Global Warming

The Progressive Left Devours Its Own [Reason Podcast]

Nick Gillespie, Andrew Heaton, Katherine Mangu-Ward, & Matt Welch on terrorism, climate change, Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, Evergreen, and more.

|

"What we're witnessing now is the progressive left eating its own," says Reason's Nick Gillespie. "They've gotten everything they want in terms of political correctness from the right, and now they're going after Bernie Sanders' supporters."

On today's podcast, Gillespie joins Andrew Heaton, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch to discuss topics in the news, including the responses to the London terrorist attack; the Trump administration's decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord; the fallout from Bill Maher's use of the n-word; Kathy Griffin's picture with Trump's severed, bloodied head (and claim that he had successfully destroyed her career); and the meltdown at Evergreen State College after activists asked white students and faculty to leave campus for the school's annual "Day of Absence."

"The incident at Evergreen is a perfect example of how a lack of understanding of the difference between negative liberty and positive liberty puts you into a weird political place," says Mangu-Ward. "'I should be allowed to do what I want as long as I don't hurt other people,' is not the same thing as saying, 'other people have to do what I want.'"

Produced by Ian Keyser.

Mentioned in the podcast

Reason Science Correspondent Ron Bailey on why the Paris Agreement was never a "treaty"

Nick Gillespie's Q&A with Bjorn Lomborg on why the U.S. was right to withdraw.

Video of the student takeover at Evergreen State College

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Photo credit: Los Angeles Daily News/ZUMA Press/Newscom

NEXT: EpiPen Not Overpriced, Despite New York Times Complaint

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.

  1. I’ve been listening to more and more of Jordan Peterson, and this is exactly what he talks about when he brings up Solzhenitsyn. I notice all these “progressives” being shocked that the spawn they have helped create are turning on them. How often has there been an incident followed by “But I’m a progressive!”

    They remind me of the communists that got sent to the gulags. See everyone ELSE in there was guilty, but not them, it was just a big mistake. They needed to get in touch with the right person to be set out. And if only Stalin knew about what was happening here he would put a stop to it!

    They are truly insane. When they attempt another cultural revolution, people like them will be the first to go. They always are. It’s why they were called useful idiots

    1. “If only Comrade Stalin knew of this!”

  2. They’re merely following the same path as the Eastern European socialist reformers of the late 19th century.

  3. , “They’ve gotten everything they want in terms of political correctness from the right…”

    No, they haven’t. That well is deep, Nick.

    Via a commenter on iSteve:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

  4. Evil feeds upon itself.

  5. RE: The Progressive Left Devours Its Own

    This is what is known as a “purge.”
    Hitler and Stalin would not agree with these tame actions the proggies are doing.
    But give the proggies time.
    Blood can be spilled if only we give them more power.

    1. I have occasionally suggested on these comment boards that the progressives need to be stopped at all costs, including taking away their citizenship, freedom, or even their lives if it comes down to it. Every time I was ridiculed and shunned. Perhaps now others here are waking up to the realization that we are truly at war with the progs on the simple basis that they consider themselves at war with us (i.e. the infidels).

      I can only hope so, because we are a lot closer to a civil war with the no-marxists than most here care to admit. Their absolute insanity since the election of Trump should be a good sign.

  6. It’s glorious, is it not? I love when they eat their own.

  7. Comedians shouldn’t apologize for doing comedy. What’s being asked is either that comedians never tell a joke that falls flat (an impossibility) or that they restrict their comedy to what some authority deems is appropriate material (which is anti-American).

    1. But there are consequences to their comedy- if it’s funny, people laugh; if it’s not, they don’t. If it’s offensive but intelligent, people laugh; if it’s offensive but not intelligent, they lose their Squatty Potty deal.

    2. I guess some people are sensitive about posturing in the image of nortorious killers.

      Weird, right?

      Hell, for some people, it’s too soon for jokes about slavery (assholes, I know).

    3. The bitter irony is that Maher and Griffin are suffering at the hands of YOUR KIND Tony, not us real Americans.

  8. Too bad the originally British term “loony left” seems to have gone out of fashion…it’s needed now more than ever!

  9. “The incident at Evergreen is a perfect example of how a lack of understanding of the difference between negative liberty and positive liberty puts you into a weird political place,” says Mangu-Ward. “‘I should be allowed to do what I want as long as I don’t hurt other people,’ is not the same thing as saying, ‘other people have to do what I want.'”

    I think the bigger misconception is the difference between “I should be free to hurt you” and “I should be free to violate your rights”.

    I should be free to open a competing business right next to yours, and I should be free to criticize your business in advertising. I should be free to drive you out of business by offering superior product at lower prices–so that not only do you lose your business, you also lose your house, your wife leaves you, and she takes both the kids and the dog.

    Yeah, I should be free to hurt you–just so long as I don’t violate your rights.

    Almost everything we do–or don’t do–is in some way harmful to someone else. Every time I buy from one business rather than another, even if I don’t buy health insurance, if I beat someone out for a promotion, undercut a competitor on price, etc., etc. I’m hurting someone else in some way.

    We should be free to hurt other people. We just shouldn’t be free to violate each other’s rights.

    1. Freedom for you is the freedom to hurt other people? I hope you at least treat your family decently. Even Hitler had a soft spot for his Blondi, right up until he poisoned her.

      1. There’s actually a system of government where no one’s allowed to do anything that hurts other people–it’s called communism. It’s necessarily authoritarian to say that no one should be allowed to do anything that hurts or harms other people.

        Yeah, I should be free to criticize you in public, say things that hurt your feelings, print things that make people dislike you and your ideas. I should be free to organize boycotts of your employer’s products. I should be free to drive your employer out of business with better service and lower prices. I should be free to fire you and hire someone who works for less. I should be free to quit my job and go work for a former competitor. I should be free to buy imported goods rather goods made by your company. I should be free to sell people Big Gulps and donuts–which, let’s face it, hurt people and make them fat and diabetic. I should be free to take bets on sporting events.

        The government should only be involved in protecting people’s rights. A government that stops everybody from doing anything that might harm somebody else is necessarily authoritarian. We have rights to do things that hurt other people–like exercising our free speech rights to criticize politicians, business leaders, and each other. And if government has any legitimate purpose at all, it’s to protect our rights–even if exercising our rights hurts other people.

        1. “The government should only be involved in protecting people’s rights.”

          It may start out that way, but over time government expands its reach, just like any bureaucracy. This ‘limited government’ stuff is fantasy.

      2. “I hope you at least treat your family decently.”

        What do you do–call the police every time a family member hurts your feelings?

      3. mtrueman, are you really this obtuse, or just incapable of adult level reading comprehension?

Please to post comments