Donald Trump

How Should Reason Cover The Trump Era? Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Matt Welch Debate

Reason webathon podcast all about the opportunities and disasters awaiting libertarians and the rest of us under President Trump.

|

Reason

How should libertarians—and Reason magazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV—feel about the prospects of the Trump era? And should libertarians be optimistic about how social, economic, and political freedom will fare under a president who talked about "closing that Internet up in some ways" and going after newspapers that wrote negative stories about him, invoked protectionism and and nationalism without missing a cue, and recently called for yanking the citizenship of flag burners?

Those are some of the questions that I put to my colleagues Matt Welch, editor at large at Reason, and Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor in chief of Reason magazine, in the newest Reason Podcast (subscribe to it at iTunes now!). Our discussion should be comforting for libertarians who believe in "Free Minds and Free Markets"—and the serious, fact-based journalism, analysis, and investigative reporting that has always characterized our work. "Logic, not legends. Coherence, not contradictions," announced the first issue of Reason back in 1968. While folks on the broadly defined left busy themselves with scare stories about the end of the world and set about overthrowing the Electoral College and folks on the right alternate between their own style of pants-wetting and embrace of Trump's economic and demographic nationalism, our print, web, and video journalism will be looking at the actual effects of policies and always advocating for more choice and freedom in how we choose to live our lives. As important, we'll be looking at all the ways in which people are moving beyond government and creating a better, fairer, and more-prosperous 21st century without asking or waiting for anyone's permission.

Katherine, Matt, and I also talk about the new graphic redesign for the print magazine—its first facelift in 15 years!—and how we encountered Reason for the first time. It's a rollicking conversation that embodies the open-minded, animated, and optimistic of the only journalism outfit that has drawn praise over the years from Rush Limbaugh, the ACLU, and everyone in-between.

Today through Tuesday, December 6, Reason is running its annual webathon. We're asking readers of this site to make tax-deductible donations in dollars and Bitcoin to Reason Foundation, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit that publishes our award-winning journalism in video, audio, and print form. Different giving levels come with different levels of swag, which you can read about here.

Listen to the podcast by clicking below.

If you dig podcasts, videos, and social media:

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

NEXT: Getting sex by saying 'If you don't have sex with me I will find someone who will' = rape or sexual assault?

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. Assume the worst. Embellish.

    1. Where else are we going to find out about Trump’s logo’s resemblance to a penis?

        1. You know, I only recently learned the meaning of the word “Jezebel.” It’s a good word. The website, not so much.

      1. Worthless commentary to the readers of Reason.com

    2. + presume motivations and intent. Speculate about the horrendous decisions he hasn’t made yet.

      1. So, continue as normal then?

    3. I think we should just let Chapman and Dalmia run the whole show as a test of purity. Those who stay after four years of that cannot be false. We must purge the site of the LINOs who are secretly Trumpistas or other alt-right deplorables.

      Or I guess the reporting could just be from a libertarian perspective and cut through the vitriol, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. There’s plenty enough of that in the MSM if we need our fill. What will be the true good, bad, and ugly. Not what people think he’s going to do. What he actually does.

      1. What he actually does.

        More to the point, what he ought to do.

        1. But how can you pontificate on what he *ought* to do unless you know what he’s *gonna* do?

          /wail

        2. Libertarians would be doing that anyway. There’s always a slew of “wouldn’t it be nice if” articles on Reason. It’s a consistent drumbeat you can set your watch by.

          It’s fine if we’re trying to read the tea leaves and give better suggestions. Just expect that there really is no value in it when it comes to Trump. The man has created the biggest political Rube Goldberg distraction machine ever devised. It makes him sound like a crazy person, but I think he knows exactly what he’s doing with it. If the media’s going to be feeding everyone horse shit, then he might as well slop the trough with his horse shit.

          Everyone is meant to be off balance; to not know what he intends, what is actually possible with the power of the executive branch. When we’re all off-balance, we can only react, never predict. For all we know, he’s got a pretty clear picture of which of his cabinet picks are going to be rejected, and is in fact counting on it.

    4. Haha! Trick question: They won’t cover it!

  2. While folks on the broadly defined left busy themselves with scare stories about the end of the world and set about overthrowing the Electoral College and folks on the right alternate between their own style of pants-wetting and embrace of Trump’s economic and demographic nationalism, our print, web, and video journalism will be looking at the actual effects of policies and always advocating for more choice and freedom in how we choose to live our lives.

    Somebody’s going to have to break the news to Suderman.

    1. I’m looking forward to the Sud-man’s 5000 word posts on the pros and cons of the Trump-o-care bills.

  3. How should libertarians?and Reason magazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV?feel about the prospects of the Trump era?

    Undecided since it hasn’t started yet, but probably a little uneasy.

    1. We are in a liminal period. Culturally, it started when the election was called. Officially it won’t start until he is inaugurated.

      1. So, if you are killed by a ‘Murican murder drone, does that count to Trump’s body count, or Obama’s?
        In other news that’s appearing out of fucking nowhere, America is involved in a bunch of wars and brown people are suffering.
        https://goo.gl/nT0Gc9
        I did not expect to hear that.

  4. Lol. Assume everything Trump says comes from the mind of a master troll. Lol.

      1. LMFAO

    1. Assume everything Trump says comes from the mind of a master troll.

      I love that ignoring him doesn’t even seem to be an option. He has literally made his living by getting people to say “Trump” as much as possible and the entire staff at Reason has gone from “How do we *Trump* possibly stop *Trump* talking about Tru… him?” to “Well, the Trump Presidency that we all thought was a Trumpossiblity is now a Trumpality so how are we going to Trump the Trumpage? Of the Trump campaign, I mean?”

      1. Not one drop of Trumpocalypse…? I found one boys, grab the lynching rope and bring the hog.

        1. Grab it’s mothertrumping leg!

      2. He is going to be President. I think ignoring him is going to be a little hard.

  5. How Should Reason Cover The Trump Era?

    With objectivity and intelligence, but unapologetic about its overtly libertarian preferences. And probably with more Kmele Foster.

      1. Black libertarians are worth their weight in rum and sugar.

        1. Arrrghhh!!

          1. Do not mistake my allegorical allusion to an association between tokenism and slavery for an actual accusation of tokenism.

  6. How about honestly and fairly.

    In other words a 180 from how they covered the election.

    Webathon indeed !

    1. They should try pretending cocktails aren’t at stake.

  7. Hopefully, you’ll cover the issues as they come up and cut down on the amount of pants-wetting that occurred during the election run-up.

  8. Lots of Godwining.

    1. Are you bipolar? I’m bi-godwinning!

      1. Tell us more about your bi-god.

        1. He prefers to be known as the *Double Nazi Supreme.

          *Title may vary in countries with the metric system.

        2. Xerces?

  9. I will say that I swing back and forth between being completely unconcerned and mildly worried about the general landscape around the world. It does often seem as if liberal values are under assault on all sides by populist nationalism. Putin feels empowered and is a bad dude and I see no world leaders really capable of standing up to him if/when necessary. I think the risk posed by radical Islam is overblown but the general response is unproductive at best and damaging at worst. People seem to be sorting into increasingly divided and antagonistic tribes. We have strong institutions but the people running those institutions don’t inspire confidence. Trump just seems to be part of a larger set of issues.

    1. It could all be much ado about nothing. There are lots of reasons to be optimistic about the future. But there is a chance we are on the cusp of a major backslide into a less free, less prosperous, more dangerous world.

    2. People aren’t really designed to exist in such large groups, I think. This ever more narrow sorting is just evidence of that. People are tribal and tribes are relatively small.

      1. Possibly. It’s gone reasonably well for at least some parts of the world over the last few hundred years, but maybe this that was an anomaly, or we’ve entered a qualitatively different era. Or maybe nothing has changed and we just lack perspective.

        1. We have only recently (timewise) reached the point where humans have completely populated the Earth. When there’s room to spread out, conflict will exist but not as heavily as when there is no more free space. What can you do when people who hate each other are forced to live on top of each other? I think we’ve expanded faster than we’re evolving to handle it.

          1. /looks out window at literally many thousands of acres of barely populated land

            There is plenty of space, but it’s all under the nominal control of some government or another.

            1. That’s really what I meant. See central Africa and the Middle East for examples of conflict getting worse.

          2. Amazon.

            1. I think if you go to the Amazon rainforest you might find that it’s not as unpopulated as you might think.

              1. It’s Prime territory.

  10. Cover the Trump presidency just like you cover everything else: bitch about the government, SoCons, national borders, SJWs, cops, Democrats and Republicans while bawling for assex, vaping and legal pot.

    It’s gotten you this far, why change?

    1. Is vaping short for Mexicans now?

  11. The Trump era is going to be great for reason. Reason is a libertarian magazine and that necessarily means being against or certainly very skeptical of the sitting government and administration. And that is just not a good role for reason when there is a liberal Democrat in the White House. Yes reason was often very critical of Obama but they didn’t enjoy doing it very much and it was nearly always qualified with “yeah but the Republicans…” The Obama era forced reason to adopt an awkward pox on both houses and they are all the same stance. Now that there is a Republican President they can dispense with all of that. Criticizing the President won’t be work and it won’t be something they have to explain to their friends or more importantly Prog future employers.

    I am sure things were pretty bleak at Reason headquarters the day after the election. But as time goes on, they will come to realize no longer having the distasteful chore of attacking a liberal Democratic President will be a very good thing for them.

    1. Also make heroes out of people who are getting fucked by the government. Try to make Charles Clarke as famous as Micheal Brown. There are compelling stories out there of people who had their lives ruined by government overreach or even just clerical errors. Figure out a way to get those stories out the general public. People like stories.

    2. ^^^This.

      I predict A LOT of cocktail parties in their future. I imagine the writers will even rediscover the fact that we are engaged in wars again (it’s like the Bush years all over again).

    3. Holy Trump! I swear TrumpJohn, I didn’t read your Trump post before I Trumping posted nearly the exact same Trumping thing Trump above.

    4. Yes reason was often very critical of Obama

      No, they really weren’t that critical very often. Pretty much their only significant criticism of him over the last eight years was that he wasn’t moving aggressively enough for their liking on drug legalization and criminal justice reform.

      By and large Reason made a conscious decision to almost completely look the other way on his divisive rhetoric, his numerous and egregious “pen and a phone, go it alone” abuses of executive power, his overbearing regulations, and his lies, particularly his despicable lies to the American public about the attack in Benghazi.

      Their coverage of the Obama presidency barely rose to the level of pathetic. They even tried to blame his massive, unprecedented bing of debt and spending pretty much entirely on Bush and the republicans, as though he played absolutely no role whatsoever in the budgetary process for eight years.

  12. Be sure to only use two images of Trump. Maybe the two most unpleasant ones you can find? An ugly screen grab, and a gross caricature maybe?

    1. They did that to Obama so much. Like I say above, reason is suddenly going to decide that maybe they are not all the same and pox on both houses isn’t so cool anymore.

  13. Given the foundation of racism, sexism, and Hitlerism of the Trump Administration, we’re going to closely examine the transportation bill recently passed by Congress, particularly the methods by which it will cultivate racism, sexism, and Hitlerism…

  14. Draw all your conclusions in advance.

    1. The question I would like to ask reason is what if Trump trump turns out to be a half way decent President? What if he really does reduce the size and scope of government by whacking part of the regulatory state? What then? After the complete emotional meltdown reason had over his candidacy, what are they going to say? Will they just pretend they never said that or will they pretend that Trump really didn’t do the good things he did?

      1. I’m pretty much with you on this. At least give things a chance or wait for things to actually happen. And if good things do happen, don’t be sore ass about it.

        1. Like everything else, it will likely be neither as bad nor as good as his critics and opponents think. Trump isn’t a Libertarian by a long shot. So, he will no doubt do a lot of things Libertarians hate. But, he likely will do a few things they like and more things they like than Obama or Bush ever did.

        2. I will say that only crazy people live in the bunker before the bombs start falling.

          1. Yeah but that doesn’t make them any less crazy until the bombs really do start falling.

      2. Outside of Suderman and Dalmia and maybe a couple others, where was the emotional meltdown? Honestly, I didn’t see it. It was clear Trump was the least preferred candidate of most, but since the election ENB and Robby in particular have done a good job of trying to cut through the BS and on calling out the left.

      3. “The question I would like to ask reason is what if Trump trump turns out to be a half way decent President?”

        That’s not how you get invited to cocktail parties. No quarter.

        1. They already knew that democrats suck wrt college and hoes.

      4. The question I would like to ask reason is what if Trump trump turns out to be a half way decent President?

        Taking a page from the playbook, what if he, as a president, absolutely sucks donkey balls but with the whole Team Of Rivals bullshit manages to simply oversee people who personally/politically can’t get us into worse shape and/or invokes gridlock as an alternative to two evils?

        Nobody really or explicitly blames Obama for Christopher Stevens’ death and nobody really blames him for choosing HRC for SOS. Or, at least, if they do blame him, would’ve nodded firmly in approval for telling Hillary, “You’re fired!”

        1. If he sucks, reason gets to gloat about how right they are. That is easy. Dealing with him not sucking is going to be hard.

      5. So Trump is putting billionaires in charge of the economy instead of political hacks.

        I expect corporate taxes will go down; regulations will go away; and the stock market should take off.

        So all those middle-class people whose 401k’s have been mostly flat for the last year should see some impressive gains, at least for a few years.

        1. . . . last eight years . .

          preview, preview, preview

      6. Honestly, I don’t entirely discount the possibility that, although he’s far from libertarian, the Trump era might prove fairly favorable from a libertarian perspective. At least a couple of the policies he’s offered look decent (2-1 regulation removal tops the list). His DofE pick is a big school choice supporter. He’s shown an (admittedly inconsistent) aversion to foreign adventurism.

        Bottom line, for me, is that I anticipate there will be areas where I’ll applaud President Trump and areas where I’ll oppose him. I can’t see why that should be some kind of outlier in libertarian politics.

        1. I think you are probably about right. But it is going to be pretty funny watching people like Suderman deal with that reality.

        2. I could see how Patraeus is an insider that you wouldn’t want for SOS. I can also see how he’s had his beans spilled, admitted guilt, and might be the perfect candidate. Either way, Patreus makes a much more compelling case than HRC.

  15. How Should Reason Cover The Trump Era?

    Oh, I don’t know, Nick — How about from a libertarian perspective?

    1. With a starry eyed optimism that the libertarian moment is just around the corner?

      1. He’s the first non-Bilderberg candidate in quite a while. Usually they own both Red and Blue outright. Optimism is called for based on that alone.

        1. Ha ha, oh you poor misguided soul. Non-Bilderberg, good one.

  16. How about covering it the same say Gillespie covered the RNC?

    And by that, I mean lots of gum chewing and bestiality jokes.

  17. As much as you might hate the guy, can I at least suggest trying to apply the Principle of Charity?

    1. the Principle of Charity

      I give up. What is that?

      1. From the great and powerful Wikipedia via the all-knowing Google:

        “In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker’s statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation”

        1. requires … considering its best, strongest possible interpretation

          So, … it’s bullshit?

          1. No, it means engaging the idea rather than pedantic sniping.

          2. Uh… why would you say that?

          3. I’m guessing Rich’s point is that no one on the political scene is willing to do that, so you might as well be asking for a limestone fish that sings operettas.

            1. Now that right there is a good example.

  18. How about reason just stop covering “politics” as such and instead just cover issues? Stop it with the partisan politics. No more endorsing the LP, no more horse race stories about how this or that team is doing with the country. No more focus on teams or politicians period. Instead, just advocate for Libertarian ideas and issues and mention the various power players and teams only in the context of the issue being discussed. How about being a “non partisan” think tank?

    It is an idea just so crazy it might work.

    1. I’m OK with them being libertarian partisans. We need at least one outfit like that.

    2. I would prefer this approach, politics and its siamese twin partisanship make people stupid. They are exercises in tribalism, collectivism, and confirmation bias, none of which make you smarter.

      Its cheap and easy to do the hot take on the tweet of the day from a politician. Its also intensely unhelpful. Give us some analysis, some context, some actual verified facts. For example, in all the writing here about ObamaCare, no one hsa tried to do the legwork on the following issues:

      Medicaid expansion – how many people were added to Medicaid, what’s the cost, when does the federal 100% subsidy run out, and what will the impact on state budgets be when that happens.

      Insurance market – what’s the net pickup in people who have actual commercial insurance in this country when ObamaCare was passed? How many of those would probably have insurance anyway due to growth (however slow) in employment?

      Benefits and costs – if you had a pre-ObamaCare plan today, what would your out of pocket be (premiums plus copays/deductibles)? How does that compare to what your out of pocket is post-ObamaCare.

      Make yourself relevant by doing something other people aren’t doing – something with substance, that is readable, that adds constructively to the national conversation, rather than adding more churn to the disposable partisan political crap.

      1. When the subsidy expires that will be trumps fault.

      2. Its cheap and easy to do the hot take on the tweet of the day from a politician. Its also intensely unhelpful.

        You forgot “boring”.

  19. Cover it as you normally would, bearing in mind that even the slightest criticism of Trump makes you a fruit sushi pirogi MSM cucklaborator.

    1. I’m still waiting for more flattering pictures of Bernie Sanders.

    2. You leave fruit sushi out of this, fruit sushi is non-partisan. Until the ultranationalists take over Japan at least.

  20. I dunno.

    But Thailand has a new king. And his name is King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun.

    1. That’s easy for *you* to say.

    2. Vajira Long Korn sounds like something Godzilla might do battle with.

      1. Sounds like a pussy being stuffed with a corn cob.

      2. Sounds like a pussy being stuffed with a corn cob.

        1. The squirrels have approved of this.

    3. Too long, how about Ed?

  21. Weekly feature on hot chicks who support Trump (with guns) and hot chicks who oppose Trump (with weed…or Mexicans…whatever)

    1. *thinks for a moment… struggles to his feet… applause*

  22. Speaking of overthrowing the Electoral college. Apparently, the Electoral college is busily trying to overthrow itself:

    OLYMPIA ? Standing on the steps of the state Capitol Wednesday, Levi Guerra declared that she would join a handful of Electoral College members seeking to deny Donald Trump the presidency.

    Guerra, a 19-year-old from the town of Warden, Grant County, is one of a slate of electors for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who won Washington state in the November election.

    But when the state’s 12 electors meet Dec.?19 to cast their votes in what is usually a symbolic act known as the Electoral College, Guerra said she intends to support a Republican compromise candidate.

    “I feel that it is my duty to cast my vote against Trump,” said Guerra. “Instead, I must vote for the person who I believe will be best for my constituents and who has the greatest chance for unifying our country.”

    1. Guerra, a 19-year-old

      Full of wisdom, I’m sure…

      1. “I feel that it is my duty to cast my vote against Trump,” said Guerra. “Instead, I must vote for the person who I believe will be best for my constituents and who has the greatest chance for unifying our country.”

        Yeah, 19yr old is going to do what’s best for her constituents by picking some random other dude.

        1. Well she clearly knows better than the people that chose her to be an elector.

      2. Why wouldn’t voting for Hillary, as he was appointed to do, be a vote against Trump?

        1. I’m not sure how this strategy is supposed to work. I’m guessing since it’s a… “movement” they’re going to convince electors in states that Hillary didn’t carry to not vote for Trump.

          1. I think they are trying to get a third person to qualify, so that if it gets thrown to the House, the House will rise up against their own party’s victor because . . . not sure why, really. The Representatives have gotten tired of DC and want to get thrown out on their asses in two years?

    2. How exactly does one become elector? And how does a 19 year old become one?

      1. I think it involves showing up in Jim McDermott’s congressional office wearing your high school cheerleading uniform and some knee pads.

        1. The knee pads were a good idea. I hear cheerleading can be dangerous.

      2. By being born into the political aristocracy.

    3. A Democrat Elector not voting for Trump?

      That hurts his presumed 306 Electoral votes how?

  23. 1. Trump lies and exaggerates compulsively, so never take him at this word and always fact check.

    2. There will be a ton of pear clutching from both sides over perceived slights and insults. Call that out for the horseshit it is.

    3. Ignore any bitching from commenters here about how mean and unfair you cosmo fags are being to President Trump. Opposition to unjust war, civil liberties abuses and economic jingoism are where I want Reason to make a stand.

      1. You missed an obvious sexual reference.

        1. Pair Clutching… Canadian edition.

        2. Embracing Lena Dunham

    1. More to the point, he’s a rambling semi-coherent bullshitter, and normal people try to look past what he says to guess at what he means, which is admittedly difficult because he is a rambling semi-coherent bullshitter. If you sit around picking apart the literal meaning of his statements, you just look at best idiotic, if not dishonest.

    2. 3. Ignore any bitching from commenters here about how mean and unfair you cosmo fags are being to President Trump. Opposition to unjust war, civil liberties abuses and economic jingoism are where I want Reason to make a stand.

      Like I say above, I am pretty sure you will get your wish. Criticizing a Republican President is so much easier and they are so much better at it than criticizing a Democratic one. Reason’s heart was never in going after Obama. They did it when they had to but they did it reluctantly and with a heavy heart. Going after Trump will be much easier for them. So don’t worry your little head.

      1. Going after Trump will be much easier for them.

        The man himself seems to be giving them a lot of help on that front.

        Though I do think it is a fair criticism that they go after too many easy Trump stories about the latest idiotic or crazy thing he said at the expense of doing more serious investigation and journalism.

        See, I can do it.

        1. He says those things to get the media to say and do stupid things in response. And the media seems to never learn not to take the bait.

          And doing more serious investigation would require being fair minded about Trump. And none of them want that.

  24. Do it in such a way that the resident Trumpkins take their ball and go home – ala MNG and joe – as soon as possible. The incessant whining is getting old.

    1. Oh god think of what a paradise this place would be.

      1. Yea, we would only have about 11 other strains of derp in the thread to contend with.

      2. Considering your intellect Hugh, I think a place where everyone agreed with you and never questioned anything you said would be a good fit. Having to think and defend your positions just isn’t a good roll for you.

        1. That’s how he roles.

    2. I know, conform or GTFO!

    3. If only you could smell your own farts in peace.

  25. Lots of drinking games. LOTS.

    1. Where did that go? I feel like its been ages since anyone’s even referenced it.

      I feel like we should have added a half-dozen new criteria

      1. I fear Trump may kill all of our livers.

      2. I feel like we should have added a half-dozen new criteria

        You mean it’s not like college where everybody in the background is drinking with uninterrupted regularity and only the two people with a ping pong ball and collection of plastic cups have decided to limit themselves until they lose the ping pong balls, or sober up/get tired of playing?

        I mean, I thought drinking games were for anxious puritans and people leery about substance abuse problems and we’re all just libertarians.

    2. if youre looking for a good one: FUBAR.
      step 1. buy a 30 of pilsner. maybe a few. cheap lager cans.
      step 2. start the movie FUBAR.
      rules.
      drink when they do. shotgun when they do.
      drink when troy shows up.
      any more and you might die.

  26. Keep glossing over the long-term gradual erosion of actual liberty in favor of celebrating a perpetual ‘libertarian moment’…. which assumes that the vast non-ideological middle which increasingly rejects the major political parties are somehow therefore predisposed to libertarian thought, despite all evidence to the contrary

  27. keep a tally of countries bombed by month. i think it might even go down.
    24/7 updates on the liberty caucus. gilmore can rate how rand and amash are dressed.
    compare calls about obstruction.

    1. keep a tally of countries bombed by month

      That actually is a great idea.

      A perma-link to something like, “Countries the US is actively deployed in”, with regularly updated links to examples of US militarism.

      We’ve been droning people in Somalia, refueling bombers in Yemen, and have special operations deployed in Libya, Syria, and Iraq (*as well as conventional support troops in the latter 2, and are actively assisting in the current assault on Mosul), and the US navy has been playing some version of ‘chicken’ (Operation Kung Pao) with the Chinese around the Spratley Islands, the russians in the Baltic and the black sea…

      ….and yet the conventional narrative among the punditocracy is that Obama has somehow reduced America’s confrontational-posture vs the rest of the world

      (*the left says it to self-congratulate, and the right says it to suggest that Obama has ‘cut and run’)

      It would be nice to have some devoted coverage of “What we’re actually doing” abroad – instead of just the periodic quarterly statements which go, “Ugh, Military Adventurism = Bad”, which isn’t really news.

      Yes, add the standard libertarian gloss which asks, “Is any of this accomplishing anything?”… but at least have some consistent reporting so that people are at least aware of what our “global-footprint of violence” really is.

      1. the fact that no media seems to want to cover how the drone wars have grown under obama is slowly going to give me an ulcer or something.

        general “hey were still in iraq” isnt the same as “obama droned more people and more countries in four years than bush did his entire term”

      2. We should compare things like How many American soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan now as opposed to 2007. You know, just to give people some perspective.

        1. sure. who wanted the surge?

        2. “We should compare things like How many American soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan now as opposed to 2007. You know, just to give people some perspective.”

          Yep, but maybe we should broaden it out just a tad. Maybe to all countries, and maybe cover the years between 2007 and 2017. What do you think?

      3. “What we’re actually doing” abroad

        Bro, we’re kicking ass, what else is there to say?

        1. im gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass
          ginna kick some ass for the USA.

        2. Bro, we’re kicking ass, what else is there to say?

          Maybe we are.

          Will all this ass-kicking make Syria or Iraq or Yemen or Somalia or Libya any better-governed (or less of a ‘problem’) 5 years from now?

          My personal POV about miltary action is less doctrinaire than most libertarians; i don’t have ideological objections, per se…

          …but i DO think that military action, sans any coherent mission-objective and geopolitical strategic-purpose… is the worst possible use of resources, and actually weakens ourselves in many ways. e.g. Do you think John Kerry’s “diplomacy” in Syria has any credibility whatsoever? everyone knows that the US is going to do whatever is in its own interests regardless; basically, we have no carrot and no stick because the assumption is that the US will “forever meddle” but never commit to any decisive action which people can rely on.

          1. Will all this ass-kicking make Syria or Iraq or Yemen or Somalia or Libya any better-governed (or less of a ‘problem’) 5 years from now?

            I want to say no, but strange things can happen after conflict. I often look to US and Japan relations; I know there was a lot of post WW2 – Cold War reasons for us to flip from enemies to allies but I also think (pure speculation) mutual respect can be gained through combat. That’s certainly possible on the individual level and it might be possible in state conflicts — England and France are pretty buddy buddy after centuries of war. I don’t think that will happen for us in the middle east though.

          2. i DO think that military action, sans any coherent mission-objective and geopolitical strategic-purpose… is the worst possible use of resources, and actually weakens ourselves in many ways.

            That’s true and I agree for most of the US conflicts, the one caveat I always think of that it seems to me like others ignore, specifically relating to ISIS — these people declared war on us. It’s different, most of the time we enter conflict on our own terms, in which case not having a clear plan for post conflict is supremely stupid. But I honestly believe when it comes to ISIS, we aren’t fighting them in Syria as aggressors, it doesn’t have to be our war; we are there fighting them because they actively engaged us and will continue to do so; we can either take it on the chin or defend ourselves.

            It’s hard to case blame on poor exit strategies for this one, we are in that war because or enemies are engaging us in war, and actively plan to hit or kill any American target they can find.

            1. That may be true. But to judge teh wisdom of getting involved in any war, no matter how justified, you still need to show that it’s likely to be effective and worth the costs. We aren’t obliged to fight ISIS just because they said they were going to war with us.

              1. What zeb says.

                My point about “weakening us” is also true for the current posture re: ISIS

                What’s the net-benefit of our current “half-in/half-out” commitment in Syria?

                We’re getting half the blame for helping provoke a wider-war there, but none of the benefit of actually “eliminating” ISIS. Its the worst of all postures.

                Meanwhile, we’ve managed somehow to put ourselves in a position where we’re also in danger of going to war with Russia if we continue along this “make it up as we go along”-route.

                The reality is that we’re not in Syria because of ISIS. We got into Syria to get rid of Assad. We spent a lot of money and CIA-resources arming jihadis, and now we’re stuck trying to babysit a revolution from 50,000 feet.

                We’re not reacting to any declaration of war by ISIS. And if we were – what would be the right call? Carpet Bomb Raquaa? drop in airborne troops? I might potentially agree to anything if you could demonstrate to me how it would guarantee a better outcome than just ‘doing nothing’

                The problem is that there is never any honest accounting about these decisions. Which is partly why i’d like Reason to maybe devote more resources to the subject.

        3. We’re exporting freedom and democracy, bitch!

  28. Objectively.

  29. How Should Reason Cover The Trump Era?

    I always find it distasteful when someone (not necessarily Trump) is likened to Hitler but one cannot place the bodies of a couple million dead Jews at their feet.

    Now that the election is over, I guess I’d like to see Reason not shoot first — but definitely return fire with weapon of destruction available if the new administration goes sideways on liberty.

  30. Finally start covering the cocktail parties. We read the articles (well…sometimes)…we want to see the payoff. What kind of cocktails? What kind of ass is in there? Who’s pulling that ass? Walk of shame pics…the whole deal.

  31. How about take it as it comes and be rational? Apply, you know, reason like the name of your publication?

  32. I think you guys should cover every instance where right-wing politicians impose restrictions on personal liberty, launch cockamamie wars, or shift tax burdens to the working class as tangential to the cause of liberty. You know, like the hard-hitting articles you ran on marijuana prohibition in the run-up to the Iraq War or how you employed a climate change denialist (who has since changed his mind– kudos! give credit where it’s due) to debate the scientific merits of how CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum and hockey stick diagrams in the face of a military occupation of a country that never stacked us.

    Nick, I want more articles on how concealed AR-15 rifles are going to be awesome in a shoot-out with an ISIS douchebag equipped with a suicide belt and less articles on how a 600 billion dollar defense budget may make ISIS douches with bombs more commonplace. You’re ambivalence on such matters has worked out before. Why stop now?

    1. Because Reason *never* did or does that.

      Are you out of your fucken mind?

      1. i know you ask because you’re a super polite Canadian, but come on man!

      2. I’m currently sewing the swastika patch on one sleeve and Pepe the frog patch on the other sleeve of my KKK uniform. I’m lacing jackboots and practicing salutes. You will know the fear of me when it is through, when the TRUMP TRAIN runs over you.

        ? …what AmSoc thinks libertarians are all about in “Trump’s America.”

        1. As we’ve seen time and again, it’s all projection with these people. They assume their political opponents are shining their jackboots to kick the skulls of minorities and people who disagree with them because that’s what they themselves would do if they ever found themselves in such a position.

      3. The only debate is whether this is Shriek or Little Joe.

        Definitively out of his fuckin mind, though.

    2. Nick, I want more articles on how concealed AR-15 rifles are going to be awesome in a shoot-out with an ISIS douchebag equipped with a suicide belt and less articles on how a 600 billion dollar defense budget may make ISIS douches with bombs more commonplace.

      So should Reason have shoved Ted Cruz further under the Trump campaign bus or shoved him under it harder?

  33. How Should Reason Cover The Trump Era?

    I vote “Less histrionically than they covered the Trump campaign”

  34. How Should Reason Cover The Trump Era?

    By getting a hold of that naked Mike Rowe shotgun drone footage and making a centerfold out of it.

    1. I can’t do that, but I did find this for you: http://controversialtimes.com/…..-property/

      Includes naked Mike Rowe, shotguns and drones, though not all in one shot.

  35. The first rule of Fight Journalism: You do not talk about Fight Journalism. The second rule of Fight Journalism is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Journalism.

  36. Wait and see what happens.

    Cover it with gas and set it on fire.

  37. Who do you think you’re kidding with this faux “debate” stuff Gillespie?

    Your coverage of the Trump presidency is going to be completely 180 degrees the opposite from your lame-ass coverage of the Obama presidency, just like almost all the rest of your media brethren.

    1. OK, the writers are all communists. Most of the commenters are communists. Why do you keep coming back?

      1. Worthless comment. No value to the readers of Reason.com

  38. How Should Reason Cover The Trump Era?

    Give him hell after shoving Kultur War social signaling up your own asses.

  39. Uh, wait. Was this a serious question? I thought it was fundraising click-bait.

    Yes, I donated. And I’ll continue to donate to the extent Reason can be funny, pragmatic, contrarian, and pro-freedom without being dogmatic. And on that note, how exactly did the Libertarian Party run a fairly successful dude against two of the most loathed political candidates in modern American history and not break five percent? Love the progress on reefer and same-sex marriage… but wtf happened to the virtue of tolerance? I’m a Gillespie fan, but no wearing a leather jacket should sing, “Tomorrow” (Annie). Ever. Seriously.

  40. With jokes. I like jokes. It has finally dawned on me that I can’t do squat about the fact that an amazingly gigantic slice of the population is idiotic, so I while endure the frustrations that come from living in a 360-million head adult daycare center, I like jokes.

    1. Worthless comment. No value to the readers of Reason.com

  41. Unless he does something “yuuuuuuuuuuge” don’t bother. Lest you be like all of the rest of the so called news.

    Instead, don’t be afraid to break away from the pack. Report on what’s going on in Congress. You know, the place where federal laws are birthed?

  42. This is a very important question. Moreover, it will define “Reason.com” as a going concern. What the public will need to see as a measure of validation is a comparative of the campaign and accomplishment. We lived thru the sound bite and rhetoric of selling of the benefits and liabilities of casting votes to the respective parties and agendas. How Reason.com moves forward now over the longer term depends upon establishing a legitimate conversation with its readers that is 1.) believable, 2.) Verifiable and subject to corroboration. Finally, provides Reason.com with a platform of enforcement that they will deliver a forum for the whole of what has transpired in the election for the next 4 years.

    This is a fundamental, simple premise not based upon revenues or advertisers, but simply the subscriber expectations for the next year.

  43. i think it will be a good era

  44. Just do your normal “panties in a wad, shrieks of impending doom” reportage.

  45. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ==================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  46. You make ?27/h that’s great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online , seriously I couldn’t be haappier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in ?35/h and sometimes even as much as ?85/h?Heres a good example of what I’m doing, ??.>>>>>

    ====== http://www.works76.com

  47. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here……. Clik This Link inYour Browser

    ===========================> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.