Your best take is shit. Wanna try one without obvious strawmen?

      2. right-libertarian niche

        comment under softball interview at Reason ….


    The guy that Reason spent a decade calling a fascist neo-Nazi. Amazing how every disgruntled failed Republican politician and bloodthirsty globalist neocon is suddenly in the Reason camp. It’s almost like the only thing that defines this cunt rag of a magazine is supranational global governance and far left progressive social policy.

    1. More of that “strange new respect” for him. Just like how Reason takes Walsh seriously currently for reasons unknown.

    2. Yes, you have to completely embrace or condemn him. There is no other choice. And no one ever changes their views about anything.

    3. There’s no “almost” about it.

      Globalists gonna globalist.

      Nick declares @Reason’s “core value” as Open Borders:
      In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties,

  5. Goldberg left National Review because his incessant screeching about the “horrors” of Donald Trump drove away subscribers. For the past three years, Goldberg has produced a copious (and, odious) tome of deranged articles pegging Trump as the source of every evil plaguing our society, while simultaneously upholding himself as the savior of American conservatism. And, as a former NR subscriber, it became unbearable.

    Goldberg lost all sense of proportion and literally stopped writing about anything else other than Donald Trump. He began writing with the blind passion of a teenage girl spurned on prom night; bizarre, strangely personal expressions of rambling antipathy that droned on and on but never settled on any real point other than that Goldberg thinks Donald Trump is a bad, bad man.

    He was joined in his crying by David French, and I understand they have now started a separate blog that nobody reads, although Goldberg still manages to drop some a histrionic article here and there that NR publishes for the sake of form.

    1. For the past three years, Goldberg has produced a copious (and, odious) tome of deranged articles pegging Trump as the source of every evil plaguing our society

      So he was the CNN of National Review?

      1. More like the Reason Magazine of National Review. CNN still employs a few journalists.

      2. At this point in his flagging “journalistic” career, Goldberg is somewhere on the level of Billy Binion – that is, a hack desperately trying to cash in on the Trump derangement while the going is still good. For this reason alone, I suspect Goldberg will even caste a hate vote for Trump since, just like CNN, the hysterical repetition of exaggerated left wing talking points are his bread and butter.

        Without Trump, Goldberg and French would spend all their time writing about the importance of being nice and the splendor of the Catholic Church.

    2. You do remember that the NR came out strongly against electing Trump from day one, right? It wasn’t just Goldberg, it was the rest of the editors, too. Why did you stick with it?

      1. Because most of the other writers wrote about other interesting things. At the outset, I did not particularly like Trump either. I have, however, come to have a different opinion of him over the past few years and can firmly say that, while he is not a perfect man or politician, his policies have won me over. Certainly, Trump is a far better choice than the socialist alternatives the Democrats are fielding. Writers like Kevin Williamson and Victor Davis Hanson always carried a balanced perspective on Trump and were capable of giving credit where credit was due, while fairly criticizing the man without buying into the leftist hysteria.

        Goldberg, however, had one setting and, coupled with French, lost all semblance of balance. So, I unsubscribed.

        1. his policies have won me over.

          Was it the trade war or the unmasked xenophobia?

          1. It was the fact that he made you an idiot; although, to be fair, you were probably an idiot long before Trump.

            1. cytotoxic spent 2 years assuring us literally every single day that Hillary Clinton would be elected, and most of his time before that was spent justifying foreign intervention in the middle east. He’s always been a “carpet bomb the cities and give the survivors green cards” type of ”””””libertarian”””””

              1. Go back to Daily Stormer.

                1. That’s a weird response

                    1. That’s it, jeff, embrace the hihn that is your future

                2. That’s funny, the Daily Stormer’s positions on abortion, economics, euthanasia, and basing everything on race matches your party’s platform, Jeff.
                  How come you’re pretending that it’s a bad thing?

                3. racebaiterjeff gonna racebait

            2. Right, so it wasn’t about the policies, it was all about “pwning the libs”. That’s pretty much what I figured.

              1. Funny to see libs like you pretending to be libertarians.

                1. There you go. More trolling and trying to “pwn the libs”.

                  Just face it, the main reason that you support Trump is because he makes the libs cry, and the policies are a distant second.

                  It’s Reality TV that even Republicans can enjoy!

                  1. I don’t need Trump to make ass hairs like you look like idiots. But, yes, it is a nice bonus.


            (and fewer deportations than your chocolate messiah)

        2. In all seriousness, though, what did win you over about him?

        3. VDH is great. Even he had a little of that “oh my, Trump is so uncouth!” stench at first, but he managed to wash it off.

          Williamson is elitist vermin.

          Kevin Williamson of @NRO wrote of white working class communities:
          “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.”

      2. The question is when were they opposed to Trump. Before he was nominated is perfectly rational. If they continued to oppose Trump, and implicitly support Hillary Clinton, that would be completely different. I often see people criticizing National Review as “never-Trump” based on articles from before Trump was nominated.

    3. What do you think William F Buckley would say about POTUS Trump?

      Not a facetious question. I grew up reading NR and watching The Firing Line.

      1. He’d probably be clutching his balls and bellowing in rage, pain and humiliation. Which is pretty much the way he spent his entire career.

    4. He began writing with the blind passion of a teenage girl spurned on prom night; bizarre, strangely personal expressions of rambling antipathy that droned on and on but never settled on any real point other than that Goldberg thinks Donald Trump is a bad, bad man.

      You’re not the first person I’ve seen describe the reaction of the neocons towards Trump’s presidency as something akin to a spurned ex-lover. They’re even more obsessed with him than the SJWs.

      1. When the Democrats lose to Trump, they’re still the Opposition Party.

        When the NeoClowns lose to Trump, they’re *nothing*. Their cozy sinecures as the Voice of the Right were done. No more chairs at the Big Table in the Republican Party or the federal government. Now they’re scrabbling to hold on as Faux Right talking heads with the EnemyOfThePeople.

        I suspect after 2020 even viewers of the EnemyOfThePeople will no longer find the #NeoClowns credible as voices on the Right. The NeoClowns will be cast into the dustbin of history with Stormy.

  6. A libertarian who tells us we should trust Washington DC to look out for our best interests. Definitely filling a gap.

    1. #LibertariansForTheDeepState

  7. “The conservative critic of Donald Trump ”

    I have criticism too but they are very unlikely to be greater than the ones I have for social liberals,.

    Reason seems to have the opposite opinion based upon its articles.

    1. Such as?

      1. Tariffs for starters and his record on bringing the troops home and ending foreign interventionism

    2. Given Reason’s support for coercive monopoly government (states), I seriously question their libertarianism knowing they oppose free markets and freedom of association while supporting coercive monopolies.

      1. “Given Reason’s support for coercive monopoly government”

        That’s because it is a libertarian magazine and not an anarchist one, as has been explained to you several times.

        1. Libertarians for rule by administrative fiat of a permanent bureaucracy, foreign wars, VAT, carbon taxes, transfer payments, solar and wind energy subsidies…

          Oh for the days when libertarians were “low-tax liberals”.

          1. Libertarians for forcing evermore imported big government voters on Americans.

        2. Libertartianism: All taxes are theft!

          Leftitarianism: All taxes are theft (except those used to cover the expense of a coercive monopoly government)

          Libertarianism: Aggression is inherently wrong!

          Leftitarianism: Aggression is inherently wrong (unless committed by coercive monopoly government.)

          Bignose, we already know what Reason thinks is ‘libertarian’ and while we appreciate your honesty, you are just closing the barn door after the horse is already gone.

  8. It’s always amusing that after someone nukes their career or becomes unelectable, they’re suddenly a libertarian. Truly, the bottom of the media barrel. If they fall any further, they’ll be writing a blog on Medium.

    1. If they fall any further, they’ll be writing a blog on Medium.

      ENB’s vacated spot at Bumble might still be free.

      1. *Bustle, excuse me.

    2. That’s because most people, including the writers at Reason, think libertarianism is like tofu and can be made to taste like absolutely fucking anything.

      Smoking weed and grumbling about parking tickets doesn’t make you a libertarian.

    3. There are a lot of trends at work right now, some of it is the changing political landscape. But I think much of it is simply more shake out from the rise of the internet and the change in all sorts of industries.

      It’s easy to look around just about any town and see what online retailing has done to all those little specialty stores that used to exist in every little strip mall. Now most of those places are vacant. Hence the glut in commercial real estate.

      Well, the shift in the media landscape has been no less severe. Sure, Washington and New York City are still bustling places with lots of opportunity. But there is still a squeeze on. So, in many ways, these so called journalists and opinion writers are like the hangers on in a dying rust belt mill town. The old jobs are gone and they don’t know what else to do to cover their bills.

      Desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if that means declaring your allegiance to something you used to scoff at.

  9. Stop trying to make the neocon/libertarian alliance happen. Bring back the libertarian/paleoconservative alliance and use right wing populism to advance libertarian ideals.
    Neoconservatism is antithetical to libertarianism, no matter how much lip service they pay to the “free market”

    1. Reason: Free trade is when American workers pay payroll and income taxes, while Emperor Xi pays no tax on exports to the US.

      What Globalists call free trade is a set of foreign trade, tax, and immigration policies that benefits foreigners and US corporate ownership over US labor.
      Why should domestic *labor* be taxed when purchased, but not foreign goods?
      Cui bono?

      Adam Smith is on Trump’s side, favoring tariffs to offset local taxes on production.

      “It will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign industry for the encouragement of domestic industry, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the borne market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country, than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it.”

      1. Great quote. Got a cite for it?

  10. If George Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney didn’t cause you to question the direction of the GOP, I don’t see why Trump would be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Would these people have balked at Presidents Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski? They didn’t seem to balk at President Hillary Clinton.

    1. Trump is not just barely a Republican like Specter and Snowe, but he is something they are not—an unstable clown, a 12-year-old girl throwing tantrums.

      1. yep. And his opponents are no better. In fact they are worse because they are held in esteem by our betters and elites who are all garbage. Trump has done this country a great service by showing us all that the corporate media’s agenda and idea of top men are nothing but clowns with better press. Politics through most of us history has always been a circus nice of trump to reveal that it still is.

        1. //Trump has done this country a great service by showing us all that the corporate media’s agenda and idea of top men are nothing but clowns with better press.//

          However long it lasts, achieving this alone was worth it.

          1. I agree. The only thing I would have changed in the comment:

            Trump has done this country a great service by showing us all that the corporate media’s agenda and idea of top men are nothing but ass clowns with better press.

      2. Trump is unstable. The people needing psychological counseling to cope with his election and who unironically are not having children because of global warming are the true sophisticates that we need.

        Neck yourself, retard.

        1. Glad the snowflakes are not reproducing and I am sure their children are happy they will never be born to leftists parents

          1. What fucking world do you live in?

          2. Incidentally, modern science has been proving beyond a reasonable doubt that most of our personality traits are majority determined by genetics… Personality traits of course tend to correlate with politics too. Hence the limp dick pansy progs are literally breeding themselves out of existence, while conservative minded people are actually producing above replacement rate. Theoretically, even with all the indoctrination in the world, this means the 1st world might swing right over the coming decades.

            Science is fun!

      3. “Trump is an unstable clown”
        Compared to Hillary, Biden, Booker, Harris, Buttgag, Warren, Yang and Sanders, Trump’s a model of sobriety and probity.
        And sure, Trump lacks the gravitas of Pelosi and Obama, but their policies are were crazier, bloodier and more abhorrent than anything he’s done.

        Or maybe you prefer institutional nest featherers like Romney and McCain?

        1. Those are all dreadful people, but for different reasons. Some are certainly clowns, but I don’t know about unstable.
          I don’t really think Trump is unstable in a mental health sort of way either. Just really weird.

        2. Trump is kind of ADDed out, and can be a total vindictive asshole… But I don’t think he’s crazy, or even a total moron. He’s certainly not the scholarly type, but he has reasonable gut instincts on most political issues.

          People who think he’s “crazy” should look back at history, and all the PROPER crazy people who ran countries, many of whom got a TON of shit done. Trump doesn’t slam a bottle of champagne every morning before getting out of bed, so there’s a leg up on Winston Churchill. He isn’t a pussy almost vegetarian animal rights fag like Adolph Hitler. He hasn’t repeatedly got in duels with people like Andrew Jackson.

          Compared to LOTS of power players in history, Trump is pretty tame.

      4. “a 12-year-old girl throwing tantrum”

        Leftists Always Project

        1. No, you’re totally right. Storming out early from the NATO summit because some PM’s said some mean things about him isn’t at all like a 12-year-old girl throwing a tantrum.

          1. Hey look, it’s Little Jeffy, who’s totally not a leftist, randomly defending leftists. Again.

            1. Oh look at you pushing false narratives about me.

          2. Racebaiterjeff yet again proving my point, that Leftists Always Project.

            Could be lots of reasons Trump left. But racebaiterjeff projects his own childish reaction to criticism into Trump.

            1. I’m sure it’s impossible that there was nothing left on Trump’s agenda there and he didn’t see any point wasting more time with eurotrash.
              No, that’s just crazy talk!

  11. “principled conservatism”

    The only principled conservatives these days are the neocons who encourage voting for Democrats. You know, people like David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and Jennifer Rubin.


    1. Yeah, the left only thinks conservatives or libertarians have principles if it’s their principles.

    2. #LibertariansForRuleOfTheDeepState

  12. If Jonah is inching towards libertarianism then it will take him about 100 years to arrive.

  13. Conservatives should be “liberal” (read: “tolerant”) in terms of confronting views with which they are not comfortable. Any and all from the wide swath of conservative swath (including “Trumpism,” which is at best quasi-Conservative with a huge dollop of mindless populism) ought to be accepted in contrast to the mindless yet dangerous economic know-nothingism of the Left.

  14. Is economic liberty the only kind of liberty that matters?

    1. Pray tell, which freedoms matter to Democrats? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom to defend oneself? Hell, if Democrats had their way, the entire Bill of Rights would be repealed!

  15. Good old Nick, digging through piles of shit trying to find a libertarian pony.

    1. “A NeoClown likes me! Libertarian Moment!”

  16. You will find out how principled he is when you get him to answer the following question: If I did business in the same manner as government does, and forced strangers to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?

  17. If reincarnated Hitler voiced his disapproval of Trump would Reason find a way to speak favorably about him?

    1. That was the oddest Godwin’ing of an Internet discussion ever.

      1. It’s not actually Godwining you twit.

        I have not compared anyone or anything being discussed to the Nazis. You do know that reincarnation isn’t real, right? And not every mention of Nazis invokes Godwin’s Law.

        What I offered was a hypothetical. Of course, you don’t actually understand hypotheticals. Sure, you pretend to offer them in argument. But we all know that what you call a ‘hypothetical’ is actually closer to what you want everyone to believe, and that you are being completely dishonest, and attempting to use them as a form of bootstrapping.

  18. Sure are a lot of alt-right Trumphumpers around here.

  19. His book Suicide of the West has the most ridiculous nonsense on the cover… He is essentially saying that all the political trends that might actually SAVE Western Civilization are the EXACT things causing it to commit suicide!

    What a moron. I mean, he may think some globalist cronyist world government is an awesome thing, where no nation has any sense of history or pride in its own culture… But it sure as shit can’t be argued that that would be Western Civilization anymore.

    Western Civilization isn’t a plot of land (like Europe), as the USA, Australia, etc show… It’s a people, a series of cultural beliefs, and a society. He advocates destroying all those things, and claims to be in favor of Western Civilization! What a piece of shit moron.

    1. Thumbs up to your comment. You can bet Goldberg’s universalism won’t apply to his tribe. You can’t say West without saying Christian. Goldberg’s tribe defines “good” as whatever’s good for the tribe.

      1. They very frequently do… And the thing is, there’s nothing wrong with that!

        It’s perfectly reasonable for Jewish people to consider what is best for Jewish people! The thing about it is they, and progressives/globalists in general, always talk up how every group should show solidarity, look out for their own interests etc… Except for the majority white populations in the western world.

        White people are the ONE group that CANNOT look out for their own interests, do what is best for their people, their culture, etc because if they do they’re EVIL incarnate.

        It’s absurd. I’m anti imperialists, don’t believe anyone should try to impose their will on other ethnic or cultural groups by force… But I also believe there is nothing wrong in looking out for ones own interests.

        The thing that globalism and multiculturalism never likes to address is the fact that sometimes what is good for one group of people is indeed bad for another. The way they handle this is to simply say we must do whatever is good for any given group, lest we be evil… Unless it’s good for white people at other peoples expense. Then it’s off the table, because Europeans aren’t allowed to do anything in their best interests, because it’s racist.

        The western world is in decline in many respects, and largely because we’ve not been doing what is in our own interests. If we want western civilization to continue on we’re going to have to start doing what is good for the west, including if it is at the expense of illiterate peasants who want to move to the USA, or some 3rd world toilets not getting their aid money, or us not fighting a war for some country, etc. The rest of the world has to take care of its own problems, because there aren’t enough honkies around to fix all the worlds problems!

  20. The name Goldberg says it all. Trump hindered Goldberg’s tribe’s biological imperative to subvert, parasite, and betray its hosts. Goldberg and his tribe demand unlimited non-Western, non-Christian immigration into the Christian West while declaring the tribe’s self-declared homeland a tribal-members-only, ethnic-cleansing Apartheid state. The tribe defines “good” as whatever’s good for the tribe. Goldberg’s tribe composed 5% of the Russian population yet 70% of the Bolshevik leadership that killed more Christians than German Socialists killed of Goldberg’s tribe. The tribe’s Talmud plainly states the tribe’s goal of enslaving the goyim. The tribe’s invention of the Soviet Union provides the vision of the tribe’s model society and explains why Christ our Lord called the tribe the child of its father the devil: the father of lies and murder.

  21. I made it about halfway through. Sounded like they each had a hand on the other’s crotch.

  22. Trump HATES immigrants? Yet…married one. Weird.

    1. I believe he married two.

    2. Maybe… But he’s totally antisemitic! I mean he encouraged his daughter to marry a Jew! Only a literal Nazi would do that!

      Oh wait…

  23. Am I the only person to have listened to both podcasts?
    Which Mrs. Field’s cookies are your favorite?

  24. I was a huge fan of Jonah back in the 90’s. He wrote like a teenager and that was fun, for a while. On this podcast, he spoke like an adult. But he still thinks like a teenager, maybe a college sophomore. He made some good points while betraying how lacking in self-awareness he is: Kirk is bad because he grabs one example to paint all liberals as bad, but Jonah seems quite comfortable doing the same thing to Trump. It’s bad for others to imagine the worst in people but Jonah knows exactly why others do the things they do. His mindset seems to mirror that very old New Yorker drawing of the map of Manhattan and everywhere else. As I say, he had some good stuff to say, but not enough to subscribe. Too bad.

  25. Jonah—you were thinking of The Herculoids.

Please to post comments