Jonathan V. Last & Sarah Longwell: Welcome to The Donald Trump Consequences: We TOLD You So!

"Sarah and JVL talk about the tariffs, the I-told-you-so’s, the rule of law, the American age, and the week it all came apart." 

Source:The Bulwark with Sarah Longwell & Jonathan V. Last.

From The Bulwark

I'm going to give you an idea of the film that Sarah Longwell was referencing here, first and then explain why it's relevant to both the 2024 election campaign and Donald Trump's 2nd term as POTUS. 

So she's talking about Diggstown (1992) and Gabriel Caine (played by James Woods) is a career hustler, who thinks he has his best scam ever: 

"Someone named John Gillon owns almost all of Diggstown. He is the former manager of Diggstown's once-famous boxer Charles Macom Diggs, the man for whom the town is named.

Upon hearing that Diggs once knocked out five fighters in one day, Fitz says he knows of a fighter who could knock out any ten in one day: Honey Roy Palmer. Gillon bets $100,000 that no one can best ten Diggstown boxers in one day. Caine volunteers to finance Fitz's bet, and the con is on.

Caine seeks out Palmer, a 48-year-old YMCA supervisor. Palmer reluctantly agrees to participate and starts to train for the fight. Caine and Gillon agree to various conditions of the bet, with "one day" being 24 full hours and "Diggstown fighters" being able to come from any surrounding area of Olivair County. A loan shark backs Caine's bet... 

From Wikipedia

And I guess there's a scene later in the film when these younger boxers are pissed off at Gabe Caine and he explains to them: "I told you I would take all your money before we made this bet. And you bet me anyway." That's a paraphrase. 

So Donald Trump running in 2024 once again "On Making America Great Again", bringing down the cost of living, bringing back manufacturing, etc. While at the same time telling his own voters that he would bring tariffs back and raise them on every foreign country (except for Russia) and they would bring back all this money to America. And the people who voted for him believed him anyway. 

If you needed to pass some course in American economics before you were even eligible to vote in this country, most American adults, most adult citizens who've never spent a day in jail their entire lives, wouldn't be ineligible to vote in this country. The 1 thing that we know for sure about tariffs, is that they raise prices on the consumers from the country that just passed the tariffs. 

And the Nationalists might say: "Well, they could just domestic products instead not pay any additional price for that". That's not how American consumers operate. They buy what's best for them and their families, regardless of where it was made and which country that company is from, based on their own income levels. 

So the "I told you so" part: voting against Donald Trump, or any other MAGA person, makes as much sense as not jumping off the Key Bridge in Washington, in January. 

Let's say you are the person trying to convince the jumper not to jump... to reference another great film: "Don't do it man! You have the rest of your life ahead of you!" (Which is from Network (1976) 

And the jumper says something like: "I can flap my arms and fly and walk on water." Perhaps he's Pete Hegseth, or 1 of his drinking buddies. 

Well, for anyone who didn't vote for Donald J. Trump, who simply voted for Kamala Harris because she a much better, more competent person than Donald Trump, (which is actually saying as little as possible) we told you about the negative consequences that would come from once again having Donald John Trump as President of the United States... and you politically jumped off the Washington Key Bridge... but in November, instead of January. 

So maybe you didn't freeze to death for voting for Donald Trump. Perhaps it's your finances that are frozen right now, thanks to the Trump tariffs. But now the rest of the country is trying to figure out how to fish the country out of Donald J. Trump's river and try to survive his 2nd presidency. 

If I were at a voting booth last November, in Bethesda, Maryland, where maybe 10 voters in the entire town voted for DJT and someone just freakin told me that they were voting for him. And this person was front of me in line to vote... I might have said something like to this person: "Don't do it man! You have the rest of the country to think about!" But I still believe in American democracy. And as of Friday, April 4th, we all still have the same right to vote in this country. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Chris Cillizza: Donald Trump is Committing Political Malpractice

"Chris Cillizza criticizes Donald Trump's recent all-caps statement that his policies will "never change," despite significant economic concerns. They highlight how the stock market suffered its worst drop since 2020, recession risks have risen to 60%, and China imposed a 34% tariff on U.S. goods—effectively escalating a trade war. The speaker argues that tariffs historically do not work and will likely increase prices for everyday Americans. Politically, they see Trump’s stance as a self-inflicted wound, hurting his party while Republican leaders hesitate to challenge him. The speaker questions how long Trump will maintain this position and whether anyone in his party will push back, emphasizing that this strategy is politically and economically unsound." 

Source:Chris Cillizza with a look at Donald J. Trump's latest political suicide mission.

From Chris Cillizza

I guess my response Chris Cillizza here is similar to what my colleague Fred said yesterday in response to Chris Cuomo: 

Donald J. Trump doesn't play on the same field as every other American politician. 

He doesn't live on the same planet (in more ways than just 1) as every other American politician, politically. 

He doesn't swim in the same pools as every other American politician. And if he ever wanted to do anyone else a favor... other than himself, he would never swim at all. Who needs that visual? 

Hopefully you get my point by now. The American public, at least before 2025 (I believe the next 2 years will be different for him) have never held Donald John Trump accountable for doing the same bad things, or worst bad things, the same political and governmental mistakes, as any other American politician. 

The exceptions to this rule would be 2020 and they took President Trump's poor job performance out on the Republican Party like in 2018 and to a certain extent 2020, which cost Republicans the Senate as well. But this man has essentially gotten way with politically shooting both of his feet off, every time he's made a political suicidal mistake. And this thing with the Stock Market yesterday, where his tariffs are wiping out Wall Street, with the President seen on a Florida golf course, just hours after that, is just the latest political self-inflicted wound to himself. 

You go back to 2015: imagine a Democrat, or a mainstream Republican, (you know, like an actual Conservative) calling Senator John McCain a sucker and loser because he was captured in the Vietnam War. And ignoring, or being completely unaware of the fact that then Lieutenant McCain could've been released years before he was actually released from captivity, had he simply given his fellow officers up, so they could've been tortured and killed. Imagine Barack Obama making that mistake in 2007... he's probably still in the U.S. Senate right now. 

Then candidate Donald Trump in 2016 calling all Mexican immigrants, rapists and terrorists. Apparently unaware that the American agriculture and food industries are dependent on Mexican immigrants to produce and sell our food in this country and to export our food to other countries. Solid bet that these industries don't view Mexican immigrants as "rapists and terrorists". And yet DJT got more Latino votes in 2016, than Mitt Romney did in 2012 and got even more Latin and African-American vote in 2024, then in 2016, or 2020. 

How about attacking Gold Star families in 2016 and questioning whether they were even "real Americans". You think Mitt Romney or even George W. Bush would've gotten away with that? As Fred said yesterday: 

"Donald J. Trump doesn't think like a politician... certainly not like an American politician, or a public servant. He simply uses the democratic tools to gain power for himself. But once he's there, there's no rulebook that everyone else follows. It's just about what he thinks would be good for him and how much he can get way with. DJT is not a public servant... he's a self-servant. And everything and everyone else be-dammed, including the Republican Party, if they try to get in his way." 

From The New Democrat

What Donald J. Trump can do... at least  politically, is: 

Shoot his foot off with a flamethrower. 

Bomb his own mansion while he's still inside. 

Sure! A lot of other people, including other Republicans, would feel the devastation from those Kamikaze tactics by a madman. But DJT's foot would grow back, someone would buy him a new mansion, free-of-charge. And DJT would look for his next political suicide mission. Why? Because he almost always gets way with it, because he's always playing the game of strategic diversion. The next scandal will break, or the mainstream media, or Democrats will overplay the current scandal and become the issue themselves. (Which is why The New Democrat is fully onboard with James Carville's political rope-a-dope strategy)  

But while DJT is still getting away with everything, his party and his voters pay the real prices. I mean DJT is piling up political debts with his own party, (that of course he would never even attempt to pay off) but as long as he's still standing, he doesn't care about any political collateral damage that he personally causes anyone.

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Chris Cuomo: The Truth About Donald Trump’s Third Term Rumors

"Chris Cuomo breaks down the panic over Donald Trump potentially seeking a third term in office, pushing back on viral claims and explaining what’s legally and constitutionally possible. Cuomo walks through the arguments about repealing the 22nd Amendment, national emergencies, and vice presidential loopholes — and warns against fueling conspiracy thinking that overstates Trump’s power. He also calls out the Supreme Court, questions the erosion of due process, and challenges listeners to think critically about fear-based narratives in American politics." 

Source:Chris Cuomo thinks everyone who thinks Donald Trump is just talking about a 3rd term for himself, is a resident of "Crazytown". If he's serious about that and simply not sharing his own theory about this to bring attention and viewers to himself... he's the Mayor of "Crazytown".

From Chris Cuomo

I doubt I'm the only one here, but I get a lot of long replies to comments I made (especially on YouTube) that I can reply to in just 1 sentence. Maybe 2 points. And not just because I'm allowed to do that. Because the premise of what person is talking about is so off, or so hypocritical about what I said and I can just say something like: "You are 1 to talk", meaning that person is not. Or: "You are assuming a lot of facts that have not been entered into evidence". Something like that. That's what Chris Cuomo is doing here. Imagine if this were a 2-term Democrat talking about their own possible 3rd term, I wonder what Cuomo's attitude would be about that. 

I guess my response to what Chris Cuomo is doing here to him would be: "Imagine if this were a Democrat who was elected President twice and they were throwing around the idea of running for a 3rd term, would you being calling Republicans who have issues with that: "Crazytown"?" 

And the 2nd thing here is... Cuomo compared DACA that was signed by President Obama in 2014 and President Biden's student loans forgiveness, to Donald Trump flirting to run for President a 3rd time. The Supreme Court threw out the Biden student loan forgiveness plan and they let DACA stand. Checks and balances. But previous President's going back to Ronald Reagan, has their own DACA plans. So there was precedent for that. 

The New Democrat talked about this on Monday: 

"So this is where the Democrats come it: whoever is the Democratic nominee for President in 28, they select President Barack Obama as their running mate. And President Obama spends the last 2 months of this campaign trolling not Vice President Vance, but President Trump. All day, every day, on social media, everywhere else, all the interviews, the townhalls, etc.

I mean when you are talking about Barack Obama, you are talking about 1 of the quickest and funniest minds, ever in American politics. The late night talk show hosts have. nothing on him from that standpoint. He proved that last October campaigning for Kamala Harris with the whole story about the price of diapers and talking about changing diapers and interrupting himself to say: 

"First of all, can you imagine Donald Trump changing diapers? Think about that for a minute". And other issues like that. 

You put President Obama on the campaign trail full-time to troll President Trump... the current President would look like a college of starving fish in the lake. I mean we're talking about the University of Texas Austin...a school of fish that large. And he take the bait every time the former President baits the current President. 

So if the President is not drunk and high enough to shake hands with the Moon, they won't be pushing this. But if they do, the Democrats have the perfect counterpunch: tell the people how great a Vice President Barack Obama would be and that would kill this latest insane MAGA story faster than fire burns paper." 

From The New Democrat

Republicans said that Donald Trump was just talking when he said he would sign all these tariffs in 2024... anyone who buys their own groceries, who has limited income, knows that DJT wasn't bluffing on that. 

Republicans said that Donald Trump was just talking when he said he would deport all these people and send them to places they've never even been too before... trying convincing non-Salvadorans, who aren't even guilty of anything, who are currently in prison in El Salvador about Donald Trump's "bluff". 

Of course DJT wants a 3rd term. Really the only thing that Chris Cuomo got right in his video here, was how unconstitutional it would be. Even the idea of DJT running for Vice President wouldn't work because you need to be eligible to be POTUS, to even run for VPOTUS. 

Kire Schneider's point about Barack Obama on Monday was, if the Supreme Court allows this latest MAGA scam to go through for a 2-term POTUS to be able to run again, but for VPOUS, then the Democrats should nominate Barack Obama for Vice President. Or just put that talk out there to try to dissuade MAGA from talking about this for President Trump. 

I think Chris Cuomo has way too much confidence in Donald Trump. That's really what this gets too. He talked about tariffs and that the President would pull them back if they start hurting the economy and more important to him: the Republican Party... but you are assuming he even cares about the Republican Party. 

Donald J. Trump doesn't think like a politician... certainly not like an American politician, or a public servant. He simply uses the democratic tools to gain power for himself. But once he's there, there's no rulebook that everyone else follows. It's just about what he thinks would be good for him and how much he can get way with. DJT is not a public servant... he's a self-servant. And everything and everyone else be-dammed, including the Republican Party, if they try to get in his way.

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: FOX News LOSES IT On AIR Over Donald Trump's TARIFF CATASTROPHE

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Fox News losing all control of its messaging over Donald Trump’s disastrous moves." 

Source:Meidas Touch with a look at Trump News & the presidential bungler.

From the Medias Touch

From FOX News: 

"Laura: Only Trump has had the ‘guts’ to end the ‘great foreign rip-off’ of America

Fox News host Laura Ingraham dispels ‘myth-perceptions’ around President Donald Trump’s economic agenda on ‘The Ingraham Angle." 

From FOX News

And from FOX News anchor Harris Faulkner: 

“Look, when this nation used to go to war, people in this country would support the war effort with their materials at home and making things for weaponry and all of that. We gotta do 100 percent buy-in over this bumpy period." 

From Yahoo News

Perhaps Harris Faulkner can explain what war is America at right now. But I wouldn't even bet a cup of coffee on that... especially with prices going up as fast as they are, thanks to President Trump's trade war. Wait, I got it: the war that Faulkner is thinking of, is the President's trade war, that he started, that he didn't have to start.

From The New Democrat talking about Laura Ingraham:

And if you are someone who just doesn't love political history, but Hollywood political history films... there's a great line from Hal Holbrook (who played Deepthroat in All The President' Men in 1976) where he's talking to Bob Woodward (played by Robert Redford) about the Watergate burglars and the people in The White House whose job was to cover up the Watergate and the Plummers mess created by President Richard Nixon and his loyalists: 

"The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand". 

The fact is The White House only speaks to 1 audience, which is their MAGA base. They feel as long as they have those small town, blue-collar, folks who think America is has been going to hell since the 1960s because of multiculturalism and everything else from that period... they'll be fine. They just have to stay in there and keep doing all the fighting and attacking the so-called elitists. And anyone who isn't rural, Anglo-Saxon male, they'll just label those folks as DEI when they stand up to this White House. 

So when you are only speaking to 1 audience and morality and honesty if anything are just obstructors to your ultimate goal which is to take over and run America, you can literally lie your asses off in public, even purger yourselves in front of Congress. Because who's going to stop them... 

From The New Democrat 

"Secretary Scott Bessent's line: "Many of the employees are fantastic. It's this consultant group. They're like a boa constrictor. They're like a python," he said. "They've constricted themselves around our government, and the costs are unbelievable. They're being passed on to the American taxpayer."

Reminds me of this expression: "The expression "you can never trust a snake" is a common idiom used to describe someone who is deceitful, untrustworthy, and potentially dangerous, often implying they are scheming or manipulative. It's rooted in the image of a snake, a creature often associated with stealth and danger." 

I'm just wondering of the Secretary is speaking from personal experience here. And perhaps cluing in Laura Ingraham's viewers about his own trustworthiness.

Which would explain Fox News host Laura Ingraham less than enthusiastic expression and response to Secretary Bessent when the Secretary compared Federal workers to snakes... 

From The New Democrat

Just when I thought Laura Ingraham was finally seeing the light (so to speak) about President Trump's trade policies and other bad decisions that they're making that don't just have bad political consequences for the country, but for the Republican Party as well, (which is really what DJT should be thinking about, because that would a problem for him) I guess someone from the "deep state" got to her and told her to shut the hell up when it comes to doing anything but treating The Donald like he's nothing but God himself. 

I take some of that back: Laura Ingraham does see the light on Donald Trump when it comes to Russia's war on Ukraine, Signal Gate, and now his trade war. It's a question of whether she has the character and his honest enough to make those views public or, not. Whether she is willing to even leak out on her own show what she thinks about these things. which is what she was doing on Signal Gate last week and her interview with Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent 2 weeks ago, where she seemed to take issue with the Secretary referring to government employees as reptiles. 

The main difference between a virtuous and a bungler, is the virtuous doesn't have to worry about what will happen to them when they screw up. They don't have to not just come up with a story, or worry about if they've already used that story before, because they're liars. The virtuous can just say: 

"I screwed up. I didn't have enough information before I decided to do this, that, and the other thing". And the people around them will probably take their word on that because they trust that person. 

The bungler doesn't have that luxury. I mean when they get caught, it's generally redhanded, like dropping their ID on their way out of the store, or smiling to the camera because they want to be famous, etc. And they get caught at the very least doing something dishonest, that they could get sued for, or just arrested for. And they have to think real fast about how to get way with what they and everyone else knows that they just did. And make sure they didn't use some old story that they haven't already used before. 

The Trump Administration, whether you are talking about DOGE, Signal Gate, and now the escalation of the President's trade war, are playing the role of the bunglers. With their propaganda operation going out-of-their-way every day and night, trying to make up excuses explaining that it's either not the President's fault for doing exactly what he did, or, will all work out in the end because The Master has some grand vision. 

What Trump News doesn't understand is Donald Trump has no more political vision than the average bat, or bird thats always crashing into buildings and homes.. He just makes precarious decisions on the fly like the drunk who thinks they're sober enough to drive themselves home, because they're always like that. And I'm not talking about planes here. Plane crashes in the Trump Administration, is a different issue. And Trump News embarrasses themselves every day and night... because it pays well for them. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tom Mullen: What is 'America First' About Annexing Greenland?

"Every few years, Washington politicians get a hankering to expand the American empire. One of their more bizarre obsessions is Greenland. The Trump administration famously floated the idea of buying the island from Denmark in 2019, sparking international ridicule. While the notion seemed to die down after that, it never truly disappeared. Some in Washington still see Greenland as the next great prize for the United States—a resource-rich Arctic territory that could be absorbed into the federal bureaucracy under the guise of economic and strategic benefits.

The first of many problems with this idea is that, like many Americans, the people of Greenland don’t want to be ruled by Washington. They’ve been moving toward greater independence from their own country for decades. And even if they were interested, U.S. taxpayers should think twice before taking on the costs of governing yet another distant landmass when their government is running $2 trillion per year deficits managing the territory it already has.

Annexing Greenland is the opposite of ‘America First.’ It’s ‘DC Empire First,’ precisely what tens of millions of Trump supporters voted against in November. But as history shows, not only campaign promises but the whole platform of a political movement goes out the window when the ruling class smells power, expansion, and illegitimately acquired wealth.

The idea of the U.S. acquiring Greenland isn’t new. In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward—best known for purchasing Alaska from Russia—proposed buying Greenland along with Iceland. The deal never happened, but the U.S. kept its eyes on Greenland for strategic reasons.

During World War II, American forces established bases on the island to prevent Nazi Germany from gaining a foothold. After the war, in 1946, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold for Greenland. Denmark refused. The U.S. ended up negotiating a military presence instead, and to this day, Thule Air Base remains a key U.S. outpost in the Arctic.

While American military interests in Greenland are undeniable, there’s a big difference between maintaining an alliance and annexing an entire landmass. Yet, expansionist-minded politicians never let go of the idea. When Trump suggested buying Greenland, the response from Denmark was clear: “Greenland is not for sale.” So, Trump now wants to take via some form of coercion, whether that is economic or military...

Source:Tom Mullen back in 2011.

From Tom Mullen

To answer Tom Mullen's question, first: absolutely nothing. I think a better question would be: "What's healthy about smoking tobacco?" Well, almost nothing. But at least with tobacco it can calm someone's nerves a little bit. Similar with alcohol, but tobacco is even worst for you. 

Whatever you think of President George W. Bush, (and I disagreed with most of the decisions he made) he was never talking about expanding the American empire and creating some new American, Neoconservative World Order. His vision was make the world safer for liberal democracy, even if that meant militarily overthrowing authoritarian regimes that represented no immediate threat to America. He never wanted to make Iraq the 51s state or any other foreign country that had an authoritarian government, the 51st state.

When Donald Trump was running for President in 2024, he talked about ending the Russian war in Ukraine within 24 hours of him becoming President again. Nowhere in his campaign was be talking about invading Canada, Mexico, Panama, and now Greenland... which is still part of Denmark. 

If DJT were talking about invading all these countries in... I don't know... 2024 (just to drop a year) don't you think that would've made some difference in the swing states as far as the votes he got? 

Don't you think DJT would've lost Arab-American votes in... I don't know... Michigan (to drop a state) had he talked about annexing Gaza and kicking out all the Arabs there, so he could make Gaza part of his Trump Empire? 

Unless you are an imperialist, or a wannabe oligarchic dictator, you don't invade foreign countries that represent no threat to your country whatsoever, just because you think you could personally make money off of having those territories as part of your own country. At some point Donald Trump needs to figure out who he is politically, or the voters will do that for him themselves and his party as well he personally, will pay a huge price for that. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CBS News: Why a Judge Ruled to Dismiss Eric Adams' Case With Prejudice

"Judge Dale Ho agreed to drop the federal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams "with prejudice." CBS News' Anna Schecter breaks down the court's reasoning." 

Source:CBS News with a look at New York City Mayor Eric Adams. I wonder if he's still a MAGA mayor now that DOJ can no longer charge him with anything relating to his bribery offenses.

From CBS News

"The initial request to drop the charges made note that the decision was not based on "the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based."

That triggered concerns that Adams could not effectively govern the city because he would be beholden to the Trump administration, as long as the possibility of the charges returning remained in place.  

Adams and his attorneys have vehemently denied any wrongdoing. 

Judge Ho's decision includes words Adams' opponents are sure to focus in on: "Everything here smacks of a bargain, dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions." 

In his ruling to dismiss the case with prejudice, Judge Ho took issue with the Department of Justice's request to dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning he could've faced trial on the same charges again at a later time. 

Judge Ho summarized the DOJ's reasoning to drop the case as based on three things: It's tainted with impropriety, detrimental to national security and immigration enforcement, and was a weak case to begin with. 

"There may or may not be good reasons to drop this prosecution. But the reasons articulated by DOJ, if taken at face value, are inconsistent with a decision to leave the charges in the Indictment hanging like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the Mayor," Judge Ho wrote. "And there are many reasons to be troubled by DOJ's proffered rationales—further supporting dismissal with prejudice." 

Judge Ho also addressed why he couldn't continue to pursue the case after the DOJ moved to dismiss it...

From CBS News

From what I wrote about this case in February: 

"So what CBS News crime reporter Anna Schecter was talking about in the CBS News video, was what back in the day was called a "pro-quid-quo". 

Another way of phrasing that would be: "I'll scratch my back, if you scratch mine. You know, platonically". 

From The New Democrat

Again, we're not lawyers here at The New Democrat. But if someone pointed a gun at my head, (even if were a water gun) and I was forced to try summarize Judge's Ho decision here... actually I would try to summarize his decision, even if someone threaten me with broccoli... but I would say this: 

Judge Ho doesn't want the U.S Department of Justice to have criminal leverage (meaning the ability to charge someone with a crime, if you don't do exactly what they want them too) over Mayor Adams. Which gives the Mayor the freedom to do his job and make decisions for New York City, without having to worry about if the Trump Administration doesn't like what he's doing, they could try to indict the Mayor for some other crime, even if there's no merit to their charge. 

This has nothing to do the actual case against Mayor Adams or prove that he's innocent. The Judge is just accepting the reality that the U.S. Attorney is not going to bring the case here against him. So he might as well just dismiss the case and do with prejudice, so DOJ can't use it against the Mayor as leverage. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dan Mitchell: Libertarian Humor

"Even though I have an entire page dedicated to libertarian humor (pro and con), I only added two columns in the past year (here and here).

I’ll try to do better in 2025, starting with this bit of stand-up humor.

I have to give the guy credit. I don’t know his personal views, but at least he understands the differences between philosophies.

Next we have the libertarian perspective on the political spectrum.

Not as good as my triangle, but fundamentally accurate.

I thought about putting our third item with my collection of gun control humor, but the real message if in the bottom frame, so it qualifies as libertarian.

Our next item shows someone who thinks like me (the guy with the beard, in case that’s not obvious).

Per tradition, I’ve saved the best for last.

And what makes this article from the Babylon Bee especially amusing is that I just landed in Buenos Aires this morning…

Source:Dan Mitchell with look at the lighter side of libertarianism. But that’s only assuming there’s any other side to libertarianism.

From Dan Mitchell

Before I go much further into this, I just want to say that I and the rest of The New Democrat, actually have a lot in common with what we call Classical Libertarians. As real Liberals, (or Classical Liberals, if you prefer) we believe in individual freedom as well… both personal and economic, as well as personal responsibility. 

But having said that, The New Democrat also believes in the rule of law. And someone might say: “Can’t you believe in the rule of law and also be a Libertarian?” I guess so. But when you have people who call themselves Libertarians, but who call for privatizing law enforcement, or just say something like:

“It’s up to the individual to fix any injustice that may occur to themself by themselves”. It's harder to believe that Libertarians even believe in a role for government when it comes to law enforcement.

And the rule of law is just 1 issue. Schools, public infrastructure, pretty much anything that’s run by local government’s, Libertarians will tell you that there’s no need for public this, that, and the other thing, plus something else…. all those things can be handled by the private sector and individuals themselves. 

So what I’m going to do here is give you at least a classical definition of what it means to be a Libertarian. And then make fun of people who call themselves Libertarians, but who are really right-wing Anarchists. The Right’s version of antigovernment hippies. 

As was written on The New Democrat 3 weeks ago: 

“If I were to give a serious definition of libertarianism, (and that’s a big if) it would be very close to the first Wikipedia article about it that I posted here: someone who believes in the individual and individual freedom over everything else. That means someone who believes in both personal and economic freedom, combined with personal responsibility. And that government is just there to do for the people what the people can’t do for themselves:

National security

Foreign affairs

Law enforcement

Managing the currency

And that the best government is the government that’s closest to the people, instead of the Federal Government trying to treat the states and cities as just additional federal agencies, with very little, if any autonomy of their own.

From The New Democrat

The classical definition of what I just gave you, you could probably call that from the Ron Paul School of Libertarianism. But when you got people even from Reason Magazine, or Ayn Rand supporters, or John Stossell saying: “We don’t even need a Defense Department, let alone law enforcement, or public schools and roads”, that begs the questions: “What do Libertarians want from government, other than to be left alone and allowed to live their own lives?”

Just go about with the rest of your life while so-called Libertarians try to come up with answer to that. Because you might have forgotten the original question before you get answer. And if the answer to the question is essentially “nothing”, but perhaps explaining that answer in at least 1 paragraph… what’s the difference between a Libertarian and a right-wing Anarchist? 

If you want some political cultural stereotyping, I’ll give it to you anyway: if you are old enough to remember the Hippies from the Silent and Boomer generations from the 1960s and 70s… the Beatniks from the 1950s and early 60s… there was a cultural and hardcore individualist faction in both movements, who weren’t very political. They just wanted government to leave them alone. That’s what the so-called “Modern Libertarian” looks like to The New Democrat.

TND sees “modern Libertarians) as right-wing hipsters who just want to be free to live the life and be able to do anything in the world… that’s currently illegal. Perhaps short of being able to kill without cause, or physically assault without cause. But who knows, they may think even murder and assault, even burglary should be legal… but so should vengeance:

“Yeah, man… vengeance is out there. I mean, it’s really out there”.

And at risk of sounding really insulting: if you are familiar with The Manson Family… “Modern Libertarians kind of sound like Lynette Fromme (also known as Squeaky) or Sandra Good, and perhaps a few other whacked-out, hardcore, antiestablishment members of that crime family… who are currently not serving life sentences in prison for murder.

I would put the Dan Mitchell’s of the world in the classical bloc when it comes to American Libertarians. He’s someone who I believe thinks we should have a have government defense department, law enforcement. etc… a government strong and responsible enough to protect its citizens from predators: foreign and domestic. Not to try to run the people’s lives for them. But he might a member of a small minority when it comes to people who call themselves “Libertarians” today.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.